Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield...

"Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights"

SNIPPET: "“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.

“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.

“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.

“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.

“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.

“The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war,” McCain said. “I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution.”"

SNIPPET: "Kris and Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that military commissions were a viable “alternative” but that prosecuting terror suspects as criminals in U.S. federal courts was preferable – a position Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) took issue with at the hearing.

“Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?” Lieberman asked. “The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.

“Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions,” Lieberman said.

“Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?” Lieberman asked."

YOU are the one who implied first that the US Government was obliged to defend the rights of terrorists!

I never said the government was required to “defend” our rights. That is YOUR word, not mine.

What you said was "But, in the context of this issue, It is not the job of our nation to guarantee, extend, or protect these rights except as the individuals involved are citizens or the United States."

You also said: " I only take issue with your insistence that our Constitution obliges us to guarantee these rights to some Pushtoon zealot..."

Make up your mind. No one, not we as individuals, nor our governmnent, has any obligation to "guarantee these rights to some Pushtoon zealot," or to anyone else.

What we are obligated to do is to respect those rights as far as our own actions are concerned. That obligation stems ultimately from the laws of logic, from the principle of reciprocity, and from the fundamental axioms of morality.

You are not entittled to the benefit of those rights for which you fail to respect those same rights for others. That's why it's morally acceptable to kill in self defense. If we fail to respect the inalienable rights of others, we forfeit those rights for ourselves. No if, ands, buts or exceptions. Otherwise, self defense would be immoral.

Now, will you explain, as you have failed to do so far, why we ought to extend those Constitutional protections to every single person on the face of the earth, including the scum of the earth, as you propose.

In addition to the laws of logic, the principle of reciprocity, and the fundemantal axioms of morality (see above,) there is also the simple fact that the Constituion does not limit its recognition of rights to citizens or residents of the United States (legal or otherwise,) nor does it limit the right of anyone to contest the actions of the US government in our courts of law, nor does it restrict anyone with respect to which parts of the Constitution they may rely on in their legal arguments.

For example, the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says the following: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The operative word is simply "person." Not "citizen." Not "resident of the United States." Not "person legally within the borders of the United States." Simply "person," with no other qualification.

Disprove any of that, if you can. The burden of proof is on you.

You and Obama's AG need to read it again.

Why do I need to read it again? I never said war was Unconstitutional, or that every person in any way inconvenienced by any act of war by the US had a valid case at law against the US government. You appear to be reading stuff into my words that just isn't there.

Get this straight: It is Constitutional for the US to make war. The US government is not liable for damages when it Constitutionally wages war, for the same reason that a police officer is not liable for damages when he shoots someone dead in self defense. But that's not the issue.

The issue is the precise dividing line between Constitutionally and morally justified acts of war (or other forms of self defense,) and unconstitional acts that violate the rights of others.

When is it OK to arrest someone as a suspected murderer, put him on trial, convict him, sentence him to death, and carry out that sentence? Obviously, there must be situations where that's both Constitutional and morally justified. And situations where it is not.

When is it OK to shoot enemy combatants dead, or to capture and imprison them? And for how long is it OK to deny them their liberty? Obviously, there must be situations where it's both Constitutionally and morally justified. And situations where it is not. How do we know the difference? That's the issue.

Your theory that the relevant Constitional and moral strictures simply don't apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents of the US is provably false. And I have provided that proof. Based on that, you wrongfully infer that I am claiming that any and all enemy combatants have a valid case at law in US courts against the US government for any harm they may have suffered at the hands of our military. I make no such claim, and in fact vigourously deny and oppose any such premise.

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.