Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Court to .gov: "Do you have the goods on this guy, or what?"
A federal appeals court ruled against indefinite detention of "Enemy Combatants" who are legal US residents, citing the pesky US Constitution. Basically telling the US government "If you have the goods on the guy, then charge him, already!", the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a rebuke to the current administration, all but asking "Who do you think you are? Abraham Lincoln?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Rich L. and I got in quite a heated argument about this over a campfire and blended scotch, a couple of years ago.
Me: "Lincoln got his arse handed to him in Ex Parte Milligan and all the other "Ex parte" (habeas copus) cases." [This was technically not true-- Lincoln was dead before Milligan was decided.]
Rich: "What do ya wannna do, Matt? Lett the terrorists go free? Huh?"
Me: "Nope. Try the Americans, and shoot the enemy combatants when you find them."
The Gitmo thing is breeding untold greater numbers of terrorists than it's containing.
"Nope. Try the Americans, and shoot the enemy combatants when you find them."
Roger that, Matt. How much more simple could it be?
"Blended scotch"?
I could live with you or Rich wanting to do away with habeas corpus, but blended Scotch is a sure sign of barbarism.
We were roughing it, Marko.
Besides, I was mixing it with soda over ice, which I refuse to do with my good single malts. It's a lot easier to find a good-tasting blended than a good single malt; that's why good single malts cost so damned much. Never fear; when the occasion calls, a dram of Glenmorangie, Glenlivet, Glenfarclas, Talisker (for cold days), or the like, usually old enough to vote, is placed on the sideboard.
Matt: Of course, al-Marri isn't an American; "legal resident" being different from "citizen".
(And we will of course see what the 4th Circuit says en-banc, and then the Supremes, most likely, will hear on appeal either way.)
PS. What makes you think Gitmo is breeding terrorists in any significant number?
I mean, I can see lots of potential (though to me ultimate unconvincing) reasons to oppose incarcerating people at Guantanamo Bay. But that it's "breeding terrorists"?
How? And "untold greater numbers"?
Here I thought the real "root cause" of Islamic extremist terrorism was that we were corrupt infidels who dared have power over Moslems while being infidels.
At least, well, that's what "they" tell me their complaint is, in their published statements.
Not "Some of our comrades aren't getting criminal trials! And are being subjected to meanness like touching an infidel Jew flag, being well fed, and their religion respected!
Except for those myths about pissing on the Koran, but we're mad about them even if they're lies.
Not that we bother with such things as trials, of course, or would recognise the legitimacy of your non-Islamic corrupt laws.
But we'll murder your countrymen for not providing them, and all that. That's what makes us become terrorists, you know. Gitmo."
Doesn't sound so convincing when you think about it from their point of view, does it?
(Then again, I'm all for creating more terrorists in the short term - assuming it's even happening, which is unclear, given the unpopularity of causes where those that go out tend not to come back - if the long-term effect is salutory.
Which I think it is in this whole GWOT thing, overall.
Given the nature of Islamic extremism, it's impossible to fight it without at least a temporary surge in recruitment - fighting back is, after all, sinful in their eyes, and an affront to Islam.)
Grant also suspended habeas corpus for member of the Ku Klux Klan.
When the courts do not dispense justice, the solution is not to give up on justice, but to seek a different approach.
Gitmo breeding terrorists? It is important to note that Al Queda always begins by killing Muslims first. You think that the Muslims don't notice that little fact?
(Wow, that came out a lot longer than I thought!)
"PS. What makes you think Gitmo is breeding terrorists in any significant number?
I mean, I can see lots of potential (though to me ultimate unconvincing) reasons to oppose incarcerating people at Guantanamo Bay. But that it's 'breeding terrorists'?"
Whether true or not, plenty of allegations have come out about torture at Gitmo. About US soldiers defiling copies of the Qar'an at Gitmo. About atrocities offensive to their religious sensibilites.
Many of these allegations are being believed in other countries. With Abu Grabbe, it wouldn't be hard to believe them. This creates a running grassroots hatred of our nation, our miliary, and even our people. Many people who have a brother or a friend who had a brother, or who just shared a pot of tea with a guy who once lived next to a guy who ended up in Gitmo are now avowed haters and self-proclaimed soldiers against us. For every one that we've got detained, 20 new terrorists are springing up in his name.
They would hate us far less if we just shot them outright.
Many of these allegations are being believed in other countries.
As these allegations include some things that call for a toilet suction equal to what would be required to suck-start a 747, I don't think that it matters a bit if Gitmo was there or not...they would find something. Your average Ahmed-In-The-Street isn't exactly sophisticated enough to filter propaganda.
Unlike some of us Kollage Grad-u-8s, of course.
Lets get back to "Try the Americans, and shoot the enemy..., then hang a few of the Americans.".
BaDaBing!
Post a Comment