Thursday, June 12, 2008
Supremely Stupid
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the US constitution applies to terrorists who have never set foot in the US. Yes, terrorists who do their best to kill US soldiers in foreign lands now have all the same rights as taxpaying American citizens (and more rights than US soldiers). U.S. soldiers will still be subject to military jurisprudence, but terrorists get civilian courts. I can see Khalid Sheik Mohamed in court now, arguing that the Marines did not have probable cause to search his cave, they didn't have a warrant, he wasn't read his Miranda rights, his civil rights were violated. Thanks liberals. This will certainly result in more acts of terrorism and more American deaths, raising the question once again, "which side are you on?" Of course, we know the answer to that question, and so do the terrorists, who are surely smiling today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Conservatives dug this hole and jumped in. By refusing to choose between military or civilian jurisprudence and taking the unreasonable position that no law applied; they forced the situation into the courts with the predictable outcome that the courts decided they would have jurisdiction.
Although I agree that we have a sorry Supreme Court (Scalia actually maintains that "torture is not punishment"), in this case, they may be correct...we will better combat terrorism by promulgating rule of law and American values than by flaunting them. Extra-judicial imprisonment, torture, and killings have always had short-term appeal but in the long-term make the situations worse. Similarly, our strategy of supporting brutal dictators (the Saudis, the Shah, Saddam) and extremists (e.g. Taliban) in the name of fighting enemies such as Communism rarely advances our long-term national interests.
One point to clear up: We never supported the Taliban. We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. The Taliban came about later, after we abandoned Afghanistan in 1991, and the Northern Alliance who supported our attempt to overthrow the Taliban, were mostly former Mujahadeen. I agree we should not support brutal dictators, and think we should in fact overthrow them. We should foster freedom whenever possible. Unlike leftists, I would also topple regimes hostile to us also, like Chavez and Castro and Amahdinejhad. I dont think Bush forced this to the courts, Congress passed the appropriate laws, it was done just like Nurembourg and other WWII cases where civilian courts were not used. I don't see how someone not a US citizen, not in the US, can claim access to US courts and US laws. By the Genevea Conventions, these people could have been shot on the field (and should have been!)
Good point. As you note, the Taliban came to power after the Russian/Afghan war ended and were funded and trained by our good dictator buddies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So your point is well taken, although I think we generally agree on the principle of not spreading democracy through dictatorship.
To the original issue, I don't dispute our right to try (and even execute for appropriate crimes) those captured on the battlefield, but I question the wisdom of doing so without some previaling jurisprudence...indefinite detention and torture without evidence or public trial seems very unlike the Nurembourg trials, antithetical to American values, and unlikely to help advance American long-term interests.
Post a Comment