In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Releasing “Enemy Combatants”

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.


9 thoughts on Releasing “Enemy Combatants”

  1. 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.

  2. that jimmy madison was a smart fella.

    The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty
    James Madison, August 1793

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people… [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and… degeneracy of manners and of morals… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare…

    [It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature…

    The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war… the power of raising armies… the power of creating offices…

    A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

    The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

    The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.

    The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents.

    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.

  3. 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),

    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.

  4. “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.

  5. I suspect they just took it as a plan.

    Ah, yes. Our plan to rule the world is coming along swimmingly.

  6. 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.

Comments are currently closed.