mr. khalid sheikh mohammed, you have the right…
by Vincent Rooley
Published: June 16, 2008
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who according to the 9/11 Commission is the “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” has been sitting in a Guantanamo cell since March of 2003. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision which aims to extend America’s Constitutional rights to imprisoned enemy combatants, A.K.A. fellow citizens, Khalid may be coming to a courtroom near you.
Though millions of Americans are outraged at the thought of this monster being able to wrap himself in rights afforded him by a country he seeks to destroy (he was also the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings), unfortunately, the Supreme Court got it right.
Article 3 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that where legal issues between the U.S. and foreign citizens are concerned, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So, though I’d like to tell the Court to butt out, Article 3 won’t let me. And though George Bush and I would both like to see Khalid rot in Guantanamo, it’s not his call or mine.
The same section goes on to state, “[the] trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” In short, it is up to the United States Congress to determine the location of the trial of the detainees. And therein lies our great and only hope for justice: the United States Congress is going to be required to “determine” something controversial in an election year. Fat chance Khalid. The odds are better of you finding Jesus in jail then a majority of congressmen anxious to find a spot for your “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” (Amendment 6).
As a matter of fact, though there’s some truth to Obama’s claim that the Court’s 5-4 decision is a victory for the “Rule of Law,” the actual “Rules” are muddy to say the least. So though the decision is a setback for the current administration, it’s not necessarily a victory for the accused.
The focal point of future legislative contention is sure to be found in Article 2 Section 8, which declares, “Congress shall have power… to make rules concerning captures on land and water.” This opens up a whole can of legislative worms because if Congress can “make Rules concerning captures on land,” it can theoretically “make rules” that don’t include “speedy and public trials” by “impartial” juries. It can theoretically make any rule that stops short of inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment” (Amendment 8).
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that the trials are “speedy” and the charge sticks (the charge most likely being treason, defined as levying war against the United States or in adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort). The end result is still far from a slam dunk because Article 3 Section 3 states, “The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason.”
So if the Congress can agree to a location of the trial, and can agree on the rules of the trial, and if through a rigorous prosecution they get a conviction, they still have to agree about the punishment to be meted out. That’s at least 2, maybe 3 agreements that must be made on the hottest, the absolute hottest, of hot-button issues. And I haven’t even mentioned Amendment 5 which states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”
Did you catch that?
In other words, you can’t be prosecuted for a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime” without the benefit of an indictment before a grand jury. But not, I repeat NOT, in cases involving land forces during wartime.
Hold that victory parade for the Rule of Law, I’m not sure we can begin celebrating just yet.
Clearly opponents of civilian trials for the Guantanamo detainees are going to beat the drum provided them by the 5th Amendment and either stall the judicial process indefinitely or cancel it altogether.
So contrary to the jubilation of some, the Courts ruling does little to resolve the legal status of the detainees. At most it passes the buck from the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch, where for once I’m thrilled that absolutely nothing is going to get done.
P.S. Khalid, please disregard Amendment 14. It only applies to “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” You’re out o’ luck again.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
June 16th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Why is the fact that Congress may interfer with the judicial process a cause for celebration? Do we, or do we not believe in a Democracy?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I believe we live in a republic, not a democracy…and this article is spot on with regard to Constitutional law.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Well spoken Neish. Though I may sound like a constitutional heretic, I don’t think it’s at all absurd to very slowly decide how our Constitution applies to people who want to blow us up. What I don’t understand at all is the mentality of some who want these soldiers for the international jihad out on bail yesterday. Why does that make sense?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Enemy combatants do not deserve constitutional rights. Period. When on the battlefield field should we yell “Freeze” and only fire if they refuse? When we capture them do we need to read them “their” Miranda Rights?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I believe the only rights these phsycos should have is 1)After a period of time, be able to know why they’re in jail (This is only for the increidbly miniscule, microscopic chance we reeled an innocent Joe in along with the other psychos) 2) The right to sit down, shut up, and receive the justice of the country that they’re trying to destroy. Why the heck should a terrorist receive ANY rights after we are positive he’s responsible for trying OR succeeding in taking the lives of hundreds or thousands of Americans?
Sorry, you lost all rights when you decided to do harm to American citizens. Scratch the “sorry.” I say, once we prove they’re guilty in court, kill ‘em quick and send them to the “Higher Court.”
