The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus: Why the Left-Wing Reactionaries are Wrong
The reactionary hand-wringing about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is wholly devoid of intellectual support and contradicted by the Geneva Conventions themselves. The flaccid objections are based in three parts: that unlawful combatants can be anyone, Habeas Corpus is a right enjoyed by military combatants, and a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention documents (if they are read at all). Through on top a healthy dose of paranoia and you have basically the entire dogma of the liberal establishment on the issue.
First, there is such a thing as a lawful combatant (which makes anyone not living up to that standard unlawful). This is defined in the Geneva Conventions document “Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”, Article 3. It falls into 4 basic parts: wearing a uniform of other distinctive insignia, having someone with command authority in charge, carrying arms openly, and conducting themselves in accordance to the laws of war. Now, according to some, in fact, most left-wing “thinkers”, killing Americans or Jews is a complete immunity to any infraction of international law, however, there are some reasonable people who do think there are some laws here that might possible apply.
For instance, Article 3 talks about the illegality of taking hostages. Presumably sawing off their heads with a dull knife also falls under this. Using mosques, hospitals, or schools as arms depots or locations to launch attacks is also included. In short, almost the entire battery of tactics used by Al Qaeda or the so-called insurgents in Iraq is illegal under international law.
Another point to note is the requirement to carry arms openly and to wear a distinctive and fixed sign (a.k.a. a uniform). This is to clearly identify which people are ok to shoot at and which are not. If you don’t wear a uniform, it makes it really hard to be sure you aren’t shooting a civilian. That’s why things like Haditha happen. In short, the tactics employed help ensure that more civilians get killed, and for that matter, it makes it just as hard for the authorities to be sure they killed a civilian or a combatant. This is one reason why the “civilian death toll” is exaggerated.
More importantly, these above two points (and others) show that the insurgents in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban (to some extent) do not meet the criteria of being lawful combatants entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. As an aside, I studied international law under Francis Boyle… yes, that Francis Boyle. It was before the Iraq war but I did quiz him on these provisions. In fact, he was quite fond of saying that US mercenaries such as DynCorp were not entitled to the Geneva Conventions and could be summarily executed if a capturing nation wanted to do so. He also conceded that the tactics employed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and others were illegal under international law. It just seems like the biggest supporters of international law think it only applies when you aren’t killing Jews, Christians, or Americans.
The important point is that unlawful combatants are a defined entity and not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. Article 5 says that everyone is entitled to a status hearing which everyone at Gitmo has had. Article 84 makes a particular emphasis that trials should be conducted by military tribunals. It’s clear what an unlawful combatant is and doesn’t need constant definition. In fact, everyone in military life is fully versed in the difference.
The Habeas Corpus objections are particularly odd. Never… ever… in the history of mankind has an army who has captured an enemy offered that enemy a trial and charged him with some crime, gave him a sentence, and then happily returned him to his home country while hostilities were still ongoing. In fact, more often than not, history shows when countries capture an enemy and subject them to trial, it’s often a show trial for propaganda purposes and not infrequently results in the execution of the prisoner of war in question.
Article 118 deals with repatriation and it says prisoners will be returned after the cessation of hostilities. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in international law, the Constitution, state or local laws, or moral law that states we should only hold POWs for a certain time and then return them so they can continue fighting against us. In fact, the entire section that deals with repatriation before hostilities have ended only allows for returning POWs who no longer serve in a military capacity. The Geneva Conventions fully supports the right of a nation to hold POWs or illegal combatants until hostilities are over. If a war lasts 100 years, then they can be held until they are too sick or elderly to fight anymore. The Geneva Conventions is crystal clear on this point.
Nowhere in the history of man can it be found that a country held any class of enemy combatant, tried him in a civilian court for a civilian crime, sentenced him, and then returned him to his home nation before hostilities were over. It’s a complete invention of the left. And this skips past the huge jurisdictional issues with trying someone from Afghanistan for what they were doing in Afghanistan.
