Perhaps you have committed a crime, perhaps not. Occasionally, someone who lives near you in the prison is taken away and interrogated. These other prisoners come back terrified and sometimes injured or weak and tell tales of being held under water, kept awake for days, made to stand or kneel in uncomfortable positions for hours and being questioned about things they perhaps know nothing about. One day, it is your turn.
Now imagine that that first soldier was one of your own country, and that you are being mistreated by your own government. You cannot talk to a judge to make your jailers prove that they even have the right person. Unlikely scenario? Hardly.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that makes this scenario less likely. Until now, the Bush administration has simply declared that certain people were "enemy combatants" and shipped them off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be held until, well, doomsday. Some of the inmates of Guantanamo have been there for six years. None have had the "right" to demand that they be told the charges against them, nor confronted with evidence or witnesses against them. Many of us take these rights for granted; they come from the 1st, 5th and 6th amendments to the constitution.
Sadly, some of the Supreme Court justices and the president himself do not see a need for these "detainees" to be accorded such rights. It is even sadder that many members of the American public have been frightened into agreeing with them.
Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, claimed that this ruling will almost certainly result in more American deaths, further bowing to the fear-mongering so rampant in the current political arena. Few of these terrified people seem to realize that such treatment will almost certainly result in more hatred of Americans. Worse yet, in denying constitutional rights to our prisoners, we jeopardize our own constitutional rights.
Beginning philosophy students reading Plato have difficulty grasping his assertion that injustice harms the unjust one as well as his or her victim. The operation at Guantanamo is a prime example. Soldiers trained to believe that not all people in their control have constitutional rights can be convinced easily that American citizens in their control do not have constitutional rights.
Good soldiers take orders and depend on their superiors to think for them. The United States is in the process of building its armed forces. Historically, rulers have often turned their militaries against their own people. Having military prisons where the prisoners have no constitutional rights is a very bad idea.
Critics of the decision claim that it replaces the current system with no system at all. Indeed, the court has not stopped the current military tribunal system, but it has claimed that those caught in the net have the right to demand that they be properly accused of a crime, confronted with evidence against them, and given timely due process. If we Americans would preserve those rights for ourselves, we should not tolerate our government giving anything less to our prisoners.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 71
I liked it better when we acted and were considered as the best of the best in the world.
Now we just seem like another bunch of petty aristocrats on our way to tyrannical domination of the world.
It's sad, really. Once upon a time we had been the shining light of Freedom from oppression.
Maybe not too happy about having to leave your wife & kids for a week to take this crappy flight to L.A. for the third time this month because somebody over doesn't know how to put tab "A" into slot "B".
Imagine sitting in an office building. Having your morning coffee, debating whether the Giants have a shot at the Super Bowl.
Imagine the thoughts of the people on the plan as they see necks being slashed with box-cutters, wondering what's next. Imagine the thoughts as the plane that was carrying them slammed into a giant building.
Imagine the guy who just sat down at his desk calling his wife to tell her he made it to work OK --- those being his last words.
Now, let's stop imagining for a minute. Of the account in this article and the account in this posting, which was reality?
It all depends on whether or nor you believe Islamo Fascists, a term coined decades ago, are the enemy of freedom and the Bill of Rights.
The implausible scenario presented is a poor example of what has been happening. Though there have been times when false accusations have been used to satisfy tribal feuds, most have been vetted quickly. The reality is that the vetting process was held up because of the demand for civil courts. The process used allowed men to return to the fight to kill more American Soldiers and Afghan civilians.
Another thing that clouds the subject is the belief that the US Constitution extends beyond US Sovereignty. That the men who seek to remove the Constitution are fully protected by it.
Since much of the alleged abuse at Gitmo has been debunked and some coming from sources that had never entered Gitmo, it is difficult to know what is the truth. Gitmo is a prison, not a day camp. The prisoners themselves have made false accusations about conditions there.
So again, it boils down to whether or not we are at war or is this just a civil dispute against al Qaeda?
GT
it's all okay to hold someone without benefit of due process ... until it happens to you or someone you love.
