The Gitmo Detainees and the Supreme Court Decisions

This week another 'landmark' case was heard before the Supreme Court with respect to the 'rights' of the Gitmo detainees to be afforded the 'option' and opportunity to have their crimes heard in our federal courts (rather than military tribunals) with respect to their detention as 'enemy combatants,' and afforded the right of habeas corpus (to have the evidence against them presented in a court of law) since many of these individuals have been held in an off-shore military detention center at Guantanamo for almost two years without being afforded the opportunity to have their 'day in court.' Although it is apparent from the reports of some of the 'crimes' of a few of these individuals as not within the parameters of the Congressional Resolution (and not Act of War) issued after 9/11 which outlined that our military's mission was to "seek out and arrest those responsible for the attack of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and any and all who give them aid and comfort," the basic question I have is how did this mess got so 'political' and unconstitutional to begin with, and how the Bush Administration and Supreme Court now have so mishandled this conflict from the outset.

As indicated above, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution clearly indicates that this 'government of the people,' is a 'government of the American people.' The Bill of Rights protections afforded within it, therefore, by extension ONLY are inherently given to American citizens, not foreigners or identified non-American enemy combatants. This would include any illegal immigrant in this country committing a criminal act, and identified foreign 'enemies of the state.' The founders included that the federal government was responsible for a 'process of naturalization,' so these rights inherently are only intended and given to either natural, or naturalized citizens of this country.

With respect to the Gitmo detainees, unfortunately it appears there are even journalists being detained. The military went beyond the Congressional Resolution, it appears, in picking up and detaining not simply those allegedly connected with the Taliban or al-Qaeda (and it was the Taliban and bin Laden, actually, that claimed responsibility at the outset, and for whom the Resolution was intended, not al-Qaeda members who had not been connected to 9/11). While President Bush has called this a 'War on Terrorism' no Act of War was ever signed into law by Congress, only a Congressional Resolution affording the 'redress' of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. With respect to those clearly identified as members of the Taliban, in prior years detainees were incarcerated and held and charged immediately or incarcerated until the end of the conflict where public military tribunals heard the charges and rendered the decisions (such as the Nuremberg trials). The federal courts would hear any acts of treason committed by American citizens, as they do inherently have Bill of Rights protections, and there is a process and provision for such a charge (upon the testimony of two witnesses of the 'treasonous' act - which would mean 3/4 of our Congress and our President, it would appear, in some of his usurpation's contrary to the delegation of powers would clearly, at this point, fit). No American civilian citizen was ever remotely connected to the 9/11 attacks, thus most provisions of the Patriot Act and the removal of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens was also unconstitutional. If we were under 'invasion' which is one of the sole Constitutional reasons such protections can be 'removed' in the first place - then why weren't our borders secured first prior to even set one foot on foreign soil? The border states are being 'invaded' on a daily basis far more than we are being 'invaded' by Middle Eastern terrorists in the direct affect on the civil population and amount of deaths and injuries involved.

If this matter of the Gitmo detainees is and was simply a matter of many being held without any formal charges yet having been filed, then this simply could have been rectified with a statute enacted with respect to foreign enemy combatants that does provide that such detainees now or in future can only be held for a certain period of time, until the U.S. government must either file charges against them, or release them. The 'no ex post facto' law also was meant so as to prohibit the 'removal' of freedoms and liberties upon whims in that the more laws that are enacted, the more freedom and liberty is removed. These detainees are foreigners, and such a statute would be 'legal' in that it deals with foreigners and not U.S. citizens at all and thus not a 'violation' of citizen Bill of rights, but as also a military procedure with respect to arrest and detention of alleged foreign enemy combatants. And they should be afforded then public military trials for their criminal acts against this nation, with the public also as the 'victims' in these actions the right to also hear the crimes against them as a government 'of the people.'

While the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have jurisdiction over matters involving foreigners with respect to the 'nature' of the crimes most of these detainees are either suspected of, or have been charged with, under the Congressional Resolution which authorized their detention, these matters are military in nature and should have been heard publicly in those courts, in my opinion and in reviewing our U.S. history and the 'Rule of Law' in this country, our Constitution. Even during our our Civil War, prisoners of war were detained without trials (U.S. citizens mind you) until that conflict was resolved and over. Unfortunately now, due to the 'political' rather than Constitutional nature of this continuing conflict - when the action or alleged 'War' against these individuals is not fully defined and the parameters of the 'enemy' adequately defined as was the case with this now 'War Against Terror' (and 'terrorism' is a noun, and anyone who 'bullies' , threatens or abuses another is defined in Webster's as 'a terrorist') rather than a 'War Against the Taliban' you have an endless conflict, rather than a clearly defined enemy and war. And appears that has been the strategy, with the was in which this war has progressed with now even talks and 'terrorizing' the American people now with the alleged 'threat' of a 'nuclear Iran,' upon evidence, it would appear, as fabricated as the 'weapons of mass destruction' which was used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

This decision, again, seemed politically motivated - especially in this election year.....and not 'legally' motivated whatsoever. And it is quite clear that the Constitution, and it's protections were meant to 'protect' the states and it's citizens from unconstitutional acts of the federal government against them and limit their powers over them - but it is the federal government itself charged with the duty to protect the citizenry, and provide the necessary and adequate process for the arrest and conviction of enemy combatants, especially those whose crimes actually were against innocent civilians, and not military personnel at all (with the exception of those killed at the Pentagon), and the real 'crime' itself was an 'Act of Piracy' to begin with. Commandeering our own planes, which were used as a weapon against us, similar to the crimes the Barbary pirates committed on the high seas.

Those 'rights' clearly were provided for 'We the People' for 'us and our posterity,' and not declared 'enemies' of the state or illegal foreigners or those charged with committing criminal acts in this country 'visiting' our nation. Actually, in providing such 'rights' it is diametrically opposed to why this nation and a national government was created to begin with, in order to protect the U.S. and it's citizenry from those that wish to do us harm. 'Probable cause' of membership in these extremist groups does not seem it would be so hard to obtain prior to these detainees having been arrested in the first place. If that was the case, and they were not or there was not enough evidence to charge them with either being participants in what occurred with 9/11 or those directly giving them 'aid and comfort' they should have been released. And the others accorded open and public military hearings on their covert and overt activities against this nation, and it's citizenry. The entire way this 'war' has been handled has been abominable and those leaders who are behind it have made America almost the laughingstock of the world. And the handling of the detainees - their arrest, capture and now 'trials' also have shown the difference when there are self-serving politicians, rather than statesmen and women, in positions of power.