Last, the cherry-picking of particular sentences or sentence fragments from the Geneva Conventions is a particular bastardization of legal interpretation. The Geneva Convention framework has to be taken as a whole. Yes, torture is illegal and we can haggle over the grey areas, but I’m not a fan of those policies either. However, to skip past the requirements in Article 3 and 4 and then site later articles indicates a selective use of the law. It either all applies or it doesn’t apply at all.
The particular paranoia that dissenters will be picked up as enemy combatants is patent delusion. I challenge anyone to show me one case of a non-violent dissenter inside the US being picked up. Everyone knows what a combatant is. I don’t fear falling victim to this law because I don’t plan to start shooting at US troops. The canard that Bush is quashing dissent and silencing speech is absurd. I’ve been listening to anti-war agitprop for years, they won’t shut up, and I’ve not seen one of them picked up. They’re loud, they’re public and it wouldn’t be hard to bring up a couple black helicopters to take care of business. The fact remains, they are being allowed to dissent, even when it’s devoid of fact.
The reason why we have a GOP majority, that will likely remain as much as the GOP deserves to lose, is that the left has abandoned any factual or reasoned approach to issues. The Military Commissions Act is just another example of the hyperventilating hysterics of the Democrats and anti-war Left. It has all but bankrupted any real political discourse in this nation and strikes to the very heart of our democracy. It would be nice if some Election Day I’d have a real serious choice between candidates as opposed to between dumb and insane.
Related Posts:
The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus: Why the Left-Wing Reactionaries are Wrong…
The reactionary hand-wringing about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is wholly devoid of intellectual support and contradicted by the Geneva Conventions themselves. The flaccid objections are based in three parts: that unlawful combatants can be a…
Trackback by Stop The ACLU | October 19, 2006
The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus…
Reposted from The Part Time Pundit
This article is by the owner of BlogSoldiers, a sponsor of Wide Awakes Radio. He has what I believe to be the definitive take on this issue.
The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus: Why the Left-Wing Reactionaries …
Trackback by Voice of the Pacific | October 19, 2006
Hi,
I publish a small,national paper for military veterans. I really liked your article on the Geneva Convention and know my readers would as well. I would like permission to print it if possible.
Thanks!
Clairice Still
The Veterans’ Voice
Comment by Clairice Still | October 19, 2006
It’s unconstitutional. e.g., to cite just the most glaring element:
Section 6(a)(3)(A) of the Act states that “As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions…”
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution renders this clause patently unconstitutional, by any coherent interpetation, does it not?
Congress simply cannot confer upon a President an authority CLEARLY vested in the Judiciary by the Constitution.
Comment by BobbyG | October 19, 2006
[...] Crossposted from Part Time Pundit [...]
Pingback by customerservant.com » Blog Archive » | October 19, 2006
Wow. Ok, aside from the name calling and the unnecessary allusions to erectile disfunction, I don’t think this even has much to do with what people are concerned about.
A guy caught with a knife covered in the blood of a hostage is one thing, but how do you handle stuff in the grey area. How does it apply to the computer expert who gets approached with a question about the best computer to buy from a suspected terrorist under surveillance (as happened in Canada)? Or perhaps an independent journalist interviewing a militant muslim to get insight into what makes them tick? Because these people now have a perceived relationship, they can be picked up and held indefinitely (until they are too sick to be dangerous, as you point out) with no recourse. Because they are classed as unlawful combatants, they don’t get a trial. And there is evidence that many of these people picked up aren’t given the chance to present at a hearing.
My concern is that the state may decide that the evidence against them is classified, so even at a hearing it can’t be disputed. And worse, there is nothing to stop the state from just saying that there is classified evidence when none actually exists. Who will hold the state accountable?
That is why Habeas Corpus is important.
One final thing: why did the government decide to call this a war? Who is the enemy state? It’s not even called a war on terrorism, but on terror, the emotion. How nebulous can you get? Tim McVie, a terrorist, was tried as a criminal, not as an unlawful combatant. Why the difference?
