When you are handed a lemon, make lemonade
Irish Pennants
By jkelly
The Supreme Court's 5-3 decision in the Hamdan case is a might sour lemon for the Bush administration, and for America.
It's one weird opinion, says David Frum.
Nancy Pelosi, unsurprisingly, thinks the decision is swell:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
But in crisis there is opportunity, says Robert Alt:
"While today's Hamdan decision gives conservatives reason for despair, there is reason to believe that it could have good electoral effects. The damage done by the Court may be undone by Congress by simple legislation, and press releases already issued by Senators Cornyn, Graham, and Kyl make clear that they plan to do just that. In response to any legislation, expect the usual suspects from the left to hyperventilate about how Congress is stomping on the Geneva Convention. And the more they hyperventilate, the more the American people will distrust Democrats about national security issues.
Given recent scandals and stagnant poll numbers, the Democrats seemed to have an opportunity to capitalize in some measure in the coming elections. But their consistent overreaction on national defense issues (witness the recent cut-and-run bills) will prevent them from succeeding. And so, ironically, by celebrating too boisterously about the Supreme Court's decision today and by resisting any attempt to reverse its bad effects, liberals may very well create the political conditions necessary to appoint more conservatives to the high court."
Andrew Cochran agrees:
"The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch."
John Hawkins is of like mind:
"if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. My suspicion is that most Democrats would favor putting these terrorists through the American court system, which would mean long drawn out trials, the risk of classified intelligence sources being revealed, and lots of bogus acquittals. On the other hand, Republicans would favor military tribunals, which would sidestep all of those problems.
So basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America?
Let's put those two views in front of the American people, preferably before the 2006 elections, and then let them make a decision about which Party they trust on National Security. |
