Vote '08

Yesterday in a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

The dissenters, including Justice Antonin Scalia, were quite vituperative. Scalia went so far as to say that “more Americans will die because of this ruling.” President Bush, from Europe, also said he sided with the dissenters.

Let’s hope that’s not the case. But let’s also celebrate the apparent return of the ideals that have made this country the greatest in the world.

There are two kinds of power: hard power & soft power.

We have seen examples of the former in droves for the past 8 years. We are in desperate need of a return to “soft power,” which is akin to leading by example.

We should not be afraid of our American way of life as spelled out in the Constitution. I have always been under the impression that those who would lock up terrorist suspects & throw away the key are doing the American image considerable damage abroad.

Yes, trying terror suspects under our U.S. court system will be messy - justice always is. But for more than two centuries we have handled “the worst of the worst” in our jail system & there is no reason that can’t be the same for these suspects.

The alternative, keeping them indefinitely detained, denying them the chance to see the evidence against them (again - a right spelled out in the Constitution), or not allowing them to have legal representation, presents the United States as a hypocrite.

Colin Powell had a great line on Meet the Press about habeas corpus in the last couple of years with which we heartily agree:

“The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.”

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson nails our view on the matter, read it here.

Hugh Hewitt encapsulates the opposing view, calling it “an astonishingly dangerous decision.”

If we suffer because we stick to our long tradition of adhering to the inalienable rights of human beings - even those who aren’t citizens of our country - we will not only make our country stronger, we will also achieve a “soft” victory that would actually reduce the number of terrorists in the world.

That’s our take … what’s yours?

Gary Poole of Athens, TN writes:

“It is one thing for an enemy to kill our soldiers. Although I do not like it in the least, I can respect the man who did it and the his courage. It is quite another thing for an enemy to kill innocent civilians. I have no respect for them or their lack of courage. As far as I am concerned, when they joined a conspiracy to kill non combatant women and children, they lost all legal rights in our judicial system. I will agree that we need to do away with the detainee camps at Guantanamo…execute all the detainees and let Allah have them.”

Thanks for commenting, Gary! Here’s my question for you, though: in what way do you determine beyond a doubt that a suspect in custody “joined a conspiracy to kill non-combatant women & children?” How do you do this without a court hearing? Who is the person who decides a person’s guilt or innocence (& if guilt, decides if that guilt warrants death?) That’s the problem right now - we have no way of making the leap from terrorist suspect.. to proven terrorist. Some of the suspects held at Guantanamo have been proven to be completely innocent of charges - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should these people be executed, too? If you say yes, how can you call that justice?

Mr. Poole responded later in the day to me via e-mail:

 ”Lieutenant Calley from the Vietnam era comes to mind.  I wonder if he had the time to be that analytical as to what the proper response should be while his platoon was taking the majority of fire coming at his platoon from the rear, from the village he was supposed to be defending?  Which was the higher obligation…the rights of the villagers or the lives of his men?  I am not trying to be cute,  all I am saying is that the man wearing the uniform and carrying the rifle looks at it a little differently than a courtroom lawyer or judge acting with months/years of hindsight.  For the vast majority of situations, I am in complete agreement with you but I am of a completely different mindset when it comes to someone trying to destroy my country.  Like the old English toast”To Great Britain… and to hell with her enemies”"

Now it’s your turn! What do you think?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.