Posted on 07/03/2006 6:29:49 AM PDT by Valin
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a complex opinion rebuking much of the Bush administration's legal response to the 9/11 attacks. The court ruled that al-Qaeda detainees were entitled to at least a modicum of protection under the Geneva conventions--and that the President needed Congress' approval before sending detainees to military tribunals for trial and punishment.
The high court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is being reported as a defeat for the Bush administration, and so it is. But that same decision opens the way to an important and useful debate over counter-terrorism policy--and that is a debate the administration can and should win.
It's symbolically interesting that the Hamdan decision was handed down in the same week that The New York Times triggered a national uproar by exposing details of a U.S. Treasury department program to track terrorist finances around the world. (Two other papers also published the story, but in a less culpable way: Once the Treasury realized that the Times was determined to proceed, it briefed other news organizations itself in order to ensure that the facts were presented accurately and unsensationally.)
The Times' terrorism-financing story followed two other intensely damaging leaks: One to the Times disclosed details of the National Security Agency's program for intercepting terrorist communications; another to the Washington Post disclosed the locations of the prisons where high-value al-Qaeda captives were held for questioning.
(Excerpt) Read more at aei.org ...
Question answered: end of thread.
>:P
Wow. That was a short thread.
--C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle
Personally, I think Lewis's The Abolition of Man and his depiction in The Last Battle of collusion between Narnian (read Western) secularists and the Calormenes (thinly disguised Mohammedans) are proof that the gift of prophecy was still present in the Anglican Communion until at least 1963.
"...and that the President needed Congress' approval before sending detainees to military tribunals for trial and punishment..."
Should be "Congress's."
Let's also remember Emeth, the young Calormene soldier.
Aw, man, I just got here.
Yes. I don't recall whether it was another Orthodox or one of my separated Latin bretheren who described Emeth's encounter with Aslan as the best description of salvation outside the *visible* Church ever penned. (Of course 'no salvation outside the Church' is actually a tautology, since in the end, those who are saved *are* the Church.)
I don't understand the question. Do you mean whose side they are on between the Sunnis and the Shiites? Hamas and Fatah?
I heard some breezy gal on NPR this morning, gushing on how those poor folks down at Gitmo will now be getting "asylum" perhaps, in the U.S. Astonishingly, they neglected to point out just one reason among many is because the countries these gentlemen hail from won't take them back!
But some seem entranced by the whole absurdity.
They don't take the threat to themselves seriously, but more importantly they see the war effort primarily as a bludgeon with which to beat up the administration. They know that we will be more restrained in our criticism if a Dhmmicrat administration prosecutes the war, so all they have to do is stifle their anti-war, moonbat base (which will die from a sudden lack of media attention once a Dhimmicrat is elected). They are working to reduce the war to a party issue, rather than a threat to us all-it's disgusting, but hardly unprecedented for the American treason party.
If the voting public cannot see this, it is up to Talk Radio, the Net posters, and the RNC to make sure they do see it. Then too, if W continues to push his judicial appointments, speaks out on staying strong not only in Iraq, but Iran and Korea, and supports the military instead of allowing it to be picked apart, the Dems will be on the defensive till Nov. Can you imagine what would happen if the NY Times, La Times or Boston Globe were bombed by jihadists???
International socialism.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
The nation's welfare takes a back seat to their purely parochial partisan interests.
(IMO) They (the left) don't really believe we are at war. It's either that or they have gone completely insane.
Bingo. Having seen what socialism has done all over the world, it's clearly the big lie, but the more obvious a lie it is, the more they buy into it.
The Left is playing a potentially fatal game by politicizing national security, but is too blind in its hatred for GWB to realize that fact.
The few leftist I know honestly believe that there wouldn't be terror if it weren't for the USA. They truly believe we're a target because of our policies but few even attempt to explain what the policies are that are so offensive.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and others invited us in. The government of Iraq, a democratically elected government, requests our presence. We buy oil from gulf states just as every other nation of the world does. We do business with most governments of the world just as all other countries do. Then they bring up Palestine but have no idea of the history, instead simply voicing talking points of the Palestinians. The policy that seems to be the biggest offense is that we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they don't. We're so wicked. And bin Laden didn't even mention Palestine in the beginning of his terror assaults against us.
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.