[Update 6/23/08] An article from former presidential candidate Fred Thompson on the rights that Gitmo detainees had before this ruling. Be sure to read the second page as well which deals with the implications of the ruling. [/Update]
So I’m very surprised to not see this any where but political blogs, but the Supreme Court ruled today that Guantanamo Bay detainees will have the rights of the Constitution, specifically the right of habeas corpus, or the right of access to US courts.
I’m typically hesitant about talking about such a divisive political issue, even from my own blog, but this may be the worst decision to come out of the Supreme Court since Roe v Wade. Why? Good question.
Let me start by saying I have problems with Guantanamo Bay. I believe it should be the right to US courts should apply to any one accused of a crime and captured within the States. Whether citizen or immigrant, no matter what the crime, they should be treated with the same rights than any citizen has. I had some very serious issues with the situation regarding José Padilla, and it was extremely frustrating to see so few on the conservative side seemingly not care about his situation. (He was held for three years without trial). He was ultimately found guilty by a jury of his peers, but that is beside the point. We took away a citizen’s rights, and that shouldn’t happen.
With that said, no, the Constitution absolutely does not apply to people we capture in fighting a foreign war. “So what, CJ, are you saying they don’t have rights? I bet you were happy what happened in Abu Ghraib.” No, they of course have rights. They are human beings, regardless of what they’ve done. But the US courts are not there to try foreign combatants. That is what the military tribunals are for. Let’s bring this decision to its ultimate conclusion with a great quote from Allahpundit.
It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?
So, what are your thoughts? Am I missing something or making unnecessary conclusions?
Also in the news, a law was passed in the UK House of Commons to be able to detain terror suspects for 42 days before charging them. I’ll take the other side with this one and say this is a very bad thing. For the police to be able to arrest you and hold you for over a month without charging you is a horrible abuse of police power.
In case you are asking what the different between the stories is, I’ll oblige. This is one of my problems with Guantanamo Bay. If we are holding detainees for years without charge or trial, then this is a problem, but this is a separate problem that has its own solutions, not giving them access to US courts.
(Also, for additional reading on Guantanamo Bay, I recommend this series here)
In Italy you can be held for up to a year while an investigation is ongoing.
I.e. you are in prison until proved innocent.
While it’s nice for the government of Italy that they get to hold anyone for up to a year, please keep in mind that in our situation some of these people have been held five or more times longer than that.
In our 232 year old history, we also have not been pledged to an undeclared but apparently endless “war” before either. During times of “war”, we’ve never had tax cuts before. We’ve also never had so few people fighting for so long. This has gone on longer than our involvement in WWII, with less than a quarter of the manpower.
Well, this is a different kind of war. There’s no draft. No sacrifice on the part of most of the country. No shared burden. No defined enemy, because it changes almost at the whim of what the ‘authority’ deems it to be, and because (perhaps debatably at this point in time) it’s not a whole nation against us. Yet somehow now, with this decision, it’s horrendous because it bucks precedent for “wartime”? This entire (undeclared) war busts precedent.
And therein lies the rub. Sure, there needs to be special rules…this is a “special” war, and if you listen to some people one that has no end, ever. But what’s the line to cross when too far is too far?
To me, suspending HC and holding people for 5 years steps way over the line. Yes, HC has been suspended before, but *for a finite amount of time*. This war has no end, if we’re talking about terrorism. We’ve been fighting (and have been) the terrorists since before we were an independent country. Terrorism isn’t going to go away either.
I think people thinking about this in terms of traditional war is part of the reason why we’re in such a predicament. Because it is kind of like wars we’re used to, but also extremely different. The same rules pragmatically can’t (or aren’t being) be applied. But should that mean that we should just flush HC down the toilet and just let those people rot because somebody says (even though we can’t see the evidence, and neither can they) they’re terrorists?
I guess some people are comfortable with that, but not me.
Uh… completely different issue. You have to be a suspect of a crime in Italy to be held. Guatanamo and all that… I’m not even sure there is some kind of standard other than being a suspect of being some how connected to… something. Even then as far as I know you can be held indefinitely.
I was just commenting to contrast what legal differences there were in other countries.
For example you have no right to refuse a search in Japan. They can search you and everything you are carrying at any time.
Do not construe my previous statement about Italy as applying to anything other than criminal investigations within the country of Italy itself.
I don’t actually have anything intelligent to say about Gitmo or CJ’s post at this time.
I’m not sure it’s a different issue, Kir. Certainly not for those folks involved. And not in the eyes of our government. The people being held at Gitmo are for all intents and purposes being treated as suspects in a crime, even if nobody including them gets to find out what specific action it is that’s landed them there.
And this was (and is by many people) considered perfectly legal. And probably still is in some ways, the court left a lot of wiggle room in that regard.
In bringing up Italy and Japan, are you saying that less protection from imprisonment and searches is okay with you? Or that since citizens in those countries are subjected to that, therefore it’s not unreasonable that non-citizens captured by or turned over to our country should have even less protections? I’m pretty sure most people have mixed feelings about this, I know I certainly do. It’s not exactly a black and white issue (well, maybe for some people, not for anyone I personally know.)
Terrorists have been prosecuted and punished in our courtts before. Even foreign terrorists. We have even hauled heads of state out of their country in order to prosecute them in our court system. But we’ve just really created a mess of this situation, between keeping people for so long with no real status or process, potential torture, ect. At this point, I am not sure it’s possible to have true justice done–for anyone.
It really grieves me on so many levels.
Neither, I was just pointing out that the perception of rights isn’t standardized. Really, I’ve got nothing to add to this.
Looks like /. picked up on it this morning:
http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/06/13/1333223.shtml
[...] trials deserves an answer, or normally would. Except that enemy detainees now have more rights more rights than they’ve ever had. How many Republicans can you name who respect and honor the [...]