Well, looky-see the analysis by the fella' that Tico posted i.e., Ronald Cass of realclearpolitics.com, tells quite a bit about the way Right Wing kooks look at America.
It seems that while they do admit that:
"The five-justice majority of the Supreme Court that decided the Hamdan case yesterday showed great interest in demonstrating their commitment to upholding constitutional protections and protecting international human rights, both admirable instincts in many settings.
They also believe:
"They [the Court] showed less appreciation for the fact that Americans are threatened, and thousands of innocent Americans were killed by brutal thugs - the sort who behead civilians, film it as sport, and post the video on the Internet. And the justices showed no appreciation for the fact that Congress and the President might well know more than they do about the security needs of the United States."
Setting aside that such arguments are besides the point of the pertinent laws involved, they actually ignore our history and spit on the grave of the fella' who said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." Apparently, such self-professed strong-willed, Freedom-Loving Americans are neither, and so scared $hitless of America's enemies that they would be willing to give up their own (and everyone else's to boot) hard fought constitutional protections to the government in effort to gain some temporary and illusory protection.
But the kicker, following Mr. Cass's argument, deals with precisely the long term problem inherent in the Rightwing worldview, with:
"the justices wrote a careful, precedent-laden, critically analyzed decision, well within the bounds of ordinary judicial craftsmanship - just as they did in Kelo. The proper criticism of their decision is not that it is politically inspired, not that it boldly ignores the law, and not that it is a decision that is utterly without support (though all these critiques may well come from the right).[/i] Instead, the proper criticism is that the decision is simply wrong, just as Kelo was, and will have consequences that no sensible American should applaud.
Who ever said a republic supposed to be easy? Apparently Republicans do, but only to salve their fear and when the actions of their Fearless Leader are rejected on constitutional grounds.
It matters not at all to them that an argument can be a "careful, precedent-laden, critically analyzed decision, well within the bounds of ordinary judicial craftsmanship" and "not..... politically inspired," nor one that "boldly ignores the law, and is not one that "is a decision that is utterly without support."
Because it is still wrong.
One would ask that if the aforementioned decision is a "careful, precedent-laden, critically analyzed decision, well within the bounds of ordinary judicial craftsmanship" and is "not..... politically inspired," nor "boldly ignores the law," and is not "a decision that is utterly without support," by what internally consistent mental process demands that the decision is "simply wrong?"
Any such argument, no matter how it is dressed up in banal and ignorant flag-waving pseudo-patriotism as "protecting our Way of Life" is imbued with that hoary philosophy that has stalked and ravaged mankind for ages and at base is the belief that the ends justify the means.
And it stands upon its head the civilizing affect of Law and what is supposed to do.
Make no mistake, those who attack this decision, including those on the Court are the radicals and real enemies of the great and time-tested freedoms the United States of America affords it citizens, and were their political opponents to apply the same standards to them of such an expedient philosophy they would be put in concentration camps.