The Supreme Court again has intruded on legitimate executive prerogatives, made up rules that expand its own powers, and shown little regard for the fact that we are at war with a committed and wily enemy.
I haven’t had time to read the latest installment in the Hamdan saga, but I’m going to provide links to some earlier analysis I’ve written about GITMO, unlawful combatants, and related issues.
GITMO detainees go back to the battlefield.
Habeas may help the wrong people.
On the first Hamdan decision and the Court’s various errors.
Subscribe To This Feed
Since the SC strongly feels these people are no danger of any kind, why not have them live at the private homes of the various justices once they are freed from the Gitmo concentration camp? This is a perfect opportunity for the Justices to show us how enlightened they truly are. It is also a great way to introduce these mistreated innocents to the great traditions of American law. It would be a great learning and growing experience for all.
With all due respect that’s an utterly pointless remark.
Obviously the government must develop some means of disposing of these individuals.
They cannot be held forever, as a burden upon the American taxpayer.
Are we to hold these enemy combatants until they expire of natural causes, or shall we try them accordingly? And if tried, what rights do these people possess, if any?
By this time, it should be quite clear that threat these individuals posed to the U.S. was minescule, at best.
Either process and delete them or set them free.
The whole affair merely demonstrates the lack of accountability the U.S. government has to its subjects…I mean, citizens.
From an earlier post:
Michelle Malkin notes how the overheated rhetoric on Gitmo does not even accurately account for the existence of (in my opinion, constitutionally unnecessary) military hearings to judge whether the detainees are in fact enemy combatants who can be lawfully detained:
“Constitutionally unnecessary:” So you are saying that it would perfectly fine, in your opinion, to have someone imprisoned for the rest of his life on the President’s say-so alone, and with no means of proving his innocence?
(Yes, I know, POWs an be held until the end of hostilities. But this is not a war in any traditional sense of the term. Defining something as nebulous as terrorism, or even Islamic extremism, as the “enemy” in a war creates a permanent state of war, which makes any “until the end of hostilities” statement a blank check for permanent suspension of liberties. This is why the “it must be war, not law enforcement” attitude of many conservatives is either naive, or indicative of a truly totalitarian mindset).
The real reason for this ruling, in my opinion, is that the Court has completely lost faith in the administration’s judgment of who is and is not a terrorist. I think that a lot of people are afraid that, amongst those who truly are terrorists, there may be a lot of innocent people imprisoned here.
As I wrote on my blog, McCain could, if he wanted to, win the election on this issue. All he needs to do is say that if he is elected, he will ignore the court’s decision. The left will go nuts, but it would put Obama in the position of defending constitutional rights for Osama Bin Laden. McCain would bet him like a rented mule.
All Obama would have to do would be to point to the people who were released, only to commit more acts against us, and claim that the current system is not accurately separating the guilty from the innocent and ought to be scrapped.
If McCain responds, as a lot of people have, with the implication that the way to prevent releasing terrorists is to never release anyone we capture, then Obama can simply state that McCain has no problem with imprisoning innocent people for life without any trial to exonerate them.
The thing that bothers me most about most of the right-wing (other than the more libertarian righties) on this issue is that almost everyone seems to act as if anyone we capture must automatically be guilty (thus the constant reference to “terrorists” rather than “suspected terrorists.”) Also, only a few have brought up the military tribunals.
In my opinion, the real issue here is whether or not the military tribunals provide sufficient opportunity for those who are innocent to get cleared.
Good grief – I triggered the automatic smiley generator. There is not meant to be a smiley after “suspected terrorists.” I put the closed parenthesis in the wrong place, apparently.
glaivester,
Obama would be in the position of arguing that Federal courts would be more vigilant in protecting the US than military courts. Not a winning argument.
And to oppose the SC decision, and say that the federal courts should not have jurisdiction on what is essentially an overseas military matter is not to accept everything the administration does. It is not to argue that all those captured are guilty, it is not to argue for injustice, or torture. I’m just arguing that this is between the executive and Congress, and that the federal courts ought not to have jurisdiction.
And to oppose the SC decision, and say that the federal courts should not have jurisdiction on what is essentially an overseas military matter is not to accept everything the administration does. It is not to argue that all those captured are guilty, it is not to argue for injustice, or torture. I’m just arguing that this is between the executive and Congress, and that the federal courts ought not to have jurisdiction.
I didn’t say that you were arguing this or that you couldn’t disagree with the Supreme Court decision and still favor some form of due process for the detainees. What I said was that the rhetoric that a lot of the people use when discussing this issue suggests that the captured ahve already been, in their minds, convicted. Lots of people refer to all of the prisoners as “terrorists,” some commentator on WorldNetDaily suggested that if the Supreme Court questioned their detention, we should immediately execute them all.
Moreover, Chris Roach has effectively stated that in his opinion, there is no need for any review of any prisoners’ detention, by referring to military tribunals as “constitutionally unnecessary.”
In any case, there are two ways to ague this issue; one is to argue that the current system provides an appropriate due process, the other is to imply that anyone detained on suspicion of terrorism does not need due process. Too many people ignore the first argument an therefore effectively are using the second one.
Your latest at Taki Mag is gonna have the Rockwell crowd howling. Maybe its because Im relatively new to the philosophy but what does a Paleolib share with a Paleocon? Why do they share space there? Opposition to the war?
New Guy look up a piece I wrote called What is Paleoconservatism. It goes over the relationship.
[...] legal arguments in favor of civilian trials are weak, and I’ve discussed them at length elsewhere. But the practical consequences should have been obvious after the first WTC bombing trial of the [...]