Human Rights and the GOP Rank and File

Published on July 1, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

There's been a lot of talk about Guantanamo Bay. I find it quite disturbing that so many from the Republican camp believe that our government can do absolutely anything it wants to Gitmo detainees because they are terrorists, especially and most tellingly, without having to PROVE those allegations in a court of any standing.

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists", then you don't believe in human rights, you believe in human PRIVILEGES. You believe that power emanates from the government, not the people, and while that may be held to be true in other nations, it is not true of the philosophical basis on which the US is built.

Why is this so important, so critical as to "crusade" about? Because a privilege can be revoked at the discretion of the one granting it; a right cannot. So if human rights are voidable for those at Guantanamo Bay, then every single American should be on the alert. Oddly enough, a strong contingent of Bush Buddies are demanding for the rights to teach Bible in the schools, to allow churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong, to display articles of their faith on the courthouse square. This select group of people believes that their rights to religious expression are inviolable. And they are right!. But although exceptions to this may exist (please speak up if this is the case), I have yet to personally encounter one who equally believes in the rights of the Baptist Church and the Gitmo detainees. Every single Republican I have encountered who believes in the rights of the churches to express their faith denies rights to Gitmo detainees.

I believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.

Comments (Page 1)

Locamama

on Jul 01, 2007

I believe even the detainees deserve their day in court. When they are proven guilty, then they should be punished. Not the other way around. I want them to be treated the same way I would want American soldiers to be treated by any other government or organization that held them prisoner.

Congress actually passed a law last year stripping the federal courts of the rights to hear habeus corpus cases filed by the detainees. The Supreme Court will determine whether the Congress had the right to suspend habeus corpus for the detainees. The Court had declined to review a federal court ruling in April but will actually hear the case in their next term.

It is very telling that McCain was the only Republican presidential candidate that would condemn torture and then there was talk about that costing him the nomination. When the other nominees say they support "enhanced interogation techniques", I have to wonder if they would support the same techniques being used on our soldiers. Alberto Gonzales then says that the Geneva Convention is a "quaint". The Democrats need to start making some noise on this issue. Of course, if they do they will be accused of supporting the terrorists.

You're right, human rights are supposed to be rights not privleges.

SanChonino

on Jul 01, 2007

I love the agreement between the two of you, and don't have more to add.

Simply wanted to say that I agree with the both of you (as you both already know).

And Alberto Gonzales really needs to be let go already. "Quaint"? Come on.

Big Fat Daddy

on Jul 01, 2007

I agree only if we are not at war. WWI and WWII prisoners were held until the war was ended. Russians didn't repatriate all of their German prisoners until 10 years after the end of the war. Sadly the arguement isn't about human rights or Geneva Convention. It is about the simple question..."Are we at war?"

It is difficult to visualize a war where there is no country to declare against. We are at war with an ideology that has as it's base the destruction of western civilization. We don't have a precedent book to look at, this is new to us. So we pretty much make it up as we go along. Is it wrong to detain people who have supported or participated in some way with those who wish to kill us? I don't know...honestly, I don't pretend to know what is "right". I do know that of those who have been released from Gitmo, there have been some who have been recaptured doing their particular naughties again.

We feel sorry for those poor souls being denied their right to speedy trial or their right to be heard...please remember most, if not all, of those poor souls would gladly vaporize you in a nuclear fireball if they had the opportunity. Instead of focusing on what the inmates are suffering through, maybe you should see what the guards have to put with from the inmates.

I ramble...first lets figure out if it is a war or not...if it isn't...I agree with you.

SanChonino

on Jul 01, 2007

It is difficult to visualize a war where there is no country to declare against.

Therein lies the problem with the "War on Terror". Who decides what is terror? When is a "War on Terror" over?

These are questions that have no answers. The problem with this current "war" is that there is no way to win it. The only way it's ever gonna end is to either a)blow up the entire world and let the cockroaches have it; or b)Jesus better hurry up already.

ParaTed2k

on Jul 01, 2007

Should we treat the Gitmo Detainees the way our Founding Fathers treated prisoners of war? The fact is, it is, if they were declared prisoners of war, what you suggest here would be against the Geneva Convention. Wartime captives have never been given a trial or lawyers in the history of war.

ParaTed2k

on Jul 01, 2007

SanChonino:

Islamists Extremists have been fighting this war for a few decades now. They don't fight by the calendar, and niether should we. How do we win it? The same way any war is won, but not being the side that surrenders. We have lied to ourselves, saying the "ceasefire agreements" end war. Can you tell me 1 ceasefire agreement that ended a war?

while the Western world whines and moans about how long this war will last, the enemy is making plans for the next few decades. While you ask "when is the war over" they are laughing at you for even asking the question.

The motto in the U.S. Army Airborne is "How Far?" "All the Way!". That means, it doesn't matter how far, all the way is the only acceptable finishing point.

Jythier

on Jul 01, 2007

You could prove that a German soldier was part of the German army, and therefore, detain him as such. As soon as we prove these people are terrorists, we can hold them as a POW. Or, we can treat them as criminals. We cannot do both. We cannot say they are POWs and try them as criminals, because if we ARE at war with them, what is wrong with them attacking us? It is a war on terror only as much as it is a war on drugs - the legal system is the only system we can use to detain or punish them. And if it is an actual war, then we should afford them the rights as soldiers, because that is who they are - and there is nothing criminal about their attacks. Since that is not what we believe, we need to use the legal system to prosecute their crimes.

