gbear Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57384-2002Aug7.html I know this is only an editorial, but I was wondering what all of you thought about holding a citizen with no plans to try him, and no judicial review, military or otherwise, of his designation as "enemy combatant." I always get a little worried when we start holding U.S. citizens without even pretending to try them on anything and without allowing them any legal council. To me, this is a slippery slope that leads to verbs meaning "to disapear someone" as exist in Spanish in many South American countries. The oddest thing here is that there seems to be ample reasons to charge the guy. So is this a case of the government working on the appology principle? I can't see this standing up if sent to the Supreme Court where separation of powers arguements ultimately have to be heard there. So is the government simply doing this knowing that latter they will only have to say "oops, sorry about that. Now we'll get around to a trial." Meanwhile they get to continue to interogate him without a lawyer. Maybe the info gained from this saves lives. Does that make it okay? Is the appology principle a fair way to run a government? Other examples of us using the appology principle include Japanese internment camps. Are we okay with the government openly flaunting it's own rules for the sake of expediancy? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 I know that I have debated this topic ad nauseum with a lot of people here. It seems that a lot of people here are okay with it, since they believe that by taking up arms against one's country you sacrifice any rights you may have as a citizen. I think these US Citizens labeled as enemy combatants at least should be formally charged with a crime. Since, it appears, there are a lot of charges that could be formally sought. Who knows why though the US has failed to do so. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 8, 2002 Author Share Posted August 8, 2002 What scares me is a lack of judicial review for who is an "enemy combatant." Who says he picked up a gun against his country? To me, that should have to be proven (sounds like an easy case this time). I just can't help but think this makes a perfect test case so that next time they can pick somebody up who they don't have any evidence on based on this precident. I'm just not happy picking people up, isolating them, and declaring to the public they are guilty without any sort of way for the defendant to say anything in his defense. I understand the expediancy, but won't it be expediant to pick up criminals who are suspected of guilt in the future? As for the war time suspension of civil liberties, we haven't declared war on anybody. Is this more of a war than our war on drugs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by gbear As for the war time suspension of civil liberties, we haven't declared war on anybody. Is this more of a war than our war on drugs? You have to be kidding, right? If not, here's your answer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.