Comment by Dan Neuman | October 19, 2006
So basically it is ok to shoot and torture anybody, anywhere, provided they are wearing civilian clothes…nice argument you fascist scumbag. It basically means the US can go anywhere, decimate an army and enslave a civilain population as “unlawful combatants” with no input whatsoever from its new subjects….and you wonder why people hate amerikkka!
Comment by madmatt | October 19, 2006
I’m a Midwestern Conservative and I find the 2006 Military Commissions Act a bigger threat to my America than any Jihadi could ever be. The President, hardly correct on much of anything, has the power to label ANYONE an “enemy combatant” and throw themin jail without Habeus Corpus indefinitely. This is the kind of centralzid power abuse our ForeFathers fought against and warned about. Shame on you and all other “enablers” and apologists for putting the US back in Medievel times.
Comment by Brian G Smith | October 19, 2006
You make good points about the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants and the different rights of each. Unfortunately, the distinctions you make don’t exist in the Law you are defending.
One of the definitions of “unlawful enemy combatant” in the MCA is, as you are presumably aware:
“a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”
Thats a pretty large legal loophole don’t you think? An Unlawful Enemy Combatant is anyone the Government says it is. Don’t you think there might be some potential for abuse there?
Even if you trust the current administration, even if you think its crazy to expect that the current administration would abuse this power - do you think its wise to have this written into law?
Do you think this and all future Executives can be trusted like this? Or do you disagree, as a factual matter, that sweeping powers are granted to the Executive by this Law.
Comment by Ben Swainbank | October 19, 2006
I challenge anyone to show me one case of a non-violent dissenter inside the US being picked up.
Are you kidding? Haven’t you read about this guy? Maher Arar? A completely innocent man whom George Bush’s America arrested and tortured for absolutely no reason on the basis of zero evidence?
Comment by Marty McKee | October 19, 2006
Dismissing this law as not dangerous also dismisses as Ben mentioned above, the fact that they don’t refer to them as ‘enemy combatants’ or even ‘alien’ combatants. The verbiage is “A PERSON….”
That includes anyone, according to the law. So this sweeping law has not only scooped up terrorists, but could implicate our own citizens and that has me very worried, considering that a democratic swing could happen in Congress…or even the presidency, in which case how do you think ‘a person’ might apply?
People are much too trusting right now, very willing to turn over their ’security’ for their freedoms.
Comment by cao | October 19, 2006
John,
The problem here is that the “enemy combatants” have not had any opportunity for a judicial review of their situation. As far as we know some of them were innocent Afghan sheepherders who were picked up by the US military and shipped off to Guantanamo. They are stuck in jail, with no opportunity to plead their case. And the only person with any authority to do anything about this is GW Bush.
This is a hell of a low standard for our democracy, and it isn’t helping us win the War on Terror, either. We are better than this as a country.
Comment by veteran | October 19, 2006
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment-
Suppose that our military personnel overseas were being captured, declared to be enemy combatants, and put into confinement indefinitely with no possibility of judicial review of their cases. The Right in this country would be going batshit nuclear over such a situation. It would be denounced in every wingnut newspaper column and blog in this nation.
Comment by elrod | October 19, 2006
ATTENTION:
A military tribunal IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. It’s a military hearing in a valid court.
Comment by John Bambenek | October 19, 2006
Marty McKee, what you failed to mention is that the U.S. detained and held this man on the word of the RMCP, who kept their ppl in the dark after learning of their mistake, and as for sending ppl to their native country, sounds fair to me.
Nice way to spin a story there, Marty.
Comment by Kender | October 19, 2006
elrod, you don’t have to worry about that, when our guys get caught they get their heads sawed off, bodies mutilated, genitalia cut off and stuffed in their mouths. Our military personnel are considered infidels that don’t deserve to live.
You are right, it is horrible that we would keep a terrorist in jail and feed him three meals a day and not tell him when we are going to let him go so he can kill more infidels. We should let them all go because they are all innocent afghan sheepherders like Osama. Hell 9/11 was a Rovian/Bush/Cheney plot to frame the peace loving Muslims of the world so the republicans could win another election. What are 3000 dead Americans when the real objective is to enslave the entire earth, steal all the oil, and starve all the poor people on earth.
