Posted on 07/23/2008 7:48:10 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
Suspend the Writ.
Those are both my words and the title of commentary this morning by Andrew C. McCarthy, the now former federal prosecutor who led the investigation and related prosecutions of the Landmark bomb plotters, as well as of those who conducted the first attack upon the World Trade Center:
For the protection of our troops on the battlefield and the security of all Americans, Congress needs, right now, to take action to reverse Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision granting constitutional habeas-corpus rights to alien enemy combatants.It’s time to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
...
SOLDIERS CANNOT BE MADE COPS
The questions now press urgently: Are we are serious about achieving victory over our jihadist enemies? Are we serious about safeguarding the lives of our young men and women in uniform? Those lives of our best and bravest have now been seriously jeopardized, and not just by the legal and political pressure to release enemies who should be detained during the fighting — at least 37 of whom are known to have returned to the jihad according to information released by the Pentagon (in his Boumediene dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia put the number at 30).
The Boumediene challenge is even more basic. The justices want to see our enemies as mere defendants, but our soldiers cannot be seen as cops. Police duties — Miranda warnings, evidence collection, forensic analysis, report-writing — are inimical to and cannot safely be performed in combat. Cops and FBI agents carry out these investigative tasks meticulously because they enjoy the relative safety of peacetime America. If those tasks are imposed on our troops in the deadly crossfire of the foreign battlefield, Americans will die.
If you doubt this, just consult any of the many dedicated men and women in law enforcement who, in their earlier years, served in the military during wartime. They will tell you, based on hard experience, that only a panel of elite lawyers — unburdened by the need to explain themselves to voters — could look at a battlefield and see a crime scene.
We plainly need a legal system for detaining enemy combatants, trying war criminals, and conducting intelligence collection for a novel kind of war against a ruthless, non-state enemy that defies convention. Congress should have devised such a system already. But the fact that Congress has been derelict does not mean it is suddenly appropriate for the devising to be done by judges.
His is a plea for returning sanity to the debate over what rights to afford the enemy.
Like millions of others, I hung up my uniform before September 11, 2001. While I lost both family and friends that day and will have my say, this is not my private war.
Yet I believe all those who wore a military uniform in the past can provide important perspectives. Even though this is not "our war," we owe it to all those who carry on in our stead. Let us tell our Nation of what we know and believe.
These troops -- all those who have fought this war and who will fight on -- know full well of what they speak. We trust them with our lives and liberty; we must not now demand their silence.
I respectfully ask every troop and old soldier to please sound off.
Ping!
Please pass the word.
Hell, it’s time we suspended the policy of taking prisoners.
Habeus corpus seems like a good idea to me, in that context.
Should have been done long ago! Send them to their "reward"!
There’s a better way... Declare them POW’s We can hold them as long as the war goes on. It would even be legal under the geneva convention! And if the war goes on forever, then they’ll be locked up forever.
“Problem: some or even most most of the detainees at Gitmo didn’t get captured by Americans, but instead got turned over to them for a bounty reward by dubious “allies”.”
Anyone who supports freedom should know that it is imperative to lock up anyone that is charged with being a terrorist and throw away the key. Why bother with a hearing? I know my government doesn’t make mistakes. Don’t you?
“There’s a better way... Declare them POW’s We can hold them as long as the war goes on.”
This is a great idea! And if we get a couple of new judges on SCOTUS, we can overrule Hamdi v. Rumsfeld so that US citizens can also be incarcerated with no rights to a hearing, a lawyer, or to know the charges against them. Where SCOTUS got the idea that they had a right to substitute their judgment for that of the commander-in-chief in a time of war is beyond me.
I may be missing something, but I do not believe it is proper for active duty, and even reserve status servicemembers should feel they need to sound off on anything in regards to their opinion on the issues (conflicts) that they are ordered to participate in by our Commander-in-Chief...
I believe it has always been like that, because the comments could very easily be mis-construed by either side of the civilian’s opinion on the matter...
Even though I have an opinion, it is easier for me to do so as I am not active or reserve anymore...But I will practice restraint to some extent because I do know what the score is, and that I do not want to imply any disparaging comment to give the folks over there now the idea I am not behind them (and the mission) %150...
Our war against Islamic aggression will advance with a clear policy of respect for human rights. That includes no torture, habeus corpus for some or all detainees at Gitmo, no more renditions to torture surrogate countries, and making a clean break with “the dark side”.
Uh... No you misunderstood me. I mean these taliban al-qaeda insurgents we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. technically they are POWs we don't need SCOTUS it's all taken care of by the Geneva convention.
Let me guess, Bob Barr supporter?
“I mean these taliban al-qaeda insurgents we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. technically they are POWs we don’t need SCOTUS it’s all taken care of by the Geneva convention.”
I read that only 5% of the Guantanamo detainees were captured by US troops. The rest were turned over to us, often in return for payment of a bounty. Should those not captured by US be entitled to a hearing to determine if they are properly being held as POW’s?
Where did you read that? I'm curious to know.
I read it in a newspaper somewhere that was citing this study: http://law.shu.edu/news/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf
I have a great respect and thankfulness to the people that do serve. In fact, I owe my life and freedom to them.
Respectfully,
mpslconservative
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.