« Obesity Is Child Abuse | Main | One American's Opinion »
September 30, 2006
Rights for Terrorists - Low Voter Turn Out Expected
by Jack Lee
Is there any doubt by now that the United States faces a new type of enemy under conditions never before experienced in our history? What is new to us (terrorism), is not new to history and we can learn a great deal about how it's been handled successfully at various times. Unfortunately, this isn't the direction we're going. However, putting that and the lessons from history aside for now, the immediate question before us and our legislators is, do our current rights and protections afforded defendants under our Constitution apply to terrorists? (The greater question may soon be, at what point do our losses determine our tactics?)
On June the 29th of 2006, the Supreme Court struck down President Bush's system for military trials for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This no doubt sets the stage for more prisoner challenges to come. Because, now we must either grant terrorist prisoners the rights under traditional rules for a U.S. court-martial, or if that is unacceptable, seek new rules via Congress. However, whatever rules Congress may pass is not necessarily binding just because the rules went through the legislative process. The test of every law rests in it's Constitutionality. So, eventually those new Congressional rules will come before the Supreme Court and it's doubtful they will survive.
Among the issues for terrorist prisoners, is the question of the legality of evidence that is obtained through coercion. In civilian law, coercion is absolutely prohibited. So, the Supreme Court is likely to say any evidence, no matter how valuable, if obtained by coercion is inadmissible. Also at issue is, should defense attorney's be allowed to see secret government intelligence files that contain information on the defendant or that led to the capture of the defendant? In the civilian sector, the prosecution must surrender all it's files to the defense for a full and complete disclosure before the trial and we expect the Supreme Court to rule this way.
Further at issue, "Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed." Habeas corpus hearings determine if a prisoner should be released or held pending trial. "I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice." Reported a Reuters article released just hours ago (9/30/06).
We are fighting an enemy that has no rules and represents no nation. If they are given access to Supreme Court, they become free to exploit our traditional civilian rights, even the most optimistic among us must surely concede this could cost us more causalities, place us at greater risk and cause a longer engagement with this enemy. And this enemy grows stronger with every passing month. This appears to be our Achilles Heel. Opponents of Constitutional rights for terrorists argue we simply cannot afford to fight by the old rules and therefore, those old rules no longer apply. They claim, if we allow our intelligence files to be handed over to defense counsels, we might as well turn them over to al Qaeda. When that happens nobody is going to give us any information on terrorist activities and the casualties will climb.
All the pending Supreme Court challenges and this raging debate over prisoner rights will suddenly fly out the window on the day the first American city is attacked by a WMD. The liberals and the democrats maybe be willing to assume that responsibility and be accountable to the American public when it comes, but most conservatives believe we ought to focus on prevention, even if the rights of terrorists must be modified to minimize the loss of innocent life and lessen our risk against this determined enemy.
How we shall proceed will largely be determined on Nov. 7th. Turnout for this important election is expected to be low. Meanwhile, college kids are holding keggers 3 nights a week, Paris Hilton's latest fashion statement appears on Vanity, the American public is dying to hear about Katies Holmes and Tom Cruise new baby's hairdo and the movie "Jackass II" captures top box office receipts. 9-11 is old news, Iraq is bad news...and nobody is insterested in old, bad news, because life in America is good.
Posted by Post Scripts at September 30, 2006 08:39 AM
Comments
"...the immediate question before us and our legislators is, do our current rights and protections afforded defendants under our Constitution apply to terrorists? "
This American says NO! But I like to seek answers from experts. Quoting Jack Wheeler at To the Point in his article Tortured Logic and Torturing Terrorists":
"... the Supreme Court - or at least the five Justices (Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg) whose pro-terrorist ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 29, 2006) is the cause of this mess.
The Justices held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions must apply as a matter of treaty obligation to the United States military regarding captured Moslem terrorists.
Because the undefinable vagueness of Article 3 means that ACLU lawyers defending terrorists could try to put military or CIA interrogators in jail for any "humiliating and degrading treatment" they inflicted upon the terrorists, the entire terrorist interrogation program will be shut down unless Congress protects the interrogators with legislation.
This is why Bush so urgently wants Congress to act..."
"The only practical argument against torturing terrorists is that it's so undependable: the guy will say anything to stop the torture. Often, a dramatic presentation of the threat of torture works better.
Take the Israeli way:
When a Palestinian terrorist is captured, how many Israeli lives can be saved depends on how quickly and efficiently Shin Bet (Israeli Security) agents can make him squeal. They strip him naked and sit him in a chair with his legs forced apart. They bring in a large Doberman pincher whose muzzle is placed inches from his genitals. They explain:
'This is Herman. Herman is a very unusual dog. Herman can smell when someone is lying. When someone lies, it gets Herman very mad. And when Herman gets mad, he bites - really hard. So we suggest you tell us the truth.'
Works like a charm."
There is, however, an interrogation method far more effective than torture, or the threat of it, that is foolproof, immediate, and humane. It works the first time, every time, with everybody -- no exceptions. Yet it is harmless, completely reversible, with no aftereffects.
First, a little background in brain chemistry. Your brain synthesizes, or manufactures, natural brain chemicals called neurotransmitters, which are necessary for the proper functioning of various activities. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers which transmit the appropriate signals through brain circuits for thinking, feeling, and motor action.
One such neurotransmitter is called serotonin. Serotonin is an "inhibitory" neurotransmitter, and its constant presence is absolutely required for a normal and non-psychotic state of mind.
There have been numerous experiments that demonstrate the effects of a tryptophan-free diet on brain function in humans. Within about four hours, brain serotonin levels drop like a rock. Lacking the inhibitory regulation of serotonin, the brain becomes incapable of modulation. The individual possessor of such a brain rapidly becomes angry, depressed, and impulsive -- incapable of controlling his emotions. (Dr. wheeler then goes on to explain the chemistry behind the tactic, including a meal that is engineered to calm the individual)
The last thing a captured terrorist, intent on withholding information and resistant to interrogation, wants is to be uncontrollably impulsive. Such an individual would be putty in the hands of a skilled interrogator.
Posted by: Tina at September 30, 2006 09:53 PM