Monday, January 11, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court: In terror war, to hell with international law?

One for the Gipper.  UPI shows it's biased support for Obama's dismal and half hearted response to Islamic aggression.  But no matter the UPI's disapproval of the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, terrorists have been handed a defeat in the court system.  The court has rightly recognized that we are at war and are being attacked by radical Islam and cannot extend civil protections to international terrorists.


U.S. Supreme Court: In terror war, to hell with international law?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A powerful federal court, ruling on broad issues, has brushed aside international law and the laws of war, saying only domestic law restricts the president's power to hold an enemy combatant.
Even viewed in isolation, the decision has considerable weight.
But the ruling, which applies nationwide for the moment, comes as Washington whips itself into a security frenzy following the failed bombing Christmas day of an international U.S. flight from the Netherlands to Detroit, prompting warnings from civil rights and Muslim advocates.

The 2-1 ruling was handed down in the case of a Guantanamo detainee seeking release through a constitutional, or habeas, review of his case. But instead of being a paean to the power of the writ of habeas corpus, language in the opinions supporting the ruling may instead serve as a rallying cry for those who say it is time for the president and Congress to face reality and recognize the old rules no longer apply.

U.S. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote the majority opinion, and a separate concurrent opinion agreeing with the majority document. In that second opinion, in a highly unusual departure from judicial custom, Brown sets out a chilling vision of the stakes and new tactics in the war against terror.

"War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote. "It must recognize that the old wine skins of international law, domestic criminal procedure or other prior frameworks are ill-suited to the bitter wine of this new warfare. We can no longer afford diffidence. This war has placed us not just at, but already past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. Falling back on the comfort of prior practices supplies only illusory comfort."