Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (11894)	9/25/2006 6:03:24 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Habeas corpus not needed We didn't try prisoners during WWII. Why should we start now? By James S. Robbins Extending the rights of habeas corpus to individuals detained during the war on terrorism would be an unnecessary and dangerous step. The foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere do not have the same status as criminals. These people are not being held for rehabilitation or as punishment. The detainees are precisely that, detained. Some are useful for purposes of intelligence exploitation. Others are held simply to keep them from returning to the battlefield to kill Americans. According to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners (even legitimate POWs) may be held for the duration of hostilities without trials. We did not try prisoners during World War II, for example. The notion would have been thought absurd. Some have observed that the detainees potentially face lifetime detention if hostilities continue, but this is because their leaders refuse to end their jihad against the United States. Furthermore, it is not as though all detainees are held for life. Approximately 315 of the 770 Guantanamo detainees have been determined by review boards not to be threats and have been released. Scores more are awaiting release to whatever countries that will accept them. There are few takers. Note that our review process is not foolproof; for example, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, released from Guantanamo, renewed his career as a Taliban commander before being killed in 2004. It is not true that the detainees have been held without due process. The debate over the McCain amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was an attempt to define exactly what process was due. Congress chose not to include habeas corpus in this bundle of rights, leaving the question of detainee status to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Constitution gives Congress the right to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus in the interest of public safety. Even if one assumes foreigners who have taken up arms against the United States enjoy the same rights as citizens, in the end Congress makes the call. James S. Robbins is senior fellow on national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point