THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 116, July 4, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
A DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF TERRORISTS
By Christopher G. Adamo
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, & THE WAR ON ISLAMIST TERRORISM: THE INHERENT
WEAKNESSES OF HUMAN NATURE & THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES OF OPERATING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT HUMAN
RIGHTS ARE THE PRODUCT OF GOVERNMENTAL BENEVOLENCE, RATHER THAN GOD-GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
LIMITING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT & PROTECTING THE INDIVIDUAL & SOCIETY AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL TYRANNY
-- THE MOST RECENT ABOMINABLE & FLAGRANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION RENDERED BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT -- DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRETING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & INVOKING "INTERNATIONAL LAW" IN
ORDER TO SIDESTEP U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE SUPREME COURT'S JURISDICTION & TO THWART A
HISTORICALLY LEGITIMATE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE U.S.A. CAN DEAL WITH ENEMY COMBATANTS OF A
PARTICULARLY DESPICABLE & DANGEROUS NATURE
FULL STORY:
“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.”
The foregoing is a quote from “A Declaration on the Rights of Man,” adopted on 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 and political purge which, at that time, was 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 such a statement of guarantees and protections does 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 the U.S.A. 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 in previous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in recent years, consideration of
inconvenient U.S. 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 outrgrowth 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 U.S. 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 Supreme 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 Liberal Democrats in Congress and
their cohorts in the Liberal Leftist media.
Clearly Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion, and those
members of the Court for whom he spoke, betray a willingness to meddle with
national affairs, even to the point of undermining the war on terror -- an inclination 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 congressional elections, with
the hope that a sea change in the U.S. 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. U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat - California)
exulted:
“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 Supreme Court 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 U.S. 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.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
Legal Issues, Lawyers, & America's Judiciary
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY & OTHER POLITICAL REGIMES
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Fundamental Character & Essential Ingredients
Constitutionalism: The First Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Dictatorship: The Opposite of Constitutionalism
Representative Democracy: The Second Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Direct Democracy & Representative Democracy
Political Culture & Modern Constitutional Democracy
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Summary & Conclusion
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming and works in the field of industrial instrumentation.
He is actively involved in Wyoming's political process, serving as a delegate to successive Wyoming State Republican Conventions
and as a member of the Wyoming State Republican Central Committee. He has assisted Republican candidates for local and state
legislatures and for the United States Congress. His articles, which appear regularly in The Progressive Conservative, U.S.A.,
and on a number of other websites, reflect a major concern with the damage being done to Conservatism and Conservative causes by
the Liberal Leftist faction in the Republican Party as well as by the much larger and more powerful Liberal Leftist faction in the
Democratic Party. During the early and middle 1990s, Adamo was Editor of the Wyoming Christian Coalition's official news organ,
The Wyoming Christian.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VIII, 2006
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues