First and foremost, I think the ruling is a mistake; there's nothing in the Constitution which would extend the protections afforded to US citizens to foreigners, especially those actively opposed to the US. The court is creating new Constitutional protections, and that's not their job. Moreover, the new protections are going to be nothing but trouble for the military in the future, and one of the worst things we can do as a country is make it more difficult for our military to keep us safe.
That said, I think Bush shares at least half of the blame for this idiotic ruling and precedent. As a blame Gore for politicizing Global Warming, turning it into a partisan battle, and thus allowing people to compartmentalize any actual evidence as political propaganda, so I blame Bush for creating a situation which forced the Supreme Court to make this ruling.
It is against international law, and the spirit of America, to hold anyone indefinitely without a trial, the ability to rebut accusations, and ultimately seek justice for persecution. In holding the prisoners in Guantanamo indefinitely, the government was creating a situation which was morally reprehensible both to the international community and the domestic populace. Yes, the situation was abnormal: the prisoners didn't have a sponsor nation they could be released to, nor a formal army to claim allegiance to and thus appeal to be treated as prisoners of war, nor even a formal war to be prisoners of (other than the nebulous "war on terror"). Nevertheless, the US government did not do enough to avoid to perception of holding people indefinitely, nor did they offer any end-time conditions.
As such, the Supreme Court of the US was the last resort against the morally reprehensible situation the Bush administration caused. They needed to do something, and they did; the consequences will be bad for the country, but it was an inevitable (and foreseeable) consequence of the handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Shame on the Bush administration for creating this situation and this precedent.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the policies of detaining people, some of whom are probably innocent, without charge or access to courts is morally reprehensible, then what's wrong with a court ruling these people have a right to challenge their detention?
ReplyDeleteIt's wrong because granting the right of access to US courts to prisoners of war implies at least some rights explicitly granted only to citizens would be applicable to foreign enemies, which is not explicitly or implicitly stated in our Constitution. The court is creating new rights for people under US law, which in and of itself is unconstitutional. It would be like the president declaring that he had the right to disband Congress and then ordering the military to do it... it's not that it wouldn't feel like the right thing to do to some people, it's that it's not constitutional in our country.
ReplyDeleteInternational law and treatment of prisoners of war is a fuzzy area, governed by treaties, accords, and historical precedent. Usually this involves holding prisoners until a war is over, and then releasing them to their home nations, which in this case is difficult if not impossible. However, different solutions were possible (turning them over to the UN for war crimes trails, for example, or declaring an arbitrary sunset period for holding prisoners with no sponsor nation), we just didn't explore any of them. Thus, Bush bears some responsibility for the bad court decision and precedent.
First and foremost, I think the ruling is a mistake; there's nothing in the Constitution which would extend the protections afforded to US citizens to [Blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, Jews, etc.], especially those actively opposed to the US [law, society, culture]. The court is creating new Constitutional protections, and that's not their job. Moreover, the new protections are going to be nothing but trouble for the [economy, law enforcement, national security, our women!, the children!] in the future, and one of the worst things we can do as a country is make it more difficult for our [jobs, government, military, etc. ] to keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteSeems we've heard a variation of all this before.
It would be like the president declaring that he had the right to disband Congress and then ordering the military to do it.
Huh? I don't understand that metaphor at all.
IMO, This great nation has nothing to fear from honoring its principles. I am one of those weird people who sees nothing wrong with honoring every human's natural and inalienable rights to liberty and by extention, due process.
I agree with you that this is the administration's fault. This ruling doesn't even suspend the shadow trials orchestrated by the military...just sorta ask, again, that they give detainees some sort of shadow trial. It's silly, really, I mean, "We want to be railroaded through a shadow military tribunal - When do we want it - now!" This is what W. has reduced us to.
The analogy is that per the US Constitution, each branch of government is allowed to do certain things, and the other branches are not allowed to usurp those powers at will. In the US, Congress is allowed to make new laws, grant new rights, etc.; not the Court, and not the Executive branch. It doesn't matter if I think certain people should have rights or due process or anything else; it's not in the Court's purview to grant them.
ReplyDeleteIn most of the other substitutions you mentioned, it was a law or Constitutional amendment or interpretation which granted the rights, which is the correct process. Perhaps I'm just a stickler for procedure, but I don't think the Court should be arbitrarily granting new rights any more than I think the Executive should be arbitrarily taking them away from people. For some reason, though, some people have trouble understanding that those are equivalent, and deride the Bush administration for taking away people's rights while applauding the Court for granting extra rights to others. They are the same thing, legality-wise, and it's hypocritical to not view them consistently. I think they both are wrong.