Posted by
The Stiletto on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:14:04 PM
For all the near-hysterical glee with which many in the MSM embraced the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it’s debatable how much of a setback (or, “repudiation,” the noun du jour among Dems and Libs) this is for The Bush Administration.
The Justices made one thing clear – that Guantanamo will not be shuttered any time soon. The Stiletto agrees with The Tampa Tribune’s take:
Even the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court aren't quite sure what to do with the accused terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The high court invalidated the military tribunals created for bringing the prisoners to trial but said unequivocally that the decision does not mean the men who would kill us should be set free. … Justice Stephen Breyer says the president should consult with Congress and get lawmakers' approval for the new process he wants. The two branches of government should forge a process that metes out justice to our enemies and enables us to resolve the crisis at Guantanamo Bay.
The War on Terror has put the US in uncharted military and legal waters, and the Bush Administration has had to apply novel tools and policies to protect the citizenry – sometimes making it up as it went along. No doubt, the Administration anticipated that such impediments as Hamdan would occur sooner or later. But in the meantime, 450 sworn enemies of the US – who have vowed to kill as many Americans as they can, given the first opportunity – have been kept under lock and key for five years.
As far as The Stiletto is concerned, the longer the legislative and executive branches jawbone about how to craft Supreme Court-proof trials for the Guantanamo detainees that Hamdan affects, the longer they can stay imprisoned and unable to maim or kill anyone. Ensuring that terrorists get due process under our laws is so vital to the future of our Republic, that The Stiletto urges lawmakers to take at least 25 years to ponder the matter, and another 25 years to debate and reconcile what will no doubt be wildly differing proposals by the House and Senate.