Awesome. We’re going to fight the war on terror in civilian courts. The Supremes have decided to confer U.S. Constitutional rights on the “unlawful combatants” currently detained at Gitmo.
"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. Yep. This has been right up there with slavery, denying woman and blacks the franchise and Japanese internment during WWII.
Tell ya what… let’s just scrap this whole thing. Close down, Gitmo? Sure. Let’s let them all go… let’m all go but before we do, roll’m all in pig fat before sending them off to their country of origin where they can sort it out. No fuss, no muss - get'm out of our hair. Deal?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Just like You... only more so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
If I were the Benevolent Dictator of America, I suppose I'd come down on this issue as follows:
1) Al Qaeda subjects, you are a prisoner of war and, as such, are to hang out here with us until the unconditional surrender of Al Qaeda forces. We will treat you with all the rights and obligations of prisoners from any other war. But, make no mistake, you are under our control for the duration. ie -- no getting out of jail to let off bombs like your colleague did in (Iraq??) last month.
2) You have a right to clear your name in front of a fair and impartial jury for any crimes against humanity, etc. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If found innocent, you will be returned to the general POW population. Guilty, and additional penalties beyond your status as a POW will be prescribed by a judge (civilian or military).
I'm still a little in disbelief that we've been allowing some of these guys from Gitmo -- who were supposed to be the worst of the worst -- to go free.
- Jurisprudence Mongo
I don't think we should be over-wrought by this decision. The only right conferred was that of habeas corpus. This gives the prisoners the opportunity to challenge their status as unlawful combatants. Surely, some oversight is necessary to ensure that the federal government is not abusing its power with such a declaration. If the government shows that it has properly exercised its authority, then the prisoners stay put.
B-Daddy,
I'm troubled by the conferring of rights guaranteed to citizens to non-citizen/unlawful combatants. It makes no sense.
We are, in essence, telling the bad guys that we are not going to fight terror in anything but the strictest, most efficient and legal U.S. terms.
If my facts are correct there have been 3 cases heard under the system set up by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. One was plea-bargained for a nine-month sentence in Australia and the other two were dismissed. A small sample pool, to be sure, but evidence, thus far, that the system is not being abused.
I am just saying that if Hillary Clinton were President, and I was in a foreign country and somehow got scooped up as an unlawful combatant by "mistake," I would sure like to be able to challenge that in court. Prior to this ruling there was no way to appeal one's status. I am not saying that there has been any abuse at all of the Gitmo detainees, just that our constitutional form of government calls for checks and balances.
Post a Comment