There’s activist judges … then there’s the US Supreme Court:
But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans. I think I prefer Canada’s system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.
Not so fast cjunk. ANYBODY setting foot on Canadian soil gets automatic “Rights”, as guaranteed in our own Turdopian communist manifesto. So even though I agree that the US decision is one bunch of crap, I have abosolutly know doubt ours would do the exact same thing. I just hope that the American soldiers take this for the chance they have been given: NO PRISONERS,NO WORRIES ABOUT “RIGHTS”.
on one side of the argument i can applaud the good intention – that’s the kid that’s still alive and well – BUT on the other side of the coin – i am not a kid anymore and the majority of the court’s decision is a nothing less than an invitation for all to join in flagrant anarchy. law is usurped by activism. they seem to have forgotten that they are officers of the court and personal views don’t count .
i like john mccain’s take on it – it’s a very bad decision.
Justthinkin: Enemy combatants taken in battle by Canucks, do not have the same legal rights as Canadians do. There is no ruling or law to offer them such.
I’m sure that Canada’s “progressive” class would want to give prisnors of war access to our courts … but there is no vehicle for that at this time.
Paul, correct, as determined by the supreme court of Canada..our constitution and its rights do not apply to captured enemy combatants outside Canada..
I can see this leading to a lot of soldiers getting frustrated by the judicial system – whether Canadian or American.
And the end result will not be good for enemy combatants, re: Ralph Peters’ article on 25 things to do when dealing with terrorists.
“10. WHENEVER LEGAL CONDITIONS PERMIT, KILL TERRORISTS ON THE SPOT (DO NOT GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SURRENDER, IF YOU CAN HELP IT).
Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnapping, highjackings and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.”
Sounds like this would have been the solution to the media manufactured problem with Kadr; and the prison break last week. (Had this been done, we never would have heard of the younger Kadr).
Re: previous post.
Don’t take this to mean I am advocating a ‘no prisoners’ policy. I am only saying that the average soldier on the battlefield who sees the enemy escape – and maybe kill again – or returned free to OUR OWN streets due to our ‘social justice’ judiciary – may decide on the spot that this will prevent the particular enemy combatant from ever being a threat again.
Paul; I realize our system does not YET allow that right,but I will bet next years paycheck,it will,within 5 years.
And unlike sarge,I AM advocating a take no prisoners aspect. Since they are not combatants by Geneva Convention standards,then it follows they cannot be “prisoners”,and no laws have been broken. And puhlease don’t tell me about morals. This is war,not who craps first out of 2 people in the line for the 1 holer.
Justthinkin: On that we agree … Layton and crew would like nothing better.
Nothing but “dead” Taliban..gotta nice ring to it doncha think?
take no prisoners, especially if they could successfully sue you for injuring them in a fire fight.
I too, advocate a take no prisoner strategy (unless you intend to torture them for intelligence, they can always be killed during escape later).
Besides, I can’t see some lefties arguing against this point as they support killing of innocents that might lead a suffering life.
So, its only a logical conclusion that it is OK to kill terrorists who will also cause suffering to others.
Unless of course, the lefties want the nutters to cause suffering, which I beleive is that case for some lefties.
I do find this amazing, the lefties are so energetic about defending the rights of terrorists. However, when it come to normal people then all sorts of restrictions are justified (e.g. can’t offend anyone now can we, law-abiders should never have guns, how dare you teach your child that, etc, etc).
Abraham Lincoln March 4, 1861:
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
Hmmm.
A couple of points. POW’s are protected. Though it doesn’t take much reading to ascertain that surrendering in a combat zone is probably a VERY high risk activity… advancing combat troups of every nation are uninclined to spare the time risk or energy of dealing with prisoners.
If you aren’t a POW by the Geneva conventiton definition you are an illegal combatant ( classically a civilian engaged in active combat is the example, not part of an organized unit etc…) Illegal combatants are basically criminals with no legal standing according to the GC, and can be shot out of hand or whatever, traditionally they were. (See partisians in Russian WWII and elsewhere.)
The problem with the Guantanmo, et al, is you have both illegal combatants ( captured on battlefields or the like) and terrorists ( some apparently snatched out of their beds, off the street).
Now I have little sympathy for either groups because I believe that _most_ of the characters were/are a nasty piece of work.
HOWEVER, in the latter cases it is rather an offense against natural justice to have someone just picked off the street with no judicial review that seems fair to the accused. Some star chamber where you can’t see the evidence against you, and and your counsel wears the same uniform as the judge…
And in the former case “illegal combatants” it seem rather dubious to keep these people locked up for years and years with out some independent review. It’s one of those “shit or get off the pot” situations, either shoot them or let them go, or charge them with murder and lock them up formally. Leaving people in some HRC/Kafka esque limbo is inhumane.
