In a stunning contradiction of the principles enshrined in the Unites States Constitution, the US Supreme Court on April 3 denied petitions of certiorari to two plaintiffs who have been held in legal limbo for five years at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By doing so, the justices have added another burdensome car to the long train of abuses the federal government has sent barreling down the tracks at US citizens. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6566/guantanamo-a-long-train-of-congressional-executive-and-now-judicial-abuses/
Guantanamo: A Long Train of Congressional, Executive, and Now, Judicial Abuses
Previous post: The huge diversion that microcredit represents
Next post: Schumpeter Lives
{ 21 comments }
Not since Abraham Lincoln has this country had a president so willing to ignore the Constitution, though FDR, LBJ, and Bill Clinton (Clinton 42) certainly did their best to take that ignoble prize.
thank you very very nıce thank you very very much…
It seems to me that we are at a point where the old rules simply don’t apply, and new rules need to be written.
The writers of the consitution, and of the Geneva convention, simply never imagined or provided for an endless war against non state-affiliated comabatants.
The W administration takes that to mean that there are no rules.
What it really means is that it is time for some new ones. Certainly, if you catch a non uniformed combatant on a battlefield, or near battlefield, you shouldn’t have to give him a full jury trial within 30 days. At the same time, you shouldn’t be able to just hold the guy indifenetly, either.
Thank you for the thoughts I have also received excellent e-mails (though some were a bit off-the-mark)…
David, I agree. You understand the importance of the process, which is something most contemporary politicians do not. Give my regards to Nigel, by the way. Tell him to turn it up to eleven!
David, I congratulate yourself on your implication that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply in these cases…they cleary don’t and I wish that were shouted from the rooftops. Now, what we really need are reasoned discussions on what to do about it. The neo-libs are just using this for political leverage with their useful idiots, with the help of their sycophants in the media; the neo-cons are pathetic in their parries.
Thanks Gardner, it’s a very nice article!
David & Buck,
As an international lawyer working precisely on these issues, i can assure you that legally the Geneva Conventions (and Additional Protocols) DO COVER precisely this type of issues. Moreover, they cover them regardless of any declaration of war, since they apply to any de facto armed conflict, however minimal (both conflicts do clearly qualify). Besides, the Conventions are part of the core customary law principles that have an imprescriptible effect -namely, they apply everywhere, irrespective of ratification and even in the face of the direst emergencies.
Now, and more to the point, this is not only an issue of respecting the law, even though we could request that bit from the elected authorities of a theoretically democratic country (i know, not very convinced myself either that any such concept exist)… It is a question of protecting people’s personal liberty.
People shouldn’t be allowed to disappear without traces nor be locked in for years without a fair trial, where they can defend themselves against specific criminal charges. The fact that those so-called suspected terrorists are mostly coming from minority groups shouldn’t blind you to the fact that they are most illegitimately deprived of their right to freedom. Besides, they are also treated in a trully inacceptable and inumane way, -and often submitted to torture, which the governement seems rather inclined to give licence for these days.
Here, among all places, i would imagine that people could understand this!
Cheers, M-
Many thanks back to you all as well. This is a fruitful discussion, and I greatly appreciate how thoughtful people have been. I have also received many e-mails from people, and I hope I have responded to them with tact and integrity. All the best.
I Agree with M-la-maudite. The Conventions do clearly apply, and the Bush Administration thought that by getting Congress to not declare War, they could avoid the rules. This, as M indicated, was incorrect, and the Supreme Court said so. If only the Court had gone further, to explicitly state that the “authorization to use military force” granted by Congress was unconstitutional, we would all be a lot better off. Thank you all again…
– Gardner
The essential point to note is that: If a government has been set up in order to provide justice, then it is vital that this organization of government always acts in a just manner. Perpetrating injustices is no way to secure justice.
the poster dave misses the point entirely. if you bump up against the constitution you too ka wrong turn.
we wouldn’t be fighting stateless enemies if we would respect the people of the middle easts right to self determination.
we can either get out of the middle east entirely and remain the US, or stay there and be the empire of the US and israel. i opt for the former
I am quite surprised at some of these comments, Obviously many of you have never been to war. Laws, justice and constitutional rights end for the person trying to kill you. The question remains- Just exactly what do you do with this enemy that you’ve captured? They should have been shot- not captured. Our system has no provisions to these sucicidal people. You seem to misunderstand-they don’t want to live, they want to kill you and all Americans. This requires a wholly new mindset and system of justice.
When you have to “Look the elephant in the eye.” and then pull the trigger you will understand.
Semper Fidelis from a Marine,
JimT
I am honored that God, going under the name Jim Tetzlaff, is posting here. Obviously, the Lord of the Universe is all knowing and is aware that every “terrorist” arrested by the United States is guilty. The U.S. government, being God’s holy servants on earth, never makes errors. So yes, we needn’t bother with trials, legal procedure and Constitutional rights. Thanks for stopping by Lord, and can you please send me next week’s winning lottery numbers?
Sorry Mark, no lotto numbers. And Marines are not God. We faithfully serve but pray that we do the right thing- even if it involves taking of others lives. The dedication of our military is beyond reproach- and we do make mistakes at times. No, I’m sure not all that are captured are truely terrorists and it is a sad state of affairs that we have no honorable means of dealing with them.
