The Supreme Court erred. Of course, true to form, the New York Times applauds the decision from their ivory tower. But Justice Scalia in opposing this bad decision has it right:
"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
When will our country wake up to the fact that these terrorists are first and foremost sworn enemies of the United States who wish to see us and our way or life defeated. They are not people with civil rights like you and I under our Constitution. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I hope this bad decision will not encourage our military to 'take no prisoners.'
Court Says Guantanamo Detainees Have Right to Challenge Detention - washingtonpost.com
9 comments:
If somebody accused Davis Usher of being a terrorist, he'd want his day in court.
So do you agree that it was illegal for Bush to hold Jose Padilla, an American citizen, without charges for three years?
I do agree that an American citizen has rights in American courts just like you and I.
Does our military have the right to grab anyone in the world who isn't a US citizen and hold them indefinitely without charges?
Of course not. However, the U.S. military has a responsibility (for my security)to kill or capture terrorists who lead, organize, sponsor or otherwise actively aid the killing of innocent Americans or those in our military. It's the definition of warfare.
If one believes we are not engaged in a war with radical Islamic terrorists and others who would destroy us via violent means, then it's understandable that he/she would think differently.
But how do you know if someone is a terrorist without any evidence?
One of the points of our secession from England was that we didn't want a king to be able throw someone in a dungeon forever without any charges or evidence.
Now we've come full circle and George Bush is doing exactly that.
My understanding is that in Afganistan, money rewards were given to those who turned in "terrorists." That leaves a lot of room for skepticism.
The Supreme Court made exactly the right decision. It's just scary that four of nine justices don't understand the Constitution well enough to uphold habeas corpus.
We won't beat the terrorists by abandoning our own principles. They win when we do that. Don't you get it?
If a Radical Islamist says he is committed to the destruction of America and violence against innocents and his actions show it or he is captured in battle he is a terrorist. I trust a U.S. soldier in warfare as much or more than a lawyer or a member of an American jury. They're people, after all.
Habeas corpus is right of Americans to be taken very seriously and not tampered with lightly. People who would destroy our country and intentionally harm innocents should also be taken seriously and stopped from reaching their goal.
Our principles are indeed the bedrock of our democracy, a concept that radical Islamists don't believe in. It is naive to believe that if we only treat them like Americans they will learn to love us.
I hear what you're saying about the dangers we face, but habeas corpus is not only right of Americans, but also the right of non-citizens within the boundaries of the US. The law applies to and protects all within our borders.
For example, you wouldn't be allowed to murder a British tourist just because he's a non-citizen. Likewise, a British tourist would still be arrested under US law were he to commit murder here.
So either US laws, including habeas, rule at Guantanamo or Cuban laws rule at Guantanamo. There is no in-between. And it looks like the court looked at reality and opted for US law over Cuban law.
There can't be a black hole in the law. That's the downfall of civilization.
Please don't equate British tourists with radical Islamists sworn to destroy us. The analogy is patently false.
We are at war with terrorists or we aren't. If we aren't at war with them, then they are not enemy combatants. If we are at war with them, then military justice procedures, tribunals or otherwise, apply. Habeas corpus, IMHO, should not apply to enemy combatants.
A little research will show that hundreds of Gitmo detainees have been released without charge but that countries have been and are reluctant to accept them. Why would that be? Some of those released have already returned to terrorism.
Post a Comment