John Paul Stevens' Role Model Must Be Screechin'Shirley

Below we referenced Screechin'Shirley Abrahamson, the Leftist activist currently titled Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A link in that post clearly demonstrates Shirley's disdain for...oh...legislators, the English language, and common sense, for openers. The link does NOT include Screechin'Shirley's equally ludicrous ruling on a recent gun-rights case...which can be found here.

Well, Screechin'Shirley's influence is spreading. Now her charms have captivated John Paul Stevens and some other members of SCOTUS, as Steyn has observed:

The thinking behind [the Geneva Conventions] was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.

...The old-school wars were Britain vs. Germany, Japan vs. Russia, that sort of thing. But we don't hold those as often as we once did, so, for the new school of warfare, Justice Stevens and his chums took refuge in Geneva's Common Article Three, which begins as follows:

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties . . "

The "High Contracting Parties" are nation states that are signatories to the treaties: America, Belgium, Fiji, Peru and so on. So what might an "armed conflict not of an international character" mean? Well, it refers mostly to civil wars and internal conflicts -- say, when the Northern Wackistani Liberation Army takes on the Southern Wackistani Patriotic Front.

And what did the Supreme Court do? They decided first that Afghanistan was a signatory to the Conventions and thus the various ructions were ''occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.'' They then decided that it was an ''armed conflict'' and not only that -- here it comes, folks -- but it was an ''armed conflict not of an international character.''

Dipwads.

Ah, but you're not a Supreme Court justice. The reason why this was an ''armed conflict not of an international character'' is that al-Qaida is not a nation. So an article designed to cover internal local conflicts in signatory states within a convention designed to exclude unlawful combatants has been extended to cover non-signatory unlawful combatants in a global jihad taking place on every continent -- and, in effect, read into U.S. law.

Only a bedwetting, drooling, mentally-diarrhetic, age-challenged, Member of the Elite could come up with this Milorganite precursor and posit this as logic.

The immediate consequence of this is that America's friends in India, Australia, Singapore, Denmark and elsewhere will conclude that this country is simply not serious and its descent into moral narcissism too advanced. The long-term consequence will be the opposite of what the justices intended -- the sidelining and eventual discarding of Geneva, at least by nations that wish to survive the depredations of the jihad.

Or it will result in a change in Order of Battle: kill'em first, ask questions later.