The United States suffered a major defeat on the global war against Jihadistan as terrorist allies in the U.S. Supreme Court handed them a strategic victory in their war against the West.

In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court extended the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States to non-citizen prisoners of war, non-combatants, foreign terrorists, and what have you. According to the Associated Press:


I love how the media always like to describe this a "a defeat for Bush." Hell, it's a defeat for the whole damned country.

And what are the unintended consequences of this decision by the left-wing? Are we going to see all those captured on the battlefield petitioning federal courts: "Uh...excuse me, your honor, but I just don't believe I belong in custody." You think the courts are clogged up now? Just wait.

Are we going to be grabbing up soldiers off the battlefield and whisking them 8,000 away to testify in court hearings like traffic cops supporting a speeding ticket?

But here's another possible unintended consequence of the decision. Take no prisoners! Hell, that will solve the problem, won't it? If the Supreme Court is that determined to empty out Guantanamo perhaps the military can save them some trouble by making sure they don't bother sending anyone to Guantanamo. That would certainly streamline the process.

But, at least, there are some who still stand with America:


It's difficult to fight a war on multiple fronts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that American detainees should not have an opportunity to force the government to prove its case against them.

This suggests that you believe that every Gitmo detainee, without exception, must be guilty of what the US has charged him with, or is detained legally if no charges have been brought forth.

And the evidence you offer is that the U.S. says so.

I sincerely hope you never have to be tried under such conditions, for you would surely find them unAmerican, unconstitutional, and to your detriment. And if you were innocent of the charges some overzealous official or jealous husband laid upon you, you'd like it even worse. This is still, despite the Bush administration's attempts at changing things, America.

But I suppose because these folks are foreigners, or Arabs, or Afghanis, or Muslims, they must be guilty of something.

Man, I would hate to live in a country ruled by your version of Constitutional Democracy, although Bush & accomplices come close.

Should this be quoted from the media or is this your commentary that this a victory for the Jihadists? Does the court system these Jihadists might have to endure assure them a favorable result?


Did they extend it? Did this used to be different, undefined or something, where this is extending it?


I do wish you include the pertinent information you comment on when you say they describe it as a "defeat for Bush". Is it that the third rebuke means the same as "defeat for Bush"? We're worried about a constitutional ban on gay marriage but never thought of one on protecting enemy's rights? Or have we?


What the hell do you think the court has been making it harder for American citizens to get thier complaints heard is all about?


That wasn't made clear in the article. Are most of the detainees there because of what soldiers observed them doing?


No shit. And you seemed worried.


Can you give me a little history of "eneny combatants"? I think George Washington gave orders not to treat our prisoners the same way the British treated ours out of some misconception that that was the way to be but we survived that period.


I imagine the Jihadist cowards that were afraid of being imprisoned will now have the courage to blow themselves up, knowing it's legal and all now, but I'm almost not sure if the certainity is almost certain that more American will be killed because of this ruling.


No one said democracy and civility would be a walk in the park.

Did I put quote marks around it? Did I attribute it to any news source? Then I guess you can assume those are my words and I'm saying it. However, your confusion is understandable. Having been a professional journalist back in the day I can, when the occasion calls for it, still put down a paragraph as if I was, well, a journalist.


Did they extend it? Did this used to be different, undefined or something, where this is extending it?[/quote]
Again, your confusion is understandable. Up until today, the protections of the Constitution of the United States of America have applied to the citizens of the United States of America and to those foreign nationals who are residing in the United States. It has NOT been regarded as a balm to enemies captured during a time of war.


(sigh) OK. Let me try it again:


Was it the word "rebuke" that had you confused?


We are already showing our military prisoners more priviledges than we, or any other country, have shown to any prisoners in the entire history of the world. But I can understand where you're complaints come from. These people who are applauding today's Supreme Court decision are the same ones who whine about "human rights" when imprisoned felons don't have cable TV in their cells.


Nobody said the Bill of Rights was intended to be a suicide pact, either, but tell that the black-robed mullahs in the Supreme Court.

I think the use of hyperbole should be in the same boat as using the term "Nazi" as it appears that's all Ray knows.

I'm sure Ray didn't have a problem with the terrorist allies that appointed Bush to the White House in 2000.

Say, did I ever tell you about the time George Washington chopped down his father's favorite cherry tree? No? Well, when George was just a little boy, his father gave him a brand new hatchet. One day, little George was playing outside with his hatchet when...

Let me clarify “Rebuke” versus “Defeat”. A rebuke is just a verbal tongue lashing. A defeat comes in November when your ideological heir apparent is soundly trounced-- with the support of great many of your own former supporters.

Really? MY "ideological heir apparent?" Who might that be? You can't be talking about Barack Obama because he and I surely don't share the same ideology. And you can't be talking about John McCain because he doesn't have an identifiable ideology. John McCain's biggest problem is he's a pinball rolling around looking for something to bang against.

That puts you in a mighty tough position now, don't it.