• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Five Generals

    In the 2006 case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, four members of the Supreme Court joined a concurring opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer that said:

    Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary. … The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means.

    Dissenting in yesterday’s 5-4 Boumediene v. Bush decision, which found the subsequent Military Commissions Act of 2007 unconstitutional, Justice Antonin Scalia retorts: “Turns out they were just kidding.” The entirety of Scalia’s dissent is a must read for anyone who cares about the lives of American soldiers and the separation of powers, but here is a quick condensation:

    The President relied on our settled precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager when he established the prison at Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. … Had the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention. …

    At least 30 of those prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. … It was reported only last month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. … These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, the Court today raises the bar, requiring military officials to appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions under procedural and evidentiary ruled that go beyond what Congress has specified. …

    Henceforth, as today’s opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows the least about national security concerns that the subject entails.

    For a thorough examination of all the issues surrounding detainee treatment in war with a stateless enemy, check out our webpage Detention of the Enemy During Wartime.

    Quick Hits:

    • Anticipating a loss in the D.C. gun rights case, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke tells ABC News: “We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically.”
    • Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), author of the housing bailout bill that would save Countrywide Financial billions in losses, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s special “Friends of Angelo” program named after Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo.
    • Medicare’s electronic payment system costs the American taxpayers more than $60 billion a year in fraud.
    • Despite promises to reduce earmarks, overall spending on special provisions benefiting congressmen is soaring this year, up 29% in the house defense authorization bill alone.
    • According to Rasmussen Reports, 68% of Americans believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.
    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Morning Bell: The Five Generals

    1. KYJurisDoctor, BG, K says:

      While I AGREE with the U. S. Supreme Court's "GITMO" majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

    2. Matt, IN says:

      Repubs must take back more control over Congress (esp. Senate) and must maintain the White House, or else we are likely to get more knuckleheads like the 5 majority justices. We need those who truly look at precedent, read the Constitution and trust the other 2 branches of government with good faith, such as Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, & Alito.

      FYI, to give an idea of the kinds of justices we have making major rulings, I hope you saw the fairly recent news that one of the justices on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the liberal one in CA area) posts pictures of bestiality and hardcore porn….a man like this gets incredible power in our country…amazing. Go vote for common sense and decency.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×