| Home | Terror | Enemy Combatant Articles |
|
In the current War, one of the greatest threats to civil liberties is the treatment of enemy combatants. The government has taken the position that
Why does this matter? Isn't this just some legal mumbo-jumbo, with no relevance to most of us? After all, most of us are not terrorists, nor do we plan to be. Well, it does matter; it is relevant; and it depends on how you define "terrorist." For two centuries, the U.S. has been through innumerable political campaigns (state, local and national); many of them have been nasty; but when they're done the winners take office and the losers leave. No one sends the losers – or those who voted for them – to jail. And, if anyone dared try that, the public outcry would be enough to stop them (and they'd then be impeached). Take away the publicity (which is what happens if people are spirited away, without trial, and without access to lawyers), and it wouldn't be so unlikely. It wouldn't be hard for the government to classify people as "terrorists" because it didn't like their politics, and then arrest them and hold them without trial. Has the U.S. government ever abused its power? Just look at the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the mistreatment of German-Americans during World War One, the internment of Japanese-Americans and resident aliens during World War Two, McCarthyism. The slaughter of the American Indian? Slavery? Jim Crow laws? More recently we've had Watergate and Bill Clinton. Given past history, it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume the government can always be trusted. Given past history, it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume the government won't harass people it doesn't like. There's a reason for the old saw Now, as the ABA states, the only precedent for "enemy combatants" or "illegal combatants" seems to be the 1942 Nazi saboteur case. This is troubling for several reasons. First, this is the only legal precedent. It would be nice to have others. Next, a precedent from 1942 – when the U.S. was in the middle of World War Two (a War already noted for excesses such as the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, and of Japanese legal aliens) – is troubling in itself. Then, there is no mention – even in this case – of the government having the ability to hold anyone (besides POWs, who have rights of their own) without trial or access to attorneys. There is certainly no mention of the government having the right to do this to American citizens. So, even if one accepts this "precedent", it doesn't allow what the Bush administration is doing. When the Bush Administration claims enemy combatants can be held without trial or access to lawyers – particularly when it tries to declare American citizens enemy combatants – it's telling the American people "Trust us. We have good intentions. We'll only imprison actual terrorists. And we won't make any mistakes." And it throws away two centuries of Constitutional precedent, which tells us that, as a matter of principle, Americans don't trust the government. Here are some of my thoughts on how to balance freedom and security. Top |
|
ABA Task Force 8 Aug 2002 Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (Transcript of court case) Reason Magazine 27 June 2003 Human Rights Watch 12 June 2002 CNN 10 Feb 2003; concerns ABA Washington Post 20 June 2002 Washington Times 25 June 2003 Letters, from U.S. Senators Levin and Feingold, to Rumsfeld and Ashcroft 6 Sept 2002 Geneva Conventions |
| Top | Terror | Home |