Those eagerly awaiting the release of the latest chapter in the Guantanamo Saga, a bruised Bush administration with understandably greater anxiety than most, were treated to an entertaining albeit unsurprising answer by the men (and woman) in black. The case
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which involved Osama Bin Laden's driver, widely recognized as the single greatest threat to morning commuters, raised issues respecting the lawfulness of military tribunals constituted by the Bush administration to receive questions and comments from our Caribbean guests regarding their accomodations. Foremost among them, of course, has been the understaffed checkout counter fable. A handful of conspiracy theorists swear that it is true. Absurd isn't it? I nearly spit up my mocha frappuccino the first time I heard it.
Consistent with prevailing strict obstructionist doctrine, the Court held that the comment counter inadequate on such specious grounds as the absence of meaningful procedural safeguards and improvised legalities like the "so-called" "laws of war" and "precedent." Although the Court labeled the Bush tribunals unlawful, Fox News would not see us mislead.
Correspondent Bret Baier (and co.), with care not to embarrass our Court and without credit to himself, corrects
the President "was out of line when he ordered military war-crimes trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees." (emphasis added).
Although the words "Geneva Convention" are nowhere to be found in Justice Scalia's dissent, and the binding effect of the Convention under U.S. law is not explicitly challenged by any save Justice Thomas, Baier's adeptness between the lines enables him to uncover substance liberal mainstream media sources would prefer be left undisturbed:
"A huge question in this case . . . was whether the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."
Baeir, equally unfettered by facts, serves us well with an implicit reminder that all detainees are members of al' Qaeda. While some Americans ripe for recruitment seek to confuse us with names, origin and charges, patriots have no need of such information, understanding that our President is entitled to absolute deference lest detainees venture beyond fortress walls, wade the refreshing half-mile to Florida and divine ruin upon our people.
Given that majority opinions are routinely devoid of substance for American eyes, Mr. Baeir proceeds in short-order to Justice Thomas's "strongly worded dissent" wherein he predicts the majority would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." As the majority denies these unnamed but undoubted terrorists a humane summary conviction, Justice Thomas is compelled to remind his forgetful colleagues that truth-be-told...
"[B]ringing the September 11 conspirators to justice is the primary point of the AUMF."
In any case, he continues, the Judiciary should not meddle with matters of justice. In his own words, Justice Thomas, by way of Baeir, warns that the court's willingness "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
A majority opinion devoid of competent legal analysis, of course, would not, could not and did not phase a seasoned reporter of Mr. Baeir's stature. Legal savoir faire will indeed be served.
"The administration said foreign terror suspects don't have the right to come into U.S. courts and demand all of the rights afforded to U.S. citizens under the legal system here but that they would be given some rights under rules for the tribunals," Baeir reports.
And in spite of today's decision, we need not fear appeasement by so-called moderates Ginsburg and Breyer and the three Republican appointees detained under the formers' well-known mind-control powers and patented care-bear stare.
"The American people need to know this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street," Bush said during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi "I was told this was not going to be the case ... one thing I'm not going to do is jeopardize the safety of the American people."
Now we know. Thank you for delivering the message, Mr. Baeir.