Monday, June 23, 2008

What's wrong with Habeas Corpus?

The reaction is mixed on the recent Supreme Court decision, Boumediene vs. Bush whereby the Court affirms that the detainees at the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba have the right of habeas corpus and cannot be detained indefinitely, without being charged.
A recent article in catholicnews.com writes that the decision “is a hopeful sign that upholds American values for anyone accused of even the most heinous offenses.”
Libertarian Presidential candidate, Bob Barr writes , “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the importance of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, one of the bedrock guarantees of American liberty,” and challenges John McCain, who called the decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country” to a debate on the issue.
Rush Limbaugh is upset that the ruling means that, should he be captured, Osama bin Laden will be presumed innocent and will face a trial in the Federal courts.
I don’t really understand what McCain or Limbaugh would want as an alternative. If bin Laden is not entitled to a trial then what do they propose instead? Surely, they’re not saying we should just execute him without a trial. Even Timothy McVeigh was given his day in court.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

“The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the importance of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, one of the bedrock guarantees of American liberty,” and challenges John McCain, who called the decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country” to a debate on the issue.
Timothy McVeigh was a citizen of the United States of America, Osama bin Laden is not. Non- USA citizens are not guarenteed constitutional rights, they have done nothing to deserve those rights and should not have them. They pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA. The idea of "international law" is liberal and naive. Bin Laden may be entitled to some type of trial involving an internation group of allies, but he is certainly no entitled to any US constitutional rights. If he and others gain them, it is because we have liberal, foolish, senile old fools still sitting on the bench of the supreme court. "I don’t really understand what McCain or Limbaugh would want as an alternative". Really???, I'll bet that what they want is what many others would want..since we are in a war on terror, when located, he should be terminated immediately as per the mission of the war on terror.

Robert said...

You wrote;
"They pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA."
If that applies, then most Americans wouldn't have Constitutional rights either.
Our rights are God given....not given by any government's Constitution.

Anonymous said...

You are such a liberal. Yes, our rights are God given. Study American History, read the federalist papers, or John Locke. The concept of God given rights comes from the signers of the US Declaration of Independence and the writers of the US Constitution. BUT,the God given rights are guaranteed by our Constitution and the constitutions of many other democratic societies (ours being the first). These rights are secured by the ability of the governments to enforce the principles. Just look around the world today and you will see countries that don't recognize any God given rights or basic human rights.
And it is also true that non-citizens pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA. So they are not provided the same protections under a US Constitution. When you order people to fly commercial airliners into the world trade center, it seems to me that you have already voluntarily given up you "God Given Rights", as well as giving up your "God Given Mind". Its so easy to sit around blogging about God given rights when you have no responsibility to secure or ensure them for anyone yourself.

Robert said...

"it is also true that non-citizens pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA. So they are not provided the same protections under a US Constitution."
I've already responded to that....there's no need to repeat that statement.
"When you order people to fly commercial airliners into the world trade center, it seems to me that you have already voluntarily given up you 'God Given Rights'",
the combatants in gitmo didn't order anyone to fly into the world trade center.
Besides, even mass murderers like Ted Bundy have human rights.
Funny, you call me a liberal....I am laughing my ass off. Nobody has ever call me that.
The idea of "Human rights" isn't "liberal".

Anonymous said...

The idea of "Human rights" isn't "liberal". Now you are changing the argument and the words. A typical method of liberals who won't concede a point when they are wrong. Now you call them "human rights". The article and my responses were about due process rights under the constitution of the United States. Extending these rights to non-citizen prisoners of war IS a liberal idea. It is also dangerous to our national security. There is a difference between constitutional rights and human rights, and I'll bet you don't know what it is. Go laugh what's left of your a__ off about that.

Robert said...

human rights trump constitutional rights.

Robert said...

It's just so funny to me that you would attempt to tar me with the brush of "liberal". It is so obvious that you haven't read anything else I've written on this blog.
I'll be writing a post on this Monday....I'm waiting for my wife to get ready for Mass, so I'll be leaving soon and won't spend a lot of time on this today.
If you're inclined, you can pick up what I say about this all then.

Robert said...

As promised;
my two cents' worth.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert said...

don't waste my time and space.

Anonymous said...

You removed the comment because you can't answer the question. Liberal=stupid

Robert said...

I removed the comment because it was long winded and beside the point.
How is "liberal=stupid" a question?
How can I be a liberal if I am pro life? I am against abortion and assisted suicide.
How can I be a liberal if I am against the government taxing the bejeebers out of us?
How I am a liberal if I am against Big Government and the Nanny State?
You keep calling me a liberal because I support human rights. You don't even know what the word means.

Anonymous said...

"You keep calling me a liberal because I support human rights". I keep calling you liberal because you argue like one and remove the comments that you don't like or can't respond to.

Robert said...

I've responded to your piss poor comments. If you can't come up with anything better than this then I will no longer permit you to comment on my blog.