This is a valid question. Depending on who you listen to, they ought to have the same rights as citizens of the United States.
How much do we as US citizens value our rights and privileges? Are they something that we can freely confer on anyone? Do those rights and privilges come at a price?
Yes, no and yes.
It makes me angry when Democrats and others believe that Al Queda prisoners captured on the battlefield or elsewhere should have their day in American courts. That they should be able to see the evidence against them like any American citizen, and be given the same due process granted to citizens. That's an insane position to take.
These men are not citizens. They do not live, work and care for the United States. They fulfill none of the responsibilities of citizenship. In fact, they are actively trying to destroy this country and kill our citizens. The idea that we should protect them astonishes me. It angers me. Should we not be protecting the people of this country instead? Why extend the privileges of citizenship that so many have fought and given their lives for to terrorists who want to commit mass murder?
I suppose there are some answers. Some people think the United States is at fault, and that the captured Al Queda are victims. That's the delusional approach.
Some believe that it's simply justice to treat them as one would treat a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is cheap then, isn't it? We freely give away to murderers what many have paid a steep price for. That's the numbing effect that moral equivocation has on common sense.
Some people just hate Bush, and if he's for harsh interrogation, they're against it. That's the mindless rage of the hateful.
The last option is somewhat reasonable. Some people honestly believe that by denying captured Al Queda members due process in a civlian court that the slippery slope towards being able to hold anyone for any reason has begun. While there may well be some merit in that, my response would simply be to remain vigilant. We have to extract information from these prisoners somehow, and we have to have a method of trying and convicting them that keeps classified information and intelligence secret. A normal courtroom is not sufficient. If those who feel that rights are being eroded have a better option, it ought to be put forth for consideration.
As for me, I'll continue to side with the citizens of the US. I don't hold any sympathy for those in CIA prisons or at Guantanamo Bay. I don't have a lot of regard for those who do sympathize. When, God forbid, the next 9/11 happens, we may all wish that the naysayers had been ignored.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Arguing certainly is easier when you misrepresent the opposing viewpoint. Would you have found yourself able to make the same arguments had you correctly written "alleged terrorists" instead of presupposing their guilt?
I don't know whether the US media covered this, but there have been cases of British citizens mistakenly identified as terrorists and sent to Guantanamo Bay. Of course due process is necessary! It is to ensure that those people in Guantanamo Bay actually deserve to be there, and that the innocent are promptly released.
Thanks for the comments. I did hear about those British citizens as well.
Two points:
There is some system in place for weeding out men who shouldn't be at Guantanamo. Unless I'm mistaken, more than half have been released since the camp was set up to hold terrorists. There has been some rudimentary due process since day one.
Two, I'm not sure that prisoners of war have ever really been given due process in civilian courts during wartime. I don't think it's a wise precedent to set. However, we've codified a procedure to try these men, which should have perhaps been done some time ago, so the issue has been addressed.
Post a Comment