The Washington Post reports that there has been a "compromise" on Lindsay Graham's abhorrent effort to strip detainees of their legal rights (H/T: Orin Kerr).
Obsidian Wings (whose coverage of this whole issue has been nothing short of spectacular) thinks that the compromises are an improvement, but still fall short of what our moral and constitutional principles require. Kevin Drum, by contrast, is "cautiously optimistic." I'm inclined to agree with Tim F. on this--meeting in the middle is not acceptable when the stakes are this high. Moderation be damned, we're talking about basic legal rights here. If there are any principles I won't sacrifice, it's that people have the right to prove they're innocent of wrongdoing. Just chucking random folks in jail on slim (if any) evidence is not just unamerican, it's outright evil. I should also note that the bill only applies to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Given the recent revelations about our "black site" prisons, this seems to be rather twisted, as those places probably, if anything, have a more urgent need for judicial oversight than even Guantanamo.
See also: The Poor Man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Accusing the military of "Just chucking random folks in jail on slim (if any) evidence is not just unamerican, it's outright evil." is probably at best a mischaractarization or perhaps evil as well. I think "random" is not being fair or accurate.
I'm a little confused. What rights to the legal system would you afford a uniformed Werhmacht or SS soldier in WWII? If a man is actively engaged in planting IEDs, firing at our troops, or otherwise engaged in active warfare against our troops but not in uniform that should afford him less not more rights. In a future "regular" war, do you expect that if a enemy chooses to conceal himself in civillian garb and operates in the midst of a cilvilian population should that afford him more legal proctection and rights? How does that protect our and the enemy civilian population? Does it not encourage such practices? Is that what you want?
Access to the US legal system was never afforded to foreign POWs in previous wars, why do you think it needed now?
"Access to the US legal system was never afforded to foreign POWs in previous wars, why do you think it needed now?"
Exept that they were so accorded acess, in that they were treated in accordance with the Geneva accords.
Even "irregulars" in WW II, Korea and Vietnam were afforded these protections.
The Bush administartion has chosen to create a new class of stateless people -- prisoners with no rights, and no accountability for the gaolers.
If you want to see the tortured reasoning behind the Bush administration's push on how to treat the prisioners inthis "war on terror," you should see the memos between Taft, at the State Department, and Yoo and Gonzales, at the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel)
Mark: You're missing the point of what these people's legal rights are. It isn't to get POW protection. Rather, the issue is one of status--did these people commit the acts they are accused of committing? If they did them--if they are indeed planting IEDs, firing at our troops etc etc--then sure, lock 'em up. But (and here's the point), they have the right to challenge the assertion that they did any of these things. There have been cases where the army has admitted that a Gitmo prisoner was innocent of all wrongdoing (a bounty hunter picked him up for the money)--he's still imprisoned 8 months after the army tribunal said that he was not al-Qaeda.
That's why I phrased the post the way I did. At least in some cases, the folks we have in Gitmo are not terrorists, al-Qaeda, insurgents, or anything. They are, quite literally, "random folks." And they deserve the right to prove it in a court of law.
If there are any principles I won't sacrifice, it's that people have the right to prove they're innocent of wrongdoing.
Not only that, but the American tradition of justice demands that we presume them innocent until they are proven guilty. On this whole subject of detainees, I've been amazed that some people believe that basic justice is a special right due only to citizens. The whole point of the American philosopy is that we believe that our precepts about freedom and justice are "inalienable" and apply to "all people", not just citizens.
Post a Comment