Comments: The Gitmo Decision

The court has opened a can of worms here; the miltiary has to fight wars without having a defining and controlling "law of war" to specify how they are to proceed. It's dangerous, because it seems to me that they are maintaining that an enemy combatant, his head in the crosshairs of a sniper, has Constitutional rights under the law. There will have to be a whole development of legal procedure to protect our soldiers on the battlefield. Wisdom would have been to simply say "it's up to the executive"; unless the members of the Supreme court are willing to put on their helmets and head out to war, it seems to me they are asserting powers far beyond what the Constitution intended for them.

Posted by The Abbot at June 13, 2008 08:27 AM

The third choice for the military is just don't take them prisoner in the first place. As far as you know he had an explosive belt on under his clothes. You're right, the military is left with cruel choices.

Posted by Mike at June 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Mike's right. The five hand-wringers on the Supreme Court are be patting themselves on the back for throwing the Constitution out the window to protect these enemy combatant's "right" but it may only hold true for those now in custody. For many of the A-Q types still on the loose it bodes ill. It's very possible they'll not end up in a PW cage.....they'll just end up....dead.
Unintended consequences you know..

Posted by Tbird at June 13, 2008 11:54 AM