Skip to comments.Hamdan v Rumsfeld et al
Posted on 06/30/2006 7:03:24 AM PDT by jennivinson
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, et. al.
Jenni Vinson Trejo
June 30, 2006
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a decision that swirled the Liberal media into a giddy frenzy. They characterized the decision as a major blow and loss for George W. Bush. But, lets look closely at what happened and then well see who loses here and who wins.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the thity-six year-old man from Yemen who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama Bin Laden. Hamdan has spent four years in prison at Guantanamo. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal for 10 foreign terror suspects under U.S. law and Geneva Conventions without congressional approval.
It was a Liberal Justice day at the Supreme Court that brought down this ruling. Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from voting on this matter because he had heard this in a lower court. He had already voted for the tribunals in that court. But now, the Liberal Justices held the majority vote.
Heres the reality of this case:
1. The Constitution would not refer to enemy combatants in a war on terror specifically. 2. The Constitution does not specifically lay out the rights and powers of the President of the United States as the Executive branch of our government. It does however state that some powers will be allowed at the discretion of the man who holds the office in order that he may protect the Union. These Liberal Justice deliberately set out to narrow the rights of the Presidency. 3. The Geneva Convention does not recognize these men who were picked up on the battle, but do not fight for a nation and are not uniformed. These Liberal Justices altered the intent of the Geneva Convention in order to fit their needs. 4. This is a case of Judicial Legislation and THAT is unconstitutional. Justices are not supposed to write law, just interpret.
But, thats okay! History will throw Hamdan v. Rumsfeld et. al. Into the same pile of bad rulings as upheld slavery and mandated abortions. Justices are humans who are not infallible.
This story has a major twist to it that the giddy Media has failed to report : Hamdan was represented by a MILITARY lawyer. Hamdans case was ushered before the Supreme Court by the United States Military that is lead by its Commander-in-Chief, none other than George W. Bush.
Now, why would Bush force this issue? Well, because its not about him, personally. The media and Liberal Justices made this case all about this one man who hold the highest office of this land right now, but Bush is looking to secure the Union for the future.
The whole idea of a war on terror and enemy combatants is new to the American timeline and such matters need specific definition. By forcing the Supreme Court to state that such definitions do no not currently exist, Bush forces Congress to write into law what these definitions will be.
Bush has told us time and again. The war on Terror will be with us a long time, past his own administration of it and of this country. He simply set out to solidify the rights of whoever sits in his office to use against an enemy that now presents itself.
The real loser in all this will be Congress, who will have to tackle this issue to hammer out legislation that will serve the safety needs of this country despite the protests of the international community and despite the current political climate and despite the upcoming political election.
So, once again, the media has it all wrong and its plain to see when the story is presented in its entirety.
Im Jenni Vinson Trejo. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is My Opinion. Thank You for Listening.
It was 185 pages and the LATIMES and NYT had editorials condeming Bush before any human could actually read it.
So much for the truth.
They seem to have forgotten 9/11, the murder of Daniel Pearl, and other good citizens who were merely living their lives when they were killed by these animals.
For another interpretation - go to http://www.mullings.com and read what Rich Galen has to say about this ruling.
It's actually in our favor!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.