The Candidates
In honor of today’s ludicrous Supreme Court decision, I thought it might be appropriate to repost an essay by singer/songwriter Charlie Daniels, originally published in 2003. Enjoy.
I’ve just returned from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Air Station base where we did three shows for the troops and toured several locations around the post visiting with some of the finest military personnel on planet earth. The kids seemed to really enjoy the shows and especially liked “This Ain’t No Rag, It’s A Flag” and “In America”. We had a great time with them.
We saw Camp X-Ray, where the Taliban detainees are being held only from a distance, but I picked up a lot of what’s going on there from talking with a lot of different people. The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope. The Red Cross has an on site presence there and watches everything that goes on very closely.
The media is not telling you the whole truth about what’s going on over there. The truth is that these scum bags are not only being treated humanely, but they are probably better off healthwise and medically than they’ve ever been in their lives They are fed well, able to take showers and receive state of the art medical care. And have their own Moslem chaplain. I saw several of them in a field hospital ward where they were being treated in a state of the art medical facility.
Now let’s talk about the way they treat our people. First of all, they have to be watched constantly. These people are committed and wanton murderers who are willing to die just to kill someone else. One of the doctors told me that when they had Taliban in the hospital the staff had to really be careful with needles, pens and anything else which could possibly be used as a weapon. They also throw their excrement and urine on the troops who are guarding them. And our guys and gals have shown great restrain in not retaliating.
We are spending over a million dollars a day maintaining and guarding these nasty killers and anyone who wants to see them brought to the U.S.A. for trial is either out of their heads or a lawyer looking for money and notoriety. Or both. I wish that the media and the Red Cross and all the rest of the people who are so worried about these criminals would realize that this is not a troop of errant Boy Scouts. These are killers of the worst kind. They don’t need protection from us, we need protection from them.
If you don’t get anything else out of this soapbox, please try to realize that when you see news coverage much of the time you’re not getting the whole story, but an account filtered through a liberal mindset with an agenda. We have two fights on our hands, the war against terror and the one against the loudmouthed lawyers and left wing media who would sap the strength from the American public by making us believe that we’re losing the war or doing something wrong in fighting it. Remember these are the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein’s Republican guard was going to be an all but invincible enemy and that our smart bombs and other weapons were not really as good as the military said that they were. They also took up for Bill Clinton while he was cavorting around the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky while the terrorists were gaining strength and bombing our Embassies and dragging the bodies of dead American heroes around the dusty streets of Somalia.
It’s a shame that we can’t have an unbiased media who would just report the truth and let us make up our own minds. Here I must commend Fox News for presenting both sides much better than the other networks. They are leaving the other cable networks in the dust. People like being told the truth.
Our military not only needs but deserves our support. Let’s give it to them. The next time you read a media account about the bad treatment of the Taliban in Cuba, remember what I told you. Been there done that.
Footnote: I got an e-mail from a rather irate first cousin of mine the other day who has a daughter who’s a lawyer and she seemed to think that I was painting all lawyers with the same brush. Please understand that I’m not doing that at all. That would be like saying that all musicians were drug addicts. There are a lot of good and honest attorneys out there. I happen to have one of them. But it seems that they never get any airtime. It’s always the radicals who get their opinions heard. Who fight the idea of the military tribunals and site The Constitution and the integrity of America as their source of justifying their opinions. Well, first of all The Constitution says “We the people of the United States”, it doesn’t mention any other country. And secondly as far as integrity is concerned, I don’t think some of these folks would know integrity if it bit them in the posterior.
Emphasis mine, of course.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Well… Despite the fine rhetoric in this piece, I think I’ll seek legal counsel from someone other than Charlie Daniels.
Gitmo is very, very low on the list of issues that are of critical importance to me personally. However, as a Libertarian at heart who detests powerful, centralized government, I do have a problem with the idea that my government can pluck someone from anywhere in the world, bring them to a detention camp that we have to have located outside the U.S., and hold them there until the end of time without some kind of civilian review.
This just doesn’t seem very American to me. Not that I care too much, but it doesn’t seem very American to anyone else on Planet Earth either.
If we want the world to help us in our fight against radical jihad, we need them to think of us as the Good Guys in the fight. Remember folks, the good guys are always at a disadvantage in a fight because they play by the rules. But that’s the price we have to pay for not becoming what we are fighting against.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The Supreme Court made the right decision. It was a perversion by this administration to attempt to remove habeas corpus. It’s one of the things that makes this country great.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become one himself.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
June 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Matt,
The United States has a 105 year old treaty with Cuba (ratified in 1934) that grants us “complete jurisdiction and control” over Gunatanamo Bay. For all intents and purposes Guantanamo is a US territory. In fact, Washington has more control over what happens in Guantanamo Bay than here in Wisconsin due to federalism. Cuban law has no applicability there either, so essentially, had the Court ruled for the Government, Gitmo would have essentially been a free law zone where anything goes. On top of that, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 habeas-stripping provision is unconstitutional on its face. Congress can’t remove the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to conduct judicial review of legislation since SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of the federal government.
Today’s Boumediene opinion by Justice Kennedy was the correct one.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:58 am
So standing with Justices like RBG and JPS is suddenly chic, eh?
I assume this also means Abraham Lincoln was wrong for suspending habeas corpus in a time of war, too? How about when President Grant suspended it in 1870? What about when FDR suspended it during WWII?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
What’s chic is to adhere to rule of law and constitutionality. Sometimes, yes, that means finding one’s self in the company of the Court’s liberal justices. It’s petulant to disagree with a decision simply because Ruth Ginsburg of John Paul Stevens were party to it.
And yes, I do think it was wrong of Lincoln, Grant, and Roosevelt to suspend habeas corpus. It’s a one of the most fundamental of American liberties. We’re the ones who are supposed to be the defenders of such.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Matt… All human beings are fallible and make good decisions as well as bad ones.
Seriously, do you think just you are a conservative you are always right and that people that holds different beliefs than you are always wrong?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I can’t understand why pie-in-the-sky idealism and the thought that somehow interning enemy combatants that tried to kill us makes us no better than they are.
We are infinitely better than our enemy, and that was one of the major points of the essay.
The major issue, though, is this: no matter how we conduct this war on terror, it’s still a war and the people who are predisposed to hate us are going to hate us regardless of whether or not their buddies get a court date on American soil or not. To think that the hatred of extremist jihad will be somehow be lessened because a terrorist gets a day in an American court (with the possibility of being released by some knucklehead judge) is an overly simplistic and uneducated worldview.
I agree with Scalia. This decision will make the War on Terror more difficult to fight and will cost us more American lives. I don’t think I’d want to stand on that side of the decision.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Matt,
The Constitution is clear on this point.
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Only the Congress can suspend habeas corpus, not the President. Lincoln was wrong when he acted without Congress approval and the Supreme Court told him so in Ex Parte Merryman. After the ruling, Lincoln promptly went to Congress and obtained a formal suspension of the Writ. But let’s be clear, neither George Bush nor Congress has Suspended the Writ here. Instead, via the DTA and MCA, they have simply stripped all federal courts from hearing any habeas claims from detainees, with the exception of the DC Circuit. But since it strips the Supreme Court of its power to conduct judicial review (Article 3 of the Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court”), it in effect means that the DC Circuit would be more powerful than the Supreme Court. That is unconstitutional.
Given that the US is still bound by its treaty with Cuba that means that Guantanamo is in effect US territory and the detainees must be given due process rights that we afford aliens whenever they enter our country. This situation is unique though because it only applies to Guantanamo; had we housed the detainees at Bagram or some obscure island in the Indian Ocean, they would not have been entitled to habeas rights.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Transparancy and accountablilty have rarely ever been characteristics of government throughout human history. However, they are two of the many crucial hallmarks that have made America the greatest country on Planet Earth.
Iran holds prisoners in inaccessable prisons without being held accountable by civilian oversight for why they are being held, how long they can be held, etc… America does not.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Kavon (#6),
No, no, no… people can hold many different beliefs than me and be absolutely correct. That’s why my beliefs (political, spiritual, social, etc.) have transformed and evolved over time. To know me five years ago would not be to know the same man I am today. I am open enough to recognize and assent to that fact of life. I don’t think everything I believe today is right, but I do believe everything I believe is more correct than it used to be — at least in the areas where a correct/incorrect matrix can be used to assess ideas. If that wasn’t the case, what’s the point of learning and growing as people?
