Say it ain't so other Joe
Joe Lieberman defends his vote to deny foreign nationals the right to challenge their detention in court by stating, "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world war on terrorism has no more right to a habeas corpus appeal to our courts than did a captured soldier of the Axis powers during World War II." That's great. For torture, the argument is that "at least its not as bad as what Hussein did." Now, we're not even trying to be better that the most despicable people in history. Hey, if the Nazi's did it, it must be ok. Lovely standard. We are sinking into a very dark place.
PS. For you "original intenter's" out there, Habeas Corpus was one of the major points at the start of the Revolutionary War. This is a big give-up.
Posts
12 comments:
Actually, what poor old Joe said was that we did not allow Nazis to appeal to our courts on WWII, so why should we change our policies now?
The supporters of the Lieberman position feel that the protections built into the military system are sufficient. That seems reasonable, unless one feels the military can't be trusted to be just.
Ok, my bad. I missread the statement. Hey, look over there...
One question though. If this war is against a enemy without borders, and has no real "victory" moment, how long can we hold "enemy combatants?" Presumably, after WWII, treatment of prisoners normalized. Here, that will never be the case. Since there is no one enemy, who can be brought in under this designation? How broad is the leeway? In the end, I'm still not sure if the fight against terrorism is a police action, a military action, or a combination. 10 years ago, when the FBI's counterterrorism division arrested someone, how were they treated? As a normal arrest, or a military arrest? Again, this is NOT WWII, there will be no V-T day. We have to think long term. I don't doubt the military, but this seems like something that belongs on the civil/crimianl side to me.
But again, I did misread Mr. Lieberman. If you read this Joe, I'm sorry.
UBlo's question is a good one, and perhaps Saving Private Ryan sheds some light. When Tom Hank's group takes the German prisoner some want to execute him, however, mercy prevails and he is freed. The result? The man is seen fighting again and killing Americans later in the movie.
I see why it concerns many if we chose to hold these fighters indefinately, however, we hold many criminals indefinately and are quite justified to do so. Is this much different? If these men will continue to pose a threat to us why should they be released? They aren't paying a debt to society, they are being eliminated from the fight...a fight that clearly is ongoing.
It is fair to release those you can (and we've relased many) and to hold those you can't indefinately.
Excellent analogy. Perhaps another of Mr. Spielberg's movies can also help show a path towards the best way of combating the terrorists. As in E.T., we should leave a trail of Reeses Pieces in front of the caves to lure them out. But instead of an adorable Drew Barrymore, we can have a platoon of Marines. Then we'll see who wants to "phone home."
Also, having read my post again several times, I'm trying to find the point where I get queasy holding bad people for life. I still don't see it. What disturbs me is the process. To you your own example, yes we do hold people for life, and I'm all for that. We also give them the right to a court date, trial by jury, defense attys, and the right of appeal. The process is the issue, not the result. I disagree with holding someone for life without charging them or giving them the right to challenge their imprisonment. This is distincly un-American, and its heading for the mainstream, permanent route.
We disagree on enough as it is. No need to attack me on something we both agree on; keeping bad people in jail for as long as neccessary. Because if you're going to keep coming at me like that, you're "gonna need a bigger boat."
Also, way to show that mercy is for suckers.
It's a pragmatic argument. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me questioning the reformability of terrorists.
Military tribunals are as American as any other form of due process. In WWII German saboteurs (terrorists?) landed in the US and were captured. FDR had them tried and hung within months. Not only is our current policy American, it is a more compassionate version of established American justice.
"I'm sorry if you have a problem with me questioning the reformability of terrorists." Quick question, do you debate me, or some moronic version of me (or are they the same? If they are, please tell me, I can take it)? I never even touched on reform in any of the prior posts. This is like me saying, "Your points on Military Tribunals are excellent. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me loving my family, but I just do."
