Comments on: Rights for terrorists? http://blog.donnael.com/2008/06/rights-for-terrorists/ Random thoughts and links Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:07:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Koziol http://blog.donnael.com/2008/06/rights-for-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-17971 John Koziol Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:57:25 +0000 http://blog.donnael.com/?p=2082#comment-17971 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: <i>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.</i> 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. 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.

]]>