Please remember, all, that everything the Nazis and Hitler did, they did in the open and under color of law.
Let's not forget the number of folks who ended up in Gitmo who had no business being transferred there in the first place. To deny them their day in court, with its potential to release them, was wrong.
Gratefully, there were 5 Justices who had the fortitude to acknowledge this.
Nicely presented, Ann.
everything the Nazis and Hitler did, they did in the open and under color of law.
Family history shows a different picture. Most of what they did was hidden from public view. Another tactic was to slowly escalate the atrocities to acclimate the people. In contrast to the GWOT where all qualified lawmakers were invited to inspect any and all aspects of the war.
The Geneva Convention only applies to people fighting for a specific government. This would include an insurrection if they fight under a flag. The conduct of al Qaeda does not fall under the GC nor the US Constitution. It is a quandary that must be addressed with realistic ideals.
To state that AQ are simple civil offenders means that there is no basis for military action. This would mean that we have no means of going up against them outside of warrants and arrests.
Imagine walking down the street, minding your own business when a soldier walks up to you, slaps you in irons and carts you off to prison.
I imagine this every time I see a picture of Black Water. I was surprised by this SC decision. Very happily surprised. Finally.
This is exactly what was done in Latin America in developing and training "proxy forces" -- they found those who were in disagreement with a government position, and groomed them to be able to fire upon their countrymen. When that happened -- people shooting their neighbors and friends and even relatives -- the country descended in to chaos and repressive governments took over to terrorize the populations, sometimes for decades. Civil war; we've all supposedly studied it and we should all comprehend what happened... but we don't want to think about it. That's the only reason it can happen again.
The sad fact is, that has not ever been the case. We were the new country, we minded our own bloody business for a while by only killing native cultures Europe had never heard of and therefore didn't miss and didn't compete with us for their territory because Europe was busy fighting amongst its own countries. Then we went looking for markets to claim only to engage in our Civil War. And, after that, we turned out to the rest of the world -- including "our back yard" to the south -- with economic conquest. The U.S. has never been the kindly nation we were brought up to believe it to be.
However, there have been philanthropists and kindly US citizens with the money, means, and mindset to reach out in generous kindness. it was rarely our government that did so.
The problem with Gitmo is the fate of the accused has already been decided. Bush wanted this to be his Nuremberg, but some Germans were aquitted, which isn't allowed at Gitmo. An acquittal would mean a mistake of some kind, something the Neocon Admin would never admit to. These guys should be POWs and treated according to the Geneva Convention.
I know the Neocons hate that we still have a Constitution and checks and balances will return shortly.
Sadly, as we can see from some of the comments here, there are people who are apparently willing to accept the scenario you presented at the beginning of your article, as long as they believe it's necessary for the government to protect them from the terrorists. They believe Bush when he says they hate us because we're free, and they hope that if we prove to them that we're not free, they won't hate us any more, and they'll leave us alone.
People who live in fear are easily manipulated.
Dan K.--nice use satirical parallelism. You do understand what it implies though, right?
(passengers on plane are like prisoners in Gitmo ----->
terrorists are like ?????
Then I guess it sucks to be you, huh? Maybe if you try harder, you can help create an America where the military operates completely outside the law and does whatever the hell it wants. But I sure hope not.
If we do not hold OURselves up to a higher standard, then shame on us.
I expect better of us. Geneva convention rules should be followed. We do not allow concentration camps in this country, and we don't believe in torture.
Do we?
I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive.
Barney JP -- "Imagine that you are a Japanese Soldier captured by the soldiers lead by Gen. MacArthur. You demand and receive a lawyer along with the thousands of others captured. Soon the island has more AG than American Soldiers ..."
... and you are soon sent off to a prisoner of war camp where the living is better than any place you've ever lived before. You are treated humanely, you are fed, and you are not tortured. Although imprisoned, you realize that Americans are not the vicious brutal demons your government spoon-fed you to believe. At the end of the war you are repatriated, set free and either given a return home to pick up whatever pieces of your old life and family may be left, or a chance to move to America and have a higher standard of living.
