 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Home |
| This Week |
| News |
| Sports |
| Valley Life |
| Opinion |
| Upcoming Events |
| Calendar |
| Classifieds |
| Business Dir |
| Announcements |
| Obituaries |
| Archives |
| Contact Us |
|
|
|
|
|
| No One Asked Me But... | ||
| ||
| by Dr. Larry Moses Submitted July 16, 2008 No one asked me but….There has been three recent Supreme Court decisions that will stir the emotions of Americans on both sides of the aisle. Liberals and conservatives alike will marvel at the wisdom or stupidity of the court depending on where they are politically. The decisions deal with the war, children and guns. What greater topics could there be for that great soap opera called TV news. I must admit that I am a news junkie and each morning I get my fix from Las Vegas papers and throughout the day I find myself watching CNN, Fox, CNBC and the local news. Before you condemn me for this waste of time, let me remind you that I don’t watch Idol, Dancing with the Stars, soaps or sit-coms. Though one might see the news as nothing more than a combination of the three listed above. But before I digress further, let me turn to these three decisions. Many Americans are condemning the court for its decision on extending constitutional rights to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. When the towers came down on September 11, 2001, Congress authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and those aiding and abetting them. In the quest to punish those responsible, a number of individuals, some al Qaeda, some Taliban and few that no one is quite sure as to what their affiliation is, were captured at various places around the world and held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The major reason for the detention at Guantanamo was that of interrogation not just the removal from combat as would be the case for the average Prisoner of War. Some of these detainees were not captured in combat by soldiers but were turned over to the U.S. by third parties. Some were actually turned over for a bounty. In some cases, those who were released back to their home countries were turned loose as they were considered no threat at home. Shafiq Rasul, along with several other British nationals have already been released from Guantanamo and set free by British authorities without charge. The one thing most of the prisoners have in common is they are being held without charges. The three who have been charged have not been charged in connection with attacks against the United States. Interesting enough, the plaintiffs in behalf of Rasul v. Bush included two British nationals, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis. One of the real problems is how to define what the prisoners are. Are they prisoners of war? Are they criminals? Are they enemy combatants and if so how is that different from soldiers? It is true they don’t wear uniforms, but can you not be soldier without a uniform? Now don’t confuse the arguments that develop here. I have no problem with the punishment and destruction of those who would destroy America through violence. There are things worth fighting and dying for. But I also believe one must fight against those who would destroy America by compromising the principles this great country is founded on. I get bad feelings when the government begins to violate the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. To rationalize evil deeds for the good of the people is a sign that America is losing the war. These men are either prisoners of war and should be treated as such or they are criminals and should be tried in the jurisdiction of the crimes. To hold a person for years with no charges being filed or not affording them the status of POW is wrong. In a 1953, court opinion Justice Robert Jackson stated: “Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since (King) John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land…” The question the court dealt with was whether or not federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. I am not going to argue the issue of whether these are innocent bystanders who just happen to be picked up carrying an AK47. I have little sympathy for their plight, but the implications of what can happen when principles are set aside for expediency scares the heck out of me. Who would have believed that when the federal government was given the power to tap phones of suspected terrorists without a warrant that the privilege would be extended to every American citizen’s phone as well? For those who say ‘who cares, I have nothing to hide’, the issue is not what you have to hide but what you have to lose. If the people at Guantanamo Bay can be held without charges for an indefinite period, how long will it be before the government extends that to American citizens? Remember the concentration camps in which Japanese American citizens were confined during World War II. Their only crime was the fact that they were of Japanese descent. If we lose the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the terrorists have won. The same Supreme Court Ruled 5-3 that the rape of a child was not grounds for capital punishment. The court has said in effect anything short of murder is not a death penalty offense. While I am not a champion of the death penalty, I surely think there are things a person can do that forfeits them the right to be alive. The top of that list for me would be child rape. If you don’t allow the death penalty for that then there is no need for the death penalty. Is murder really more heinous than child rape? The third ruling of interest was the turning over of the Washington, D.C. law that banned the ownership of a handgun. In a 5-4 decision the court upheld the Second Amendment right of all Americans to own a handgun. One would believe that if all of the Justices could read that, this would have been a unanimous decision. What part of “shall not infringe” don’t the four who voted against it understand? The mayor of Washington, D.C. stated that his city just became a more dangerous place in which to live. Where has he been? Washington, D. C. has not only been the national capital, it has been the murder capital of America as well. There are those who believe that American citizens should not be allowed to own guns of any kind. There is a process whereby they can make that happen. It is called the Constitutional Amendment process. We have seen the Constitution change over the years and sometimes it was necessary to make America a better place to live. In most cases the Constitution has been amended to give Americans more freedoms and to make life less restrictive. Nineteen of the twenty-seven amendments to the constitution extended the rights of the American citizens. Only one, the eighteenth, actually moved to restrict the rights of Americans and it was repealed by the 21st. Generally Americans are not inclined to place restrictions on themselves with the document they believe guarantees them freedom and sets them apart from most other nations in the world. Thought for the week….. A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington TELL US WHAT YOU THINK!Comment on this story. Send a letter to the editor by email, click here: EMAIL US |
||
 | ||