Friday, June 20, 2008

MY REPLY TO A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT

This is in response to Ryan, thatboyaintright in my entry, TERRORISTS AND PRISONERS OF WAR NOW HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS YOU DO.  I will respond to each part of Ryan’s comment.

 

“I would strongly disagree with your assessment.

The terrorists are NOT being given more rights as any American. The court simply ruled that the
US Gov't must abide by the Constitution at all times. The detainees cannot be labeled as "enemy combatants" in order to get around US Law & the Geneva Convention --- that is what the court has said, not that the detainees have any more rights than any American.”

 

First, these terrorists, in my opinion, now have more rights concerning their detention than American prisoners.  American prisoners do not have the right to challenge their incarceration based solely on the fact they are detained.  The Guantanamo Bay detainees can.  The idea that they were simply “labeled” as enemy combatants is the propaganda of the left. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion in this ruling, “The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”  There was no labeling.  They were captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD.  In my way of thinking, if someone is ON THE BATTLEFIELD, and fighting AGAINST the U.S. and our allies, they are -----ENEMY COMBATANTS-----there is NO “labeling”.  Furthermore, classifying enemies as enemy combatants DOES NOT get around the Geneva Convention (For those not familiar with it, the GENEVA CONVENTION  are now four treaties that currently have been ratified by 194 countries as of August 2006.  These treaties concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war).  Therefore, “labeling” these terrorists as “enemy combatants” would in no wise circumvent the Geneva Convention.  As far as the assertion that “simply ruled that the U. S. Government must abide by the Constitution at all times” is concerned, Justice Kennedy’s opinion contradicts this.  Prisoners of war, enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them, are in no way under the jurisdiction of civilian courts.  This brings me to the next part of Ryan’s comment:

 

“Basically, the court has said the Bush Admin may not change the rules. The detainees must be tried either in military court under existing military laws, or in civil court under the laws of the land. A special court with special rules & without normal legal protections are simply not allowed.”

 

Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority ruling justices did not say that.  It simply said these prisoners of war are “entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”  These prisoners of war now have the right, according to this ruling, to challenge their detention in U. S. (civilian) courts.  The Court did not give a choice of either civilian or military courts.  Justice Kennedy continued:

 

"Petitioners (terrorists) have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants . . .”

 

In other words, civilian courts.  Never before have prisoners of war been granted access to civilian courts to appeal adverse decisions. 

 

Ryan continued: I would also disagree that this is the first time the court has done this. The court ruled that Lincoln couldn't suspend habeas corpus either, saying that only Congress could do that as the Civil War met the Constitutional provision. The Supreme Court today said habeas corpus may not be suspended by Bush =or= Congress since there is no meeting of the provision to suspend.” The Civil War, more accurately known as the War Between the States (although not entirely accurate either) was an entirely different situation.  The Confederate States of America, that legally seceded from the United States and had its own government, was a separate entity from and no longer a part of the United States.  Lincoln couldn’t suspend habeas corpus because the United States was not invaded.  It was the other way around, so this does not apply here.

 

And the last point I wanted to address although it was not last in Ryan’s comment: As for the assertion that 9/11 was an invasion, I would disagree. Nor is there a rebellion. The public safety is not threatened in any way by the gov't having to show cause to detain the prisoners.”  The idea there was no invasion has its roots once again with the left.  Liberals do not consider 9/11 to have been invasion or an act of war because instead of using fighter jets, rockets, and other conventional military arms, these cowards converted jet airliners into manned cruise missles.  My question is, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?  This was very obviously and undeniably an invasion.  These terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11 were part of a what? A FOREIGN organization sponsored and financed by FOREIGN COUNTRIES whose goal is the total destruction of the West.  These were not Americans.  The attack came from OUTSIDE theUnited States, so therefore it was plainly an invasion.  There is absolutely no other way one can slice it.  And since these people are TERRORISTS, and one of them has admitted to being in on the planning of 9/11, the public safety is not threatened in any way????  The World Trade Center being destroyed in ONE DAY, the Pentagon hit THE SAME DAY,  nearly 3,000 Americans murdered in ONE DAY, and the Capitol building would have been gone in ONE DAY with even more dead had it not been for the heroes on one of the converted cruise missles.

