Osama Bin Laden needs to be assumed innocent
Posted on June 22nd, 2008 by tiberius
Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have legal rights and have Habeas Corpus rights. Barack Obama’s advisor’s then followed up and said Osama Bin Laden should get access to courts as well.
According to our laws and rules this means that Bin Laden is presumed innocent. What do you think?
5 Responses to “Osama Bin Laden needs to be assumed innocent”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If the Supreme Court made such a decision during World War II we would be speaking German now. If they made it during the Civil War and Lincoln abided by it we would have had slavery another 50 years.
As President Andrew Jackson supposedly remarked about, chief justice John Marshall. “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”.
The big problem was that war was never officially declared. The President had the authorization to use force. But a politically motivated congress would have refused an actual constitutional declaration. If we had that, then we would have the right to have prisoners of war instead of enemy combatant detainees.
CHANGE, so Osama Bin Laden now gets legal protections from our country even though he had thousands of Americans killed must be the CHANGE Barack Obama is talking about.
Deepthroat,
My questions are, the judicial branch, SCOTUS, having assigned habeous rights to foriegn combatants: are all other rights implied? Is this a road block to future un-declared wars? How does the UN deal with rights issues in their peace keeping activities? Is a SCOTUS decision repealable if future majority decisions determine this one over stepped SCOTUS constitutional authority?
That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve seen in my life. FYI: The Huage trials did allow these rights, and many others for WW2 prisoners. In fact, there were several treaties declaring the exact rights for such prisoners, and the US signed on to those and until about 6 years ago abided by them. When WW2 commanders were tried, they had full legal rights and representation, more so than we have here in the US these days.
Fact of the matter is, there has to be some legal frame work in place. As Deepthroat stated, if they were POWs their rights would be clearly spelled out. Since they’re not, then they need something, and if nothing else is available, it defaults to the existing legal system, which includes basic rights.
So the rest of you scowling over this think it’s ok for the President (or some other underling) to declare anyone an “Enemy Combatant”, and toss them in a jail forever? No evidence, no trial, no legal recourse to challenge the status, no rights? And we can isolate them, and physically and mentally torture them as well, right? That doesn’t sound like a Democratic Republic to me. It sounds like a dictatorship.