Supreme Court to Decide
December 5, 2007
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Supreme Court will consider whether detainees at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can go to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement, today. More than 300 enemy fighters are being held there. Some say it’s the U.S. Militaries right to decide what to do with fighters they captured on a battle field. Others say the captured Islamofascists should have the same rights the U.S. gives other illegal aliens and provide them counsel, healthcare and more ammo.
“The United States has been treating people who were trying to kill us on the fields of battle as though they weren’t equal to American citizens living and working in our fields and towns, and that’s wrong,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, peeing on an American flag because he believes its his constitutional right. “These so-called enemy combatants are people who simply want to live a lifestyle different than ours. Killing us is their passion and we should support that right. We’ve become such an arrogant and intolerant society.”
But not everyone thinks the ACLU has it right. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his,” said General George S. Patton, a man who helped the U.S. win World War II but whose views on war is considered too violent now. “The fact that we caught these sons of bitches on the field of battle means they weren’t there raising flowers. If we chose not to kill them then, they’re lucky. What the military does to them now is their own business and not some pansy ass lawyer who can’t find regular work.”
The U.S. Government says Guantanamo is beyond the reach of American law and foreigners held there have no constitutional rights. But in 1992 Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y ruled that the Constitution applied at Guantanamo. At that time a settlement was reached over some Haitians with HIV who wanted to come to the U.S. No formal precedent was created and now the Supreme Court has to decide.
“It’s a tricky business giving equal rights to the Islamofascists that our soldiers were being killed by,” said Sticky Lewis, a Postal Recipient known for regularly collecting his mail. “When you consider that our soldiers died for the rights being fought against by the Islamofascists it seems like we probably shouldn’t share them. But what do I know; I just read my mail regularly and don’t have a law degree. I suppose people who want to kill me should have that right. I don’t know.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the George W. Bush White House began searching for a place to hold suspected terrorists rounded up in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To Judge Johnson’s surprise, administration officials fastened on Guantanamo — and asked the Justice Department if prisoners could be held there without judicial review. The answer in a December 2001 memo by Patrick Philbin and John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel: Yes, in all likelihood. As part of their analysis, Philbin and Yoo noted that the Haitian case had been vacated and was thus irrelevant.
In related news, American rights seem less relevant today unless they can be applied to Islamofascists and illegal aliens. That is pissing some people off.
© 2007 InebriatedPress.com