In an earlier post, I lament the impending demise of “Western Civilization.” Gadfly “Sanity” suggests that, to keep that from happening, we should, “commit to freedom (yay SCOTUS!).” I can only assume that he was referring to the SCOTUS decision to allow Gitmo detainees to file habeas corpus writs in federal court.
Viscerally, I do not like the decision. As far as I’m concerned, terrorists have no rights. The problem is, who are the terrorists? Is there no chance at all that someone at Gitmo is wrongly imprisoned? That is the whole point of a habeas petition. When a soldier is captured in uniform, it is clear that he is a soldier of the enemy. But without a uniform…?
The problem is, where are the witnesses? Are we going to call soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan to testify? Well, Congress is going to have to go back to work and answer that question. Even so, we are not fighting WWII-style, in which soldiers did only one tour of duty. We rotate our soldiers now, and they can testify when they are home.
So while I do not really like the decision, I think it is the right one.
Glad we agree!
Just to be clear, I have no problem going through Afghanistan (and/or neighboring Pakistan) and wiping out Al Qaeda.
But Jeez, if we capture someone, they should have SOME due process thats not completely open-ended.
We bill ourselves as the “Beacon of Freedom” after all.
The Geneva Convention to which we have SIGNED on to grants NO RIGHTS to un-uniformed combatants. The latest version does give them small rights, but no where near what the ACLU and SCOTUS has been finding for them. I don’t know what the truly ‘correct’ answer is here, but giving these bozo’s the same rights as our citizens is not it.
Until we can develop a reasonable definition of “un-uniformed combatant” then they should be treated as criminals just like they were always treated prior to Bush II. If the Nazi’s treated the Free French like that we would have hanged them for war crimes!…Oh YEAH! We did!!
Do you think that Americans are the only ones with unalienable rights endowed by a Creator? Aren’t we supposed to be better than everyone else?
I would believe that one who openly conducts acts of war, while not wearing the uniform of a sponsoring state is an adequate definition for rational people.
We all agree on that, Dan. The problem is that when the enemy are not wearing uniforms, and are operating in civilian area, innocent people can be wrongly imprisoned. That is what a habeas hearing is meant to determine.
Sanity,
“If the Nazi’s treated the Free French like that we would have hanged them for war crimes!”
1. I thought shooting guerrillas was allowed under the older Geneva convention.
2. The Nazi’s where hung for:
a. burning villages to the ground
b. stuffing people into ovens before and after gassing them
c. conducting medical experiments on humans
d. torture, lost one uncle to that in WWII, real torture, not this loud music and water boarding crap, were talking body parts missing etc.
So I believe you might be wrong on that one old bean.
“Out here, due process is a bullet.”
In a war zone, declared or otherwise, what happens in the zone, stays in the zone. If we are going to have “POWs” then they must be given certain rights and amenities. Then again, you have already stated that they can’t be POWs if they aren’t in uniform and/or aligned with a certain country. If you need to extract information, extract it early. Don’t keep captives UNLESS they are tpo be prosecuted for crimes. Otherwise I see no reason to have a “rainy-day collection”.
I side with Roberts :
“Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.”…
Sanity,
“Do you think that Americans are the only ones with unalienable rights endowed by a Creator?”
This breaks down on many fronts.
1. Does all the world the right to vote in OUR elections? It is an inalienable right. So lets send ballots to the 1.3B Chinese and 1.1B Indians, and all the rest.
2. Does everyone on the planet have ‘the right’ to move here? Do we have any say in who can come and how many can come? ‘Freedom to associate’ is an unalienable right.
3. Does a tourist from France have the right to buy and own a gun while visiting in America? The right to bear arms is unalienable.
Is there no benefit to being an American citizen? Is there no penalty for taking up arms against us?
“Aren’t we supposed to be better than everyone else?”
Interesting point. On one hand we want to be a light on the hill, but how far do we take it? The constitution is not a suicide pact. American exceptionalism is not a call to set aside reason. Seriously how do YOU draw the line.
Actually, Jacob, the term “inalienable right” refers to the philosophic concept that some rights are conferred upon mankind by God by virtue of our having been made in God’s image. These are summed up in American parlance, generally, as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights just “are.” They aren’t granted by governments and they aren’t the same as Constitutional rights. It’s part of the explanation as to why we think as a people we got to throw off the shackles of a monarchy. Remember that 17th and 18th century man was very cognizant of the limits of man’s laws – and of the difference between the letter of the law/legal courts and of the concept of equity/justice/chancery.
