What Supreme Court Gitmo Decision Means to the Right

I've been wanting to write a rant about the Supreme Court's recent decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, but didn't feel that I have the historical and political knowledge to do the subject justice. Most of what I wanted to say, was in regard to the right-wing reaction to the decision (even by dissenting Justices). It's been heralded as the worst decision in history, and Antonin Scalia actually said it would lead to US deaths. But I just couldn't find the vocabulary to express what I felt.

Then I found this post at The Rude Pundit. I've featured posts by Rude on occasion in the past. And I feel I must continue to warn the gentle readers out there that Rude is rude. But he's good. I've censored the excerpt just in case you're one of those gentle ones. . .

[Excerpt]

Gitmo Decision Reaction on the Right: Have You Guys Read the Constitution?

So the Rude Pundit just wants to get this straight: if you think yesterday's Supreme Court decision was a pile of s***, then you believe that the United States has the right to hold foreign nationals without allowing them to challenge their imprisonment in fair, open courts. You believe that a special court with special rules of evidence and special procedures is the only means through which a presidentially-designated "alien enemy combatant" held at a United States-run facility can even say, "Umm, do you have any proof I'm anything more than a f****n' goat herder who was wandering in the right field at the wrong time?" You believe that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions (except in the narrowest possible interpretation) do not apply to prisoners held at Gitmo. And you're absolutely hysterical, bats*** insane over the idea that a human being held without ever being told why might get to ask. . .

Read more at: The Rude Pundit