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
"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!