Civilian Trials for Foreign Criminials and Enemy Combatants
I've spent a part of the day thinking about this issue of civil trials for these terrorists enemy combatants and prisoners of war. And I'm just not buying into this civilian trial or the argument about the Bill of Rights. That's a bogus argument. Why?
The Bill of Rights were written to protect Americans or immigrants living in America from government encroachment. If you are arrested by a police officer or and agent of a civilian branch government (FBI, Drug Enforcement, Tobacco and Fire Arms, Treasury Department or the Military under certain situations) you have rights and due process.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention enemy combatants, foreign terrorist captured outside the bounds of the United States or capture by the CIA. In fact the CIA can not arrest an American or immigrant living in the United States. If they have information, it must be processed by the FBI.
We did not try German or Japanese prisoners in civilian courts. They were prisoners of war and had to wait until the end of World War II to get released. Prisoners in the Civil War were not tried in civilian courts. They languished prisons till the end of the Civil War, unless provisions were made for prisoner exchanges, and that eventually ended as a means of depriving the South of manpower. There is no precedent for trying prisoners of war and enemy combatants in civilian courts or affording them rights under the Bill of rights.
These Islamic radicals were either captured on the battle field or by the foreign intelligence agencies or the CIA.
If we choose to try them for Crimes Against Humanity, then we have a precedent to follow in the Nuremberg Trials. These were military trials. When we tried Japanese war criminals, we did it by military court. We did not even argue or debate whether these criminals were entitled to the Bill of Rights. They don't apply. And an argument to suggest that Thomas Jefferson wanted to afford these foreign combatants and prisoners of war rights under our Constitution is ridiculous. We have a well established legal precedent set more than sixty years ago at the end of World War II.
Again members of the press want to deify Obama by associating him with Kennedy and now Thomas Jefferson.
I'm reading the Federalist Papers now. Their prescience in their far reaching view of government and future foreign relations. And yet, no where in the Constitution do we hear anything about offering prisoners of war rights under the constitution. So I doubt Thomas Jefferson can be used to justify Obama's plan to use these trials as a propaganda event.
The Bill of Rights were written to protect Americans or immigrants living in America from government encroachment. If you are arrested by a police officer or and agent of a civilian branch government (FBI, Drug Enforcement, Tobacco and Fire Arms, Treasury Department or the Military under certain situations) you have rights and due process.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention enemy combatants, foreign terrorist captured outside the bounds of the United States or capture by the CIA. In fact the CIA can not arrest an American or immigrant living in the United States. If they have information, it must be processed by the FBI.
We did not try German or Japanese prisoners in civilian courts. They were prisoners of war and had to wait until the end of World War II to get released. Prisoners in the Civil War were not tried in civilian courts. They languished prisons till the end of the Civil War, unless provisions were made for prisoner exchanges, and that eventually ended as a means of depriving the South of manpower. There is no precedent for trying prisoners of war and enemy combatants in civilian courts or affording them rights under the Bill of rights.
These Islamic radicals were either captured on the battle field or by the foreign intelligence agencies or the CIA.
If we choose to try them for Crimes Against Humanity, then we have a precedent to follow in the Nuremberg Trials. These were military trials. When we tried Japanese war criminals, we did it by military court. We did not even argue or debate whether these criminals were entitled to the Bill of Rights. They don't apply. And an argument to suggest that Thomas Jefferson wanted to afford these foreign combatants and prisoners of war rights under our Constitution is ridiculous. We have a well established legal precedent set more than sixty years ago at the end of World War II.
Again members of the press want to deify Obama by associating him with Kennedy and now Thomas Jefferson.
I'm reading the Federalist Papers now. Their prescience in their far reaching view of government and future foreign relations. And yet, no where in the Constitution do we hear anything about offering prisoners of war rights under the constitution. So I doubt Thomas Jefferson can be used to justify Obama's plan to use these trials as a propaganda event.
posted by John McCracken | 8:45 PM
|
0 comments
