« Has the battle with illegal immigration already been lost? | Main | Palestinians Suffering From Their Own Culture »
June 29, 2006
America's Supreme Court Rules Against America's Efforts To Protect Americans From Gitmo Terrorists
Topics: DhimmitudeWhat about the rights of our two soldiers that were butchered in Iraq - where was the Geneva Convention for them?
Alternative title: SCOTUS Supports Jihad
Sky News reports that SCOTUS has ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority with plans to make Guantanamo prisoners stand trial for war crimes. The ruling was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed tribunals were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.After the next terrorist attack on Washington, and after the families of justices have suffered, will they then reconsider?
Last time I checked, we are still at war with an determined and unconventional enemy that has no interest whatsoever in the Geneva Convention - except when it works in their favor.
Reality Check: Now that we have heard from the Supremes, step back a few days and take another look at the video of Fox & Friends morning host E.D. Hill "going off" on the brutal torture, murder, and mutilation of two American soldiers by inhuman murdering radical Islamic terrorist dogs in Iraq.
SCOTUS is wrong to condemn America's treatment of prisoners captured in battle. Where was SCOTUS for our troops and all the others beheaded by Islamic terrorists?
Related: Little Green Footballs comments: By extending Geneva Convention protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants, the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle.
Today the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there's no difference between a terrorist dressed in civilian clothes and a uniformed soldier, and that civilians deserve no protection from war criminals.
Posted by Richard at June 29, 2006 10:31 AM
Articles Related to Dhimmitude:
- Who is 'G' - al Qaeda's Man in London? - Apr 26, 2008
- 'Extreme Dhimmitude' - Defined - Apr 02, 2008
- Network Solutions Refuses To Host 'Fitna' But Finds No Problem In Hosting A Multitude Of Radical Islamic Websites Associated With Terrorist Groups - Mar 25, 2008
- Network Solutions Bows Down To Islamists - Refuses To Host 'Fitna' - Mar 24, 2008
- Dutch Establishment Threatens to Prosecute Wilders and Claim Damages Over Film Critical Of Islam - Mar 13, 2008
- No Terrorist Here - Just Move Along .... - Mar 10, 2008
- Minnesota Taxpayers Paying For Madrassa - Mar 09, 2008
- On Western Government's Partitioning the World for Islam - Mar 07, 2008
- Islamist 'Mole' Continues To Be Allowed To Be Well Placed In Pentagon - Feb 02, 2008
- UN: 'Don't Criticize Islam' - Jan 03, 2008
