Should Constitutional Rights Extend to Non-Citizens?

Published on June 21, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

The short answer is no. But the real world answer, I believe, is more complicated.

We have no legal responsibility to extend Constitutional rights, or even the Geneva Convention to the detainees at Gitmo. It is by no means cruel or unusual to deny them the rights of a system they detest as much as ours.

But that's not the point.

The point is, we are waging a war that's as much about perception as anything. Like it or not, long term success (translated: success AFTER our troops have returned home) depends greatly on the respect that the Iraqis and others in the Middle East have of our judicial system and our stance on human rights. While I personally believe the media has overstated the situation at Gitmo, I do think that we have "pushed the envelope". The fact that they're being held anonymously, and without being charged, says as much.

I believe in the superiority of the US Constitution, when its rights and duties are respected. It is a document that provides for greater potential liberty than virtually any other constitution in history, and certainly greater liberties than any constitution in existence.

And so, we would do well to prove it. Give the Gitmo detainees due process, give them a fair trial. Give them the rights that they would have if they were American citizens. After all, that is what they are (ironically) demanding. Let's show the rest of the world that our system is INDEED superior and that the evil deeds of the terrorists were exactly that.

But that's a point we can't prove if we keep them locked up in anonymity.

But that's just my two cents.

Comments (Page 3)

drmiler

on Jun 27, 2005

Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

You are absolutely correct about Protocol 6. The purpose of Protocol 13 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all circumstances" was to supersede this by requiring parties to abolish the death penalty completely.
Your quotation is entirely accurate, but partial. The text, while "noting that Protocol No. 6 ... does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war", states that the new protocol is resolved to "take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances".
Protocol 13 entered into force for the UK on 1 February 2004, following ratification on 10 October 2003.

Sorry but the excerpt came from protocol #13 NOT #6! Lets try this again.

Protocol No. 13 to the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms
Concerning the abolition of the death
penalty in all circumstances
Vilnius, 3.V.2002
The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,
Convinced that everyone’s right to life is a basic value in a democratic
society and that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the
protection of this right and for the full recognition of the inherent dignity
of all human beings;
Wishing to strengthen the protection of the right to life guaranteed by
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Convention”);
Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition
of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not
exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or
of imminent threat of war;

Now this quote is from Protocol #6:

Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of
acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty
shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in
accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that
law.

My statement stands.

Chakgogka

on Jun 27, 2005

I do love the rough and tumble of debate around matters of opinion, but it doesn't make too much sense around matters of verifiable fact.

Yes, indeed your quotation is from protocol 13, not protocol 6. I have already acknowledged that. In the preamble to protocol 13 it does indeed note that protocol 6 allows "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war". It is noting (summing up) the situation at the time of writing of the new protocol, a situation which the new protocol is amending.

I think we are probably googling the same documents

so let me just cut to the chase and quote Article 1 of Protocol 13:

"The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed". The title of the protocol is a protocol "... concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances".

I realise that this is all a bit off topic - the topic being should US constitutional rights be extended to non-citizens. The only connection I can see is that the US is now among the minority of democratic countries that still impose the death penalty. Is that good or bad? I don't really know.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 27, 2005

if government is able to deny these basic rights to anyone, it can deny them to everyone.

Thanks for the assist, kingbee

cdavis999

on Jun 27, 2005

Is that good or bad? I don't really know.

Me neither. I go along with opposition to the death penalty because the concensus among people whose views I respect is that that's the Right Action.

But for me personally, if I'm ever faced with a choice between even a short time behind bars, or a quick injection and terminal sleep, then hell - gimme the needle any day.

CD

-----

on Jun 27, 2005

Constitutional rights should only extend to citizens, legal immigrants, and those other visitors here legally. The rest are either - outlaws - they broke the law to get here, or detainees caught in a hostile war zone (both POWs and the NCs). And hence, they deserve no protection under the constitution.

They do deserve protection under the laws of decency and fairness. Nothing more, nothing less.

--I agree 100%

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!