The Folly of Guantanamo Bay
The Supreme Court today heard arguments on the legality of the detaining “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay with neither US constitutional rights to habeas corpus, nor Geneva Conventions POW rights.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the administration, said foreigners captured and held outside the United States “have no constitutional rights to petition our courts for a writ of habeas corpus,” a judicial determination of the legality of detention.
The claim is that the detainees are not on US soil, even though, as a US military base, the detention center is for all intents and purposes on US soil. It certainly isn’t under Cuban control or sovereignty.
It really is a Catch 22 for the administration. If it isn’t under US sovereignty, the Cuba has every right to re-take the land and free the prisoners. If they recognize that it is under US sovereignty, then they have to apply US constitutional guaranteed rights to the prisoners.
President Bush’s disregard for the rights of the prisoners here has succeeded in giving the Conservatives in America a serious black eye, one which will not soon be forgotten. For decades, the Liberals have been seen as the ones to trample the rights of individuals in order to serve the “good of society”, what with affirmative action lunacy, DSHS excesses, and urban planning that victimized countless landowners by preventing them form selling their own land for development.
All that is water under the bridge now, since Bush came along and appointed himself judge and jury.
Surely some of the prisoners could be dangerous, and should not be released if they have committed terrorist acts. But that is for a court to decide, not George Bush.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Agreed. This is a typical Supreme Court punt on an important issue. Rather then actually deal with the issue they produce a “Catch 22″ punt that just means someone else will deal with it (i.e. Bush for now fills the void).
The Liberals and Conservatives in American politics are one in the same, now a days, when it comes to an individuals rights & freedoms… they both want the power to be “judge and jury” of the citizens. I currently only see one politician who is speaking against this nonsense and that is Ron Paul.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’m sure you realize this, but most conservatives don’t consider Bush a conservative. He’s about as liberal as it gets and still wear the conservative tag.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
cldnails, that is true but most other “conservatives” running for major political office are advocates of big government and therefore “liberal” in their spending just like Bush. When it comes to personal rights & freedoms Bush is not “liberal” he is authoritative like most other candidates running Democrat or Republican.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Um, ‘liberals’ are the ones pushing big government, in terms of socializing everything we do. Just because they think it’s alright to murder the unborn and allow homo’s to marry doesn’t make them opposed to Big Government. I suppose it does depend on who we are pointing the finger at, but generally speaking ‘conservatives’ one market to dictate, not government.
So, I guess I miss your point…?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
my point is that so many so called “conservative” politicians say they don’t support big government but their actions are to the contrary. how many major political candidates calling themselves “conservatives” are in favor of no child left behind (more government & spending), department of home land security (more government & spending), & faith based initiatives (more government spending) the list goes on. it seems like most “conservative” politicians are in favor of these “big government” programs ergo they are “liberal” in their spending.
this is why, generally speaking, is one of the reasons I am in favor of neither Democrat or Republican parties and think they both suck monkey balls.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I see. Monkey balls.
I’ve always felt it’s the lesser of 2 evils when voting for political offices. So yes, monkey balls.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:10 am
cldnails, I have done the same. I guess I’m just tired of where that mentality has taken us. So now I will vote for change even if I am fairly certain that personal will not be elected. I figured that in most other situations, where I had a choice, I would never settle for the lesser of two evils.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I saw a quote some where the other day that said, “If you keep voting for the lesser of 2 evils you’ll forget you are voting for evil.” Or something to that effect.
I’m honestly concerned and scared every day I look at the news, the political candidates for president, and think these are the BEST our Nation has to offer?
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:13 am
“If you keep voting for the lesser of 2 evils you’ll forget you are voting for evil.”
Great quote!