Is it your intention to help Islamofascists win this war or are you just a complete idiot?
Comment by Wild Bill | October 19, 2006
Dan — how does it apply to the journalist interviewing a militant muslim? He should be arrested until he explains how and where to find the militant muslim. Do we allow journalists in the US to hang out with and interview wanted murderers and bank robbers? No grey area there for me. And to be honest, I really do not care WHY the terrorist wants to kill me, so I don’t need any journalist telling me about his nice family and kids at home while HE’S TRYING TO KILL ME.
Madmatt — thank you for agreeing with America. The ONLY people who want to shoot and tortue anyone wearing civilian clothes are al-queerda, the Taliban, and followers of Moohamed.
And Cao, no, I’m not willing to turn over any of my freedoms for even one second of security. In fact, I’m willing to give up lots and lots of the alleged security I have now for just a little bit more freedom. But I don’t see this act as taking away any freedom from me, just from terrorists and others who want me dead. Now, when they start rounding up the left-wing wacko dissenters, you can be sure I’ll be out in front to defend them. I don’t see that happening.
Elrod, very poor comparison. Our military personnel are wearing uniforms and they ARE enemy combatants.
Comment by Ogre | October 19, 2006
[...] Cross Posted from Part-Time Pundit: [...]
Pingback by Left Wing = Hate » Blog Archive » | October 19, 2006
Dear PTP,
Have you read the bill? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it allows the executive to define who an enemy combatant is. Even if that person is an American citizen. That’s why Habeas Corpus is so important. No, I can’t tell you if a non-violent demonstrator has ever been carted off. But now there is no legal impediment to it. THAT’S the problem. Stop conflating this as a right-left issue and try to see it for what it really is: a power grab by those in power that could lead to true fascist version of our county. Instead of defending this horrendous, incompetent administration, be a true patriot and defend the constitution - the very heart of our democracy, and the ideas that made us an example to the rest of the world. As you stand now, you’re on the wrong side of history.
Comment by Announcerguy | October 19, 2006
Quote: ATTENTION:
A military tribunal IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. It’s a military hearing in a valid court.
Sorry John, no it isn’t. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), is crystal clear as to what constitutes a legal military hearing. It includes the right to a defence, the right to hear evidence presented against you and other rights that used to be considered part of what made America better than, say,the military dictatorship of Paraguay. Google it and read. Rusmfield deliberately violated the UCMJ, therefore the Supreme Court declared the tribunals and their decisions invalid.
Watch a good documentary on the Nuremburg trials and see how brave America used to be. It allowed wretched men like Himmler
the and others responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions of others) access to lawyers, access to the evindence about them and wasn’t afraid to conduct justice in the light of day. Shame that we’ve lost the nerve our Grandparents had
Comment by davethetemp | October 20, 2006
Ogre,
You conveniently left out one important point brought up by the other comments. Even though Bush is to be completely trusted, what if a future president is not so moral or trustworthy? This bill eliminates oversight, and that is the single thing that scared our founding fathers the most, hence the Constitution. If you think that this does not diminish or rights and freedoms, then you Sir or Madam are unamerican in the very sense of the word as it was intended by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. This country is based on rule of law, not a trusting of a person. Lets eliminate Bush or the current situation from this issue. This bill allows a President to set up a kangaroo board to deem any person, citizen or not, an enemy combatant with no accountability to another branch of government. This person is then stripped of his or her rights guanenteed by the Constitution (which does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when discussing rights of habeus-corpus or other basic freedoms). A law needs to set presidents and protect checks and balances irregardless of how great the person is who will use them at the time, because they will not be our leaers forever.
