It’s not a very good catch, this Catch-22 of yours. There’s an easy way out: treat people accorded US Citizenship status as US Citizens until a legal threshhold is crossed that revokes their citizenship. If you follow this idea, then there’s no problem. The problem only arises when you suggest that we can violate someone’s citizenship rights based on something less than legal revocation of their citizenship status.
Daniel
You say this as if it’s all but impossible to convict people for terrorism or espionage while simultaneously affording them Constitutional rights. Has this been an actual problem?
Any real-world examples, like perhaps 9/11 hijackers who were going to have their phones tapped, but there wasn’t enough evidence for a warrant, or something like that?
It makes no difference. The protections of the Bill of Rights are not limited to citizens. Citizens have only two general categories of rights resident non-citizens have not:
The right of political participation – voting and holding public office – which is really a set of privileges, subject to regulation (e.g., the practice of some states of permanently disenfranchising convicts might be egregious, but is not unconstitutional).
The right of residence on U.S. soil. (Citizens convicted of crime can be stripped of their civil rights, even put to death in some cases; but they cannot be exiled or deported; noncitizens can be).
Oh sh!t they figured out what the OP is about. Doesn’t matter that much, see below.
I would argue that the country is the one world Islamic state, which according to many who follow Islam and blow up things must exist, but that doesn’t even matter since the precedent has been set that we can declare war on a non-country (Barberry Pirates)
Well I can think of one fat, huge flashing - no strobbing problem, using your method dooms us to defeat (yes IMHO).
I suspect so due to the existance of the wiretapping program. I don’t think it is reasonable for the Government to inform the public on issues that if revealed, could hurt our war effort.
So would you say that an invading army into the US, which is stopped and some of the invading troops captured would be allowed constitutional rights, while thoese captured while still in international waters would not?
So if a civil right is taken away, you don’t even need them to tell you why, let alone have any debate about it. Yeah, no potential for abuse there.
Actually they were afforded constitutional protection in that they were tried under a military tribunal, which is subject to the UCMJ under the Constitution. And yes, their rights were limited, but they were still tried under the law.
Confused on all points. There was a foreign sovereign involved there, the Pasha of Tripoli. And Congress never declared war, the Pasha did. :
In any case, no “one world Islamic state” exists. No one, least of all al-Qaeda, has any authority to declare war in its name, and Congress has no authority to declare war upon it. (A contrary theory would have given the Soviet Union the authority to declare war on the U.S. in the name of the “international working class” – and authorized Congress to declare war on the “international working class” as embodied by its legitimate representative, the USSR.) Legally, al-Qaeda can be treated only as what they are – a band of criminals acting without lawful authority from any state.
The troops of a sovereign state, invading the U.S., would be treated according to the rules of war – meaning, if captured, they would be immune from criminal prosecution in American civilian courts. They would be treated as POWs under the Geneva Conventions and repatriated after the cessation of hostilities. Is that how you want al-Qaeda terrorists treated?!
Terrorists, on the other hand, whatever cause they might purport to serve, would be treated under the criminal law. Meaning, if arrested in the U.S., they would be entitled to all protections afforded criminal suspects under the Constitution and applicable criminal codes.
If there is some justification for the Admin creating a third category of “unlawful combatants” enjoying the protection neither of POWs nor of criminal suspects, why does it have to keep them in Guantanamo Bay? A location apparently selected because it is under U.S. control, but arguably not U.S. soil for all legal purposes. If the “unlawful combatant” categorization is lawful, why not just put these guys in an ordinary federal jail stateside?
Sorry, the above quote on the First Barbary War is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War.
Iagree insofar as they were given a trial, my point being however that there rights were curtailed and by trying them in a military court they were not afforded the same rights and privileges that an American citizen would receive, the right to a jury trial for instance.
Personally, I feel holding the prisoners in Guatanamo Bay serves to purposes. First, it provides us with a secure and isolated location to warehouse and interrogate the prisoners. To the best of my knowledge no one has broken into Guantanamo Bay or escaped from it. Because it is a military base in Cuba there is no chance of protesters or other groups disrupting the operations down there. Furthermore, if we placed the detainees in federal jails they would be a huge security risk. I agree it is the state’s responsibility to accept this risk if they wish to hold them but by placing them in a federal facility the risk would increase ten fold compared to Guantanamo. There is a good possibility another inmate could attempt to kill them or a friendly inmate or guard could carry information in or out. All of these things would result in some terrible publicity and only cause this administration, who I don’t care for myself, additional problems.
