5-4 ruling gives terrorists access to courts and Constitutional protection. Wouldn't it be nice if the Supreme Court cared as much about American's rights as it does those of terrorists??? CLICK HERE. This opinion raises more questions than it answers. CLICK HERE. If terrorists are captured on the battlefield, and are outside the defined protections of the Geneva Convention, does the ENTIRE Constitution of the U.S. apply to them?

Are they entitled to Miranda rights? In otherwords, since the soldiers who captured them presumably did not read them their rights, they are probably all going to be set free by liberal judges who will take pity on the poor darlings...just as they do with criminals who commit their crimes in this country.

Presumably they are entitled to have an attorney appointed for them, under the Constitutional protections that we apply to our own criminals. And I suspect that the chain of "evidence" that might have been gathered by troops in the middle of a firefight with these enemy combatants might not pass the muster of liberal judges in clean, well-lit courtrooms. By treating terrorists like common criminals, don't we return to the idea of investigating crimes like the attacks on 9-11 rather than PREVENTING them???

And what about BEFORE we capture the terrorists. Do U.S. soldiers have to announce themselves and give terrorists a chance to surrender and subject themselves to legal proceedings before we, for example, shoot a cruise missile into their encampment? Can we use drones to watch them without getting a search warrant? If they are entitled to Constitutional protections AFTER capture, why aren't they entitled to such protection BEFORE capture under the expansive application of the "Rule of Law" created by the Supremes today? Will every combat death of an enemy combatant now be subject to legal review and challenge in a court of law? And if we accord these protections to those who are outside the defined protections of the Geneva Convention, do they apply to ALL prisoners of war? Certainly those who play by the accepted rules of warfare should not be denied the same legal protections as those who don't, right? And what about our own soldiers? Can they all claim access to civilian courts for crimes committed in the military rather than facing courts martial? Or do terrorists have more rights than our own men and women in uniform in the eyes of the Supreme Court?

This ruling will certainly result in the deaths of more innocent Americans, and foreigners, and the blood is on the hands of the five Supremes who came up with this ludicrous opinion...as well as those who are cheering it!

If I had the slightest confidence that McCain would appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Roberts instead of Kennedy and Souter, this opinion alone might be enough to justify a vote for McCain.

Doesn't look like anything amiss. So why was he so reluctant to release the information?? CLICK HERE. And why release it to an extremist left wing blogger who lacks credibility rather than the mainstream, credible media??? Did Kos photo shop this from a real birth certificate? If Dan Rather can fake documents at CBS, why would anybody believe that a leftist blogger wouldn't do the same thing. And again, if there was nothing amiss on the birth certificate, as this version seems to indicate, then why did Obama refuse to release it, or better yet, authorize the State of Hawaii to release it??? Suspicious acts by politicians should raise suspicions, right??? CLICK HERE.

UPDATE: As suspected, there is something amiss here. A "certification of live birth" is different from a "birth certificate." This is the short form, with important information withheld! CLICK HERE.

Hmmm, here is a link to a REAL Hawaiian birth certificate. We link, you compare. CLICK HERE.