Comment by jaw | October 20, 2006
One of the reasons we should want the power of the President to be limited limited under the constitution with judicial and congressional oversight to provide necessary checks and balances is to prevent what happened to Germany in 1933. This may an oversimplification but when Hitler became President of a Democratic Germany he used the Reichstag Fires of 1933 which were intentionally set to exploit a flaw in Germany’s constitution that gave the president dictatorial powers when he declared a National Emergency, and Hitler then declared war on the Communists and the Jews by blaming them for the fires.
GWB is no Hitler, but who knows who will be the next President?. Would we want Hillary Clinton to have the powers that GWB currently has under the Military Commissions Act and Patriots Act? Is there some plan to ensure that only Conservative Republican Christians can become President in the future so that this is a moot point? That would of course require that the right to vote for the President be taken away from citizens as well.
Actually, the Supreme Court reminded us in 2000 that “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right
to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide
election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”
They then go on to say “The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors.”
So much for the “right” to vote for President.
So as long as we have Republican control of elections in key states (Florida, Ohia, etc) I guess we don’t have to worry about Hillary or any Godless Democrat in the White House to abuse the new powers given to the Presidency. Why doesn’t that make me feel better?
Comment by Paul Todd | October 20, 2006
It would seem that the results of the incarceration and interrogation of “enemy combatants” at Gitmo, Abu Graib, and the secret prisons would speak for themselves.
Hundreds if not thousands have been detained. Convictions, hard evidence of predictive actionable intelligence and a decline in the number of nut job terrorists at large would seem the obvious measurable goals of the President’s “lock ‘em up and torture them” programs. What results can be pointed to? Only plattitudes and tough sounding talk about the effectiveness of the programs are offered.
I find it interesting that the administration seems beside itself to declare the programs are constitutional and have strict oversight, rattling off the amont of times it’s been up for re-approval, the sanate commitees that hear some classified details about it etc.
The obvious question, which no one asks and no one answers because it’s so barbaric is this: Why doesn’t the President simply order all suspected “enemy combatants” secretly killed or tortured to death?
What passage or clause in the laws, treaties or constitution of the US makes this out of bounds to the President?
It would be most interesting to see Bush argue that there are adequate protections against abuse after not being able to name ANY clear language that spells out what defines abuse by the President, how it can be legally reported, and who has authority to prosecute it.
Comment by johnd | October 20, 2006
See, here it comes from the NY Times front web page. We won’t have to worry about prisoners or habeaus corpus:
“Or Mr. Bush can reassess the strategy itself, perhaps listening to those advisers including some members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the advisory commission charged with coming up with new strategies for Iraq who say that he needs to redefine the “victory” that he again on Thursday declared was his goal.”
Jim Baker to the rescue!
No “cut and run”, however; no “traitors.” Just “reassess the strategy.” Hm, I think Murtha was saying that. So, please, we need to get out the long knives and start calling Jim Baker and his committee a “cut and run” group and a “traitor.”
Comment by OCPatriot | October 20, 2006
Bush and his Administration now have demonstrated and instituted the worst of all liberal traits. The first is their “spend and spend” policies, with no end in sight as our President even promises aid to Lebanon, with no respect for the conservative philosophy of reducing our debt, not increasing it. I suggest that “spend and spend” is more liberal than tax and spend. And make no mention of the fact that our government, under this Administration, has created the largest deficit ever and the most debt, ever. For holders of assets, such as myself, this “spend and spend” policy (in pursuit of the “Bush doctrine”) will mean that our government issued bonds will be worth less and less, and this will drag our economy down and make us vulnerable to holders of these bonds, such as the Chinese. The other area that you haven’t mentioned, in which Bush and his Administration is incontestably “liberal” is in his unfettered growth of government; it cannot be contested that our government is now the biggest it has ever been. This is very liberal, I’m afraid “big government” is now a hallmark of a Republican administration; I never thought I’d see a “spend and spend” and “create Big Government” Republican administration.
Ironic, isn’t it? A friend of mine who is a very rich staunch capitalist said, “At heart I am a libertarian. I think Bush is Lyndon Johnson Jr. guns & butter.. The only voices I hear in Congress for more financial responsibility are from a minority of the Republicans, nothing from the Democrats. I do agree power corrupts. I don’t like deficit spending either by individuals or by governments. Deficit spending almost always weakens the borrower in the long run.”
