Foreign Terrorists Have Constitutional Rights

Exactly. They have a right to a swift and speedy trial under our constitution.

love,

Sopranette

 

It's spelled "activist", and "terrorist", dude.

sopranette

 

You must have accidentally left out the word "suspected" before the word "torrorists".

 

So, do we as Americans now believe that rights are given to us by government and then only to deserving Americans? What ever happened to the belief that rights are God given? If we as human beings are born with certain rights as the Declaration of Independence claims does that mean all human beings or just those born on certain patches of ground?

I have always thought all human beings were born with unalienable rights not just Americans, and certainly not just "conservative" or "liberal" Americans. That is what has made this country unique in all of history is it not? Shall we just throw all that away now and adopt government as our god to give us rights and take them away as it sees fit?

Are the above principles what we believe in as Americans or aren't they?

 

It's unconstitutional. Read any "church/state separation" site and you'll see that our rights do NOT come from any god.

Well, since 'we' decided to stab, stomp, stifle and stake the British to ensure those rights, why did 'we' not do that everywhere else and for everyONE else?

 

Where is this "seperation" in the constitution or D of I?

If I recall history correctly the colonists first response to the King's tyranical actions were to try and reason with him in an attempt to persuade him to follow Britsh law. It was only after numerous and sustained injuries did the colonists decide to take up arms in their own "defense".

"We" did do that for everyone else America was meant to lead by example not by coercion and force of arms. I believe the idea was for the people of the world to view America as a "shining beacon of freedom" instead of a "thundering canon" of military intimidation and blatant hypocrisy.

 

[SIZE=+1]Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and its amendments were written to claim our freedom and to protect the States and the citizens from the potential misuse of power by our Federal government and to define a framework for how that government would be structured and would function.

The rights claimed by the citizens were indeed claimed to be "God given" and not granted by the government. That's fundamental to American liberty!

But neither the Constitution nor any of its amendments were written to protect foreign governments and their citizens - much less terrorists - from the people of the United States of America. That is covered by treaties, agreements, customs, etc. to which we're obligated to varying degrees by our own consent. Laws have been written to define how we will handle these things. Our treatment of prisoners of war falls into that category.

Prisoners of war are not literally protected by unalienable rights claimed by the citizens for themselves in our Constitution. They are protected by privileges we choose to give them based upon how we wish to deal with our enemies in their defeat. Over time we've become much more compassionate in how we handle prisoners of war and have afforded them many benefits. In fact, with respect to lawful combatants, we extend to them essentially the same military code of justice we apply to ourselves.

However, there was never intention that this be an obligation to extend to them the identical rights of due process that we reserve for ourselves through our Constitution. That's a whole different perspective!

We, through our Supreme Court, just made a terrible mistake in confusing these matters and we will ultimately pay for it.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=+1]Thanks for the kind compliment and I wish it were true but I'm afraid my patience needs much work![/SIZE]

 

I could be wrong but this decision by the Supreme Court merely gives these prisioners the right to hear the charges against them and to have a court decide whether they should continue to be held in POW camps. I don't think it gives them the right to have their fate decided by a U.S. court. Is that right? Some of these people have been held for 5 years without being charged with a crime. Is that jjustice?

 

[SIZE=+1]The main issue did center around habeas corpus such as is afforded to criminals arrested by the government. That's another aspect of this that's so stupid! Prisoners of war are not "criminals" who've been "arrested" for a violation of law. These people are enemy combatants captured in war. Prisoners of war can be kept in confinement for the duration of the conflict after which they must be repatriated. There's no such thing as bail. They are protected in many ways and can't be charged with "crimes" for their conduct as lawful combatants. But terrorists are unlawful combatants - not prisoners of war in the legal sense of the Geneva Convention - with fewer privileges that lawful combatants. It was critical that we not classify them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Because of that they can be tried - by a military tribunal - for their conduct as unlawful combatants. Habeas corpus is a right we afford ourselves and extend to others charged with crimes while in our jurisdiction. It's not one we should bestow on terrorists while our nation is at war with them! The whole thing is ridiculous! The dissenting opinions of the 4 out 5 Justices who disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision clearly reflect this.[/SIZE]

 

They're not soldiers in the classical sense either. Many of these were not captured in battle. I believe some are American citizens.

 

Well, that pretty much answered my question Dragoon thanks. In other words it's all for us and nuts on the next guy or, we reserve the exclusive right to hypocrisy.

This whole idea of giving the state the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment is the exact opposite of the founding principles as I understand them. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and denial of due process were some of the many grievances the colonists lodged against the crown if I remember right... I guess you are correct when you claim these sort of things are "compllicated" I just tend to call it hypocrisy and be done with it...maybe I should spend more time studying this...

Even a godless institution such as the UN claims to believe that everyone has basic human rights. Yet we reserve the right to deny rights to others? Forget what that says about us as a nation for a minute...what's that say about us as Christians?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121331916222970351.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

President Kennedy
June 13, 2008; Page A14

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy isn't known for his judicial modesty. But for sheer willfulness, yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush may earn him a historic place among the likes of Harry Blackmun. In a stroke, he and four other unelected Justices have declared their war-making supremacy over both Congress and the White House.

SNIP

Justice Kennedy's opinion is remarkable in its sweeping disregard for the decisions of both political branches. In a pair of 2006 laws – the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act – Congress and the President had worked out painstaking and good-faith rules for handling enemy combatants during wartime. These rules came in response to previous Supreme Court decisions demanding such procedural care, and they are the most extensive ever granted to prisoners of war.

SNIP

To reach yesterday's decision, Justice Kennedy also had to dissemble about Justice Robert Jackson's famous 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, German nationals had been tried and convicted by military commissions for providing aid to the Japanese after Germany's surrender in World War II. Justice Jackson ruled that non-Americans held in a prison in the American occupation zone in Germany did not warrant habeas corpus. But rather than overrule Eisentrager, Mr. Kennedy misinterprets it to pretend that it was based on mere "procedural" concerns. This is plainly dishonest.

 

I am glad that the federal Supreme Court stood up to the Bush administration again. It appears to be the only segment of the federal government that has the wisdom, and the guts, to do so.

 

That would be great if that is what happened, but it wasn't.

Instead they reneged on what they had told Congress to do in the first place.

It's purely a case of an unconstitutional grab of legislative powers by the judicial branch.

Just in case you have forgotten, the legislature was elected to represent the will of the people.

 

Nope. Just read the Cato Institute's amicus brief that I posted in its own thread.

 

I don't need the Cato institute to tell me what to think.

If you do, well...

 

Yes, carpro, I admit that I enjoy reading in-depth articles by people who know something about constitutional law, and other subjects, as well.

 

The SCOTUS does not have the authority to grant the rights of citizens to non-citizens. Nor do they have the authority to overrule congressionally enacted legislation, particuarly when they are the ones who told hte Congress and President to enact the legislation.

Whatever one thinks of what is going on with the detainees, SCOTUS is clearly wrong on this one, and the fact that the four most conservative justices voted against this is evidence of that fact.

It takes a great amount of political ideology not to see this for what it is.

 

I believe this is a good move by the Supreme Court! To hold someone without recourse because you think they might be a terrorists is morally wrong. Give them the right to defend themselves against these charges!