This is a subject that I really haven't thought about. It just really hasn't interested me. I read another blog by Big Tent Democrat (its long just to warn you) http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/22/112959/706 and it kind of put some thoughts into my head about the detainees of the war on terror.
First thought, putting the detainees on trial in the US court system. What came to my mind was during the French Revolution robespierre set up a court called the committee of public safety. This court was set up to place on trial people who were counter-revolutionaries. It was this court that took the heads off of a few tens of thousands of people. What happened to the civilian court was that it placed too much power in the hands of a few. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that the people on the court, including the founder robespierre, were executed. Another "civilian" court was the court system in soviet union. This court was set up to find out if there was anyone plotting against the soviet union. The court was set up to attack political incorrectness. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that if you took a trip to France and came back, they would arrest you, put you on trial, judge you as an enemy of the state, and then send you to the gulag. It got to the point where everyone citizen of the ussr knew someone that had gone to or was in the gulag. Why explain all this boring history stuff? it goes to show you that even within civilian courts things can get out of hand. Those who demand that the detainees be on trial in the federal court system are placing a lot of power in the hands of the courts. Now civilian courts could decide what was terrorism, and therefore could expand upon the definition and put on trial american citizens who hint at anti-americanism. (worse-case scenario, i know. but it has happened. Even during McCarthy years in the united states). We have to be careful who we place in power to decide who should go to trial. By keeping the detainees in a more military setting I feel it would keep the temptation to charge united states citizens. (I maybe wrong) Civilian courts are not necessarily the ideal setting for such a case as terrorism. It was in fact robespierre who in some way is the grandfather of terrorism, through the use of civilian courts. In addtion, courts can be set up to act like they are really doing something, but infact they are just going thourgh the motions. The courts in the ussr convicted almost every person that went to them, but the officials in government could point to the court saying it was legitimate sentences. united states citizens must always go through the court system that we have now. if there is any new court system put in place to judge the war on terrorism we should be weary of its intent.
Second thought, is the value of the united states citizenship. Another history talk sorry (but i'm just going off what i know and that is just history; a very limited amount) During the fall of the roman empire they began to give out roman citizenship like it was day old bread. At the beginning and peak of roman power, roman citizenship was a high prize and granted only to a few. With it was certain privileges that made the citizenship special. One of those privileges was you went to a different court than non-roman citizens. In this court no matter what you could not be executed. You were held with higher esteem, even if you committed a horrible crime. During the british peak of empire, british citizens had special perks too. It was a valuable citizenship to have, but towards the end the british started giving out the privileges of the british citizenship to more and more people which devalued the citizenship. So by holding the detainees with the same rights as an american citizen we therefore devalue the american citizenship. There have been some us citizens charged with terrorism and they should go through our courts and get a lawyer and all that. But those that are not citizens of the united states should get no privilege that us americans get. What is the point of the us citizenship if you get nothing out of it except to pay taxes? There needs to be a separation, a clear one, between a citizen and a non-citizen. The more perks of being a citizen of a nation the more value the citizenship is. I fear that the value of an american citizenship has fallen. This is a nationalistic view, i know. But what's great about america is citizenship is not based on race (like it is in europe) or religion or anything. It is only based on you moving to the country and swearing allegiance to the idea of america, you don't even have to swear allegiance to the president or congress or any man or woman.
sorry for the long post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i haven't been following this topic much either. BUt i did read an article the other day. It was about how the Dems along with the Repubs rejected Obama's plan to close Gitmo until he has a more detailed plan. I guess i will just start with the things that bother me about the situation and about what people are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing for me is that everyone one is crying foul about us bringing these suspected terrorist to America. And i think, what the hell!? They find the suspects too dangerous to bring on OUR soil. So lets keep them in someone else's country. Talk about injustice. We capture them, we investigate them, and we are going to try them. Sounds to me like they are our responsibility yet we're pawning the bad part off somebody else. I think one of the main reason why (and the two if us are proof it works) they keep them out there is out of sight out of mind. There was even a town in Montana that volunteered to detain them but the representatives from Montana rejected the idea. Way to represent the interests of your constituents. Anyways, it dries me crazy that we think we can just house our prisoners and damn place we want to. That was a little preachy and i apologize.
