Rights for terrorists?
No, rights for everyone under the jurisdiction of our country.
Why shouldn’t we allow Government, from time to time, to act outside of the Constitution? There are those who will point out that we are in dangerous times, and that it is sometimes necessary for the Government to take exceptional measures to ensure our protection.
The answer is fundamental: the Constitution exists to enumerate exactly what Government is allowed to do. In this country We, The People, control all the rights and liberties of our Nation…and we grant to Government some powers from time to time as we choose through the Constitution. From time to time we also remove some of those powers.
What we never do is allow Government to grant unto itself rights, or to strip We, The People of rights.
The Court, in this ruling, reasserts that most basic of American principles—that Government is under the control of The People—that it is not a power unto itself, that its powers derive from the grants we give it…and that every person affected by the Government’s actions has a basic right to contest those actions, whether the Government likes it or not.
Posted by Garrett on June 19th, 2008 in Civil Liberties |
This is one of those decisions where I respect the Constitutional basis (Article III Section 2 is pretty clear) but I have to admit being uneasy about the potential implications and the lack of clarity to the whole terrorist rights issue as many areas of the Constitution are applied. Bear with me:
By inference, if enemy combatants on U.S. soil are given the rights of habeas corpus and a jury trial, that same Constitutional article, this time Section 3, would allow us to bring them to trial on Treason changes and if convicted put to death.
In fact, an argument could be made that Section 3 has more validity for stateless enemies, aka terrorists, since Section 2 refers exclusively to Citizens and Subjects, foreign and domestic while Section 3 simply refers to People.
Also, there is Article I, Section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Could terrorist actions be construed as rebellion? Invasion? Probably some could, some couldn’t.
As it stands we have to treat them either as civilian prisoners and apply the Constitution or prisoners of war and apply the Geneva Convention. Neither case was designed for stateless terrorism and that’s what I take issue with. If you believe the former than the Court made a good ruling. I just don’t believe that it’s the right application to the right group.
Comment by John Koziol — June 29, 2008 @ 2:57 pm