Since Bush became president, he has tried to assume the powers of a king. He wants to be able to put people in prison and hold them there for years with charges or a fair trial. He was even able to talk a Republican-controlled Congress into passing a law that gave him that ability -- as long as the arrestee was a foriegner and Bush labeled him a terrorist.
But I think he always knew he was violating the Constitution. That's why he kept the prisoners in our military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Bush thought if he kept foriegners that he called terrorists in a facility outside of the United States, then he wouldn't have to abide by the Constitution or the rule of law.
He was wrong. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo was considered U.S. property as far as the law was concerned since the only authority there was the United States military and government. Yesterday, the Supreme Court restored the right of habeas corpus.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the detainees in Guantanamo do have the right to appeal their detention to a United States civilian court. They cannot be held for years without charge or trial and denied the ability to appeal their unlawful detention. The majority decision was written by Justice Kennedy (pictured above). He was joined in the majority by Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer.
I applaud these justices. It sets a dangerous precedent when anyone is denied access to the court system, and can be held indefinitely without charges or trial. We are supposed to be a nation that relies on the rule of law. But if that rule of law can be denied to one person, who is to say that can't be extended to others?
I am no lover of terrorists. If the United States government has evidence that any of the detainees engaged in acts of terrorism, they should bring them to a duly authorized court and give them a fair trial. If they are then found guilty, they should be punished severely.
A perfect example of how to treat terrorists is how the U.S. government acted against Timothy McVeigh. He was given a fair trial, convicted and punished according to law. All legal and constitutional guarantees were respected.
But if there is not enough evidence to bring a criminal to trial, then they should be released. A nation based on the rule of law does not keep a person incarcerated for years without charges. The United States government needs to charge the detainees and give them a fair trial, or release them.
Bush still doesn't want to do that. He said he is thinking of asking Congress for another law to allow him to keep these dictatorial powers. But the Republicans no longer control Congress. Congressional Democrats must show they have a backbone. They must deny him any such unconstitutional law.
Democrats must not give in this time. It's too important.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
ReplyDeleteScalia has got to be one of the worst justices in the history of the Supreme Court. I always find myself laughing a little when I hear Republicans whining about "activist" judges, then holding up Scalia as their model judge - he's as big an activist as any that's ever sat on the bench.
I agree. He's the very definition of an activist politically-motivated judge.
ReplyDeleteI saw your pic on PTS. I had always imagined that you were some 18 year old idiot. I see your much older, but your still an idiot. How does it happen that as a person ages gains more of an isight to reality, they remain an idiot?
ReplyDeleteAn idiot that screams about Constitutional violations yet censors everything not in lock step with his own opinion.
CT-
ReplyDeleteI'll let the readers decide which of us is the idiot.