The real conservatives are calling for a separate party. I hope to join it. The “spend and spend” and “create bigger government” party that is known as the Republican Party evidently endorses smarmy Foley and Hastert who protect us from those other guys, including the foreign terrorists and the homegrown gays. In the short run, rather than indulge in wish fulfillment thinking, we may have to vote Democrat to balance off the existing Republic greed machine, but then we need to get it together to truly create a Conservative Party, with true Conservative ideals.
Comment by OCPatriot | October 20, 2006
Kender, it makes no difference if the U.S. took the word of the RCMP, and it doesn’t mean that the Canadians don’t share some blame. The RCMP offered no evidence, and the U.S. asked for none. The U.S. said, “Welp, if a buncha Mounties say that this dark-skinned man is a terrorist, I guess he is. Let’s torture the crap out of him. Maybe we’ll find out. We probably won’t, but I don’t really care.” It’s like witch-burning in 17th-century Massachusetts.
I’m still laughing at the above poster who used “moral” and “trustworthy” to describe George W. Bush. I’m trying to guess what Bush has done that would make anyone believe those are accurate descriptions. Play the guitar in San Diego while New Orleans is underwater? Put unqualified judges on the Supreme Court? Read our emails and listen to our telephone calls without warrants? Make up lies about Saddam having WMDs? There honest to God is not a day that goes by in which Bush and/or his staff doesn’t lie to the American people.
Comment by Marty McKee | October 20, 2006
I don’t trust Bush. Heck, I don’t even like him or most of his policies! If he were running for election this year, I don’t think I’d vote for him.
But still, I don’t see this giving him all the power that everyone here seems to think it does:
“Why doesn’t the President simply order all suspected “enemy combatants” secretly killed or tortured to death?”
Because he can’t. There’s no law, this one or otherwise, that gives him that power. This doesn’t make him a king with absolute power. He does NOT have the ability to arrest and murder citizens he doesn’t like. Again, if the government uses this to try and arrest “dissenters,” no matter which president, no matter which “dissenters,” I’ll be there, armed, to defend them.
Comment by Ogre | October 20, 2006
RE: ATTENTION: A military tribunal IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. It’s a military hearing in a valid court.
Sure. And we could have lively debate about whether hearsay or “coerced” testimony is appropriate or dangerous in American courts when trying people accused of terrorism. But under the MCA it’s all rather beside the point.
Under this law, an “enemy combatant” is not entitled to any legal representation or any means of legal recourse until they are brought before a military tribunal. The catch is our government is under no obligation to actually present a detainee before a tribunal. Ever. Having decided for itself that someone is an “enemy combatant” our government does not have to accuse the person of crime or present evidence (or even a reason) to anyone. Our government doesn’t even have to admit its holding the person. The government can detain (imprison) an “enemy combatant” forever.
While holding a detainee our government may not kill or torture that person. But the Government gets to decide for itself if what its doing counts as “torture”. And if we do happen to torture or kill someone in our custody this law helps insure nobody can be held accountable.
This is now the law. In America. In OUR country. It has been approved by our legislature and signed into law by our president.
I don’t think this law was created because this administration wants the power to create gulags for liberals. I don’t think that’s how they intend to use it. But we are talking about The Law. What it actually says is lot more important than the reason it was created or how it was meant to be used.
Comment by Ben Swainbank | October 20, 2006
see:
john adams - the alien and sedition act.
w. wilson - the espioage act.
fdr - executive order 9066.
i’m sure you will explain why these cases aren’t even similar…why such things can’t happen now…i can’t wait.
Comment by jay k. | October 20, 2006
You have entirely missed the point, and the boat, when it comes to the Habeas Corpus provisions in the Military Commissions Act. Whether your misunderstanding is intentional or grounded in your ignorance makes no matter here.
