Let Me Help The Court Out On This One...
Tuesday morning I was greeted with a wonderful AP headline in the East Valley Tribune. It was written by Gina Holland, and in big bold letters across the top the caption read: "Court to tackle Bush powers case." Now for all those unaware of this case, it's about the president's war powers; namely whether he can legally call for the formation of military tribunals to try the detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere. Now, if you're on the Left, you're probably grumbling something about flushed Korans, or panties on the heads of inmates at Abu Ghraib, but you still don't have a leg to stand on.
First, those involved in Abu Ghraib have been tried, convicted, and sentenced. In my opinion, their sentence went a bit far, but that's me. There are no more confirmed, substatiated reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib, and to correct the MSM one last time, it wasn't torture. You want stories of torture, go have a sit down with Sen. McCain, or any number of other servicemen held in the Hanoi Hilton. Ask any World War II vet that was a prisoner of the Japanese, and they'll change your mind about Abu Ghraib. That, ladies and gentlemen, is torture. That is abuse. It's no different than what North Korea is doing to it's citizens on a daily basis. And what was done at Abu Ghraib is infinitessimal compared to the tortures of Stalin's gulags. Don't lecture me about torture. My knowledge of the subject would probably make some people sick.
As for Gitmo, we have bent down, and kissed the feet of the detainees at Gitmo. These people are literally living in the equivalent of a Federal Country...er...Prison. Religious acceptable meals? Private intercom system piping prayers into their cells? A wall marking the direction they must kneel to in prayer, and a Koran and prayer rug provided. And I'd love to know when reading a Harry Potter book is considered "torture." Sen. Durbin, to my knowledge, has yet to venture to Gitmo and face the soldiers he slandered them in a rambling, spiteful diatribe on June 15th of this year from the floor of the Senate. Again, I need no lecture on the tactics we use for interrogation. I am aware of them.
But this case isn't putting those troops on trial. No, it's directly charging that the president may not have the powers of previous presidents when they took this nation to war. In World War II, we held tribunals for POWs. These POWs were caught in uniform, at a time of war, and we had proof they were recognized as members of the opposing army. Then, these people met with the Geneva Convention conditions for a prisoner of war. But the question is being made about the terrorists we caught in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have a serious problem with this.
These people were caught, at a time of war, fighting on the side of the enemy. They wore no discernable uniform, nor were they recognized as a member of the Iraqi military pre-or post-Saddam. The current Iraqi government recognizes none of these people as citizens of Iraq, nor of their newly-formed military. They didn't abide by any insignia of rank, nor did they have any identification declaring who they fought for. These people being detained don't fall under the definition of a prisoner of war. Therefore, they have been classified as a "illegal combatant."
This is a perfect legal term to describe them. As they meet no criteria to identify them, they are technically and absurdly illegally on the field of battle. In other words, you're fair game. What is being questioned is whether the president has the power to subject these people to a tribunal. The plaintiff is Hamdan, a Yemin who was captured after combat in Afghanistan in November of 2001. He denies conspiring to engage in acts of terrorism, and denies that he was a member of al-Qaeda. His formal charges are: war crimes, murder, and terrorism. He was also Osama's driver, which makes the prize even bigger in this case. What's troubling to me is why the high court decided to take this case.
It's a significant move by the court, and it's troubling news for the White House. It's been battered by the MSM over phony allegations of abuse and torture of detainees. Last year, in Rasul, the White House took a blow from the Supreme Court when they ruled these people couldn't be in legal limbo. This is a sickening precedent being set if the court rules wrong on this case. This falls directly to the president under his powers during a time of war. The resolution passed by Congress called for such. If this were to truly be a significant case, it would have been challenged then, not now. This is another test of our system. Will we allow a foreign combatant, illegally on the battle-field, and not in a recognized uniform be allowed to challenge their detainment in our civil courts? Our courts are for citizens, not foreign nationals. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of citizens, not foreign nationals. These people have no rights under our Constitution; no rights that are protected, save their lives, of course.
But to the legality of the president's powers during a time of war, I refer directly to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
The first clause of the section is all that matters, which is why it's bolded. The United States military is indeed in a time of service, and the president is commanding them. Among those duties are to instruct the JAG offices to institute tribunals for combatants. The Congress need only be consulted, and the resolution passed. It did. We're good to go. The Congress has this power as stipulated under Article I, Section 8, Clause 9:
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
The president's powers are intact. Congress approved of these tribunals, and they have been going since the beginning of the war. The MSM doesn't like to talk about how many detainees have already gone through the system. They only want to discuss the people like Rasul and Hamdan; Padilla and Lindh. These people are challenging our legal system. Granted, Lindh and Padilla had a right to their grievances. They were US citizens, and despite being caught in attempted acts of terrorism (like Padilla), or found on the field of battle (like Lindh), their citizenship was never revoked, nor was treason ever charged. Rasul and Hamdan don't fall into the treason category, but they do fall into a category for combatants caught on the field of battle. But it isn't a POW as described in the Geneva Convention. They fall under a category just recently recognized by the Convention, which is a terrorist, and they are given no quarter within the law. Under OUR laws, they have no rights, and therefore no access to our Constitution or the protections it guarantees.
