The Supreme court is going to hear yet another Gitmo rights case today. Should the detainees/prisoners of war/oppressed freedom fighters have the right to clog the federal court system with appeals for out?
Used to be, armed enemies captured on the battlefield were prisoners of war, and they were stuck in POW camps until the war was over. No lawyers, no courts, no habeas corpus, no special commissions. POW's get certain rights, like mail from home, the right to refuse to divulge intelligence information (Name, rank, and serial number only), and others. We have all seen the war movies, Alec Guiness in Bridge on the River Quai, Steve Mcqueen in The Great Escape, and plenty more.
Whereas, criminal suspects in the US get Miranda rights, habeas corpus, public defenders, bail, and a chance to beat the rap by claiming illegal search and seizure.
The Gitmo detainees aren't real soldiers, so they don't even rate POW status. That's why we call 'em "detainees" rather than the more usual "prisoners". They are clearly dangerous, some small fry have been released and then later recaptured bearing arms against us in Afghanistan. Talk about two time losers.
So, why promote Gitmo detainees two jumps up, from no rights detainee, to POW, to criminal defendant? I kinda like leaving them as no rights detainees. Detainees can be interrogated at length for intelligence, which POW's cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment