Thursday, The Supreme Court agreed with that point of view. The Bush government did not. Now, we will see whether or not the Court's decision or the Bush stubbornness will prevail. Not all the Justices on the Supreme Court agreed with the court's decision. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of four members who did not agree with the decision. But the Supreme Court decides by majority opinion, it doesn't have to be unanimous.
[Guantanamo prisoner
being taken for
interrogation.]
One of our friends, Bob (also known as Sparty) has written on this subject. He supports the Supreme Court's decision and opposes the Bush government.
SPARTY'S COMMENTS
"...stand up for our civil liberties when it really matters..."
I really don't know where to begin in responding to this decision and the Administration's policies regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay ...
Justice Scalia characterizes the majority decision as "bait and switch". "Bait and switch" could, in fact, be more accurately attributed to the Bush administration's handling of these prisoners, some of whom have been imprisoned in a U.S. gulag for six years. They were captured as a result of U.S. military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan but the official U.S. position was that they were not prisoners of war and, therefore, not protected by the Geneva Convention's provisions for POW's. However, if they aren't POW's, what is their status - if they are not soldiers in a nation-state's military does that make them criminals because as members of the Taliban they engaged in criminal terrorism against the U.S. and its citizens? If so, why aren't they entitled to the protections of U.S. criminal law, including one of the oldest of Anglo-Saxon legal protections, the right to a writ of habeas corpus? The Bush gang says they're not protected because they are "enemy combatants", not U.S. citizens, and they are not being held on U.S. soil. But what flag flies over the military installation at Guantanamo Bay? It isn't the Cuban flag.
The Bush gang has throughout the last seven years pursued a policy of executive supremacy that contradicts the Constitutional principals of separation of powers and checks and balances. Their position is that these prisoners are subject to only those judicial procedures that the executive branch deems appropriate, the courts (international or U.S.) be damned.
To our great shame, in the wake of the Twin Towers disaster, few Americans have opposed this authoritarian exercise of executive power. I fear that a precedent may have been established that in the passage of time will undermine our basic liberties. In fact, the Attorney General has already announced today that the Supreme Court's decision will have no affect on the military tribunals underway at GITMO. And who will object? The real test of the citizenry's belief in our constitution is its willingness to stand up for our civil liberties when it really matters - when we are under assault. Anybody can be a champion of civil liberties in times of tranquility.
I recall that when the U.S. was engaged in acquiring foreign territories at the beginning of the 20th century the Court was faced with the question of the rights of the inhabitants of those territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, etc.) the U.S. had forcibly annexed. The question was "does the Constitution follow the flag?" The U.S. secretary of state said something like 'It may follow the flag but it hasn't quite caught up to it.' Yesterday's decision places the flag closer to the U.S. territory at Guantanamo Bay but if the past seven years are any indication this president will feel no obligation to obey the majority's decision.
[Here, Americans protest at the Supreme Court, dressed as prisoners]
=====Agree or disagree, BIRCHES would like to get as many responses as possible from you readers. Please join in with your comments either by posting a comment or by email. This encourages future participation. Please...
====
COMMENTS SO FAR
6 Comments
bud said...
This is where I've disagreed with Sparty. I don't believe that prisoners of war (POWs) should have access to American courts.
I don't think that the Supreme Court meant Prisoners of War when they said, "The Constitution follows the flag." My recollection of that doctrine was that it applied to citizens of territories annexed by the US. No matter where on earth these prisoners might be held, as long as they're under the jurisdiction of American forces, they're under the American flag.
The Bush government has screwed this whole thing up about as thoroughly as it could be done, I think, by refusing to call Guantanamo prisoners, "prisoners of war." Their status is pretty damned confusing to everyone, and now the courts have got to try to sort it out.
This is just one more case of the Bushites operating as if they were/are a law unto themselves. They are about as tyrannical a bunch as there has been in our government.
June 16, 2008 1:13 PM
dashmann said...
POW or not, why does it take the Supreme Court to dictate common decency in dealing with these prisoners??
This country used to be all about setting an example for the world to follow as far as dealing with human rights, instead of looking for technicalities to permit the very behaviors our Constitution and the Magna Carta before it discouraged.
Put the shoe on the other foot if it was our soldiers imprisoned in this manner and see how we would feel?
The GOLDEN RULE still works, and America should lead the world in promoting it.
June 17, 2008 1:39 AM
irene said...
Oooh - I'm going to sleep on this one - I will post a response in the morning.
June 17, 2008 8:14 AM
irish mike said...
I could not agree more with Sparty's essay. The Bush Admin has repeatedly ignored the Constitution to force it's will. What is sad is they know they can get away with it, because the American people just don't seem to care.
June 17, 2008 4:04 PM
anonymous said...
I have to agree with Sparty that these "prisoners" have been unjustly dealt with and under "our current rulers" rule anyone can end up there with no explanations to anyone. It's wrong! Not the way our country has supposedly set its up as taking the high ground. And most of our news media print as gospel any thing leaked to them. We are hurting badly for some really good investigative reporters. Of course, they would probably end up at
Gitmo. An interesting book to read: THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULERS: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them. by Amy Goodman with David Goodman. It deals with this topic as well as many others in the same vein ignoring the Constitution. Alice
June 17, 2008 6:07 PM
bud said...
So, let us suppose that the U.S. should end up someday in a war with Mexico, which is not at all a far-fetched idea. And let's suppose that in that time, the U.S. would take, oh 50,000 POW's. At what point would each of them be entitled to their habeas corpus and their trial by jury in our courts? 72 hrs. for HC and then 6 months for the trial
June 17, 2008 8:24 PM
7 comments:
If they're POWs their treatment is governed by the Geneva Convention, not U. S. constitutional courts.
The "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan are, according to the Bush gang, not POWs and not governed by the Geneva Convention (which the U.S. doesn't have to honor, anyway). Undoubtedly, some of them were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time six years ago and the only protection they have from unilateral, capicious and inhumane treatment is whatever procedures the executive branch desires to give them.
Bud;
We are talking about a specific group of people here, not some imaginary detainees in some possible future conflict.
Are there any Americans being held at this time, by whom and how are they being treated ?? Now or in the past ?? In fact, who is the declared enemy in this so-called war ???
These are serious questions -----
Well, I do agree with you all about treating our prisoners morally and humanely. i agree with Dashmann about basic human rights being observed even in our prisons. I am absolutely against "torture" of prisoners. Where do they find so many people willing to do this torture?
Where we may disagree is about access to our courts.
If they aren't considered prisoners of war, then they should have access to the US court system. You cannot start just making up categories of people who have rights and who don't. There is the rule of law and basic human rights that form the backbone of US society. The mess of Guantanamo is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. It's the thin edge of the wedge, so now any group that can be demonised or depersonalised by those in power could suffer the same fate. No one is asking the tough questions or putting pressure on the government. I blame the press and the gutless Congress.
Irene, I agree with you about the press & media. If you can get a hold of Goodman's book, she has a chapter on "State Media American
Style". I really appriciate the coments you make. Alice
We find torturers by encouraging our over-extended prozac addled
National Guardpersons.
I wish someone who has been in the military could explain how it was possible for
the Abu-Grabass soldiers to do all the things they did without the brass finding out. I personally feel safer knowing Lyndie Englund has been stopped and contained.
So why is it that people believe the lies that they are fed by government officials (such as the brass being unaware of the torture at Abu Ghraib)? Why do people not care about the violation of human rights at Guantanamo? There's the complicit media, but what makes so many Americans so ready to accept it all?
Post a Comment