Publius II
Tuesday morning I was greeted with a wonderful AP headline in the East Valley Tribune. It was written by Gina Holland, and in big bold letters across the top the caption read: "Court to tackle Bush powers case." Now for all those unaware of this case, it's about the president's war powers; namely whether he can legally call for the formation of military tribunals to try the detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere. Now, if you're on the Left, you're probably grumbling something about flushed Korans, or panties on the heads of inmates at Abu Ghraib, but you still don't have a leg to stand on.
First, those involved in Abu Ghraib have been tried, convicted, and sentenced. In my opinion, their sentence went a bit far, but that's me. There are no more confirmed, substatiated reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib, and to correct the MSM one last time, it wasn't torture. You want stories of torture, go have a sit down with Sen. McCain, or any number of other servicemen held in the Hanoi Hilton. Ask any World War II vet that was a prisoner of the Japanese, and they'll change your mind about Abu Ghraib. That, ladies and gentlemen, is torture. That is abuse. It's no different than what North Korea is doing to it's citizens on a daily basis. And what was done at Abu Ghraib is infinitessimal compared to the tortures of Stalin's gulags. Don't lecture me about torture. My knowledge of the subject would probably make some people sick.
As for Gitmo, we have bent down, and kissed the feet of the detainees at Gitmo. These people are literally living in the equivalent of a Federal Country...er...Prison. Religious acceptable meals? Private intercom system piping prayers into their cells? A wall marking the direction they must kneel to in prayer, and a Koran and prayer rug provided. And I'd love to know when reading a Harry Potter book is considered "torture." Sen. Durbin, to my knowledge, has yet to venture to Gitmo and face the soldiers he slandered them in a rambling, spiteful diatribe on June 15th of this year from the floor of the Senate. Again, I need no lecture on the tactics we use for interrogation. I am aware of them.
But this case isn't putting those troops on trial. No, it's directly charging that the president may not have the powers of previous presidents when they took this nation to war. In World War II, we held tribunals for POWs. These POWs were caught in uniform, at a time of war, and we had proof they were recognized as members of the opposing army. Then, these people met with the Geneva Convention conditions for a prisoner of war. But the question is being made about the terrorists we caught in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have a serious problem with this.
These people were caught, at a time of war, fighting on the side of the enemy. They wore no discernable uniform, nor were they recognized as a member of the Iraqi military pre-or post-Saddam. The current Iraqi government recognizes none of these people as citizens of Iraq, nor of their newly-formed military. They didn't abide by any insignia of rank, nor did they have any identification declaring who they fought for. These people being detained don't fall under the definition of a prisoner of war. Therefore, they have been classified as a "illegal combatant."
This is a perfect legal term to describe them. As they meet no criteria to identify them, they are technically and absurdly illegally on the field of battle. In other words, you're fair game. What is being questioned is whether the president has the power to subject these people to a tribunal. The plaintiff is Hamdan, a Yemin who was captured after combat in Afghanistan in November of 2001. He denies conspiring to engage in acts of terrorism, and denies that he was a member of al-Qaeda. His formal charges are: war crimes, murder, and terrorism. He was also Osama's driver, which makes the prize even bigger in this case. What's troubling to me is why the high court decided to take this case.
It's a significant move by the court, and it's troubling news for the White House. It's been battered by the MSM over phony allegations of abuse and torture of detainees. Last year, in Rasul, the White House took a blow from the Supreme Court when they ruled these people couldn't be in legal limbo. This is a sickening precedent being set if the court rules wrong on this case. This falls directly to the president under his powers during a time of war. The resolution passed by Congress called for such. If this were to truly be a significant case, it would have been challenged then, not now. This is another test of our system. Will we allow a foreign combatant, illegally on the battle-field, and not in a recognized uniform be allowed to challenge their detainment in our civil courts? Our courts are for citizens, not foreign nationals. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of citizens, not foreign nationals. These people have no rights under our Constitution; no rights that are protected, save their lives, of course.
But to the legality of the president's powers during a time of war, I refer directly to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
The first clause of the section is all that matters, which is why it's bolded. The United States military is indeed in a time of service, and the president is commanding them. Among those duties are to instruct the JAG offices to institute tribunals for combatants. The Congress need only be consulted, and the resolution passed. It did. We're good to go. The Congress has this power as stipulated under Article I, Section 8, Clause 9:
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
The president's powers are intact. Congress approved of these tribunals, and they have been going since the beginning of the war. The MSM doesn't like to talk about how many detainees have already gone through the system. They only want to discuss the people like Rasul and Hamdan; Padilla and Lindh. These people are challenging our legal system. Granted, Lindh and Padilla had a right to their grievances. They were US citizens, and despite being caught in attempted acts of terrorism (like Padilla), or found on the field of battle (like Lindh), their citizenship was never revoked, nor was treason ever charged. Rasul and Hamdan don't fall into the treason category, but they do fall into a category for combatants caught on the field of battle. But it isn't a POW as described in the Geneva Convention. They fall under a category just recently recognized by the Convention, which is a terrorist, and they are given no quarter within the law. Under OUR laws, they have no rights, and therefore no access to our Constitution or the protections it guarantees.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:59 PM
1 Comments:
Welcome back! Your blog is right on. I understand the use of combatant and it's an appropriate term although I think of them as terrorist thugs. I advocated military tribunals and my position has not changed. The combatants are not without rights in the military court. As a matter of fact, I trust military tribunal more than I do many of our bleeding heart liberal federal judges. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home