Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
for Rachel Maddow to come out against Obama on this policy was both surprising and energizing.
but whether or not you care what Ms. Maddow had to say on the issue, here's how I feel
about it:
the Constitution just got torn in half again. the Fifth Amendment contains the verbiage
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. it seems that clause
was written about POWs specifically. POWs, to me, are enemy combatants captured on the
battlefield basically, caught red-handed. however, my problem with this detention policy
is that the detainees essentially cannot be proven to be terrorists, but the government
insists that they are, so they will indefinitely remain locked up. this is just a basic human
rights violation. under this policy the military could go into any country, grab someone off
the streets, and throw them in jail forever, without any due process. all because we declare
we are at war.
now, I do not have a problem with the idea of POWs. I think it is a necessary action
during wartime. I do have a problem with just grabbing someone off the streets because they
seem like a terrorist. and while you may think that doesnt happen, it does. for example,
see the case of Abdullah Kamel Abudallah Kamel.
this man was nabbed and detained for over 5 years because he was carrying $15k and wearing
a Casio wristwatch. given, the third reason cites that One of the detainees known aliases
was on a list of captured hard drives (sic) associated with a senior al Qaeda member.;
however, this allegation goes largely unconfirmed, and the president of the tribunal which tried
him didnt even know what the alleged alias was. yet the tribunal ruled that Kandari was
an enemy combatant.
he was not the only man detained for wearing a Casio, there were a few others. these men
lost years of their life, time with their family, watching their children grow up, because
they had money and a watch, so we deemed them terrorists. Im not okay with that.
I used to align with the utilitarian school of thought that is, that the very small minority
should sometimes suffer for the good of the majority. I now find myself on the opposite
end of that spectrum, I suppose we would call it deontology that is to say, that every minute
action we take, we better be sure its the right one. because destroying an innocent
mans liberty is against the most basic roots of this country, and I am not okay with that.
last note: if we suspect someone of terrorism, fine. detain them, but afford them due process, one of the least of all human rights,
not just an American right. 5 years is too long; 5 months, or WEEKS, even. there is an
international standard of holding someone for no longer than 30 days before trying them;
I see no reason why we cant follow this example, since we are following global policy in almost
every other area these days.
please add your two cents in the comments, or in the original thread here!