Constitutional rights are enumerated rights and part of a contract between the republic and those who live under its laws. Therefore, they are not “inalienable.” But the recognition that inalienable rights exist was behind some of what got enumerated in the early days of our republic. Practicality and politics was behind the rest.
Our Constitutional rights are inspired by the higher concept, but are specific to our country and those living under its authority. The First Amendment right to free speech is not an inalienable right, it is a Constitutional right. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is not an inalienable right, it is a Constitutional right. Etc.
I’m still deciding what I think about this whole Gitmo situation. It’s not an easy one to puzzle out. From what I’ve read so far, I think it is an unsatisfying decision that leaves more unanswered than it does answer. CJ Roberts hits on that in the quote above.
“Constitutional rights are enumerated rights and part of a contract between the republic and those who live under its laws.”
Very, very wrong. Amendment IX reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Chick,
1.The inalienable (thanks for the spell fix, I stink at it)
2. Nothing I wrote contradicts or is at odd with ““inalienable right” refers to the philosophic concept that some rights are conferred upon mankind by God by virtue of our having been made in God’s image.”
so I fail to see the point, do think you I was saying something else?
3. “Constitutional rights are enumerated rights and part of a contract between the republic and those who live under its laws. Therefore, they are not “inalienable.””
Seriously wrong, go read the ninth and tenth amendments. They refute your statement, on their face.
3. “Our Constitutional rights are inspired by the higher concept, but are specific to our country and those living under its authority.” more of the same from #2, the bill of rights was an attempt at listing a subset of the inalienable or natural rights of man. Go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers.
4. “I’m still deciding what I think about this whole Gitmo situation.”
Me to, I hate it. Keeping someone incarcerated indefinitely requires justification, but using the same rules of evidence we require of a criminal is also a bad idea. Soldiers are not cops, and terrorist are not bank robbers. Terrorist are soldiers without uniforms who target civilians.
Jacob,
If the Bill of Rights is an attempt at listing a subset of natural rights of Man, then don’t you think they should be extended to everyone else just as a matter of course? If we don’t deny them to war criminals or in-country criminals, what justification do we have to deny them to “un-uniformed combatants”?
Nothing says we have to let them vote in our elections, but it’s just unconsionable to lock someone up for six years or more without making the slightest effort to find out if they’re guilty of anything.
I would think having a timely hearing with counsel in front of a disinterested party should be the least anyone is afforded.
Sanity?
“I would think having a timely hearing with counsel in front of a disinterested party should be the least anyone is afforded.”
What does that mean? No judges? Where are you going to find a disinterested party when it comes to terrorism?
“it’s just unconsionable to lock someone up for six years or more without making the slightest effort to find out if they’re guilty of anything.”
That I would agree on. Then again, what if a deal is being worked out (just like happens in our court system everyday) and in order to obtain freedom, the conditions of the agreement must be met; conditions like vital information or acts againest Americans where the CAPTURE of person A must first be obtained? Aren’t you the one giving us a daily tally of our war dead while insisting we haven’t even bagged Bin Laden yet (I would still like to know how you could ever be so sure of that point)?
If you want to blame someone for the war on terror, look to you good buddy BJ. He had Bin Laden in his sites and sat on his ass. It has cost America, what, 8,000 lives? Share your blame.
Disinterested: “Free of bias, impartial”
That IS a judge. (At least a decent one.)
You mean like federal Judge Weintraub, right?
SHARIAH LAW COURTS IN ENGLAND: THEY FOUND A LOOP HOLE IN ENGLAND’S 1996 ARBITRATION ACT, NOW YOU HAVE SHARIAH COURTS IN ENGLAND
CALL AND SUPPORT THIS BILL THOUGH VA ELECTED OFFICALS. HELP PASS THIS BILL. (BILL HR 6975)
Tom Tancredo proposes an Anti Shariah Measure to protect the USA from the same fate at the UK-This would be the “Jihad Prevention Act”
Posted by allysonrt on September 19th, 2008
Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts
Friday, 19 September 2008
“Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here
WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.
continue at…http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-measure-in-wake-of-u.k.-certification-of-islamic-courts.html
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6975
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2008
Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act’ .
SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.
Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.’.
SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.
Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.’.
SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.
Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person’s naturalization under this subsection.’.