Azileretsis

I'm curious about your take on the recent SCOTUS decision. I am personally opposed to the decision - I do not think enemy combatants (not soldiers wearing a uniform, hence not covered by the Geneva Convention) should be granted the same rights as US citizens. I think it's absurd and ultimately an erosion of justice.

SCOTUS decision is the main reason I blogged this entry.

Before the American Revolution, Great Britain did not believe that Americans were fully Englishmen and therefore, were not accorded all the rights (even as they were). The founding fathers fought a war for those rights including the right to habeas corpus.

I love French and British classics and they tell stories of life without the habeas corpus and the injustice caused by that abuse.

Also, in the US, the laws of the constitution doesn't only cover citizens, precedent has already been set that they cover all residents and I believe even illegal immigrants.

How is it justice to be locked up for years without knowing for which laws you have broken? Who condemns them and don't they have a right to know who it is that condemns them?

If we lower the rights of those around us, even our enemies, isn't that a slippery slope?

With that said, I do believe as a society, we can take away the rights of others but only with due process.

There's a reason "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

Residents of the United States are in an entirely different group than enemy combatants, in much the same way that felons are in a different category than the rest of the populace. We have lowered the rights of felons - denying them express constitutional rights: voting, bearing arms, etc. Why no outcry for them?

The reason is that we understand that people who choose to break the rules lose rights. We have the Geneva Convention to cover those who fight representing a country - the idea of the GC was that it's not necessarily the soldier's decision to fight a war, but it's decision of the sovereign nation they fight for. Some of the provisions of the GC are that the soldier wear a uniform, they have rank, etc. This is how the GC defines a soldier, to differentiate them from enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants do not represent a sovereign nation. They do not wear a uniform clearly identifying themselves as foreign soldiers. They do not themselves follow the accepted rules of warfare (only attacking military installations, giving aid and quarter to captured soldiers, etc). Rather, they hide in mosques behind women and children. They attack civilian targets. They cut off the heads of captured soldiers in the most horrible fashion imaginable. All terrorists fall under this category of enemy combatants.

It would be one thing if you were arguing for us to apply the terms of the Geneva Convention to them. I could understand that argument - I could maybe even be convinced to support it. However, it is simply absurd to believe that those captured on a field of battle should be given the same rights that US Citizens have fought and died for.

It's an entirely different matter to compare the British subjects in the colonies to terrorists captured on the field of battle. Do you really think those two groups of people have the same circumstances?

I have no problems with rights being taken away but only with due process. Felons fall into this group.

First, the colonists were considered terriorists and revolutionaries in their own right. They did alot of damage to the British industries and for that, severely punished.

Second, it's not only the colonists who experienced the reduction of their rights in history. There's been Hugenots in the 17th century and Jews in the 20th century. Each time, it was a slow process where one by one, a right was taken away. Usually, habeas corpus was one of the first rights to be taken away.

A revolutionary is always viewed to be an enemy combatant by the opposite party. Without a doubt, they can be cruel and evil. However, can we be true Americans when we deliberately deny rights to others that we, only two centuries ago declared and I still believe, to be self-evident
and natural?

Also, let's not forget how these people got here. We invaded their country, we went to their homes, we arrested them on our suspicions and then shipped them to our shores.

In addition, what is wrong with our federal courts that we don't believe that it can do its job? Is there an abundance of murderers that go free? Do we believe that our judges and attorneys cannot make the best decisions about what should be done about these people?

I'm not convinced that our judiciary system as a whole has justice on their mind. Look at the recent decisions regarding gay marriage in CA and the continued upholding of Roe v Wade.

I still think it's silly to compare pre-Revolution colonists to suspected/proven terrorists. Colonists did not start with bombing buildings, they started by trying to get representation in the government. Revolution was a last resort. And in the midst of a revolution, I would not expect England to treat them as daintily as they might treat their loyal, unrevolting subjects. Give them trials after the war is over, until then give them 3 squares and treat them fairly. (This means don't torture them).

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a legal scholar, and the nuances involved here are most likely beyond me. However, I think that if you look to see which justices you are agreeing with then that will shed some light on things. Which justices have Godly world views? Which ones have secular world views? How did they vote?

Two links:
http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/legal-analysis:-boumediene-v.-bush/al-odah-v.-united-states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_Justice

Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent by: Roberts
Joined by: Scalia, Thomas, Alito

I didn't know that there were two Jewish, five Catholics, one Episcopalian, and one Protestant on the bench. The Protestant voted in the majority. I'm not sure if their world view played a role especially since I think most of these appointees are conservative. More than half were nominated by Republicans, almost half by the Bushes.

ugh, make those links link please. Isn't that the point of the HyperText Markup Language? You can click HyperLinks to other pages? For the love of all that is webish, make the links clickable!

Um, ya. That first link was not at all biased. *rolls eyes*

Ok. The second link lists the justices that have been on the SCOTUS throughout history. Allow me to contribute an equally relevant link: http://www.visitingdc.com/capitol/supreme-court-address.htm

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: