Probably too idealistic

There’s a very interesting and important case in front the Supreme Court right now - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It involves Salim Hamdan, the driver for Osama bin Laden. He’s been held as an enemy combatant. He filed a writ of habeas corpus, which basically challenges the lawfulness of his detention. However, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. This ridiculous piece of legislation on one hand mandates that the detainees not be tortured and then with the other hand it states that the courts have no authority to enforce that. In fact, it states that the courts have no jurisdiction over detainees whatsoever. This could be construed to eliminate the right of a detainee to file a writ of habeas corpus although it does not explicitly say so. It sounds like the Supreme Court is leaning against that curtailment of its powers.

If they do rule that Detainee Treatment Act does not remove the right of habeas corpus then they’ll rule on whether the military commissions set up by the Bush administration are legal. From law.com:

The commissions, which exist separately from courts-martial, operate under rules that allow the defendant to be excluded from trial and impose other limits on protections for defendants. Guilty verdicts and sentences are reviewable only by the president.

President Bush declared a war on terror. During wartime, that means our suspected enemies should be protected under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. However, because the terrorists are not operating with the backing of a foreign government, the theory is that they’re not protected under this. So we have these military commissions set up to prosecute the suspected terrorists.

I don't think Geneva really applies because we are not at war with the nations that these individuals call home. We are at war with "terrorism", which is a new idea that requires new rules.

However, from all reports, it sounds as if these suspected terrorists are not receiving the same treatment you and I would receive were we held for the suspicion of a crime. Some would argue that’s fine – they’re terrorists, remember 9/11?

I’ll never forget 9/11. And now is the time when we must bend over backward to assure fair and humane treatment of our enemies. The world is watching. We have been claiming that this is the greatest nation on earth and that our principles, our way of life, should be emulated. A nation that tortures or denies to others inalienable rights that we ourselves would never give up is not one that others would find worth imitating.

I think these individuals should be prosecuted as suspected criminals and if found guilty receive appropriate sentences, but they should go through the same legal process that we go through. It’s the best system we’ve come up with; why shouldn’t these people be allowed to go through that system? They are still human beings. Being born American doesn’t make us better than them. They should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We believe in that concept – why do we believe we have the right to deny that to others?

I do believe in our country and the freedoms that we stand for. And I think the best way to spread those beliefs is not through war, but through example. I suppose this is why some people call me idealistic.