In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that the prisoners held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps had a right to habeas corpus under the United States Constitution.I agreed with the decision and I posted an entry on the subject [What's wrong with habeas corpus?] shortly after. I quoted an article from catholicnews.com that said the decision “is a hopeful sign that upholds American values for anyone accused of even the most heinous offenses.” and quoted Bob Barr, as well, who said, “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the importance of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, one of the bedrock guarantees of American liberty,”
Over the weekend, that post from June received a few comments from "Anonymous" who didn't care too much for my thoughts on the subject. Anonymous wrote,
"Non- USA citizens are not guaranteed 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."
Let's take a look at that.......
"......they have done nothing to deserve those rights and should not have them." US citizens haven't done anything to "deserve" them either. You don't have to "do" anything to deserve a "right". No one should be held without due process anywhere in the world. Obviously, not every country recognizes those rights.
"They pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA."
If that disqualifies someone from having basic human and civil rights, then many Americans would not have them. The jails and prisons are filled with dead-beats who "pay no taxes, earn no income , and contribute nothing to the welfare of the USA" but they were given fair trials and aren't being held unlawfully.
When I suggested that Osama bin Laden not be put to death without a fair trial.....comparing bin Laden to Timothy McVeigh, Anonymous wrote,
"Timothy McVeigh was a citizen of the United States of America, Osama bin Laden is not".
Why would a citizen be entitled to a human right that you'd deny to a non-citizen? Are we, somehow, genetically or racially superior? Of course, not. Human beings through out the world are equal in the eyes of God. The fact that ones mother gave birth to you in a particular political boundary doesn't make you better or worse that someone born elsewhere.
Anonymous also opined,
"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' ......"
Really?
McVeigh killed 168 people, yet he was given a fair trial.
Ted Bundy was a mass murderer, but received his civil rights.
We can't deny someone his basic human rights because we are appalled by the crime he is alleged to have committed.
To further dismiss anything I had to say, Anonymous said,
"You are such a liberal."
I find this comment laughable.
I doubt that anyone who looked at the totality of what I've written in this blog could, seriously, accuse me of that.
As a political Conservative, I believe in limited government....small in size and limited in it's power to tax us. I am a capitalist; there are times when we should help our fellow man, but, socialism doesn't work.
As a conservative Catholic, I have the following views on life: (not a complete list, by any means)
Abortion is evil and never justified.
Capital punishment is unnecessary in today's world. It is cruel and often unjust.
War is evil....however, there can be Just or Unjust Wars.
All human beings are created in God's image and are equal in God's sight.
Having written this, I know that I have no chance of changing anyone's mind on any of these issues. I'm just giving my 2 cents' worth.
14 comments:
"Why would a citizen be entitled to a human right that you'd deny to a non-citizen?" Because habeas corpus is not about human rights. It's about legal rights. You cannot explain the difference between the two.
"No one should be held without due process anywhere in the world." But many are, because they do not live in a country with a Democratic form of government.The idea of protecting human rights in a democracy has its roots in biblical scripture. The signers of our constitution were all influenced by christian ideals. But of course, no one believing in that "mumbo jumbo" any more.
I know the difference between human rights and legal rights.
I'll take human rights over legal rights any day.
Being "legal" doesn't make something right.
Abortion is legal but it isn't right.
Your trying to separate the two is just an example of how screwed up your thinking is.
So what is the difference between human rights and legal rights? You can't "take" any rights at all. These rights are protected by our constitution. people died to secure them for you. Whay can't you explsin the difference between human rights and legal rights? It's because liberals can't justify their positions. Their positions come from their emotions only. Like yours.
A point that those who don't like this ruling miss is that the Constitution makes a distiction between the rights that every human has (life, liberty) versus those that are only applicable to citizens, (running for office or voting. It is only these latter ones that could be called constituitional.
The Constitution doesn't give us any human rights in that 1st category, it is there to codify the protection of them, for everyone. Citizen or not. These basic rights have nothing to do with citizenship. They come from "natural law", which knows no boundries.
But the promises of the Constitution to protect those basic human rights don't mean anything if they arenot applied to evryone, citizen or not.
I can hear the liberal name calling starting already. I am liberal in the classic sense. I am conservative in the sense of conserving the rights of everyone that are guarenteed protection for all by the Constitution.
OK, Anonymous.
you want to harp on "legal" rights. What is "legal" or "illegal" is decided by man. It is totally arbitrary. A woman has a "legal" right to an abortion because men say she does.
The US constitution is a wonderful document but it was designed and written by men....it can be changed whenever enough people want to change it. It is imperfect.