I just happen to agree with the side of the Court that we all usually agree with on this one. When Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all align themselves on the same opinion, there’s usually a pretty good bet I’ll agree with that opinion. And when JPS, RBG, and Souter align on an opinion, there’s probably a good bet that I’ll disagree with it.
I think there’s a time and a place to suspend certain civil liberties in this country - just as Washington did, just as Wilson did, just as FDR did, just as Lincoln did, just as dozens of Presidents did throughout America’s history. I don’t understand the reason we shrink back from doing what is necessary to win a war in favor of some idealistic goal of never being “the bad guy”, whatever that means.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
LJ’s analysis in #8 is spot on.
To be honest (and with appreciation of the incredible irony), the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case is conservative. The Constitution must always be the final word.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Matt #10,
Well, no one can agree 100% of the time. This is probably the rare 1% of the time that I will disagree with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Yes, it was unconstitutional and evil of FDR round up hundreds of thousands of innocent people into camps for years on end.
How anyone can argue any different is just crazy to me.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Kavon (#13),
The SCOTUS ruled in a 1943 case and in two 1944 cases that FDR’s actions suspending habeas corpus were “justified by the necessities of war.”
So apparently people have argued differently from your opinion - and argued it quite successfully.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Kavon,
Exactly. I was just about to point that out. Wilson also used his powers to arrest and detain his political opponents. So, those aren’t precedents that we look highly on. We are a nation of laws. Those laws derive from the Constitution. If we throw our Constitution out simply because we don’t like the result, what else is left? Just because Scalia et. al. are on one side doesn’t mean that they are automatically correct (remember Raich?)
I ask this in all seriousness, why is it going to hurt Americans on the battlefield if we give due process rights to people we detain? We gave the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin and defendants at Nuremberg every procedural right possible and set the standard for how military commissions should be conducted. And afterwards, the US government provided evidence that helped sentence them. If we gave Nazis (some of the most despicable people in human history) such rights, why can’t we give them to people we detain in the war on terror?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Matt,
Jesus. You’re defending Korematsu, one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in its history?! How utterly depressing.
Nevermind that President Reagan had to issue a national apology to the Japanese who were incarcerated under FDR. Also the California District Court vacated Korematsu in 1983 because it was clear the FDR’s Solicitor General had deliberately lied to the Supreme Court. So, one wonders whether Reagan would be classified as a weak-kneed appeaser nowadays.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
LJ,
Woah! I’m not defending anything. I’m not saying I agree with it. All I’m pointing out is that Kavon found it incredulous that any thinking person could ever defend FDR’s actions - and that back then the SCOTUS heard three different cases about those same actions and defended the President in every single one of them. Not saying I agree with it, just saying that thinking people can, and indeed have, defended it.
And I just mentioned all the cases of suspension of habeas corpus because you guys were talking about the great traditions of America and how we used to be the good guys and all this stuff, and I was just pointing out that our history and tradition has been the exact opposite. That our tradition has been one of suspending habeas corpus whenever we are in wartime. The actions of the Bush administration are not anything new. They are simply following in the footsteps of pretty much every other wartime President in history. And somehow, America wasn’t the “bad guy” and we didn’t “become who we are fighting” until now. Somehow.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
First off, how many Muslims in the US are being snatched up by the federal government and shipped to Gitmo? I don’t know any exact figures, but it’s not a lot and only people who have been caught in terror plots or very suspicious activities. The vast majority of inmates there are terrorists we caught in our counter-insurgency operations abroad. Gitmo isn’t the base of operations for a WW2 (for Japanese) or Cold War (communists) style witch hunt, these are un-repenting killers. So regardless of constitutionality, the ethical argument supports keeping Gitmo open.
Now I’m no student of constitutional law, but I’m pretty sure Gitmo is outside the Constitution. And Article 4 of the Geneva Convention says nationals of a state that hasn’t signed the Geneva Convention aren’t protected by it. These terrorists most certainly do not adhere to these principles in their targeting of civilians and extreme brutality towards POWs… therefore we are not bound to treat them as POWs. If the next president wants to shut down Gitmo that’s his perogative (sp.) but I don’t think the SCOTUS has any grounds to make this ruling.