Four Gitmo detainees who appear to have been innocent (they were relief workers turned over by local thugs to collect a reward) want to sue the government. The Obama administration claims that these guys have no Constitutional rights.
But they are no longer to be called "enemy combatants." So now everything is so much better!
6 comments:
I abhor torture and even (perhaps to a lesser degree) abhor political repression. I belong to AI-USA, and contribute more to that cause than any other that I support.
Still, I seems to me that foreign nationals are not given Constitutional rights as a general rule.
How many foreign war casualties were deprived of their lives, their limbs, their eyesight, etc., without due process of law, contrary to the 5th amendment's provisions? (And since WW II, without Congressional declaration of war?) When we discover spies from other countries here at foreign embassies, they are summarily deported on executive branch say-so without hearings for which they are afforded attorneys at which they can confront their accusers, seek rebuttal discovery evidence by subpoena, etc.
This is true in practice, despite the language of the 5th amendment language stating that 'no person' (not 'citizen of the US' or any other restrictive language construction) shall be so deprived.
So, if Obama is merely stating the fact that foreigners (these 4 men were British nationals) do not have Constitutional rights, and it is a fact, how does that weigh against him? Or is it not true, despite the many precedents that suggest it is true?
This is an honest inquiry, and I hope it is treated in like manner in response.
XI
What's in a name? It doesn't matter what they call the detainees if they keep treating them (and others in the future) as if they have no legal rights.
A turd by any other name would still smell like shit.
It's like Obama ordering Gitmo closed but continuing to hold the detainees beyond the reach of the law by moving them somewhere else.
Just more Obamaspeak. You always have to read the fine print with this POTUS. They say one thing in a speech. Make one grand gesture. Then, we're supposed to look the other way while they enact the fine print.
Too bad there are no more journalists left in the world.
Xi:
We are signatories of the Geneva and Hague Conventions which are treaties that govern the "laws of war" and all parties' rights and responsibilites in regard to captured combatants and non-combatants in time of war.
The Bush administration came up with the term "unlawful combatant" for suspected terrorists and claimed that since they weren't captured soldiers or non-combatants the Geneva conventions did not apply and because they were kept at Gitmo and not within the US borders they had no constitutional or other legal rights.
Our policies on the Gitmo detainees was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Geneva conventions but the court did not find that they were entitled to full consitutional protection.
Diplomatic personnel are granted immunity from arrest and prosecution. If foreign diplomats break the law (any law, including murder or espionage) the most we can do is demand that they leave our country immediately. We abide by the law of diplomatic immunity because it protects our diplomats too.
I personally find it abhorrent that our government would assert that it is ever above the law.
A Bush lawyer stated that this is a vindication of the W politics - that you can detain enemies in a war. And if they are happy, we shouldn't be. Even if the Obama media is delighted at the vocabulary change
myiq:
Yes, you are quite right, and I fully agree that these foreign nationals should enjoy certain rights and good treatment as those flow from the various international agreements, and our country's status as a signator of same. (Actually, these are universal human rights, which ought to be observed even absent a legal framework requiring it.)
However, rights under the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Convention, etc., are NOT Constitutional rights, in my view. They are rights under international law, and pursued under the jurisdiction of the World Court of Justice at the Hague, not at the Supreme Court.
Bush did not invent the term enemy combatant, as it was invented and became an approved status of some prisoners by Supreme Court precedent during the FDR administration when some foreign saboteurs were apprehended.
So, contrary to the notion that this whole thing is unConstitutional, the precedents are to the contrary, that it is quite Constitutional (unfortunately). To be sure, there is a requirement under law that the deeming of any prisoner as an unlawful combatant can only be made by some due process of a competent tribunal (even a military court, perhaps), and until such determination, it's required that they be treated as though they were protected by the Geneva conventions and other applicable international law. Which has not been done.
To this degree, there is a Constitutional question, I guess. However, should there be convened an appropriate tribunal that determines this UC status for prisoners, then that designation and the ensuing treatment of these men accordingly fully passes Constitutional muster as the precedents dictate by the doctrine of stare decisis.
XI
Post a Comment