Is the Supreme Court Killing Americans?
Read this article from USA Today:
USATODAY.com - Rulings on prisoners would make Founders proud
In the USA Today op-ed pages today a piece on the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding those detained in the war on terror, hailed it as something the Founding Fathers of our nation would have been proud of. Rights protected for U.S. citizens in our Constitution have now been afforded to non-citizens not in America.
Does the Constitution of the United States protect the rights of everyone in the world? Should we, for example, go into China and protect individual’s “right” to free speech? Should we go into England and enforce one’s “right” to keep and bear arms?
I have thought since day one that keeping an American citizen without trial, etc. was not proper. However, we must be careful that we do not set precedent under which a non-citizen can claim U. S. citizen rights.
While I agree that some form of oversight to prevent abuses is needed, I do have some questions for the Supreme Court. Under what rules are these citizens and non-citizens to be tried? Would one need to provide Miranda rights to them? Does one get the chance to face ones accusers in court, allowing other terrorists the opportunity to discover where their leak was and to change all plans related to that person, potentially allowing them to elude our detection and therefore kill innocent Americans? If a terrorist does agree to testify, and then is exposed in court only to be identified and later executed by other terrorists for having betrayed them, would anyone else ever want to testify against another terrorist? Does this serve the security needs of our country? Does one who has been proven guilty with a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, get to go free? Free to hijack a plane and bring down a skyscraper, killing innocent Americans?
It has been argued that the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, written before today’s weapons were dreamed of, does not apply to one wishing to keep, for example, an atomic bomb. One cannot argue that this is not an arm, can one? No one wants his or her neighbor to keep a nuclear weapon in the basement. Could not the same argument be made that, at the time of the writing of the Constitution it was not possible for one person to kill thousands of innocent people in one act as can be done today? Due to the devastating consequences should the wrong person be freed, or should the wrong piece of intelligence be released, should we not consider a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, as is already done with the right to keep and bear arms?
I do not want our government to keep anyone without showing cause. However, do we not NEED to implement special measures, different than those afforded a shoplifter, when dealing with potential mass murdering enemies to our Republic? As much as I am against the idea of secret trials, can anyone argue against the need to use them here? Are we not at war? Were not more people killed on U. S. soil on September 11th 2001 than on December 7th 1941? While at war, procedures are always altered. We need to make sure that those detained are reasonably believed to be a danger, but how many guilty terrorists do we need to set free in order to insure that not one innocent person is detained?
If new measures to protect America are not put into place, would the Supreme Court have blood on its hands should one of these detainees be freed and later commit or aid in the commission of a terrorist act due to these latest rulings?
Would the Founding Father’s be proud of, or fearful for our Republic due to this ruling?
Read about it and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
USATODAY.com - Rulings on prisoners would make Founders proud
In the USA Today op-ed pages today a piece on the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding those detained in the war on terror, hailed it as something the Founding Fathers of our nation would have been proud of. Rights protected for U.S. citizens in our Constitution have now been afforded to non-citizens not in America.
Does the Constitution of the United States protect the rights of everyone in the world? Should we, for example, go into China and protect individual’s “right” to free speech? Should we go into England and enforce one’s “right” to keep and bear arms?
I have thought since day one that keeping an American citizen without trial, etc. was not proper. However, we must be careful that we do not set precedent under which a non-citizen can claim U. S. citizen rights.
While I agree that some form of oversight to prevent abuses is needed, I do have some questions for the Supreme Court. Under what rules are these citizens and non-citizens to be tried? Would one need to provide Miranda rights to them? Does one get the chance to face ones accusers in court, allowing other terrorists the opportunity to discover where their leak was and to change all plans related to that person, potentially allowing them to elude our detection and therefore kill innocent Americans? If a terrorist does agree to testify, and then is exposed in court only to be identified and later executed by other terrorists for having betrayed them, would anyone else ever want to testify against another terrorist? Does this serve the security needs of our country? Does one who has been proven guilty with a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, get to go free? Free to hijack a plane and bring down a skyscraper, killing innocent Americans?
It has been argued that the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, written before today’s weapons were dreamed of, does not apply to one wishing to keep, for example, an atomic bomb. One cannot argue that this is not an arm, can one? No one wants his or her neighbor to keep a nuclear weapon in the basement. Could not the same argument be made that, at the time of the writing of the Constitution it was not possible for one person to kill thousands of innocent people in one act as can be done today? Due to the devastating consequences should the wrong person be freed, or should the wrong piece of intelligence be released, should we not consider a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, as is already done with the right to keep and bear arms?
I do not want our government to keep anyone without showing cause. However, do we not NEED to implement special measures, different than those afforded a shoplifter, when dealing with potential mass murdering enemies to our Republic? As much as I am against the idea of secret trials, can anyone argue against the need to use them here? Are we not at war? Were not more people killed on U. S. soil on September 11th 2001 than on December 7th 1941? While at war, procedures are always altered. We need to make sure that those detained are reasonably believed to be a danger, but how many guilty terrorists do we need to set free in order to insure that not one innocent person is detained?
If new measures to protect America are not put into place, would the Supreme Court have blood on its hands should one of these detainees be freed and later commit or aid in the commission of a terrorist act due to these latest rulings?
Would the Founding Father’s be proud of, or fearful for our Republic due to this ruling?
Read about it and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home