What Are They Thinking?

The Supremes are on a roll! In an ideologically aligned decision yesterday, the court ruled (with Chief Justice Roberts on the sidelines) that the executive branch has exceeded its authority in seeking to try detained terrorists before military tribunals.

I’ve often bemoaned the increasingly small minority of major government functionaries with military experience, ex-Marine John Murtha not withstanding. While the volunteer force has become increasingly professional and technologically competent, the lack of integration with the totality of American society makes it more and more likely that pundits and politicos will spout drivel with regard to the military and no one will be there to challenge it.

All Supreme Court decisions have nuance and some even have understandability. Typically they will uphold someone’s deeply held convictions while over-ruling someone else’s. Beyond that there is always the underlying hope that common sense and an obligation to “do what is right” for the country will factor into the opinion. That’s why this business is so appalling.

Here are a few things that come to my formerly military mind as I listen to the dissection of the decision.

First, there is the issue of the Geneva Conventions. During my 23 years on active duty we had periodic training on the provisions of the conventions. There were some basics that we learned. The US is a signatory to them. Many nations are signatory. Some nations are not. Those who are not signers are not required to comply. (That seems pretty basic when written here, but apparently the Supremes didn’t notice.) Recognized nations can sign. Unrecognized transnational terrorist groups need not apply.

Second, to gain the protections of the Conventions, it is necessary to be a member of an organized military with a command structure, uniforms and prominently displayed rank insignia. You are required to carry identification which offers evidence beyond your visible military uniform and rank that you are a member of a complying government’s military. The military ID card serves that purpose and for many years a second “Geneva Convention Card” was also required. The internees at Guantanamo don’t fill that requirement. They don’t wear uniforms, they don’t have rank, they aren’t military and they don’t operate under the leadership of a national command structure. Rights to protections are forfeit.

Third, the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to members of the US military. It is, by definition, extra-Constitutional. The protections afforded to our citizens by the Constitution are not extended to members of the military under the UCMJ. Strange, but true—those of us who sacrifice the most to defend the Constitution are not protected by it while doing that duty. The UCMJ does not apply to terrorist internees.

Fourth, Constitutional protections afforded citizens of the US are only extended in very limited fashion to non-citizens. The internees are neither citizens nor in the USA. While some protection is granted, it isn’t to the extent of that provided citizens.

Fifth, it would be patently ludicrous to bring these terrorists into a civil courtroom under the laws of the US. They do not deserve the forum for their hatred of America and they do not merit the consideration of our courts. They are trying to kill us.

What really escapes me in this whole business is how the American left is trying to spin this as some sort of “rule of law” issue and how they can possibly think that defending the bodyguard of Usama bin Laden over the interests of American security from terrorism can gain them votes in November. What are they thinking?