My first thought was yes...and if not, then it should be. But keep reading...
In the linked article, Bush's supporters want to deny terrorist suspects habeas corpus.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_terrorism_40;_ylt=AgYsQDgsImnBceWSe3jJtVITv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but the Constitution specifically says:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Suspects in Gitmo are not a Rebellion nor Invasion. Theoretically, they can be innocent (and should therefore have rights)...unlike the guy we rendered by mistake to Syria who got tortured.
So...Is it Constitutional NOT to allow terrorist suspects to petition for habeas corpus?
2006-09-28 06:57:37 · 6 answers · asked by Brand X 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The official opinion is that they are not due the rights of a US citizen, and that they are not due the rights of an foreign soldier.
My take is that they should be accorded the rights we guarantee under the constitution even though they are not citizens. We are heading down a long and dangerous road when we try anyone without giving them full access to the charges against them and a mechanism to defend themselves in a just and transparent trial.
For over two hundred years that has been what we are and who we are. Our sense and system of justice sets us apart from those we are fighting more than anyone else. When we surrender that we offer them a great victory.
2006-09-28 07:04:39 · answer #1 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If someone from, say, Germany came to the United States and broke a law like shoplifting, he would receive a trial. Why should anyone else receive less?
My concern is where will it end. There's been talk about the NSA eavesdropping, now Rice wants to proceed down this road with child pornographers. I thought all of this was necessary to defend American lives. I'm not say child pornography is good (it's horrible), but once we start down a road, where do we stop? Are we going to start eavesdropping on suspected red light runners? Are we going to start denying trials to suspected child pornographers, then murderers, thiefs, and on down to everything else. Pretty soon, our Constitution will be worth less than toilet paper.
2006-09-28 14:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if the suspected terrorist is a US citizen. The constitution does not apply to non-citizens.
2006-09-28 14:10:33 · answer #3 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The constitution does not seem to be referenced much by this administration. I do not see why they shouldn't be allowed a trial or at least a charge of some sort. But then again, Bush seems to think it is ok to hold them for no reason other than their name and faith.
2006-09-28 14:16:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they are suspects, that means they haven't been proven to be terrorists, so yes they should be able to petition for habeas corpus. If they are found to be terrorists then no, they should not petition to habeas corpus.
2006-09-28 14:01:26 · answer #5 · answered by American Vengeance 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since when does the US constitution apply to non-Americans? Especially those that are our enemies and trying to kill us?
2006-09-28 14:02:02 · answer #6 · answered by Snogood 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