Justices ram terrorists and traitors

The top court's rejection of Bush's terror tribunal plan deals a powerful blow to al Qaeda as well as to those traitors who engineered 9/11 in order to consolidate central power.

The sweeping decision rejects much of the Bush doctrine of unilateral authority to override unwanted laws and makes a strong case for the traditional American doctrine of separation of powers.

To Muslims worldwide, the U.S. court decision tends to restore America's appeal as the land of the free where basic rights cannot be waived away. Clearly, this undercuts much al Qaeda propaganda and undermines popular support for the jihadists, demonstrating the value of democracy: self-aggrandizers face being sent to the foot of the table.

The decision also deals a devastating blow to the traitors who engineered 9/11 in order to throw a curtain of darkness over America as they acted, overtly and covertly, with impunity toward their strange goals. (Notice that there is no detention center holding federal traitors who controlled the 9/11 attacks.)

In particular, the court struck down the White House's idea that the "authorization for the use of force" meant that it could sidestep U.S. law (no need for Congress) or the Geneva Conventions that safeguard minimal rights of captured combatants (though some of those held may not be combatants).

As a consequence, Attorney General Gonzales' claims concerning the legality of warrantless NSA wiretaps is severely undermined. In addition, one can expect that the court would take a jaundiced view of Bush's use of signing statements to exercise 750 de facto line item vetoes. The court has already thrown out the line-item veto and, though other presidents have used signing statements sparingly, there is a big difference between a nuanced distinction and a general abrogation of laws.

Hopefully, members of the press and credentialed professionals -- in particular scientists and engineers -- will now be encouraged to focus on the treason that occurred on 9/11.