[Kat]
Well, I'm nearly at a loss as to what to say about yesterday's ruling that unlawful enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (and possibly other detainees held on or in any other quintessentially "official" "territory of the United States") have the right to challenge their detention on the grounds of habeas corpus.
US Constitution, Section 8
Congress shall have the power to...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
The law that congress created to deal with the trials apparently didn't float with the courts because, I suppose, they felt it was taking too long and there were still many held without charges. Still, I can't figure out between the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution and the UCMJ, where that ruling fits in.
For instance, does this give unlawful combatants more rights than actual prisoners of war? Or, even give those rights to actual prisoners of war detained during an actual declared war? Would the president, under those conditions, have to actually declare a suspension of habeas corpus in order to maintain control of POWs? And, how explicit or detailed would that have to be in order to avoid charges of damaging or denigrating any actual citizen's right to habeas corpus?
What about what constitutes territory of the United States? Since any military base occupied and/or operated by the United States is technically US territory, does any prisoner on such a base have extended rights and access to American courts for petition? What about those tens of thousands of prisoners held in American prisons in Iraq? Or, in Afghanistan?
What are the limits? And, why did the courts decide they had to establish their power over what has ostensibly and long been the purview of congress, the executive and the military? We're talking about people who are either detained on the battle field or who are declared enemies of the United States and have killed or planned to kill United States citizens in acts of war.
Mukasey says that tribunals will continue, but the court ruling seems to indicate that, even during this process or, probably more often, before, they can apply for habeas corpus.
Other questions: did the courts just give foreign, declared enemies of the United States the same rights as a US citizen? What incentive, exactly, will a lawful combatant have, participating in war under a flag, in uniform, to keep that uniform on, not target civilians or do other acts of terrorism? Or, created a disincentive to take prisoners?
Yeah. I'm asking if the courts just killed the Geneva Conventions.
Did they just inflict the Liberal view that terrorism was a social and criminal act, not an act of war?
Though, I'm with Drew at Ace on this one that the courts may be (hopefully) incredibly slow and reluctant to actually grant habeas corpus to a terrorist like KSM because they might find the citizens of this country extremely angry.
Lindsey Graham (R), the sometimes whipping boy of the right, is pushing to amend the constitution.
Poll: Many in world look to US election for change
Elections? Why don't they just apply to our courts?
But, this point becomes extremely important in the upcoming elections:
Analysis: Court's course in next president's hands
Ya' think?
9 Comments