On another front, the court has decided three cases against the Bush administration on Guantanamo, the most recent one giving habeas corpus rights to supposed enemy combatants. What do you make of that whole line of cases?I know that the way wars are waged has changed since WW II, but an enemy combatant is still an enemy combatant. Millions of people a year struggle and strive to earn the benefits of living in this country, one of them being habeas corpus. Why this is now extended to people who wish to destroy our country, is beyond me. It's not about "being fair", because there are ways to be fair without extending enemies and non-citizens habeas corpus.
It strikes me as preposterous to begin to extend rights to enemy combatants that we never extended to captured Germans, Italians and Japanese in World War II. It's also dangerous once we begin to judicialize the conduct of a war. It can only make our forces less effective. But something has changed in the attitude. I think it was the invasion of Grenada, when a commanding officer refused to let the press come to the front lines, and a reporter said "in World War II we were allowed in the front lines," and the commander said "in World War II you were on our side."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
... no habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees.