The Rude Pundit - Gitmo Decision Reaction on the Right: Have You Guys Read the Constitution?

[meegbear]

So the Rude Pundit just wants to get this straight: if you think yesterday's Supreme Court decision was a pile of shit, then you believe that the United States has the right to hold foreign nationals without allowing them to challenge their imprisonment in fair, open courts. You believe that a special court with special rules of evidence and special procedures is the only means through which a presidentially-designated "alien enemy combatant" held at a United States-run facility can even say, "Umm, do you have any proof I'm anything more than a fuckin' goat herder who was wandering in the right field at the wrong time?" You believe that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions (except in the narrowest possible interpretation) do not apply to prisoners held at Gitmo. And you're absolutely hysterical, batshit insane over the idea that a human being held without ever being told why might get to ask.

Let's just bottom line this fucker: the nutzoid right wingers who still suckle Bush's nipples hate this country. Their arguments are that the nation is so weak, its judicial foundations so shaky, that America as we know it would crumble and buildings would spontaneously explode if we dare to allow alleged terrorists onto our soil and into our courtrooms.

This ain't overinterpretive hyperbole. Here's what Rush Limbaugh, a man who butters his Oxycontin tablets before downing them, said on his show yesterday: "Now, this is an abomination. This is just outrageous. Never before in the history of US warfare have we had to go out and Mirandize prisoners of war. That's what we're going to effectively have to do. We're going to have to read prisoners of war their rights just as we would a thief at the local convenience store. I'll tell you what this means. This means, don't capture 'em." The title of this lovely transcript is "The Last Days of the United States." It's probably not worth mentioning to Limbaugh that if they were designated "prisoners of war" in the first place and treated in accordance with our treaties on POWs, we wouldn't be having this discussion over the use of civilian courts.

'Cause, see, the Geneva Conventions are pretty fuckin' clear about that. POWs are tried in military courts, according to Article 84 of the third Convention. And "In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense." But facts, like salads and treadmills, are things that Rush Limbaugh would rather not even get close to.

By the way, Limbaugh later corrected his earlier statement with "We're not at Miranda rights yet. US soldiers do not have to Mirandize Sahib and Skyhook when they capture 'em in Basra." Classy guy. And here the Rude Pundit thought "Sahib" was what Limbaugh called his personal towel boy, the 11 year-old illegal from India who is tasked with oiling Rush down after bathing him in his spa tub, shuddering when the radio host asks him to spend extra time rubbing the seat marks out of his ass and balls. Sahib cannot pray enough to erase those images from his head.

What's stunning is the lack of self-awareness in this bugfuck attacks on the Supreme Court. First there's the presumption of guilt. Limbaugh jowls out, "Terrorists." Over at the peep show slop bucket that is Townhall.com, Hugh Hewitt, a man with the creepy, lipless smile of a snuff film masturbator, says flat-out of the 270 or so remaining Gitmoites, "(T)he 'great writ' is open to the worst killers who have ever set their sights on the homeland." Does it need to be pointed out that the majority of people held at Gitmo have been released without charge?

And then there's the seeming surprise that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether or not laws comply with the Constitution. Hewitt says the majority is "asserting its preeminence over the combination of the president and the Congress" as if this is some new or surprising thing. You'll hear this refrain again and again: that the Supreme Court somehow thinks it's the boss of the President and the Congress. Umm, that's what the fuckin' Constitution says. That's called a "check" on legislative and executive power. This shit is basic civics. Every time the Supreme Court overturns federal laws, it's asserting its prerogative.

Of course, there's hysterical little drama queens like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Since the Supreme Court has bitch-slapped his efforts at looking tough again and again, he's having a hissy, threatening even, to introduce a constitutional amendment to strip habeas corpus rights. Screeched Graham, "I can't believe we are going to allow unelected judges who are not trained in military matters to make major wartime policy decisions." One might assume Justice John Paul Stevens, the only member of the Court who served in the military and who voted in the majority, would disagree.

Yes, it's gonna be non-stop fearmongering by the rabid right. For them, it's the nation on the precipice of a fall. Really, though, it's projection of the fear of how obsolete they and their ideology have become.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Swamp Rat]

1. k&r

[dchill]

2. basic civics, basic civility...

the right has neither. K&R.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. K&R.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. I hate the rude pundit.

so spineless, so mealy, close-mouthed, never speaking one's minds in an unfettered fashion.
Why can't he just stand up and say what he means?

[JDPriestly]

5. Just a couple of notes.

Iraq is a sovereign nation. The Boumediene decision applies in places in which the U.S. is sovereign and is also not all encompassing in other respects.

So, no. Prisoners in Basra, Iraq will not have the right to habeas corpus.

Graham should have read the decision before he started screeching.

A couple of interesting excerpts that should please conservatives (real ones):

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
Opinion of the Court
pages 13-14

Surviving accounts of the ratification debates provide
additional evidence that the Framers deemed the writ to
be an essential mechanism in the separation-of-powers
scheme. In a critical exchange with Patrick Henry at the
Virginia ratifying convention Edmund Randolph referred
to the Suspension Clause as an “exception” to the “power
given to Congress to regulate courts.” See 3 Debates in
the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution 460–464 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1876) (hereinafter
Elliot’s Debates). A resolution passed by the New
York ratifying convention made clear its understanding
that the Clause not only protects against arbitrary suspensions
of the writ but also guarantees an affirmative
right to judicial inquiry into the causes of detention. See
Resolution of the New York Ratifying Convention (July 26,
1788), in 1 Elliot’s Debates 328 (noting the convention’s
understanding “hat every person restrained of his liberty
is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such
restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that
such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed,
except when, on account of public danger, the Congress
shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”).
Alexander Hamilton likewise explained that by providing
the detainee a judicial forum to challenge detention, the
writ preserves limited government. As he explained in
The Federalist No. 84:
“he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been,
in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments
of tyranny. The observations of the judicious
Blackstone . . . are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave
a man of life . . . or by violence to confiscate his estate,
without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious
an act of despotism as must at once convey the
alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but
confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to
jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is
a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more
dangerous engine of arbitrary government.’ And as a
remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly
emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus
act, which in one place he calls ‘the BULWARK of the
British Constitution.’ ” C. Rossiter ed., p. 512 (1961)
(quoting 1 Blackstone *136, 4 id., at *438).
. . . . \

page 15
In our own system the Suspension Clause is designed to
protect against these cyclical abuses. The Clause protects
the rights of the detained by a means consistent with the
essential design of the Constitution. It ensures that,
except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary
will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the
“delicate balance of governance” that is itself the surest
safeguard of liberty. See Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 536 (plurality
opinion). The Clause protects the rights of the detained
by affirming the duty and authority of the Judiciary
to call the jailer to account. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U. S. 475, 484 (1973) (“he essence of habeas corpus
is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody”); cf. In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439–440
(1867) (Cooley, J., concurring) (“The important fact to be
observed in regard to the mode of procedure upon this
writ is, that it is directed to, and served upon, not
the person confined, but his jailer”). The separation-ofpowers
doctrine, and the history that influenced its design,
therefore must inform the reach and purpose of the
Suspension Clause.

. . . .
page 16

We know that at common law a petitioner’s status as an alien was not a categorical bar to habeas corpus relief.
See, e.g., Sommersett’s Case, 20 How. St. Tr. 1, 80–82
(1772) (ordering an African slave freed upon finding the
custodian’s return insufficient); see generally Khera v.
Secretary of State for the Home Dept., <1984> A. C. 74, 111
(“Habeas corpus protection is often expressed as limited to
‘British subjects.’ Is it really limited to British nationals?
Suffice it to say that the case law has given an emphatic
‘no’ to the question”). We know as well that common-law
courts entertained habeas petitions brought by enemy
aliens detained in England—“entertained” at least in the
Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 17
Opinion of the Court
sense that the courts held hearings to determine the
threshold question of entitlement to the writ. See Case of
Three Spanish Sailors, 2 Black. W. 1324, 96 Eng. Rep. 775
(C. P. 1779); King v. Schiever, 2 Burr. 765, 97 Eng. Rep.
551 (K. B. 1759); Du Castro’s Case, Fort. 195, 92 Eng. Rep.
816 (K. B. 1697).
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

I'm just quoting a few paragraphs. It is quite interesting. I thought conservatives opposed giving more power to the government. That is what the writ of habeas corpus is about.

This is knee-jerk partisanship. These crazy folks are loyal to their team, not to their ideas.

They should be the first to defend habeas corpus. These are topsy-turvy times.

[DCKit]

6. "They should be the first to defend habeas corpus."

They will - just as soon as the indictments are issued. Then, they'll all become Constitutional scholars.

[yardwork]

11. Yep.

[librechik]

7. America is a Liberal (i.e., freedom-loving) country, and they can't stand it.

They should go and live in a conservative country. May I suggest Egypt, or Myanmar. Lots of good conservatives who whip and torture the prisoners there.

[yardwork]

8. The really alarming question is - have the four dissenting justices read it?

[gratuitous]

10. That's where I come down

Four Supreme Court Justices think the Constitution can be thrown out the window if the President's so scared he wets himself over big, bad terrorists. That's a real piece of work you imposed on us back in 2000 there, Fat Tony and Uncle Thomas. Thanks again, guys.

[Richard Steele]

9. K&R

[yardwork]

12. kick and rate it up!