A defeat for America, as the USSC upholds the Left’s Terrorists’ Bill of Rights:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush’s tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.

By a 5-3 vote, the nation’s highest court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.

“We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate” the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority.

The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Hamdan, who was
Osama bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan. Hamdan, one of about 450 foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was captured in November 2001.

God forbid we ever capture Osama himself alive. The liberals will be lining up to give him back rubs, wash his feet for him, and file lawsuits on his poor downtrodden behalf.

The ruling, handed down on the last day of the court’s 2005-06 term, followed the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners this month and increased calls for Bush to close the prison camp. U.S. treatment of inmates at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn international criticism.

Boo fucking hoo.

One of Hamdan’s lawyers, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, praised the high court action. “All we wanted was a fair trial,” he said outside the Supreme Court. “Yes, it is a rebuke for the process. … It means we can’t be scared out of who we are.”

Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation’s legal system.”

Yeah, this fool thinks it very important that we play by Marquis of Queensbury rules when trying to rid ourselves of vicious killers who respect no such restraints themselves, and who laugh at our prissy folly for doing so; we can cherish our precious moral superiority in our graves, which matters far more than, y’know, winning the war. No one’s ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me exactly why it is that our nation’s legal system is or ought to be applicable to foreign terrorist scum who have been captured on various battlefields out of the Geneva-mandated uniform. But what the hell, I guess it’s all part and parcel of mush-head liberal googoodom, and makes sense to those confused about whether they want their own country to eventually defeat Islamist terrorists or not. Charles ably sums up this disaster:

By extending Geneva Convention protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants, the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle.

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there’s no difference between a terrorist dressed in civilian clothes and a uniformed soldier, and that civilians deserve no protection from war criminals.

Yep, sure enough. But on the bright side, now there’s simply no reason whatsoever for our boys to bother taking even one of these bastards alive, and every least skirmish should now be required to be a fight to the death of the last Islamist dog. Perhaps that’s the way it should have been all along.

Update! Bill notes a telling but not-so-shocking inconsistency.