And we do belive in democracy. That’s why we have it IN our Republic, and that’s why the laws have to be created, improved, and altered BY THE PEOPLE in Congress to take any effect in our country.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Winston, I think a fair question: what about deaths of civilians that we’re responsible for? “We” being Americans in foreign lands. Should the same standard of “sit down, shut up, and receive the justice” of that country apply?
As much as I’d like to say, “Go ahead, string’em up,” because, let’s face it, they are pretty low on the totem pole of human decency, I think we’re setting dangerous precedents in a lot of different places right now, this included. If we can hold persons without access to counsel, without even basic knowledge of what they’re being held for, can we be all that upset when other countries do the same? Can we feel aggrieved when it happens to one or some of our citizens?
June 26th, 2008 at 8:24 am
See, it’s remarks like this that should infuriate anyone:
Glenn Beck: “We’re going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them, period. Because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us is we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system, kill them.”
——————–
This is what happens when you have uneducated radio DJs filling the airwaves of our country.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It really makes me sick when people want to compare Americans who unintentionally take civilian life while they’re fighting a war in the Middle East or something to the evil jihadists who want to use treachery, stealth, and terrorism to take thousands of Americans to their deaths. Are you going to compare Americans who kill a few Iraqis as they’re trying to bring them freedom to people like the hijackers of 9/11 who took a passanger jet and took out enourmous economic, not even military, structures and killed thousands of our citizens?
If you’re referrring to the rare crazies in our country who would perform horrendous acts to other countries,yes, I do believe the standard of sit down, shut up, and accept the justice of the country they’re trying to destroy should apply. I wish WE got to judge them, though. I know we can’t because people in our country wouldn’t give him a harsh enough sentence. He’d probably be out on bail.
To be honest, that comment that deosn’t offend me at all. He’s down with killing killers who are threats to international and national securities. So am I. I’m not going to give confirmed terrorists, potential or otherwise, a chance to hurt more people. And if this country can’t have the stomach to keep these freaks behind bars, they need to be out of the picture completely.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
All right, before this becomes a flame war I understand and respect your position. I come from a family with a long military tradition so, whatever, we’ll leave it at that.
“Are you going to compare Americans who kill a few Iraqis as they’re trying to bring them freedom…”
That is so remarkably disrespectful to human life it’s disgusting. We’re not talking about “a few Iraqis,” we’re talking about 500,000 to 1.2 million civilians who have lost their lives and another 5 million-plus who have had to flee their home as a result of the conflict, nay war, we brought to their land. And let me make it clear that I’m not debating the war itself or our government’s rationale for it; that’s no longer worth “debating” in this country. But saying that the lives of persons in a country who didn’t ask us to come and rescue them in first place somehow have less meaning than the 2998 lives lost in an attack that their country did not plan, fund, or carry out is absolutely horrible.
As for Mr. Beck and his continued unnecessarily inflammatory remarks on any of a wide range of issues of which he seems to have no actual knowledge about, his principle of “[shooting] them all in the head [if] we think that they are against us” would have already resulted in the deaths of dozens of innocent parties.
“If you’re referrring to the rare crazies in our country who would perform horrendous acts to other countries,yes, I do believe the standard of sit down, shut up, and accept the justice of the country they’re trying to destroy should apply.”
Glenn Beck, as he’s proved time and again, absolutely fits the bill.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
You’re right, that was a very poor way of putting it. It sounded like I was downplaying the value of Iraqi life, which, you’re right, is digusting.
That said, (and it needed to be said, thank you) you still have NO foundation for comparing radical terrorists killing innocent civilians to good, brave, American soldiers who are trying their best to bring Iraqis and America a better, safer way of life. That’s just as wrong and sick as comparing a cop who kills an innocent civilian while in pursuit of a mass-murderer to a serial killer. Terrorists are not soldiers, they are terrorists. They try to kill as many civilians as they can; the more innocents dead, the more successful the attack. Americans, on the opposite side of the spectrum, consider it a “bittersweet victory” or even “failed mission” if civilians are killed in a military operation. Comparing such entirely different groups of people to one another is nothing less than calling right wrong and wrong right, and is just another example of the loss of moral clarity in this country.
Good for you; I deeply appreciate your family’s military heritage. That is very admirable and I can say I’m right there with you. I offer very sincere thanks to your family and pray none of them is in danger in Iraq right now.