Second, the article was talking about there being reasons why we can;t bring these some of these guys to trial. I'm sorry, shit or get off the pot. Either try them or don't. We can't just keep them caged up for 75 years until they die without a trial.
To me this is about justice, fairness and human rights. The problem about the argument about citizenship is that American justice system was not created on the idea that Americans are different than the rest of the world and that it is our citizenship that protects us for abuses against due process, habeas corpus, etc. The system was founded on the idea that these are rights that should be afforded to all people because of the inherent rights and value of human beings. So the question is not whether or not the detainees should be given the privilege of an american citizenship but should they be given the fair treatment that the American justice system is founded on.
In closing, a word about the civilian courts. Obama has reinstated the Tribunals or committees or whatever they are called that Bush had started for trying these guys. I don't like that idea because like you said, it puts too much power in the hand of a few. That is not because only a few people are making the decision -that is the case for any court- but because they are accountable to so few people. Running them through the justice system makes more sense to me because of the greater accountability as well as experience and the power to subpoena documents and people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedidn't like what you said?
ReplyDeletethere were a lot of spelling errors so i corrected it.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to double check me and the Act has escaped me, but there is a law that says it is illegal to bring suspected terrorists into the United States. Meaning, it would be against the law to bring the detainees onto US soil. If that's the case then this whole thing doesn't make sense. I'll look for that law.
How can these trials ever be fair? The judge is the victim of the crime. The us can't be fair. If we were to be fair we would give them to, lets say, china for trial. but even then china might have an angle. We can't give them to europe or latin america or africa (well maybe africa, but not the muslim part and not the christian part, so south africa, but they are closer to us then they are to afgan.) So maybe they can't be on trial anywhere. So fairness is out the window. because fairness is gone, can their be justice? The judge sitting on the trial was the victim and the victor.
for the separation of us citizenship from the rest of the world. if i get the same rights as an american citizen gets, should I then be a american citizen? shouldn't i then be a citizen of, lets say, egypt. Therefore i have two countries looking out for me. you are correct about america standing up for human rights for everyone, but i see it as everyone in america. if you are in america then great you have all the rights a human should have. but if not then why should america look out for you? we as a society have formed a government for what reason; protection. if our society protects the whole world should then the whole world pay tribute to our society? Plus if our society protects everyone in the world, doesn't that dilute the amount of effort the government has in protecting the People of that society
I'm gonna start with the citizenship part. There are both benefits and responsibilities that come with being an american citizen. For those that are not, they are not allowed to live here for extended periods of time. Just like any country, you get a visa. A student visa or a work visa or what have you, but as soon as your visa has expired (assuming it does not get extended) you have to leave. BUT, that does not mean that we are free to treat any non-citizen as we please. If an american killed a non citizen while that person was in america, the american would be tried for crimes against that person's rights. That is precisely because they have the same basic a rights as any person on earth, basic rights that we recognize as a country. That does not mean that they are entitled to all of the rights of an american citizen but i think they are entitled to some, and especially ones pertaining to justice. (that was a pretty vague statement. what i mean is due process, speedy trial, representation, habeas corpus. That kind of stuff. Not necessarily free speech, right to bear arms, etc.)
ReplyDeleteYou make an extremely good point about the US not being able to be the judge in these trials. The article i read said that there are about 240 detainees. 30 are cleared for release, some are being sent to foreign countries, Britain and France took one each (thanks guys!) and 80 are going to be prosecuted. I don't know how many "some" is. I would venture to guess not many or they would have given the number. Anyways, it sounds like some countries are trying to help a little. Maybe it should be tried at The Hague.