I've been putting off blogging on SCOTUS's Gitmo ruling because I want to have time to think about what it means. So I suppose I'll have a longer, more thoughtful blog tomorrow (and Bubba says: "It'll be longer, but I doubt it'll be more thoughtful." Ba-dum-bum!). My initial impression is to offer a qualified endorsement of the ruling, because I have been troubled by the notion that the President has the right to do whatever he wants to with prisoners taken in the terror war, and they have no rights at all. It would seem to be, then, that this ruling is a victory for the rule of law. But I am also given to worry by Andy McCarthy's pre-ruling musing in The Corner, in which he speculates that if SCOTUS finds that terrorists are covered by the Geneva Conventions (as SCOTUS did), that the Gitmo savages will be found to have the right to Zacarias Moussaoui-type jury trials.
What I want to know is: does the Hamdan ruling leave Congress room to set the rules of engagement, so to speak, between the US Govt and the terrorist combatants? If it does, and therefore it removes sole discretion from POTUS, then I think that's a good thing. And if the Geneva Convention aspect of the decision forbids torture and inhumane treatment of the prisoners, I think that too is a good thing. But if it can be read to grant them rights to criminal trials in US courts, that is catastrophically bad. Please chime in below with your own views. I'm still not sure what to think.
Well, no, actually I am sure on one point. Wesley Clark said today on John Gibson's Fox News Channel show: "We don't need military tribunals. We need to turn these people over to an international court. They are threats to the whole world." Wesley Clark is nuts.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUponAdvertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Sometimes we take ethical issues and strip them way down. Example: Is abortion murder or not?
In this case the stripped down version is: How do you want your justice--partial or impartial?
The hemming and hawing comes from whether we regard these prisoners as humans worthy of humane treatment. If we can put yellow stars or some kind of dehumanizing label on them, then we can get by with treating them with less respect than we would hope to be treated with.>
Why is it that all the people who are in favor of this "war" and in favor of torture and kangaroo courts are civilians?
I'll be in Afghanistan soon enough - will you be there with me to reap wwhat you are sowing?>
By the way, for those who never served -- the UCMJ/ Court Martial system IS intended to govern prisoners and to try war crimes, whether committed by US troops or by others.>
Bill is wrong. Here is the money quote from the ruling:
"This is not a case, then, where the Executive can assert some unilateral authority to fill a void left by congressional inaction. It is a case where Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers as an independent branch of government, and as part of a long tradition of legislative involvement in matters of military justice, has considered the subject of military tribunals and set limits on the President's authority. Where a statute provides conditions for the exercise of governmental power, its requirements are the result of a deliberative and reflective process engaging both of the political branches. Respect for laws derived from the customary operation of the Executive and Legislative Branches gives some assurance of stability in time of crisis. The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment.">
Actually you backed me up -- No need to go into quotes from the MCM or UCMJ - It is intended to cover foreigners war crimes and has so been used. It wasn't used after WWII because it didn't exist yet. The UCMJ also has explicit guidance on tribunals.
Bear in mind that military and civilian offenses are different - in war you can be executed for leaving your job, while it is no crime for a POW to escape.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.