We are at war with an ideology; and the only way to win that war is with our ideology.
One of the biggest threats to the terrorists' way is our peaceful, productive, consumerist way.
We defeat them by infecting them with our fact, that a suitable and proper living can be gained and maintained in exchange for general, simple labor.
Dan Cole -- "I'm pretty Liberal in my views of Race, nationality, lifestyles and Religions but, don't ask me to be Liberal enough to protect or spend our tax dollars protecting the Lunatics !"
Since your tax dollars (aka: our tax dollars), are already being spent to hold these folk, I think it's fully in our best interest to spend some on making sure that we're not holding anyone we shouldn't, or don't need to be holding.
Since anyone we shouldn't be holding will have rights to some form of settlement for their inconvenience, which we know is calculated on how much time the person is incorrectly held, we would save millions by adjudicating the wrongly-held out as quickly as possible.
Wouldn't that place them under the purveyance of the CIA or the FBI or the NSA or whatever agencies are established to protect our country from invasion by private sector militaries?
Danielle S. -- "The sad fact is, that has not ever been the case."
Whenever I make those statements I think of the 1920s through the 1940s. It's a very romantically notion, I know, but I see no reason to not promote a change towards that romantic ideology now. Our nation would do well to try and promote itself, and build itself up, as saints or gentry or humanitarians or civilizational.
Many of the biggest industrialists of that era were harsh, but many of the smaller industrialists were kindlier. They improved towns, cities and villages when they built their factories. The Clark Family comes to mind, as do the Waltons. When Sam started out, he dramatically improved the communities of his local Arkansans. The insanity came later.
America HAS money. Our situations are most highly influenced by the decisions of those relatively few Americans who have control over large segments of economic flow. How they are directing that flow effects us all; like gardeners and their watering.
And the fact that I can go to jail on somebody's say-so is frightening.
And that my friends is the real reason to cheer the decision.
Even though it should have been unanimous.
Elect mcsame and the next time it will probably go the other way.
I know the Neocons hate that we still have a Constitution and checks and balances will return shortly.
If only this were true. Continually to give false information about the NeoCons tells more about the accuser than the NeoCon.
The hated truth is that hundreds were released from Gitmo. Many that were detained under false accusations are already back home running from Taliban bullets. That is the NeoCon plan. The Bush Basher Plan is to continue to hold them for trial. In which case they would still be at Gitmo.
Wouldn't that place them under the purveyance of the CIA or the FBI or the NSA or whatever agencies are established to protect our country from invasion by private sector militaries?
No, because they could not be classified as a threat to National Security. If cells operating within a state remained in the state then it would be a local police matter.
If they are operating outside the US then the CIA could only legally operate in authorized countries. That is unless we did it Cold War Style but that is supposedl;y why we are hated around the world.
Been there, done that. I was detained based on false accusations. Because they had more money I was forced to buy my way out of it. Extortion through the courts. False accusations happen every day and will continue to happen until prosecutors go after those making false claims.
Why is the scenario unlikely? The most famous left wingers are Vladimir Lennon, Adolph Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung. There are people like me that will continue to sound the alarms when the signs of these people reappear. The most Famous Right Wingers are men like King Henry VII and Torquemada. Again people like me stand in opposition.
In the history of this nation no state or federal government has successfully waged such a campaign.
Not at all. A key part of identifying a cell has to be in noting that they are planning a terrorist act. That should certainly put them under the arm of some federal bureau as a threat to national security. At the very least, since we are referencing AQ terrorists, they have to enter the country and/or cross state lines for the sake of their nefarious intent, (crossing lines to commit a felony) that would place them, at least, under the agency of the FBI.
On the other note; we are not hated around the world because of any CIA Cold War style activities. We are currently hated for perpetrating what looks like an imperial grudge, or economic expansionist invasion.
I hardly see how we are giving Al Queada a tool to fight against us, the U.S.
