Trial versus Tribunal
posted by Gavin | 8:31 AM
The recent Supreme Court decision will have important ramifications for the future of anti-terrorism efforts by the U.S. The U.S. military, in response to an earlier decision by the Court, had already granted detainees much more legal process than required for enemy combatants by the Geneva conventions. Apparently that wasn't enough for five justices.
Labels: current events
3 Comments:
that's because the military and the executive branch doesn't get to define what parts of the constitution it has to follow and the supreme court exists to protect those rights
my issue with the whole thing is this is not really a war in the traditional sense these prisoners are from countries we haven't declared war against so their status is impossible to decide especially since this so called war may never endeaning without granting fair trial rights they could be trappped forever with no recourse so since they are not protected by a parent governmet they are criminals and criminals have certain rights to a trial
It certainly would be easier to think about this is by the classic war definition. Unfortunately, it is more complicated. I am sure the five supreme court justices did not come to their decisions lightly. I certainly hope they were thinking more about this country’s constitution than terrorism.
The strategy of loosely naming and detaining enemy combatants certainly has more ramifications in the long term than just anti-terrorism efforts. It sets a precedent that leads down a road I don’t think anybody is prepared to follow. When will US citizens be detained without charge? Have I heard this song before?
The real challenge is not anti-terrorism, but upholding our own freedoms and ideals in the face of terrorism. There must be no compromise of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home