Bush's Third Term XXII
(I forget where I left-off so I continue at XXII.)
This is an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:
An Obama-Bush Victory
Wall Street Journal
May 24, 2010
It isn't often we can say that the Bush and Obama Administrations have won a joint triumph in the war on terror, but they got one on Friday from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously that detainees held by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan do not have habeas corpus rights under the Constitution.
The anti-antiterror lobby filed the case on behalf of three unlawful enemy combatants to extend the reach of the Supreme Court's 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision that gave habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees. The Bush Justice Department had opposed this intrusion on Presidential war powers, and to its credit the Obama Administration maintained the same position. A district court judge found for the detainees, but the D.C. Circuit reversed.
As the opinion by Judge David Sentelle points out, extending habeas to a facility in an active war zone such as Afghanistan would mean that any prisoner held anywhere by the U.S. military would have such rights. The opinion doesn't say so, but such a policy would put unelected lawyers in the middle of every wartime decision on military detention. Such meddling would put U.S. soldiers at greater risk, while giving them far less incentive to detain terrorists on the battlefield lest GIs have to play "CSI: Kandahar" to gather evidence so our enemies won't be released at the prodding of the ACLU.
The lawyers for the detainees vow to appeal to the Supreme Court, but it's notable that the D.C. Circuit panel included a Carter (Harry Edwards) and Clinton appointee (David Tatel) as well as Mr. Sentelle, who was appointed by Reagan. This is a bipartisan show of judicial deference that is worth applauding. (End of Wall Street Journal editorial.)
I can't find any condemnation anywhere of Obushma's victory. Not a smidge anywhere of Obushma's continued Constitution-shredding.
Briefly elsewhere, The Party-of-What-Else-Can-We-Do-For-You-Mr. President and Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) are apparently content to let Obama dither on the ecological and environmental disaster continuing in the Gulf of Mexico. Whenever BP decides to confront the matter seems to be okay by the President and Jindal. Any day, Bobby. Any day now, no?
(I forget where I left-off so I continue at XXII.)
This is an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:
An Obama-Bush Victory
Wall Street Journal
May 24, 2010
It isn't often we can say that the Bush and Obama Administrations have won a joint triumph in the war on terror, but they got one on Friday from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously that detainees held by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan do not have habeas corpus rights under the Constitution.
The anti-antiterror lobby filed the case on behalf of three unlawful enemy combatants to extend the reach of the Supreme Court's 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision that gave habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees. The Bush Justice Department had opposed this intrusion on Presidential war powers, and to its credit the Obama Administration maintained the same position. A district court judge found for the detainees, but the D.C. Circuit reversed.
As the opinion by Judge David Sentelle points out, extending habeas to a facility in an active war zone such as Afghanistan would mean that any prisoner held anywhere by the U.S. military would have such rights. The opinion doesn't say so, but such a policy would put unelected lawyers in the middle of every wartime decision on military detention. Such meddling would put U.S. soldiers at greater risk, while giving them far less incentive to detain terrorists on the battlefield lest GIs have to play "CSI: Kandahar" to gather evidence so our enemies won't be released at the prodding of the ACLU.
The lawyers for the detainees vow to appeal to the Supreme Court, but it's notable that the D.C. Circuit panel included a Carter (Harry Edwards) and Clinton appointee (David Tatel) as well as Mr. Sentelle, who was appointed by Reagan. This is a bipartisan show of judicial deference that is worth applauding. (End of Wall Street Journal editorial.)
I can't find any condemnation anywhere of Obushma's victory. Not a smidge anywhere of Obushma's continued Constitution-shredding.
Briefly elsewhere, The Party-of-What-Else-Can-We-Do-For-You-Mr. President and Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) are apparently content to let Obama dither on the ecological and environmental disaster continuing in the Gulf of Mexico. Whenever BP decides to confront the matter seems to be okay by the President and Jindal. Any day, Bobby. Any day now, no?
posted by Zack at 1:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home