Thursday, July 21, 2005

Dems - Attacking Roberts for Being Hard on Terror

Kudos to Powerline and Captain Ed for picking up this issue yesterday. They are about a decision in which Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts was involved, which held that a driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan had no rights under the Geneva Convention. The case overruled a Federal District Court ruling that Hamdan (the driver) could not be tried in a military tribunal until his Geneva Convention rights were determined. The reason for the lower court ruling was one of political philosophy; if we treat these terrorists in a less than cordial way or soldiers will be treated likewise. But that's not a decision for a judge. Political controversy is to remain outside of their decision-making. The overturning paves the way for a tribunal trial, acknowledging that this man has no rights under the Convention, and that philosophy has no place in the Courts when written law gives us very clear guidance.

So here's the rub: Captain Ed referenced this article in Slate, which indicates that the Hamdan decision may be fodder for the Dems' attacks. Per the Slate article, it's an attack on civil liberties. To any legitimate viewer, it neither grants the terrorist new rights nor deprives him of any rights which he had before, and it clarifies what his few existing rights are. Interpreting the law for what it actually says...a novel concept with which most Americans can comfortably live. The leftists like Boxer, Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer, and Leahy, however, may just be so deep in the radical leftist swamp that they see it as a P.C. discrimination/civil rights issue and not one of national security.

They are soft on our enemies and hard on America. And using this case to hit John Roberts would prove that like never before. Do they really want to be caught on national TV advocating for a terrorist and lambasting a judge who allowed him only the rights that the law permits? I for one would welcome the attack. Roberts can easily defend the case he joined.

Americans already know that the Dems are weak on national security. This would be a disastrous lemming plunge that would completely destroy any remaining credibility they retain just in time for the 2006 mid-term elections.

And you think that the Dems were upset after 2002...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home