Because that's the way the Constitution was written. And that's what the American people agreed to when they ratified it. So that's the way it is.
Barney, how much reading have you done on these things, exactly? At one point, I would assume you'd have to notice how the man's name is actually spelled.
Fascism, by the way, is called the extreme right, and it's for a reason. Despite the use of the term "national socialist" in Germany, it has very little to do with leftist values, and not only leaves the traditional power structure (both church oligarchy, an important power in the countries involved, and capitalist enterprise) intact, but in fact actively supports them. (Stalinist/ Maoist "extreme left" states do end up with a vaguely similar system that is more state capitalism than what Marx ever envisioned, but that's after destroying the traditional structure completely and replacing it with their own people as beneficiaries. And they also tend to recycle those beneficiaries--members of the Party elite--with frightening speed [and cruelty].)
I think that we need to get these trials moving forward, but I just don't want us to forget about what happened.
Aniko, They do have list of the people being held, where they were picked up and even what they were picked up for!
Let's look back to '93 when the minor agents were caught and tried. Even though it was an act of terrorism it was not considered a threat to national defense. Under the full discloser rule methods used to find and capture them were revealed.
Since one of the wars engaged by bin Laden is economic it would be much easier to flood our courts with would be terrorists than to smuggle in actual suicide bombers.
Barney, how much reading have you done on these things, exactly? At one point, I would assume you'd have to notice how the man's name is actually spelled.
Good for you! Spelling police are always needed. Derogatory comments are always welcome. For some it just helps them feel better. But since you knew who I was referring to my point was made.
Fascism, by the way, is called the extreme right, and it's for a reason.
Wonderful that you know this. But, I was not talking about Italy.
Despite the use of the term "national socialist" in Germany, it has very little to do with leftist values,
My grandfather was forced into service for the National Socialist Workers Party. My history comes from family and talking to others that lived through it. My history comes from my mother who did not know where her next meal would come from, where they would live or even if her family would stay together.
Hitler rose to power on the promise of Nationalism and Socialism. That is why so many referred to it as the Nationalist Party. The mistaken belief was that they hated communists but it was a centuries old feud between the Caesars of the Germanics and Russians.
Hitler delivered on his promise of socialism and the Germans welcomed it as did the Russians. Hitler was a Marxist just as Lenin was and the results were the same.
Even in the 1600's it was recognized that it was unjust to imprison a person without informing him or her of their alleged crime. This is the root of what the Supremes did: enabled people who have been incarcerated to be accused of a crime, confronted with witnesses and evidence. Otherwise they are to be let go.
The problem with holding them as prisoners of war is that there is no other country upon whom war has been declared. We declared a war on "terror." It sounded good to a lot of people who bought the bill of goods, but who will sign the armistice? Who will the parties to the peace treaty be? There are none, because this is not a war in the sense of the dictionary. We have made war on Iraq and Afghanistan, but no one seems to want to negotiate a peace. No one can surrender, because there is no government to surrender.
This situation leaves our detainees in limbo until doomsday or later.
Wonderful that you know this. But, I was not talking about Italy.
So are you claiming Hitler was extreme left and his buddy Mussolini was extreme right? Even though they both hated Communists (extreme left) as well as Social Democrats, trade unions, and assorted liberals (some kind of left, I suppose) with a vengeance?
While the term "fascism" originated in Italy and described Mussolini's ideology, German "National Socialism" is extremely similar--an authoritarian nationalist mass movement that's concerned with cultural decline/decadence and seeks a millennial return to a mythical golden age through exaltation of race and nation, emphasizing loyalty to the racial/national cause, and building cults of strength, health and purity. Yes, there are some differences--Nazis were slightly more obsessed with race than Italian fascists, and the latter were more Catholic and feudalistic (no wonder, given the realities of the two countries). The only thing they both shared with Marxists is a collectivist and antidemocratic approach--the individual was seen as unimportant and owing absolute obedience to the cause.
My grandfather was forced into service for the National Socialist Workers Party. My history comes from family and talking to others that lived through it. My history comes from my mother who did not know where her next meal would come from, where they would live or even if her family would stay together.
