Not So Famous…

I can certainly appreciate when Republicans and conservatives get annoyed when Obama circumvents the Constitution.  One could ask the question as to why Republicans didn’t squeal when Bush did the same thing, but that’s neither here nor there.  Today we have a situation where the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from Guantanamo Bay to New York in order to be tried in the U.S. Justice System for his crimes against the American people.  Emotions are running high, understandably, but my concern is not how the people of the United States FEEL about this evil man coming to our shores; indeed, coming near to the very site he allegedly helped destroy, killing thousands of people.  My concern is whether this action is or is not constitutional.

Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Judicial Power extends to controversies between the citizens of a State  and citizens of a foreign state.  Listen, Republicans, you can’t whine that President Obama is ignoring the Constitution and then turn around and ignore it, yourselves.

What’s more a later amendment to the Constitution even has something to say about the rights of the accused in our justice system.  Amendment 6 to the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Who has the rights, here?  U.S. Citizens?  No.  The accused in our system of justice gets these rights.  So much for a SPEEDY trial, eh?  However, in the nationalistic fervor that followed the September 11th attacks, the U.S. Congress (and public) appeared ready to vote President Bush whatever powers he felt he needed to defend us against terrorists, including the so-called Patriot Act.

My point here is not to be anti-patriotic.  I love the United States of America.  But we cannot give up our liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution simply because it’s popular to do so, or simply because a member of our own political party says we should. The Constitution is the law of the land, and we ought not ignore it whenever it is convenient. And not knowing what the Constitution says is no defense, people.  We need to know what it says in order to made informed decisions about the things on which we must vote.

I’ve heard the argument that the torture techniques used by the military to elicit the confessions of the Guantanamo Bay detainees might get these men off in the U.S. Justice system.  Maybe.  So?  If I were arrested for anti-state speech, and a confession were garnered by making me believe I was drowning, I would want MY rights protected. Rather than blame the justice system, maybe we ought to consider how we can claim the moral high ground when it comes to our treatment of those we are detaining in this non-war.

That’s another thing: Who are we really at war with?  Was war ever declared by Congress against a foreign government? We’re at war with an ideology.  I have a problem with that.  When Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass stupidly declared talk radio hosts’ keeping of politicians honest by threatening to not vote for them a “terrorist threat”, was she then determining that the U.S. was now at war with the talk show hosts? Because the government so enjoys redefining words, how can we be at war with an abstract concept?  If we are at war with no one, then, how can the 9/11 attacks be an act of war?  What’s more, if anyone sets a bomb and kills people, is that an act of war?  If a student of a high school brings a pipe bomb to school and sets it off in the name of Allah, are we now at war with that student?  His class?  His school?  Am I taking it too far?  Ok, fine.  So who, then, can actually declare us at war with talk show hosts, and my hypothetical student?  Congress?  So now we’re allowing Congress the power to make a person or group of people into a government of its own so that we can have a war with them?  Not actually declaring a war against a government was a handy bit of trickery by the U.S. Government, but it plays merry heck with our laws, doesn’t it?

So if we don’t have an actual declared war, how is a terrorist actually committing an act of war? By blurring the dimensions of what constitutes a war, we’re able now to declare an action by anyone that hurts us an act of war. This allows us to re-class anyone on the fly.

Ultimately, my point is that the Constitution has something to say about who, exactly, may be tried by our laws.  Something you’ll find when you read the Constitution is that it doesn’t mention Military Tribunals at all.  The Constitution being the highest law of the land (with regards to earthly governments) does not appear to recognize any judicial authority higher than that which is set up in Article 3.

So the terrorists being tried on U.S. soil is the way the framers of this nation intended it to be, even though they had no inkling of the method in which these people would break our laws.