From Earthbound Misfit, commenting on the resumption of military trials at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba:
If you only have rights when it is convenient for the government to let you exercise them, then you have no rights.
I couldn't agree more! I don't share Earthbound Misfit's political leanings, but on this she and I are most certainly in accord.
As far as I'm concerned, once you bring someone into the physical jurisdiction of the United States, he or she should be granted their full rights under the Constitution and laws of this country. If you don't want them to have those rights, then don't bring them into US jurisdiction at all! Keep them elsewhere. There are plenty of jails in Afghanistan, for example . . . If they were fighting against US forces on foreign soil, let them be tried and dealt with by the authorities in that country. If they wanted a better deal, and offered to provide information in exchange for more lenient treatment, that could have been arranged without ever bringing them back here. If they deserved trial and punishment for their actions while opposing US forces, again, why bring them back here for that? Keep them in foreign jurisdictions, and avoid complications!
However, once the decision was made to bring them into a US jurisdiction, then I'm afraid it was nothing more than a cop-out to deny them the legal rights afforded to every US citizen and resident under the Constitution. Worse still, that decision has led to the unbelievable, the incomprehensible situation that the Executive Branch can define a US citizen as a terrorist, and thereby deny him his Constitutional rights - something that should be anathema to every right-thinking American.
Peter
4 comments:
Sorry, Peter, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Your premise is that once a prisoner has been moved to a US base (Gitmo), they should instantly be granted all the rights a law-abiding US citizen enjoys. But, if they're being detained in Afghanistan or Iraq, even by US forces there, they don't get those rights? You can't have it both ways. Either they do or do not deserve to be granted these rights if they're in US custody.
Non-citizens (and by this I mean illegal immigrants, as well as detainees such as those at Gitmo), do not have, and should not have the same rights as a citizen.
The .gov routinely denies full rights to people on a daily basis - ask any convicted felon whether he thinks he has full rights.
The one thing I do agree with you on is the part about labelling a US citizen a terrorist, and thus being able to deny due process. Rights for citizens should only be revoked or limited *after* conviction, not before.
The more troubling aspect of all this is the idea that the Fed.gov wants the right to continue to detain people who have been judged not guilty by the military tribunal.
Exactly what legal system allows them to preemptively detain innocent people for the rest of their lives?
First, Guantanamo Bay is not US soil. It is a military base that was leased from the (pre-Castro) Cuban government. In this context, what makes that military base any different from one in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Second, during WWII, thousands of German POWs were housed in prison camps that were indeed on US soil. Should they have enjoyed the same constitutional rights as US Citizens?
Lastly, I agree with you and Dirk about the denial of due process rights for US citizens. They should only be revoked or limited after conviction.
It seems to me that francs-tireurs should be moved to the rear if captured, not held at the front where their presence diverts resources into preventing rescue attempts and escape. You recall there was a bit of trouble with that at the start of things in Afghanistan. The US also didn't have much of a land-based "rear" in country at the time.
After that, francs-tireurs are entitled to a military tribunal to determine if they fall under the protection of prisoner-of-war status. If they do not, the hostile country holding them may choose to treat them essentially the same as prisoners of war, or they may choose to try them for a crime, such as using civilian cover for their attacks.
Charging them with a crime before holding the tribunal to determine status is right out under international law, as is having a trial to charge them merely with fighting against you. They have to be accused of something criminal for a trial to be even remotely acceptable under international law.
Post a Comment