Men can take away your "legal" rights at any time, simply by changing the law.
Everyone has the "moral" and "human" right to a fair trial. Now, because of the Supreme court decision, the detainees in gitmo have a "legal" right.
To Al,
anonymous has called me a "liberal" several times and I'm sure he'll call you one as well. Wouldn't it be nice if all "liberals" were as pro-life as we?
(maybe we should bring that up at the next secret meeting)=:)
I decided that, rather than throw names around, it would be best to define our terms properly.
A very good web site going into the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" is www.conservative-resources.com.
one difference between the two is that Liberals prefer 'positive law'(human or written law) while Conservatives recognize 'natural' law (natural law is law that exists independently of human beings, such as the law of God.)
since you, anonymous, pick the man-made law (legal rights)over natural law....you are the Liberal.
"OK, Anonymous.
you want to harp on "legal" rights. What is "legal" or "illegal" is decided by man" That's what I am saying. No argument there. Try arguing about what God says in a court of law and see how long you last there. Once again you have changed the words to suit your responses. Habeas Corpus has been suspended in the past during times of war, since the rights are legal and are protected by the government.the discussion was about due process under a particular law or country. human rights were not being discussed. Due process rights can be with held with out denying human rights or mistreating people. You can't mix the two concepts, (God's rules and man's rules) and remain on the same line of logic. Is the argument who is the "nicer guy" here? Give me a break! We must also remember that natural law had to be recognized by someone. I refer back to my earlier comment about how this natural law was the basis of our declaration of Independence and our constitution. The writers of those documents were essentially Christians of numerous demoninations, and they were influenced by the bible. Where else did these concepts come from? Tyrants? Kings? Despots? "Wouldn't it be nice if all "liberals" were as pro-life as we?" And when did pro-life enter into the discussion? Al made some excellent points, because he actually responded to the comments, instead of making tangential remarks.
"But the promises of the Constitution to protect those basic human rights don't mean anything if they arenot applied to evryone, citizen or not". Nice sentiment but weak on protecting America's security interests. the article was discussing due process for prisoners of war. Neither one of you really mention this. They are not simply non-citizens, they are prisoners of war. Both you and Al remind me of the people with a certain mentality after hurricane Katrina. The area was devastated and there were reports of police officers committing suicide because they could not bear how hopeless its seemed. Doctors and nurses at a hospital were trying to move patients to a helicopter, but were taking gunfire from some looters or nuts. Louisiana polititions went on the air to call for "tougher laws" those "situations". How sad they did not recognize that what was called for was for someone to shoot back at the nuts and kill them, so that innocent patients could receive THEIR human rights, because at that time human rights were vague and due process was non-existent.
"when did pro-life enter into the discussion"
it entered into the discussion when you called me a Liberal.
"That's what I am saying. No argument there. Try arguing about what God says in a court of law and see how long you last there."
If you value the rule of law so much, then you have to accept the Supreme Court's decision....it is the law of the land.
"The area was devastated and there were reports of police officers committing suicide because they could not bear how hopeless its seemed."
sounds like a fantasy you're having.
"How sad they did not recognize that what was called for was for someone to shoot back at the nuts and kill them, so that innocent patients could receive THEIR human rights, because at that time human rights were vague and due process was non-existent."
I don't remember anyone saying folks didn't have a right to defend themselves. You have some sort of delusional idea that I'm a liberal and should therefore be anti-gun. You live in this fantasy world where anyone that has an idea contrary to you is a wild eyed liberal.
get your meds refilled and take a rest.
"You live in this fantasy world where anyone that has an idea contrary to you is a wild eyed liberal".
get your meds refilled and take a rest". Another typical response of a liberal. You do the same thing you accuse other bloggers of doing to you. In an earlier post, you complained about how one of your comments had been deleted and how the individual made rude remarks rather that addressing the points. you labeled him a "liberal" Maybe you think it makes for interesting entertainment for your readers, but it really just makes you look like a psuedo-intellectual moron with nothing legitimate to share.
From my My Comment Policy .
"As I mentioned before, folks who hide behind the anonymous label are, generally, cowards who leave snotty remarks and then run away and hide."
"I don't remember anyone saying folks didn't have a right to defend themselves. You have some sort of delusional idea that I'm a liberal and should therefore be anti-gun. You live in this fantasy world where anyone that has an idea contrary to you is a wild eyed liberal. WOW talk about totally missing the point! No, the point was that some people don't seem to know when habeas corpus needs to be suspended.
maybe you don't do as good a job of getting your point across as you think you do.
Post a Comment