By popular demand, my thoughts on the Gitmo decision

- In a case brought forward by Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard and driver, the American Supreme Court has ruled that non-state actor al-Qaeda is entitled to Geneva Convention protections. (I'm no lawyer, but for some reason, I don't think they they signed anywhere.) Moreover, the ruling implies that they are entitled to a court hearing with civilian jurors on (potentially) US soil. (What would happen if a terror suspect's case gets thrown out on a technicality? Would that mean they would be able to run loose?)

However, ACLU-types and rabid lefty partisans who take joy in every setback the White House is handed should not pop the champagne just yet. It seems that suspected terrorists will still be able to be held at Gitmo "for the duration of active hostilities", according to the Supreme Court.

Two things come to mind here: one, given that the Administration is going to create a bill to incorporate the Court's decision into its anti-terror toolbox, the Dems will be forced once again to play defence on the issue going into the November midterms.

Secondly, this is a slap in the face to all the moral relativists and those who would paint Western legal culture as no superior to others. It's clearly VASTLY superior because even the most powerful man in the world doesn't get to do whatever he want without being held accountable, unlike a few tinpot dictatorships I can think of.