http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/06/omg-would-bin-laden-get-habeas-rights.html OMG! WOULD BIN LADEN GET HABEAS RIGHTS?!
The Anonymous Liberal
That's the scary headline on this post over at MSNBC's First Read. Toward the middle of the post, author Domenico Montenaro highlights a question asked during a McCain campaign conference call this afternoon:
In a question posed toward the end of the call by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, the McCain campaign might have found a new talking point with which to emphasize the possible effect of the Gitmo decision. Hayes' asked if -- in the campaign's interpretation -- the Court's decision would mean that if Osama bin Laden was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo, he too would be entitled to Habeas Corpus rights.
The McCain campaign's answer was yes.
"If Sen. Obama did receive that 3 a.m. phone call," Scheunemann said of the call so often mentioned throughout the Democratic primaries, "I guess his response would be to call the lawyers in the justice department."
This is obnoxious on several different levels. First, of course Bin Laden would get habeas rights if he were held at Guantanamo. Since when do rights vary based on your name? But more importantly, why should anyone find it troubling that Osama would have such a right? If he sought to petition a court, it would result in the easiest and most predictable judicial decision ever. Habeas corpus just means that you have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of your detention. The evidence against Bin Laden is overwhelming. He would have the right to challenge his detention, but he would lose, quickly and decisively.
But beyond that obvious point, there's a deeper ignorance at work here.
Embedded in Hayes question is the bizarre and completely unamerican notion that your legal rights should somehow depend on how "bad" a person you are. The more serious the crimes for which you stand accused, the less rights you should have under the law. But that's quite obviously not how any system of rights is supposed to operate. Hayes' question is like asking whether a serial killer has the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Of course he does. The whole point of due process is to determine whether someone is guilty. It's the punishment that is supposed to vary depending on the seriousness of the crime, not the process.
It's pathetic that someone with even moderate intelligence would ask a question like that or think that it was in any way insightful.
snip//
It's becoming increasingly clear (sadly) that McCain intends on running the exact same fear-based campaign that the Republicans have been running since 2002. The good news is that Obama's track record on this subject, particularly having been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, allows him to confront these kind of attacks in a way that other Democrats have not. Unlike John Kerry, for example, Obama is free to point out--without risking self-contradiction--that the Bush/McCain policies in the war on terror have been horribly misguided and strategically ill-advised. He can point out, as he did today, that the decision to invade Iraq was an enormous distraction and strategic blunder, the primary beneficiaries of which have been al Qaeda and Iran. He can also point out that had we listened to him, bin Laden might well be in U.S. custody right now pursuing pointless habeas petitions instead of building up his forces and plotting his next attack.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
