Thursday, June 19, 2008

Tyrannical Attitudes Hurt National Security

This is a bit dated, but last week John McCain referred to the Supreme Court's decision to allow detainees a right to request a hearing one of the worst decisions in history.

Paleo-Conservative George Will asks, really?

Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia says that we might lose a city because of this ruling. I read his ludicrous dissent in full. It didn't mention that investigative journalism conducted by McClatchy Newspapers uncovered that individuals that were wrongly detained in the Bush administration's post-9/11 panic to look like they were securing our nation once released actually became militants.

Using Scalia's logic, one could say that our unjust process that led to the creation of new militants could one day cost us a city. Why is this activist Supreme Court Justice working against national security?