Issues: October 2006 Archives

Politburo Diktat had a post a few days ago on Habeas Corpus Blogging. It was submitted for RINO Sightings, so I read it again. The comments are also worthwhile.



Most folks seem to be unaware of the history and purpose of Habeas Corpus. It is historically applicable to those residents of a state accused of crimes, most particularly against that state. It has never, historically, been applied to enemy combatants in any form. If there is someone at Guantanamo to whom the definition of enemy combatant does not apply, I'd like to know about it, and I'll support the point of view that they should be entitled to a trial. But this has been a tool for those of a certain political stripe to score political points, by attempting to apply a broad-brush strategy (habeas corpus) to a situation it was never intended to apply.



If those "defenders" were really trying to free prisoners of injustice at Guantanamo, they could have done so with a fraction of the effort they have spent so far, by publicizing the details of particular cases, making it politically untenable for the Bush administration to continue holding that particular detainee in that fashion, getting that prisoner freed. But that is not the case - or at least I haven't found one single case of a prisoner where that is the case. If there were one, it would not apply to the next prisoner over, unless that prisoner were also in that situation.



Now it sucks to be in all essentials, a prisoner of war indefinitely. But let's consider the other side. Suppose North Vietnam had released John McCain after only four years. Is there any doubt in your mind that he would have once again become an enemy combatant against them? They were therefore justified in continuing to hold him.



The same situation applies here. By all means, if there is anyone being held as a political prisoner, or a prisoner of conscience, let's get that news out and get them a trial and get them released. I will publish any news of one such that I run across. But enemy combatants have got to stay locked up, lest they return to the fray and kill more of our soldiers, or worse, civilians. Those performing the evaluations of the detainees have been, if anything, too forgiving of those detainees. There have been multiple former prisoners at Guantanamo killed or recaptured in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, and one would have been one too many.



It's not a matter of trusting the administration, as any number of its opponents have charged. If there were any of these detainees who are not deserving of incarceration, the avenues exist to get them freed. It is a matter of protecting our troops and our country from an unnecessary threat that has already been neutralized. These people are not noble revolutionaries out to free us from the chains of the Bush administration. They are enemy combatants. They want to kill us. All of us.



Suppose some of them are released, and subsequently participate in the detonation of a radiological bomb in New York Harbor, or along the banks of the Potomac. Would we not say that the Bush administration was responsible, that they failed to protect us from a known threat? Make no mistake about it, the administration would be responsible. They volunteered to hold that particular bag of responsibility, and we elected them to do so. But simple ethical guidelines says that we cannot then rip large holes in the bag, rendering it incapable of retaining its contents, and then fault the Bush administration for failing to keep them in.