There is so much wrong with the situation at Guantanamo Bay that I don’t even know where to start. We’re holding people indefinitely, without allowing them access to a lawyer or charging them with any crime, under the theory that they’re incredibly dangerous, pose major national security risks, and are necessary for interrogation. “Trust us,” the administration says. “These guys are really bad! They worst of the worst! Terrorists, even!”
Which doesn’t exactly explain why we just released a third of them.
Yes, 141 of these “worst of the worst” uncharged “criminals,” “enemy combatants” and “terrorist-supporters” are being released. No charges. No day in court.
And they wonder why some of us think Guantanamo is entirely illegitimate.
Charges are pending against about two dozen of the remaining prisoners, the chief prosecutor said. But he left unclear why the rest face neither imminent freedom nor a day in court after as many as four years in custody.
Only 10 of the roughly 490 alleged “enemy combatants” currently detained at the facility have been charged; none has been charged with a capital offense.
And this is the problem with holding people indefinitely without access to an attorney and without accorind them due process rights.
It also shows a profound lack of faith in the American judicial system. It goes against our most basic values and notions of due process. It’s thoroughly anti-American, and it’s incredibly shameful. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that so many people who claim to value liberty and Constitutional rights are willing to make these kinds of compromises in the name of “security” (I’m talking to you, fair-weather libertarians and classic conservatives), and so many others are willing to simply ignore what’s happening to justify their complacency.
A few weeks ago, the NYU College Democrats debated the NYU College Republicans about the Guantamo/indefinite detainee issue. The CR’s argument basically came down to, “We’re living in a different age now, where terrorism is a profound threat, and we need to take whatever measures possible to insure our national security.” One of their members actually made the argument that the Constitution and the bill of rights were written a long time ago, and can’t really apply to today’s circumstances. And this idea — that executive power should trump all else, even rule of law and our most basic Constitutional values, and that we should do whatever it takes even if doing so destroys the very fabric of what we’re claiming to defend — is frightening. Especially when the “doing whatever it takes” is failing in practice.
Jackasses. Let’s refresh, shall we, grasshoppers?
“They who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Extremely prescient of Mr. Franklin, n’est-ce pas?
Or how about this little gem from Mr. Madison:
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
I wonder if the college rethuglicans have read any history lately? Seems not.
that jimmy madison was a smart fella.
ah, law school. thanks for scheduling a presidential powers panel w/ judge posner, sid blumenthal, viet dihn, and padilla’s lawyer during my last day of classes. that was swell.
What the hell are you talking about? Libertarians and paleoconservatives (I’m assuming that’s what you meant by “classic conservatives”) oppose Bush, his wars, and his assault on freedom and civil liberties and have been some of the most vocal opponents of his regime. Check out LewRockwell.com, Chronicles Magazine, and Antiwar.com, as well as the writings of Paul Craig Roberts, for examples.
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
I wonder if the college rethuglicans have read any history lately? Seems not.
What makes you think they haven’t read that quote? I suspect they just took it as a plan.
Ah, yes. Our plan to rule the world is coming along swimmingly.
Omni waste oil furnace
I am Petra, very interesting article that contained the information I was searching for in Google, thanks.
Looks like we got us a spammer, Jill.
Andrew,
I think Jill was specifically addressing the libertarians and paleo-conservatives who have conveniently forgotten about the Bill of Rights. Certainly many civil libertarians oppose Bush’s policies, but many make the same arguments as the NYU College Republicans, while others simply can’t seem to handle speaking out against the Bush administration.
Andrew-
Note the word “fairweather” modifying “Libertarian” and “Conservative.”