Benabik Alvar (benabik) wrote,
Benabik Alvar
benabik

  • Mood:

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is currently hearing three cases about the government's "right" to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely without hearing. I put both those phrases in quotes because I really really don't agree with the government's view on them.




Case 1, re: holding foreign citizens captured abroad in Guantanamo Bay. I can't really argue this one too much. Holding PoWs in a military camp... oh no, the horror. That's what happens in war.

Now, I do disagree with having a war against this indefinite a target. "Terrorism." Good grief... It's like our "War against Drugs". And we all know how well that worked! Terrorism, by definition, is an underground and hidden activity. You can't know when all "terrorist cells" are eliminated because if you don't hear about them then they're doing their job (as they define it). And it appears to the world that we're just trying to prosecute Islam and bomb Islamic countries. Which is only going to piss off more Muslims and get them to start planning to bomb us!

Oy.

Case 2, re: holding a US citizen captured abroad without hearing. (Hamdi vs US) This is more of a grey area. Our constitution guarantees certain unalienable right to our citizens. It doesn't say "unless we're at war". No resolution or law passed by Congress can supersede the Constitution.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

~~Bill of Rights


Now, I'll grant that Mr. Hamdi is on rocky ground. He was captured on a battlefield fighting against our country. Not good. Not good at all. That actually sounds like an enemy combatant to me. Treating him as a POW may actually be valid.

Case 3: US citizen captured in the US, held without hearing. (Padilla vs US) Okay. Here we have an "enemy combatant" who's not only a US citizen, but was caught in the US for doing things in the US. What the? How is he an "enemy combatant"? Even if he's working with overseas terrorists, isn't he still a US citizen committing a crime and as such given the right to a fair and speedy trial? Or are US citizens "the enemy" now?

Innocent until proven guilty, people. The government needs to stop treating it's citizens as possible criminals. We can't fight a war against our own people on our own soil. It doesn't work. How do you separate combatants from non-combatants? How do you make sure rights aren't violated? People don't lose rights because the government is worried about what they're doing or saying. It just doesn't work that way.




If the Supreme Court upholds the idea that the executive branch can do as it will against citizens of this country, then I am really going to have to consider moving. England or Canada don't sound too bad, honestly... With the US Government working to systematically reduce our rights in the name of "fighting terrorism", I don't know if it's safe to stay here.
Subscribe

  • Housing Update

    1/31/07, unless something happens.

  • Fun with Housing

    Does anyone want a decent place to live up on the north side of the city, near Greece? For all of my complaint about the apartment, it really has…

  • anachronauts: just awesome

    Stefan “Twoflower” Gagne’s latest opus. I’m a big fan of most of his stuff, and this is among his best. The tagline is “a web novel series of…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments