Showing posts with label Judges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judges. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
War on Terror Trials
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)