by John Hawkins | June 17, 2008 11:12 am
John Yoo wrote a fantastic piece on the 5 tyrants in black robes who handed foreign terrorists privileges they have no right to under the Constitution. Here’s an excerpt from Yoo’s piece on the absolutely outrageous Boumediene v. Bush decision that recently came down from the Supreme Court,
Under the writ of habeas corpus, Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge. Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.
In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court’s word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.
The Boumediene five also ignored the Constitution’s structure, which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.
Incredibly, these five Justices have now defied the considered judgment of the president and Congress for a third time, all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.
Judicial modesty, respect for the executive and legislative branches, and pure common sense weren’t concerns here either. The Court refused to wait and see how Congress’s 2006 procedures for the review of enemy combatant cases work. Congress gave Guantanamo Bay prisoners more rights than any prisoners of war, in any war, ever. The justices violated the classic rule of self-restraint by deciding an issue not yet before them.
Judicial micromanagement will now intrude into the conduct of war. Federal courts will jury-rig a process whose every rule second-guesses our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. A judge’s view on how much “proof” is needed to find that a “suspect” is a terrorist will become the standard applied on the battlefield. Soldiers will have to gather “evidence,” which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from “witnesses,” and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners.”
If the libs on the Supreme Court don’t agree with the war, then they’re going to do their part to help lose it. And If that means that they have to trash the Constitution, get a lot of Americans killed, and help the people who blew up the World Trade Center in the process, then so be it. Unfortunately, that sort of petulant behavior often just seems to go hand and hand with liberalism.
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-travesty-that-is-iboumediene-v-bushi/
Copyright ©2022 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.