SanChonino

on Jul 01, 2007

The motto in the U.S. Army Airborne is "How Far?" "All the Way!". That means, it doesn't matter how far, all the way is the only acceptable finishing point.

What's all the way in the "War on Terror", Ted? How do we completely eradicate terror?

Please explain how we win this war. The more specifics the better.

terpfan1980

on Jul 01, 2007

I believe in human rights until you take away or infinge upon the rights of others. Once you have done that, you've voided your rights while in the process of trying to void someone else's.

That is precisely why I have no problem 'taking away' or 'ignoring' the rights of terrorists and combatants against our (U.S.A. and it's allies) interests in the global war on terror.

The people that have taken up arms against us or our allies have opted to sacrifice their rights and as such they are entitled only to what we opt to give them until after we have the time to try them and penalize them. Until then, they can sit on their duffs, eat the M.R.E.s we have provided to them, and STFU.

kingbee

on Jul 01, 2007

believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.

rather than the greatest single threat, i'd say it was a major component of a larger plan to subvert and gut the constitution in order to replace our democratic republic's three branches of government with autocracy in which what is now our executive branch is unrestrained (and probably renamed with some sorta deplorably clever euphemism such as 'Supreme Enlightened National Protectorate').

maybe 'enlightened' is a stretch. but without it how will people be able to differentiate between our new government and that of saudi arabia?

toothache's revenge

on Jul 01, 2007

this seems so easy to me. most of the time, our citizens aren't rounded up like that. you wanna know why? its because we don't usually gather into groups to plot mass murders.

whether everyone who's being detained is a terrorist or not, they were hanging out with the wrong crowd. you can say how unfair all of this is to people are "innocent" on this blog, and then turn around and tell your children, just like i do, to be careful who they hang out with.

i'm not next. wanna know why? its because i behave myself. i have nothing to hide. i'm not worried about losing rights over being safe because i don't do anything that needs to be a secret. its not that hard. my life is not effected by this stuff because i am a law abiding citizen. worries about these things is for people who are trying to get over somehow.

those guys at gitmo are safe. safe from being killed in a war zone. they are being taken very good care of.

don't get me wrong, i don't want to lose rights any more than you do. but you are wrong, flat wrong, if you think the gitmo prisoners being held till we figure them out means that we as americans are losing something. big fat daddy said it earlier, we have no precedent for this. but we have to find a way to deal with it. until we do, this is all we can reasonably do. if you don't agree, then what should we do with these people that isn't going to put them right back out there and working against us?

kingbee

on Jul 01, 2007

What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do

this is why i hate goin senile. it's embarrasing as hell to have to admit i'd forgotten the civil rights movement was responsible for nullifying the constitution for nearly 100 years. i guess the turning point musta been george lincoln rockwell's inspirational 'we're amerikans too dammit' speech.

ThinkAloud

on Jul 01, 2007

whether everyone who's being detained is a terrorist or not, they were hanging out with the wrong crowd

I agree with what Gid said about human rights. but the above statement by tooth defines the problem. and if we are in doubt about their real intentions, it is natural that we should be careful about releasing them. As long as they are treated fairly and not abused it makes sense to hold them. However, they should be allowed to have legal council in order that they can plead their case and convince the government of their innocence if they can. (presumed innocent till proven guilty does not apply here since they were caught while they were with the fighting enemy in some capacity)

The idea that the governmnet "can do anything it wants" in any thing is not acceptable but it has the right to do things according to the law. if we treat them as mentioned above, i dont see anything wrong with that

ParaTed2k

on Jul 02, 2007

What's all the way in the "War on Terror", Ted? How do we completely eradicate terror?

Please explain how we win this war. The more specifics the better.

You know as well as I do that the buzzwords "war on terror" simply mean, the "war on Islamist Extremists".

The only way to win this war is to be willing to fight them for longer than they are willing to fight us. For decades they killed us and we did next to nothing. Now that we are fighting back, too many people long for the days when the killing was only one direction. Why is it that so many people think it's only a war if the U.S. chooses to shoot back.

Sorry, I can't give you many specifics on how to win this war. It isn't a war fought on a map or a calendar. It isn't a war with a clearly defined enemy leader whose death means their soldiers will quit fighting.

The Islamist extremists have made it clear that they will continue to kill us as long as they are able. The only way to win is to make it so they are no longer able.

~~~~~~~~

The goal in war is not to "kill people and break things", but to deny the enemy the ability to continue the fight.~ ParaTed2k's (Not So) Famous Sayings.

Big Fat Daddy

on Jul 02, 2007

We cannot say they are POWs and try them as criminals, because if we ARE at war with them, what is wrong with them attacking us? It is a war on terror only as much as it is a war on drugs - the legal system is the only system we can use to detain or punish them. And if it is an actual war, then we should afford them the rights as soldiers, because that is who they are - and there is nothing criminal about their attacks

I don't remember the exact number, but captured German saboteurs who were dropped off a U-boat in Florida (I think) were tried and executed. In wars past, sneaking around in civilian clothes and killing innocents and blowing up infrastructure was a hanging offense...and hang they did. Just cause they don't have a country doesn't give them a free pass.

It is a war and it is winable...but we are not ready as a nation to believe either...what is it going to take to convince this country? A mushroom cloud over your hometown?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!