The issue isn't about probation, work-release, or apologizing. The issue is the process by which guilt is determined. As a freedom loving people, the decision to take away someone’s freedom should be handled with the greatest care. Since there is no enemy state, anyone anywhere (for now US citizens are exempt, but I pessimistically don't think that will last) can be tried as an "enemy combatant." Defining the process of determining guilt is the issue, not sentencing, reform, or anything else. Tribunals have restrictions on discovery, witnesses, legal protection, and lesser standards of evidence for guilt. I agree that Tribunals are American, but debate whether they are "as" American as other forms of due process.
As a side note, I’m not sure why we have military tribunals. If the people are sovereign, and the populace controls the military, why does the military have its own rules? Philosophically, shouldn’t a citizen controlled military be subject the same laws, protections and restrictions as the people?
I took your "mercy" post to mean you think we should be merciful to the terrorists. Which I figured, based on the subject matter, meant being willing to let them go. Letting prisoners go after a war is just, letting them go during is foolish. But letting them go anytime would be merciful. You didn't say you would let them go, so I did misstate you argument...but hey, that's what the audience wants! Conflict!
I'm not sure why military justice is not adequate for you. An American soldier can be tried and imprisoned by a tribunal and there are no cries of "unAmerican". I don't see why terrorists should be given more legal opportunities than American soldiers are given. I think the tribunals are sufficient. Perhaps not perfect, but sufficient.
You asked in another post how two people can view the same thing and come to such different conclusions. Even as I reread the posts on this thread I don't see any tone of "mercy." It seems more and more that any reference to terrorists that doesn't include "of course we should kill them all after lengthy torture" means you’re a weak, American hating, leftist, pansy. This is how the differences are born. The arguments are prepackaged and the attacks start immediately. "Oh, he wants judicial review that puts him in the Anti-American camp. Thus, he must also have these other views, which I will now attack." Black or white, no nuance, or ability to say, this one argument is wrong, that one makes sense, where can we agree.
Also, again rereading my post I mention that I don't understand why we have military tribunals. I also outline why I think they are not "adequate" for me. Your point on US soldiers falls under this. Why aren't US soldiers given the same rights and protections as the citizens they protect. To build upon your argument, I also don't think its right that a mass murderer has more legal rights that a US soldier. In my mind all citizens should have the same rights. That's the American ideal. Finally, the tribunals that oversee the terrorist's are much more restrictive than the tribunals that US soldiers see. So your point about equality between terrorists and soldiers is not accurate.
By the way, I'm just writing this in response to your "Why I hate babies" post.
"Also, way to show that mercy is for suckers." - UBlo 9:10 am
This was the "mercy" post I referred to. I apologize for not making that clearer.
Your concerns regarding military justice are duly noted. Allow me to speculate: The issues that arise in a military setting are significantly different than those that occur daily in American society. I think for that reason, a military tribunal (I'm using this term as a catchall) is used to address these issues. I think it is reasonable to question the effectiveness of the military and the civilian systems. I'm afraid I'm still not clear on why the civilian system is superior to the military system. More oversight? More appeal opportunities? Those things may be correct, but even if they are, I'd still be saying that the military system can be sufficient even if it is not as generous as the civil system.
Again, I'm sorry if you think I'm doing the straw man on you. Since you didn't offer any specific solutions, I just made some assumptions to keep the conversation "lively". That's the way we roll her on Hydra Smack Down.
My "mercy" post came after YOUR "mercy" comment in the Saving Private Ryan post. That was a great move. You bring up mercy, letting them go, the like, which I never did, then rip me for it. Do you have a job in politics I don't know about? But in the end, I feel this has all been one big misunderstanding, I feel so silly. I love you man.
By the way, my original "solution" was to allow Habeus Corpus and other common protections. I think that's fairly specific. Again, the protections that enemy combatants have are much less than military tribunals, which, in turn, are less than US civil/criminal courts.
But, why are you calling me the strawman. Are you saying I don't have a brain? that's it, I'm moving to another thread.
Post a Comment