Fred: “….offense against natural justice to have someone just picked off the street… ” & “…leaving people in some HRC/Kafka esque limbo is inhumane…”
Picking people of the street, which street is that? The one where the nutters are shooting at our soldiers, or 5th Avenue NY.
Once we rid our “social justice” system of ALL its systemic injustices against our own citizens then addressing the terrorists can take higher priority.
People have spent more time in jail for non-violent offences (or offences they didn’t commit) than the terrorists in Guan or other countries like the UK.
Hell, in the UK they regularly imprison council tax protesters but let leaders in Alacadabra-dirka off for human rights.
I guess threats to the gov’t tax stream are much more important than the measly lives of us normal folk.
Let’s not forget, our soldiers aren’t over there fighting to protect the rights of those terrorists who would seek to kill us. Their fighting to kill the terrorists so that they don’t kill us.
We can be nice to them at their funeral!!!
Military tribunals were dealing with all cases in guantanamo, and many were in fact released. None were in limbo but either awaiting hearings, in the process, or released.
If the U.S. Supreme court can invent a “right” to an abortion, or a “right” for government to take away someone’s property and give it to another private party, then it’s not much of a stretch to discover the right of “habeus corpus” for foreigners when all the enumerated rights are expressly given to U.S. citizens.
Imagine the activist face of the Supreme Court after Obama gets through with it.
Who determined that enemy combatants don’t get the same consitutional protections as anyone else within Canada? The SCC bench-legislated our aliens to have rights years ago.
Get off the American bashing – they are just catching up to our stupidity.
There is a reason we don’t want to bring the alleged scum-bags back to Canada. Don’t fool yourself.
Cjunk,
Our courts gave rights (albeit limited) to prisoners of Afghani prisons run by Afghans.
Square that circle.
[quote]And in the former case “illegal combatants” it seem rather dubious to keep these people locked up for years and years with out some independent review. It’s one of those “shit or get off the pot” situations, either shoot them or let them go, or charge them with murder and lock them up formally. Leaving people in some HRC/Kafka esque limbo is inhumane.[/quote]
Fred,
I agree somewhat.. The definition of Cuba’s sovereignty is cloudy; it was a part of the US in an Imperial era. The Congress has passed laws that re-enforced that view of Cuba & the rights of Americans who lost Property in “the” revolutionary action.
The SC decision only applies to CUBA and does not affect the battlefield IMO. The US Lawyer’s get the benefit of Public Money.. But “some” would argue that the US Courts, in and of them selves, amounts to Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
The Congress still has the Power to change the Act & that would nullify the SC decision.
Indeed! The Constitution could be changed to add an amendment limiting the power of the SC.
Not to worry, we the people stiil rule!
I love Hawkins Lincoln quote. Its sort of like Satan quoting the Bible. Let’s see Lincoln trampled the Constitution as no other president ever has and waged war on his fellow Americans. He imprisoned Americans without trial and waged war on civilians against the traditions of the day.
In short any thing Lincoln has to say about justice has about as much relevance as Jack the Ripper suggestions on how to treat women.
“5 years later still inching their way thru the mil tribunals? justice is slow eh?”
Uh, no. There were originally over 3000 detainees at Gitmo: there are now fewer than 300. Based on administrative status reviews, most have been released. Appeals of the military tribunals under the Detainee Treatment Act that the Court SPECIFICALLY TOLD CONGRESS TO PASS in Hamdan and Rasul were to go to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. But the Supreme Court short-circuited the whole process by saying the detainees could petition for habeas, despite the fact that the statutory jurisdiction of each US District Courts is expressly limited to the district in which it sits, and despite saying they were NOT overruling Eisentrager, where they’d found prisoners held by the US military in occupied Germany could not seek habeas review of their captivity.
There were over 300,000 German and Italian POW’s held on US soil during WWII, and not one of them ever had the right to petition a civilian court for a writ of habeas corpus. They were the uniformed military personnel of recognized lawfully bellgerent states: I fail to see how people who VIOLATE the Geneva Conventions by fighting without uniforms and concealing themselves among civilian populations should have MORE rights, not fewer.
Pirates, spies, saboteurs: the law historically treated all these civilians engaged in military or quasi-military action as literal “outlaws”: being outside the law of war, they were subject to summary execution by whoever captured them.