Yesterday in response to my post about the Habeas Corpus issue I received this comment from the Automatic Rebalancer.
Of course if a foreign citizen commits a crime in the civilian world, he'd be subject to hab.corp. I agree. But that's not the central issue here...and that's precisely why McCain is against the Ct. ruling. His imprisonment was as a P.O.W. PoW's and detainees of military actions are not afforded civilian habeas corpus. That's why there's been no complaint from him on the matter. Essentially the Sup. Ct. has overruled Congress' law and said these terrorists, labeled as enemy combatants of a military action should instead be subject to civilian jurisdiction. I say, Horse$hit! They were taken under military jurisdiction, and should remain as enemy combatants under military jurisdiction.
Here is my response:
Well thank you for your response to my article Major. I understand your points regarding military vs. civilian. I guess I have a problem with the classification of this situation as a time of war. Surely, it can not be disputed that the Taliban or whom ever it is that Bin Laden is choosing to associate with these days are enemies of the state I feel the situation of war is a special circumstance that our current engagement does not really satisfy. What nation are we at war with? Or are we as the Bush administration suggests at war with the concept of terror. I realize that this is primarily a semantic argument, but that is often the case when legal matters are at hand. Also, another point to consider with respect to this argument is that this ruling while extending to people such as Bin Laden is more intended as a protection for people who have been unjustly detained as a result of our war on a concept. I don't feel that it should be to unreasonable of an expectation for any human being if they are detained against their will to have the ability to press their captors for a justification as to why our government or any government for that matter has chosen to deprive them of this basic human right to freedom. I think then when the dust settles what we will see from this is that the people who deserve to be under the lock and key of our government for their crimes will be there because we can explain why it is that they are there. Also, as an aside. If this concern that Bin Laden could get off on some legal technicality weighs enough on the mind of our soldiers who are tracking him that when they do find him somebody's finger slips on a trigger. Well, I honestly can't say that the world would be any worse off.
Okay. Enough of that stuff. It's Friday. Got many of other things to post about later including: TF2 Pyro Updates - My initial impressions, and what the letter I would write Thom York of Radiohead would look like.
2 comments:
This was a judicial nullification of procedures (first the DTA, then the MCA) carefully crafted by both elected branches of Government of procedures carefully tailored to allow review of detentions while remaining mindful of the terrorist threat.
The SCOTUS in the Hamdi decision asked Congress to establish procedures for detainees. That's what they did. And in actuality, the SCOTUS declined to review the DC Circuit Court's affirmation of the MCA, but then 5 months later towards the end of their 07 term, they changed their mind.
The DTA (now, essentially debunked) provided for hearings on the legality of detention before a review tribunal followed by a review in the DC Court of of Appeals. A bipartisan Congress mandated that these Gitmo detainees are not free to avoid these procedures by filing a habeas petition in whatever district court they choose!
Centralizing court review with the DC rather than letting lawyers go to friendly habeas judges before a commission could review the evidence was the heart of the law which the SCOTUS overturned!
The ACLU will prepare petitions in blank to seek on behalf of every terrorist captured overseas to compel the Government to immediately disclose its evidence. Think of it, and CJ Roberts pointed this out, the potential of free access to classified information.
The Bank Robber is entitled to see the prosecution's file because he needs it to defend himself. The terrorist wants his file so he can arrange the murder of operatives and informants. (Information given to defense lawyers in the first World Trade Towers trial on a restricted basis quickly appeared on al-Jazeera.)
Justice Jackson warned us, which I think the dissenters pointed out: ,don't convert the Bill of Rights Into a Suicide Pact! Jackson said, "If the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
Justice Jackson refused to grant a Nazi prisoner habeas because there has been no instance where an alien who has never set foot in American soil has been granted habeas. Justice Souter in his concurrent opinion with the majority, agrees, this is the first time the SCOTUS has granted habeas to non-citizen enemy combatants and he doesn't seem to be bothered by it!!
I must confess that most of this does not make much sense to me. However, that you for contributing to the debate. However, after re reading it I think I do, and it makes sense. I can understand the dissenting opinion. When looked in the light for further protecting the lives of our personnel involved in the pursuit of these criminals.
Post a Comment