It's the Constitution stupid Part 2
| By BingVanGorden - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pm EDT |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Civil Liberties / Privacy, Effective & Ethical Government
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Civil Liberties / Privacy, Effective & Ethical Government
By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled again against Bush administration policies involving legal rights of detainees being held in Guantanomo Bay. Conservative critics call the decision disastrous, and deviously liberal. The dissenting opinion written by Antonin Scalia was typical rhetoric regarding war with islamo-fascists and national security blah blah blah. None of it based in the Constitution he is charged with interpreting in these matters. This decision illustrates beautifully why liberals are right, and conservatives are wrong.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Let's consider the facts of the matter. This case was about whether or not individuals being held by the United States have the right to challenge in a court, their imprisonment. It's called habeas corpus and it is only suspended under the most dire of circumstances. Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court, then granted that power by Congress shortly thereafter as the situation called for it. We have threats to this country. But we do not have rebellion nor invasion. Habeas corpus isn't something to be fooled with. It's a cornerstone of a just society. We as a country do not, rather should not, be in the business of snatching people and holding them indefinitely. That's what the soviets did, and what the Chinese do. We treated Nazis better than the individuals being held now in Guantanomo.
Conservatives want us to believe our government has the right guys and we should afford them the benefit of the doubt. We should consider it patriotic to trust them, not question them and to not show any moral outrage at the potential innocent individuals rights being trampled on. Because we are at war. They must all be guilty and who really cares anyway as long as it saves lives?
Here's the rub. Hundreds have been freed from Guantanomo without any charges, without any trial. An acknowledgment that some of them were actually innocent. And an acknowledgment our government was willing to free some of them because their home governments requested it, despite their still being a national security threat. And lastly, the most obvious and glaring fault in the logic of the right wing nut case on the teevee and radio is: if their guilty, get proof, charge them, try them, jail them and potentially execute them.
This recent smack down of Bush is the latest of 3 rulings expressing the same sentiment. People in our custody are to be held under our rule of law. That we are bound Constitutionally to do so. Liberals respect it despite the threat of terrorism, conservatives abhor it in fear of terrorism. This is not a new phenomenon.
Liberals point to the Constitution. Conservatives run from it. When judges rule against their rigid ideology they cry "activist judge!" As is evidenced by recent court rulings in the states of California and Massachusetts recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. In both cases the Constitution was interpreted correctly. There was nothing that prevented gay marriage and equal protection provided. It would have been activist to re-write the law to deny a group of people rights others had protected under the law. Just as it would be activist of the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution to allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus or to grant the government the right to mistreat prisoners according to our own Constitution or treaties.
Conservatives claim if they don't get their way, they are being oppressed. It is their moral code and only theirs that is permissible and they are willing to try and change the law of the land to enact it. Liberals recognize the law as protecting the rest of us from that oppressive and unoriginal moral code if we don't want to adhere to it. We believe the Constitution makes the government obligated to ensure equal protection and opportunity. We believe the Constitution not only prevents government from encroaching on our liberties but also obligates our governments to ensure them.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Let's consider the facts of the matter. This case was about whether or not individuals being held by the United States have the right to challenge in a court, their imprisonment. It's called habeas corpus and it is only suspended under the most dire of circumstances. Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court, then granted that power by Congress shortly thereafter as the situation called for it. We have threats to this country. But we do not have rebellion nor invasion. Habeas corpus isn't something to be fooled with. It's a cornerstone of a just society. We as a country do not, rather should not, be in the business of snatching people and holding them indefinitely. That's what the soviets did, and what the Chinese do. We treated Nazis better than the individuals being held now in Guantanomo.
Conservatives want us to believe our government has the right guys and we should afford them the benefit of the doubt. We should consider it patriotic to trust them, not question them and to not show any moral outrage at the potential innocent individuals rights being trampled on. Because we are at war. They must all be guilty and who really cares anyway as long as it saves lives?
Here's the rub. Hundreds have been freed from Guantanomo without any charges, without any trial. An acknowledgment that some of them were actually innocent. And an acknowledgment our government was willing to free some of them because their home governments requested it, despite their still being a national security threat. And lastly, the most obvious and glaring fault in the logic of the right wing nut case on the teevee and radio is: if their guilty, get proof, charge them, try them, jail them and potentially execute them.
This recent smack down of Bush is the latest of 3 rulings expressing the same sentiment. People in our custody are to be held under our rule of law. That we are bound Constitutionally to do so. Liberals respect it despite the threat of terrorism, conservatives abhor it in fear of terrorism. This is not a new phenomenon.
Liberals point to the Constitution. Conservatives run from it. When judges rule against their rigid ideology they cry "activist judge!" As is evidenced by recent court rulings in the states of California and Massachusetts recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. In both cases the Constitution was interpreted correctly. There was nothing that prevented gay marriage and equal protection provided. It would have been activist to re-write the law to deny a group of people rights others had protected under the law. Just as it would be activist of the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution to allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus or to grant the government the right to mistreat prisoners according to our own Constitution or treaties.
Conservatives claim if they don't get their way, they are being oppressed. It is their moral code and only theirs that is permissible and they are willing to try and change the law of the land to enact it. Liberals recognize the law as protecting the rest of us from that oppressive and unoriginal moral code if we don't want to adhere to it. We believe the Constitution makes the government obligated to ensure equal protection and opportunity. We believe the Constitution not only prevents government from encroaching on our liberties but also obligates our governments to ensure them.
Comments are closed for this post.