My history comes from the same (albeit the poorer and more unfortunate side of all of that, so it involves both Nazism/fascism and Communism), and from written sources as well. The latter are important: if I only knew what my grandfather told me about Russians, for example, I would hardly be able to keep up in this sort of argument. (I'd write it down, but some of it would be offensive. The nicest thing he said is that they do love music and they might let you live if you can sing.) In other words, there's more to history than what your family can tell you, and family histories are biased in one way or another.
Hitler rose to power on the promise of Nationalism and Socialism.
Nope. National Socialism, which in German, as you probably know, is one word. He hated actual Socialists and offered his nationalist race-based authoritarian dream as an alternative, which doesn't mean that the two necessarily have much to do with each other.
Hitler delivered on his promise of socialism and the Germans welcomed it as did the Russians. Hitler was a Marxist just as Lenin was and the results were the same.
It's well-established that Hitler hated Marxists. You can imagine that he secretly loved them, but since he treated them the same way he treated Jews, it's going to be a pretty tough argument. As for the "results were the same" I gave a few examples above as to the important differences. Racism and antisemitism could perhaps be mentioned as another minor difference--they did occur in Communist countries, but they were not the basis of their ideology (on the contrary, most Communists were internationalists and anti-racist--and quite a few of them were Jewish). Furthermore, while the Soviets certainly pursued a program of expansion (in a sense, continued tsarist imperialistic endeavors), they certainly were not as aggressive and ambitious as the Nazis, and as a result, they survived for a significantly longer period.
It sickens and disgusts me that chickenshit cowards are happy to give away freedoms REAL people fought and died to give to us . . . because they're afraid. Spinless cowards with their duct taped windows shivering in fetal positions in their dingy, dark beds hoping if they give enough freedom away for a MAYBE defense of a MAYBE threat they'd be safe.
F-ing pathetic! People like that make me wanna puke.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It's not like we needed any more confirmation of the small and power-mad legal minds that have dissented to this ruling.
How striking that the "Strict Constructionists" can't seem to find habeus corpus in the Constitution.
Firstly, they didn't write any such thing.
Secondly, they also wrote that all men were created equal while at the same time allowing some equally-created men to be owned by other equally-created men, and refusing to allow equally-created women the right to vote, own property, etc, so let's not pretend that the Founding Fathers deserve to have the last word on everything, despite their being worm-food for the better part of two centuries.
And thirdly, the military doesn't get to call all the shots, even in a time of war, which this isn't. Guess it still sucks to be you.
Doh! I keep fergittin' that part.
Smile, Tim. You're right. And it scares me so.
Wilka
I despise the death penalty and believe it does nothing. It proves no point.
Can't everyone see that if these people do not receive justice then how are we all going to be protected from now on?
It all comes from this, "He without sin cast the first stone."
Jesus said this when the villagers wanted to stone Mary for being a prositute. And, not one could cast the stone cause they had all sinned before in some way. We can not judge others too harshly. It's not good for the soul.
And, that's what I believe.
If you don't agree, that's fine with me.
I am open to any differing opinions.
The ruling has absolutely nothing to do with holding POW's--many have charges(they were either soldiers or caught red-handed with evidence of bomb making, etc. At this point in time we are doing the exact same thing as Japan and Germany did in WWII--holding people for no other reason than being Arab/Muslim--that's a sin against humanity.
I find it very disheartening to see how the neocons have made so many in this country lose their humanity....maybe they just never had any.
Lock 'em up, risk violating innocent people's rights.
Let 'em go, their next victims could be your kids.
So many issues are decided for us by the Supreme Court in their lifetime appointments.
How much trust can we put in them?
that said, since both our political parties have raved about getting Osama Bin Laden, does he now go into innocent until proven guilty status? Don't we have to assume he should get his day in court? Is it less riskier to US forces to simply kill rather than taking the risk to capture? The can of worms opened is a big one...
Has anyone here seen "To Kill a Mockingbird"?