Balance of Power?
Jan. 15th, 2002 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eorSo it has been highly publicized that we're sending ummm... detainees to Guantanamo Bay. Of all the places to send them why fly them halfway around the globe and then stick them in Cuba?
Well, it wasn't by mistake. The base at Guantanamo is not part of US territory, nor is it part of the territory of any US ally. It is a perpetual lease from Cuba to the US military. That means legally anyone there is outside the jurisdiction of all US Federal courts.
Part of the balance of powers is that the Federal Courts can declare things unconstitutional. But only if they have jurisdiction.
"We're on the train to Auschwitz,
aboard the SS Express."
Not Rush "A Passage to Auschwitz"
(not to compare to the holocaust but to point out what happens when people allow governments to go unchecked)
Now there may be no ill intention here. But when you're trying to take the moral high ground compared to the Taliban and Al Queda, wouldn't it be best to make everything above board? Maybe a public trial according to US law or a trial for crimes against humanity in The Hague. But we can act unilaterally and risk alienating a good percentage of one billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure that will help the fight against terrorism. Maybe Mr. Bush wants to make sure this war lasts long enough for him to get re-elected.
Well, it wasn't by mistake. The base at Guantanamo is not part of US territory, nor is it part of the territory of any US ally. It is a perpetual lease from Cuba to the US military. That means legally anyone there is outside the jurisdiction of all US Federal courts.
Part of the balance of powers is that the Federal Courts can declare things unconstitutional. But only if they have jurisdiction.
"We're on the train to Auschwitz,
aboard the SS Express."
Not Rush "A Passage to Auschwitz"
(not to compare to the holocaust but to point out what happens when people allow governments to go unchecked)
Now there may be no ill intention here. But when you're trying to take the moral high ground compared to the Taliban and Al Queda, wouldn't it be best to make everything above board? Maybe a public trial according to US law or a trial for crimes against humanity in The Hague. But we can act unilaterally and risk alienating a good percentage of one billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure that will help the fight against terrorism. Maybe Mr. Bush wants to make sure this war lasts long enough for him to get re-elected.