 

The Supreme Court is still, and always will be wrong on this.  Reading Justice Kennedy’s opinion, this is an obvious attempt to further expand the Court’s authority over military matters, and the battlefield.  The five justices who made this ruling are known liberals.  That’s really something how that worked with a conservative President in the White House.  Coincidence?  Unfortunately, this sends a message to our enemies that this nation does not back its military.  In this day and time, this is the wrong message to be sending.

 

Ryan, thanks for offering a different point of view for discussion and for reading my journal!

 

 

 

 

9 comments:

lifesabench6 said...

Hi Dirk- You stated the case very well.  I'm still not quite read up on all this habeas corpus stuff, nor do I know all the Geneva Convention stuff.  As a legal resident of this wonderful country since 1991, I do, just on common sense, know that this decision was just plain wrong- and frankly stupid.  I mean, if 9/11 wasn't an invasion or a direct act by a foreign group of severe agression, what the heck was it?!  It wasn't a couple of disgruntled guys who happened to highjack a couple of planes!  This was planned for a long time, and a continuation of other attacks on American interests abroad- the USS Cole, Riddyah etc.  for years- even before the first WT bombing!  
As for labeling these guys- what would have happened if this was WW2 and these were Japanese kamikazees or German ss?  WOuld they have equal rights as US citizens to due justice in a US court?  Whose town would you like to try these warriors in?  Not mine!  Since when does a non US- whether they are terrorists or illegals get the same Constitutional rights?
Oh, there is just too many things going on with this- not to mention the world wide headlines after this happened.  All of them prettyu much said, the decision was a slap at Bush.  Since when is a war on America only between a president and a worldwide fanatical terrorist group?  I don't care anymore what people think of G. Bush- this is a real war against people who want to kill America-  God Bless you Dirk- Keep fighting the good fight!  Carolyn   http://journals.aol.com/lifesabench6/Noappologies-Biblicalperspect/
PS- one more thought- again, is the geneva convention rules still applicable here anyway, when the terrorists don't recognize it?  I mean, Gitmo or beheading and burned, dragged through the streets?  Which one is more humane?

tschuckman said...

|Our country will not be over some by invaders-- but it will "implode" from enemies inside our borders.  Shame on the Supremes.

Tom S

inquestoftruth said...

Sometimes I am convinced those with power do not THINK.

Nice Rebuttal.

~Meg

moondawghouse said...

I prefer to think of 9/11 simply as an act of war, rather than an invasion, per se. That event can be likened to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or the firing on Fort Sumter, which sparked the Civil War. Liberal pacifist pansies evidently don't recognize an act of war when it bites them on the butt!! Therein lies the danger if we continue to allow these clowns to "lead" us.

The Supreme Court's decision was deplorable. Never before in the entire history of the world has a nation granted rights reserved for citizens to foreigners, and certainly not to avowed enemies of that nation!! To me, this decision is downright criminal and Justice Kennedy & Company should be immediately impeached and imprisoned for sedition!

Of course, our liberal-led Congress ain't about to do that, are they?? They love their activist judges who force their leftist agenda down our throats via judicial fiat. Harder times will fall, unless Americans wake up and take back control of their government.

Larry

cuteallison1980 said...

I don't know what the right answer is in how to treat the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  They need to be charged with something.  We have laws, we are a nation of laws, and the rule of law guides this country and always has.  We need to treat these people with dignity whether or not they treated our people with any because that is what America stands for.  We wouldn't want our prisoners anywhere to be treated with disrespect like in Japan or Vietnam, it just isn't right.  I guess that is all I have to say on this.  Have a happy Sunday.

Allison

fisherkristina said...

Excellent points.  Thank you so much for taking it point by point.  I agree with you on everything.

Krissy
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink

wwfbison said...

Our biggest enemy is within.  Great Entry Dirk.
Lisa

thatboyaintright said...

Been really busy & haven't had a chance to catch up on my reading. I still disagree with your assessment, interpretation & even the facts you're presenting, but it is good to be able to discuss things without fear of gov't reprisals either way.

More later. Good banter, I hope.

wipforever said...

Go get 'em, Tiger!  Nice debate worth reading!

Take care,
Sheila