A Lot Of "Allah Akbars" From Gunatanamo

It's been a great week for our Guantanamo detainees. First Boumediene v. Bush, in which an activist SCOTUS decided foreign combatants who have never stepped foot in America deserved rights no nation anywhere, ever, have granted. Now this:

A military defense lawyer urged a Guantanamo judge to help restore America's reputation by dropping attempted murder charges against an Afghan prisoner who was subjected to 14 consecutive days of sleep deprivation.

"You have an opportunity to restore just a bit of America's lost luster," Air Force Maj. David Frakt told the judge presiding in the war crimes case against Afghan prisoner Mohammed Jawad. (Rueters)

Jawad is in the Cuban clinker because he's a combatant -- he threw a grenade into a group of GIs -- but his attorney thinks that's no big deal, that America's reputation is so tarnished by Jawad's sleep deprivation that he ought to walk.

Imagine how much these thugs want Barack Obama to be elected, so they can be treated as lawbreakers instead of combatants, and arguments like Frakt's can be emoted all over a bunch of juries who aren't my peers or yours. If things break their way, they'll be back on the battlefield in no time, trying to kill our boys.

Obama buttons would be a hot commodity in Guantanamo.

What Next For Guantanamo's Bad Guys?

The Libs won, finally, after pushing pig-headedly through every logical obstacle placed before them, and got the men of Guantanamo, who never saw a provision of the Geneva Conventions they didn't mind breaking, rights beyond what we've ever offered foreign enemy combatants before.

Now that a few hundred habeas hearings are going to be scheduled before federal judges, what possible hope do we have that the judges will handle the matter well? As Andy McCarthy points out today at The Corner, we don't trust judges enough with criminal cases to let them make habeas decisions without reams of guidance and piles of precedence, there are no such safety brakes in place to guide judges in the proper handling of foreign enemy combatants. McCarthy points out the risks of this situation:

By comparison, (a) alien unlawful enemy combatants are more serious threats to public safety (indeed, to national security) than drug dealers and violent felons; (b) alien unlawful enemy combatants are also not defendants accused of crimes (they're hostile operatives captured in military operations overwhelming authorized by Congress following the mass-killing of nearly 3000 Americans on 9/11) and, therefore, they are not entitled in detention hearings to the constitutional presumption of innocence that applies in civilian prosecutions (by contrast, they do get the presumption of innocence if charged with war crimes); and (c) judges have no institutional competence in determining the status of enemy combatants, a war power the framers committed to the political branches.

McCarthy proposes a narrow detention procedure law for these cases, which could be modeled on the federal pretrial detention statute, followed by a national security court, but sees the problems inherent in the suggestion. The Left has fought tooth and nail to minimize the risk posed by the Guantanamo detainees and to give them undeserved legal rights, and they're not about to settle for a Pyhrric victory this close to the finish line.

Even with all the guidance before them, liberal judges often make horrible habeas decisions, and little itty bitty bad guys catch a break as a result. It would be nice to say "we can't allow such mistakes to happen with the detainees," but that's ridiculous. We are going to allow such mistakes to happen thanks to the SCOTUS ruling, and we are going to deal with the consequences -- in this case, the deaths of our soldiers, our allies, or us.

I share McCarthy's concern that when that happens, Obama and the other politicians who brought us to this point will be shielded by the courts. Let's hope that as that happens, the communicators on our side will be more effective than the Bush communications team, and the American people will be reminded that it was politicians on the left, not the courts, that have the greatest measure of responsibility.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Justice William Jefferson Clinton?

Bill Clinton is better known for expelling on robes than donning them, but don them he might if Douglas Kmiec's view, outlined in the WSJ, is correct.

The issue [there's that word picture again!] of Mr. Clinton's potential role has a serious side for Democrats already concerned about her persistently high negatives. The notion that Mr. Clinton will be a "shadow president," effectively circumventing the constitutional limitations on presidential service, presents a campaign opportunity for the GOP.

So if neither a Senate nor executive position will do, what does work? While it's probably not something the Hillary campaign would want us to contemplate, we should remember that there are three branches of government, and that it is widely anticipated that there will be one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next presidential term.

Yeah, I know; I thought that too. But Bill's suspension from practicing law expired in 2006.

Kmiec lays out a good case for why Hil would appoint Bill -- who taught law at Arkansas, so he must be good -- and you leave the piece shaking your head in wonder ...

... and adding one more reason to the long list of reasons why HRC must not be the next prez.

hat-tip: Real Clear Politics