Do All Humans Have Rights?
Submitted by dimmer on 24 October, 2005 - 02:08.
originally posted by dimmer on Tuesday April 20, @05:36PM
from the political-ponderings dept.
Here are some quick thoughs...just a gradual reaction from what has been in the news since GW started his "war on terror".
As you may know, the military is holding hundreds of people as "enemy combatants." Under that category, they do not get lawyers, do not see judges, do not get military tribunals, do not even get a hearing. They can be held indefinitely as prisoners - they have no rights. It is essentially up to George W Bush or a high-ranking military official to decide whether these people are innocent or guilty of something. Right away, this seems unfair. They are human beings. They deserve human rights. Even if they are guilty of something, enough evidence should be present to convince an official person or group that there is probable cause of guilt. If there is not enough evidence, how is there any indication that they are not innocent? How much do we believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?
The Bush Administration is trying to convince the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case because these prisoners are "enemy combatants" and are not living within US borders (they are being held on a US military base in Cuba). In the historic Insular Cases the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Constitution does not follow the flag, ie constitutional rights are only so valid outside of US borders. I don't quite follow the logic. Aren't our civil rights based on human rights? Therefore, shouldn't civil rights be extended to all humans? Aren't we just denying foreigners civil rights because it's inconvenient to uphold them?
The Bush Administration arguing that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in this area is understandable, but selfish. As every elemtary school student knows, the government is based on a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court has every right to check the White House whenever it engages in improper conduct, and I hope it will.
As you may know, the military is holding hundreds of people as "enemy combatants." Under that category, they do not get lawyers, do not see judges, do not get military tribunals, do not even get a hearing. They can be held indefinitely as prisoners - they have no rights. It is essentially up to George W Bush or a high-ranking military official to decide whether these people are innocent or guilty of something. Right away, this seems unfair. They are human beings. They deserve human rights. Even if they are guilty of something, enough evidence should be present to convince an official person or group that there is probable cause of guilt. If there is not enough evidence, how is there any indication that they are not innocent? How much do we believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?
The Bush Administration is trying to convince the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case because these prisoners are "enemy combatants" and are not living within US borders (they are being held on a US military base in Cuba). In the historic Insular Cases the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Constitution does not follow the flag, ie constitutional rights are only so valid outside of US borders. I don't quite follow the logic. Aren't our civil rights based on human rights? Therefore, shouldn't civil rights be extended to all humans? Aren't we just denying foreigners civil rights because it's inconvenient to uphold them?
The Bush Administration arguing that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in this area is understandable, but selfish. As every elemtary school student knows, the government is based on a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court has every right to check the White House whenever it engages in improper conduct, and I hope it will.
Post new comment