Secondly by holding them in Guantanamo the Administration is semi-successfully able to further it’s argument that the detainees are not on American soil and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts or the protections afforded by the US Constitution. Not the most compelling argument, but the Administration has been using it for quite some time.
It’s really really simple. If there are people who should be investigated, then a court should issue a warrant. If the law doesn’t cover the possibilities, then Congress should change the law. And the President, whoever he is, does not have the right to overrule the law.
To illustrate why this is important, let’s use another example. Suppose a Democratic President found out that there was a group of people living in the country who were forming a militia group and trying to take over the country. And the President said that was a clear threat to the safety of the United States. So to prevent this armed uprising, he was going to confiscate all the guns in the country and lock them up until everything was “safe”.
Now some people would say “Hey, that’s a clear violation of the Constitution and a whole bunch of other laws.” But the President would say, “But we’re at war and during wartime I have the power to do whatever is necessary to protect the country. So you have to give up your guns.”
Now do you understand why it’s important for the President to obey the Constitution all the time and not just when he feels like it?
What, I wonder, do you think those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve?
Daniel
No a whole buttload of potential abuse there. But this potential is reason not to abuse it, for if actual abuse comes to light the whole program is compromised.
Thanks for the history lesson. But this reinforces my point, the terrorists declared war on us, just like the Pasha of Tripoli. It is true that Al-Q does not have a internationally recognized ‘country’, but they certainly have command and control operations, which is a legitimate target of military actions.
I don’t see why they couldn’t do this, who would stop them from declaring war - Og?
Yes that is exactly how I want them treated, as EPW’s and released after the war on terror is over, that is for the members of Al-Q who qualify under the G.C., for ones who don’t again summary execution as spies.
It’s not that I don’t understand the other side of the issue. In your example, the item you state goes directly against the written text of the Constitution on 2 levels - Security needs a well regulated militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms - directly barring your example, and directly countering the reason for the action taken in your example.
The ‘right to privacy’ does not exist in the written text, nor is there a reason stated for it. It is arguable open to challenge, and telecommumications, which travel sometimes over the air might not be afforded this protection.
But again I feel this is besides the point, as Al-Q opperatives should not be given such protections -yes back to that catch 22.
I do agree with Ol’ Ben’s statement, and have many disagreements on how this war is conducted. I would much prefer a more ‘citizen centric’ anti Al-Q effort inside the US homeland, but we have already surrendered this responsibility of essential liberties to police and other authorities that it would take too long to go back in the tiem frame of the war.
No it isn’t. Invasion of Afghanistan was necessary to eliminate that country as bin Laden’s base of operations. Beyond that, this is a policing problem, not a military problem. You don’t declare war on nonstate criminals, and you don’t fight them under the rules of war. There is no legal basis for it, and it is impractical besides. Using an army to fight an underground network of terrorist cells is like firing a machine gun at a cloud of mosquitoes: The mosquitoes won’t be affected and you’re more likely to hit innocent bystanders.
Would you care to posit either a time frame or a set of benchmarks required to recognize such a thing as “over” for this “war on terror”? Because without one of those two, “after the war on terror is over” is functonally equivalent to “never”.
So, if someone happens to accuse you, or a member of your family, of spying - that’s ok because it’s a time of war. Nobody need know about it as you’re wiretapped and then discreetly taken away, as you “don’t think it is reasonable for the Government to inform the public on issues that if revealed, could hurt our war effort.”
I’m glad we don’t live in your world just yet.
You mean proven Al Qaeda operatives, right? Once they’ve been tried according to the Constitution?
Let me ask you, kanicbird-why do you hate America? No, seriously, what you are proposing goes against EVERYTHING this country is supposed to stand for.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The fact remains that what you’re proposing is completely unworkable without severe further dismantling of our civil liberties (inasmuch as you propose shooting people who are suspected of being spies). You’ve offered no evidence whatsoever that preserving our civil liberties and giving suspected spies a constitutionally-guaranteed trial will result in Doom. Why on earth would anyone take your argument seriously, given its lack of evidence and patently unworkable proposal?
Daniel
This is like saying we can trust accountants not to embezzle, because of if they get caught embezzling, they’ll lose their jobs and hence have to stop embezzling. So no need to have any oversight on them, which is the one and only way they might get caught embezzling.
'Fraid we do.
At least until November 2006.