A delightful turn of affairs, both for the propriety of the legal decision and for the heartache caused to the whiners in the left wing crowd who were the cause for one of our first discussions on the topic...and who have been left wanting as well with pragmatism by the Obama Administration on some issues.
Simply put, "unlawful enemy combatants" have no rightful legal or moral claim to the protections afforded U.S. citizens in the Constitution. As a matter of law and precedent, they also deservedly lack Geneva Convention protections afforded uniformed prisoners of war. Either way, the insistence of some zealots on the left of affording terrorists captured abroad Constitutional rights has now been affirmed as incorrect by the Presidencies of Bush and Obama.
Good.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 21, 2009 01:19 PM | Email ThisSo not only are we NOT violating their "rights" by treating them as unlawful enemy combatants, we are taking care of them as well as required under any of the international treaties and rules of war dictate.
So tell me again why we're closing that base? Would our Marxist posters here - Slavery Party Failed Abortion, Acid on the Brain, Factless - volunteer to house one of these UECs at their home?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2009 01:27 PMNext: We need a similar stop on the insane far-left ''social justice'' notion that anybody and everybody in the world has the ''right'' to come to the United States any time they want to, and that they should be allowed to stay as long as they want.....
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 21, 2009 01:31 PMSimply put, "unlawful enemy combatants" have no rightful legal or moral claim to the protections afforded U.S. citizens in the Constitution. As a matter of law and precedent, they also deservedly lack Geneva Convention protections afforded uniformed prisoners of war.
That argument was made many times over by members of the Bush administration, and simply was shouted down without discussion by the transnationalist progressives who owned the MSM presses and microphones.
Only now that Obama has been given the Presidency, by a public fed a PC campaign of platitudes and anti-Bush verbiage by the MSM, is it allowable to acknowlege the truth that was there all along.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 21, 2009 01:54 PMScrew everybody else.
I'll drink to that! Get me a wench and a tankard of your finest brew!
Posted by: King George on February 21, 2009 02:14 PMGreat idea, and King George goes first.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 21, 2009 02:36 PMWhile you trumpet the "all men are created equal" part, you, by attempting to use this as an arguement, show your poor level of understanding of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Me thinks you should avoid the tankards.
Posted by: cps on February 21, 2009 02:36 PMActually, if rich white men living in the United States did what the prisoners in Guantanamo did, they would be treated the same way.
So yes, the "all men are created equal" bit still applies.
Posted by: Mike H on February 21, 2009 03:11 PMThat is giving credit where none is due.
For example, the Obama agenda includes card check for union bureaucrats, greater access to abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, retreat in the war against Islamic fascism, government-run health care, interference with the second amendment, withdrawl from Iraq, withdrawal from Afghanistan, and higher taxes.
Some of these goals were openly stated during the campaign; some of these goals were hidden; and in some cases campaign rhetoric dishonestly and deliberately lied to claim an opposite goal.
There is no reason for conservatives to interpret Obama's campaign lies as honest description of actual goals (e.g., decreasing taxes; tougher stance in Afghanistan).
And when political realities combined with public opposition block, delay, or thwart Obama from implementing his agenda (e.g., carelessly releasing terrorist suspects and according them "rights" to which they are not entitled), there is no reason for conservatives to consider this an example of "pragmatism."
That would be giving credit where none is due, and it would needlessly contribute to false positive portrayals of the Obama administration and its goals.
Ironically, there are increasing (though initial and partial) signs that the false positive image of Obama as "moderate," "centrist," "prgamatic," and "bipartisan" is being shattered and exposed.
As more and more of the public see through the lies, there is no reason for conservatives to fall into the error of calling Obama "prgamatic," etc.
Between November 4 and January 20, some conservative pundits and some Republican pundits expressed their view (their hope?) that Obama would "govern from the center."
As this increasingly is proven to be a false "hope," it is less necessary and more unseemly to hear him described as "pragmatic," etc.
Posted by: Steev Beren on February 21, 2009 03:46 PMOf course, the big government liberals here on SP are happy about this, too. Guilty until proven innocent!
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 21, 2009 04:53 PMIt provides restrictions on government. Our rights are inherent.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 21, 2009 04:58 PMThere's a big difference between assigning constitution rights in this circumstance and just plain spending enough effort to figure out if the right guys were apprehended.
Posted by: BA on February 21, 2009 07:03 PM