Judicial balk on 'enemies'

THE U.S. SUPREME Court set a kind of record for leaving key issues unsettled in its 2004 rulings in three cases involving detentions in the "war on terror." The only part of the litigation eventually settled was the status of U.S.-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, captured as an enemy fighter in Afghanistan. He was allowed to rejoin his family in Saudi Arabia after giving up his American citizenship.

No such luck so far for hundreds of other prisoners who seemed at the time to benefit from the high court's stance that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president" to lock up all he deems to be enemies. Of 558 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who were granted tribunals on their status, all but 38 were determined to be enemy combatants subject to continued detention. The legality of the Guantanamo prisoners' captivity is still being argued before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

It's too bad that the media don't give the same attention to the rights of murdered babies, or innocent victims of judicial tyranny like Terri Schiavo, that they give to vicious murderers and terrorists.

Dismember a baby? OK, go right ahead.

Painfully kill a sick woman by hunger and thirst? OK, she asked for it.

Execute a cold-blooded murderer or hold a treasonous terrorist in prison? Oh, no, how barbaric!

I'm sure I'll be in the minority here but in my opinion, in the long run, the government will not be allowed to arrest people and hold them indefinitely without charges or lawyers or public hearings.

And that will be the right decision.

What's the matter? Media not paying 100% of it's attention to you? My heart bleeds.

gondramB said: "I'm sure I'll be in the minority here but in my opinion, in the long run, the government will not be allowed to arrest people and hold them indefinitely without charges or lawyers or public hearings. "

I agree. Three years seems like plenty of time for due process. I find it hard to imagine that the US cannot make a case against such a person without hampering the conduct of the war. If Padilla is at some future time found not guilty, then the US would be responsible for a serious miscarriage of justice.

Some guy in Oregon, I think, was arrested because his fingerprint was found on material used in an attack in Europe. Thankfully, he was able to establish that the fingerprint was not even his. If this man had been held like Padilla, how would he ever see the light of day again? Wouldn't any reasonable person think that the positive fingerprint constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the man was guilty?

People seem to forget that our legal protections are not just formalities to protect the guilty. They are the only mechanism for establishing who IS guilty. And people who have not had the opportunity to take advantage of such protections should not be presumed guilty and punished without trial. It is a crime against humanity to do so.

People seem to forget that our legal protections are not just formalities to protect the guilty. They are the only mechanism for establishing who IS guilty.

And it's absolutely astounding how many people on this very site don't get such a simple concept.

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.