The point is that ALL American citizens are now deprived of that vital right, a right which is in no way incidental to our Englis Common Law heritage.
You seem incapable of understanding that it is now possible to deprive YOU of that right every bit as easily as it is now possible to deprive any foreign national, any terrorist or even that stray dog down the street.
As Edmund Burke once said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ Unfortunately, your in this travesty of misbegotten justice and illbegotten law is far more active than simply doing nothing - for you, and the other anti-intellectuals of your ilk, have lobbied vigorously for the active destruction of the Constitution of the United States. And this administration is far too willing to let you have your way.
Comment by fiskhus jim | October 20, 2006
Please try this thought experiment on, for me. No one is watching you, and you can post whatever comment you want to. You will anyway, of course. I’m just saying, I’m not interested in your response to this post, so much as I’m interested in you genuinely taking this on.
Let’s imagine for a moment that Bill Clinton is still president.
Now let’s imagine that Bill Clinton has the power and the right to define what an enemy combatant is. That Bill Clinton has the right to consign any person to permanent, indefinite jail without trial, without ever seeing any sort of legal representation. And that Bill Clinton can do this without having to justify his actions to anybody.
And Bill Clinton can do this whether or not the person is an American citizen.
And no legal agency in the US or the world can reverse this decision once Bill Clinton has made it.
How does that knowledge feel for you?
Comment by jim | October 20, 2006
Where did you get that last part? That no agency in the US or world can reverse that? Where did the legislature go? Where did the courts go? How did it become impossible for the legislature to pass another law? When did it become impossible for the courts to invalidate laws? There are still checks and balances. In fact, if the Democrats get a majority in Congress in November, there’s nothing stopping them from quickly removing this law.
Comment by Ogre | October 22, 2006
Dear John Bambenek:
One hopes you will not be the first American to get a full taste of the Military Commissions Act. Yes, you. As anyone the President decides is a terrorist, anyone at all, gets the full treatment. Just imagine it for a minute. You, kidnapped from your employment, never to be seen or heard from again, lost forever to your family and friends, because you DARED to say the President should be removed from office (example). (Or, pick your own example.) Tortured, held endlessly without counsel, unable to defend yourself against your accuserd, not allowed to know or view evidence against you. Basically, buddy, you are shit up the creek.
Have a good life.
Comment by Sine.Qua.Non | October 23, 2006
Ogre - are you intentionally missing Jim’s point? He’s talking about the decision to designate a particular individual an enemy combatant, thus stripping him of the most basic rights typically available to individuals in civilized nations.
So when you say “Where did the legislature go? Where did the courts go?”, you’re making our point very nicely, thanks. Under the new law, these people can simply be disappeared, and the courts (not to mention the legislature!) are powerless to do anything about it.
So again, with that clarification, play along with Jim’s thought experiment, if you don’t mind. To quote:
“Now let’s imagine that Bill Clinton has the power and the right to define what an enemy combatant is. That Bill Clinton has the right to consign any person to permanent, indefinite jail without trial, without ever seeing any sort of legal representation. And that Bill Clinton can do this without having to justify his actions to anybody.
And Bill Clinton can do this whether or not the person is an American citizen.
And no legal agency in the US or the world can reverse this decision once Bill Clinton has made it.”
What do you say?
Comment by Kris | October 23, 2006
ok, Jay K:
1. The Alien and Sedition acts were voted on and approved of by Congress.
http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/alien_sedition_acts.htm
They were also epealed, and were regarded as huge mistakes that stained Adams’ presidency.
2. The Wilson act also was passed with congressional knowledge. Congress attempted to restrict, as well they should.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060612&s=rosen061206
3. Executive order 9066 was signed in public, and executed in public. It violated the rights of tens of thousands of Japanese, and for this reason was wrong. Nevertheless it operated within, under, and during congressional oversight.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154
Comment by jim | October 23, 2006
As a side note - some people don’t know that some German and Italian-descended Americans were put in camps under order 9066, as well. Just not near as many as the Japanese-Americans.
Comment by jim | October 24, 2006