A Declaration On The Rights of Terrorists
By: Christopher G. Adamo
“All the citizens, being equal in [the eyes of the law], are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.”
-From “A Declaration on the Rights of Man” Adopted August 26, 1789 by the National Assembly of France
Unfortunately, the fledgling French government recognized no higher authority in its operation than the collective opinions of its members. Hence, barely four years after it established this high sounding rhetoric as national policy, it commenced the infamous “Reign of Terror,” which eventually took the lives of between twenty and forty thousand individuals in a social/political purge that had been unparalleled in human history.
The bitter lesson of that tragic period was that the inherent weaknesses in human nature are such that “rights,” must be understood as granted by God, not government. For when assumed to be the product of governmental benevolence, they can just as easily be revoked as such.
Nor can they be instituted by any official edict where they do not belong. The resultant chaos of a misbegotten endeavor of this nature will ultimately jeopardize the rights of all. Such is the grim future facing this country in its prosecution of the War on Terror, if this week’s abominable and flagrantly unconstitutional decision by the United States Supreme Court is allowed to stand.
As has been the case in recent years, any consideration of those inconvenient constitutional limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction were merely sidestepped. “International law” was once again invoked as reason to thwart a historically legitimate procedure by which to deal with enemy combatants of a particularly despicable nature.
The collective wisdom of human history dictates that those who wage war as an outgrowth of their own religious zeal, and unrestrained by any representative nation-state, cannot simply be rendered harmless by treaty upon the “cessation of hostilities.” Nor can their “superiors” be held accountable for any breaches of such.
Moreover, it is hardly “rocket science” that the detainees at Guantanamo hold no allegiance to any nation that would enter into such a treaty with the United States. So why is it that five members of the Supreme Court believe they can simply confer the rights of American citizens on these monsters?
The Associated Press very appropriately described the decision as the Court’s “rebuke to the [Bush] administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.” In summary, the AP accuratetly (and exuberantly) characterized the nation’s high Court as being no more immune to complete politicization, at the ultimate expense of the country, than are Congressional Democrats and their cohorts in the liberal media.
Clearly Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, and those members of the Court for whom he spoke, betrays a willingness to meddle with national affairs, even to the point of undermining the War on Terror, that bears no connection whatsoever with constitutional law.
Since no national interest or constitutional purpose is served by the decision, some consideration should be given to the motivations and intent of the activist members of the Court. Are Stevens and his liberal colleagues instead more interested in affecting the upcoming mid-term elections, with the hope that a sea change in the Senate might ensure the appointment of more of their kind to the Court?
The despicable, albeit absolutely predictable concurring diatribe from other standard liberal mouthpieces bears a similarity of motivation and intent that is impossible to ignore. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) exulted that “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.”
It should be noted here that the “all” to whom she referred includes Islamist fanatics, captured on the field of battle, as they attempted to kill American soldiers. Perhaps Pelosi would likewise deem it appropriate for the American troops to read them their “Miranda Rights” before firing back.
Pelosi then tipped her hand by portraying the decision as “a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights.”
Invariably, the possibility of political advantage eclipses any concern by Pelosi and her kind at the possibility that the murderous Islamists might now enjoy the benefit of legal loopholes to regain their “freedom” to aggressively inflict mayhem on the American people.
The terrorists being held at Guantanamo already believe that they are uniquely endowed with the “divine right” to slaughter American infidels. The liberal majority on the Supreme Court, along with their co-conspirators on Capitol Hill and in the media, are doing their level best to allow the terrorists to reclaim their ability to do so.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com