In one of their worst rulings of all time, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision, that enemy terrorists thugs being held at Gitmo cannot be subjected to war crimes trials ordered by the Commander-in-Chief President George W. Bush. To prevent the Commander in Chief from waging war against the enemy and treat it like something “all 3 branches” of government must be involved in is totally insane. Once the war begins it’s the job of the executive branch alone to determine how to deal with the enemy. I prefer taking no prisoners and giving the enemy what they deserve on the battle field, but taking prisoners is good for information about other enemies. Which is why I have no problem with troops doing what they feel necessary to obtain that information. But just the same, the terrorists in Gitmo get treated very well. More about conditions at Gitmo later. Here’s an MSM report about the ruling.

So we see 3 had their heads on straight (John Roberts would have made 4 if he could have participated), while 5 are total idiots. 5 want to treat the enemy like some “regular military” individuals. They are not “regular”, they are not citizens and the only right they have is to wait for us to kill them or decide otherwise. These are the terrorists that were caught in the mist of a war! These are members of the enemy that was behind 9/11. They should be treated as such and given war trials. And that’s nicer than they deserve.

Now you see why people like Justice Clarence Thomas are good and the Liberals are not. Because the Liberals will give your enemy everything he needs to kill you!

Here’s part of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.

Here’s part of Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent. Which I must say really is a home run!

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins in all but Parts I, II–C–1, and III–B–2, dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1–11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner’s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.

I

Our review of petitioner’s claims arises in the context of the President’s wartime exercise of his commander-in-chief authority in conjunction with the complete support of Congress. Accordingly, it is important to take measure of the respective roles the Constitution assigns to the three branches of our Government in the conduct of war.
As I explained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), the structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch—namely, the decisiveness, “‘activity, secrecy,and dispatch’” that flow from the Executive’s “‘unity,’” id., at 581 (dissenting opinion) (quoting The Federalist No. 70,
p. 472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton))—led the Founders to conclude that the “President ha[s] primary responsibility—along with the necessary power—to protect the national security and to conduct the Nation’s foreign relations.” 542 U. S., at 580. Consistent with this conclusion, the Constitution vests in the President “[t]he executive Power,” Art. II, §1, provides that he “shall be Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, §2, and places in him the power to recognize foreign governments, §3. This Court has observed that these provisions confer upon the President broad constitutional authority to protect the Nation’s security in the manner he deems fit. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, 668 (1863) (“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority”); Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850) (acknowledging that the President has the authority to “employ [the Nation's Armed Forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy”).
…

Yesterday Kirby Wilbur was filling in for Sean Hannity and interviewed Charles “Cully” Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Office of Detainee Affairs. The interview covered a lot about Gitmo, the terrorists detained there and their treatment.

Here are some points from the interview, although there are more I don’t list here.

• There are 460 terrorists at Gitmo.
• Actionable information has been obtained from the terrorists at Gitmo.
• Terrorists in other countries INCLUDING FRANCE want to be treated like terrorists in Gitmo.
• 15 terrorists released from Gitmo have been found later taking up arms against US soldiers.
• Stimson is not aware of any that left Gitmo and actually did anything good with their lives.
• Suicides occur even in regular prison. I say so what to whether a terrorist kills himself! Liberals always talk about a “right to die”, except when it’s a terrorist or evil murdering convicted killer. For them, just the innocent babies and invalids are good enough to kill.
• Many attempts have been made by terrorists at Gitmo to attack and kill guards.

This is an interview worth hearing, especially after today’s ruling.

Hear the interview using the link below.
Kirby Wilbur and Charles “Cully” Stimson discuss Gitmo - ASF Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)