Their home contries will not take them back. The Constitution is an American concept and foreign enemies should NOT be afforded the rights and protections. Although as human beings they do have a right to life- if it can be demonstrated the desire it. The evidence is not clear on that.
The question still remains- What do you do with them? I don’t have any answers.
Semper Fidelis,
JimT
JimT,
As I see it, you can shoot enemy combatants, or you can arrest people as criminals. The confusion arises because we are not at war with another nation-state. Rather, we are policing foreign protectorates in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US republic (or the US secular democracy, whichever) lacks the legal structures and traditions for such a task. It’s practically a legal vacuum at this point.
I’d submit that since the US Constitution requires its government to afford due process, then it should afford due process to whoever is in its custody. However, I differ with the author regarding habeas corpus. The US Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, and I do not believe the federal courts are empowered to second guess the decision of the other branches that the writ should be suspended.
I always suspected that nonamericans were untermenschen. Now I know. The US Constitution applies to Americans only, not to subhumans.
The U.S. Constitution is primarily concerned about U.S. citizens, S.S.? DUH !!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
M-La-Maudite: “People shouldn’t be allowed to disappear without traces nor be locked in for years without a fair trial, where they can defend themselves against specific criminal charges.”
Since you’re an international lawyer, perhaps you could tell me in which wars POW’s were allowed to sue their captors in court? Or, tell me in which wars were POW’s tried as criminals?
In order for combatant to receive protection, the Geneva Convention clearly states that the combatants must wear uniforms that identify the nation they fight for and they must not attack civilians or use them as shields. The enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq violated every requirement for protection under the Geneva Convention and more. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them. When the war with jihadis is over, enemy combatants may go home, but that may be another 30 years or more.
Sudha,
I am saddened that anyone would think U.S. Americans consider anyone sub-human. Every country selects their own government and has their own culture. I just happen to beleive that the U.S has the best right now, though it is almost over with the rampant socialism. The nationalistic “lines on the map” are artificial boundaries which are largely obsolete in todays world economic picture. All these were established when agriculture ruled, not even industrialism- now we are in the knowledge/information age and most of our governments are obsolete dinosaurs. Even in the USA most state governments are redundant.
One of the things which mystify most American is why our capitalist model hasn’t flowed across the entire world with the resultant prosperity. No, we are far from perfect but I sincerely beleive- the most freedom for the most people.
Glat to see the action on this blog. Some very cogent comments and maybe a few answers. I do not beleive there is a military solution to the Iraqi mideast war and the WWII solution of destroy everything and everyone is barbaric and hopefully never again used.
What to do? What to do?
Semper Fidelis,
JimT
JimT: “I do not beleive there is a military solution to the Iraqi mideast war and the WWII solution of destroy everything and everyone is barbaric and hopefully never again used.”
Amir Taheri, an Iranian intellectual who lives in Europe and writes for most of the top newspapers and magazines in the world, addressed that issue in the Jerusalem Post recently, only he spoke of Gaza and not Iran:
“Israel has fought several wars with the Arabs and has won all of them. But these are the only wars in history where the winner was not allowed to impose the postwar status quo, because they all happened after the United Nations came into being. Every war in history has had a loser and a winner – which is the purpose of war. Otherwise it is useless. Its task is to change a situation through the use of force. If I have the force, I change the situation I don’t like…The only way that there can be peace in this region is to go back to the normal routes of war.”
You may think the methods of WWII were barbaric, but they achieved peace. Beginning with Truman in Korea, Americans decided to fight “limited” wars so that neither side would achieve a clear victory. The result has been no peace. Vietnam lasted 10 years because the US refused to win and force its will upon North Vietnam. Iraq has become a quagmire for the same reason. There is a military solution in Iraq–kill every last insurgent. Until recently, the US had the policy of negotiating with insurgents and trying to woo them into the government. That strategy not only clearly failed, but encouraged the insurgents to increase their violence in order to achieve even more concessions from the US and the Shia. Killing insurgents will require more US troops (Powell suggested 500,000) or the US getting out and letting the Shia kill them. Right now, the US is holding the Shia back. If the US persists in its current strategy, Iraq will be in civil war for the next 20 years. If we let the Shia kill the insurgents, Iraq could have peace within 6 months.
Sorry, here’s the link to Taheri’s interview: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1178096596427&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I’m glad this page is still up. My father, Jim Tetzlaff, was a longtime Randian adherent, virulently anticommunist and a complete dupe of the so-called “conservative” movement that has waged class warfare across the world for (depending on where you place the beginning) 30-160 years.
Jim died about a year after he posted his last comment, unaware of the candidate who later became our first black president. After 50 years of 2-3 packs of Marlboros a day, his lungs succumbed to cancer. He died in a Las Vegas hospital bed, strapped down to avoid injuring to himself or others as his brain was so short on oxygen he didn’t know where he was or what was going on.
Anyway, thanks for keeping this page up.
Dear TT –
I am sorry for the loss of your father. And thank you for posting this to let us know. Though he disagreed on some points, he expressed himself openly and allowed us to compare opinions. Seeing your notice here reminds me of how fruitful the exchange of ideas can be.
Thank you, again, and best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
Gardner
Comments on this entry are closed.