Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Should Constitutional Rights Extend to Non-Citizens?

▼

Should Constitutional Rights Extend to Non-Citizens?

from JoeUser Forums

The short answer is no. But the real world answer, I believe, is more complicated.

We have no legal responsibility to extend Constitutional rights, or even the Geneva Convention to the detainees at Gitmo. It is by no means cruel or unusual to deny them the rights of a system they detest as much as ours.

But that's not the point.

The point is, we are waging a war that's as much about perception as anything. Like it or not, long term success (translated: success AFTER our troops have returned home) depends greatly on the respect that the Iraqis and others in the Middle East have of our judicial system and our stance on human rights. While I personally believe the media has overstated the situation at Gitmo, I do think that we have "pushed the envelope". The fact that they're being held anonymously, and without being charged, says as much.

I believe in the superiority of the US Constitution, when its rights and duties are respected. It is a document that provides for greater potential liberty than virtually any other constitution in history, and certainly greater liberties than any constitution in existence.

And so, we would do well to prove it. Give the Gitmo detainees due process, give them a fair trial. Give them the rights that they would have if they were American citizens. After all, that is what they are (ironically) demanding. Let's show the rest of the world that our system is INDEED superior and that the evil deeds of the terrorists were exactly that.

But that's a point we can't prove if we keep them locked up in anonymity.

But that's just my two cents.

politics
9,349 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a technical point, but no one could be "rightfully executed by England". The UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Protocol 13 under which no-one can be rightfully executed for anything, including treason in time of war. Liberal madness, or a higher level of civilisation? (I'm sure there are strong feelings on that one on both sides )


Just a further technical point. You may want to read the "rest" of protocol 13. It states:



Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition
of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not
exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or
of imminent threat of war;


In other words: You mess up during war and we can kill you. So can "England" or any other signee of the treaty.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe in the superiority of the US Constitution


as do i. our constitution is not a font from which human rights flow or are granted but a legal document enumerating certain specific rights our government officialy recognizes and secures to us(securing in the sense of guaranteeing them).

the declaration of independence asserts all men are possessed of rights beyond the authority of government to extend or limit.

the question should be: do you really want to oppose the basic principal upon which this country is founded by attributing to government authority to grant or limit our intrinsict rights? i don't.

if government is able to deny these basic rights to anyone, it can deny them to everyone.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with denying rights to prisoners on the basis that they are illegals or potential criminals is that it opens up the opportunity to treat other illegals the same way.

Another point worth noting is that Geneva and similar agreements on behaviour of warring parties are intended for the benefit of both: I won't shove sharpened sticks up my prisoners if you don't do it to yours. Well, I guess those days are gone. It's always been part of major conflict to carry out a campaign of dehumanising the enemy, and never has this been so successfully done as it is now: both sides believe that the other are inhuman animals, bent on pure evil. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support that belief. Can we be sure that only the other side is wrong?

CD
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

You are absolutely correct about Protocol 6. The purpose of Protocol 13 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all circumstances" was to supersede this by requiring parties to abolish the death penalty completely.

Your quotation is entirely accurate, but partial. The text, while "noting that Protocol No. 6 ... does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war", states that the new protocol is resolved to "take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances".

Protocol 13 entered into force for the UK on 1 February 2004, following ratification on 10 October 2003.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another point worth noting is that Geneva and similar agreements on behaviour of warring parties are intended for the benefit of both: I won't shove sharpened sticks up my prisoners if you don't do it to yours. Well, I guess those days are gone. It's always been part of major conflict to carry out a campaign of dehumanising the enemy, and never has this been so successfully done as it is now: both sides believe that the other are inhuman animals, bent on pure evil. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support that belief. Can we be sure that only the other side is wrong?

CD


Agreed. However, wouldn't it be great if Nick Berg and other captors of our enemy were treated as well as we treat those at Guantanimo Bay?

Again, there is a difference between "torture" and legitimate interrogation techniques. If we really can expect better treatment for our troops who fall into the hands of future enemies because of our treatment of those who fall into our hands, shouldn't the press and politicians be more careful about what rumors about "torture"? Wouldn't it be sad if we treated our captives well, but because the press and politicians spread rumors about awful treatment, our enemies chose to take revenge on our troops in their hands?

Loose lips sink ships, and create problems where none existed.

So far we have a pretty good record of investigating and prosecuting incidents of true abuse. It seems we have gained no good will for it though, the rumor mongers still love a good anti US scandal.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

You are absolutely correct about Protocol 6. The purpose of Protocol 13 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all circumstances" was to supersede this by requiring parties to abolish the death penalty completely.
Your quotation is entirely accurate, but partial. The text, while "noting that Protocol No. 6 ... does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war", states that the new protocol is resolved to "take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances".
Protocol 13 entered into force for the UK on 1 February 2004, following ratification on 10 October 2003.


Sorry but the excerpt came from protocol #13 NOT #6! Lets try this again.


Protocol No. 13 to the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms
Concerning the abolition of the death
penalty in all circumstances
Vilnius, 3.V.2002
The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,
Convinced that everyone’s right to life is a basic value in a democratic
society and that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the
protection of this right and for the full recognition of the inherent dignity
of all human beings;
Wishing to strengthen the protection of the right to life guaranteed by
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Convention”);
Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition
of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not
exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or
of imminent threat of war;


Now this quote is from Protocol #6:


Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of
acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty
shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in
accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that
law.


My statement stands.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do love the rough and tumble of debate around matters of opinion, but it doesn't make too much sense around matters of verifiable fact.

Yes, indeed your quotation is from protocol 13, not protocol 6. I have already acknowledged that. In the preamble to protocol 13 it does indeed note that protocol 6 allows "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war". It is noting (summing up) the situation at the time of writing of the new protocol, a situation which the new protocol is amending.

I think we are probably googling the same documents so let me just cut to the chase and quote Article 1 of Protocol 13:

"The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed". The title of the protocol is a protocol "... concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances".

I realise that this is all a bit off topic - the topic being should US constitutional rights be extended to non-citizens. The only connection I can see is that the US is now among the minority of democratic countries that still impose the death penalty. Is that good or bad? I don't really know.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

if government is able to deny these basic rights to anyone, it can deny them to everyone.

Thanks for the assist, kingbee

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is that good or bad? I don't really know.

Me neither. I go along with opposition to the death penalty because the concensus among people whose views I respect is that that's the Right Action.

But for me personally, if I'm ever faced with a choice between even a short time behind bars, or a quick injection and terminal sleep, then hell - gimme the needle any day.

CD
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Constitutional rights should only extend to citizens, legal immigrants, and those other visitors here legally. The rest are either - outlaws - they broke the law to get here, or detainees caught in a hostile war zone (both POWs and the NCs). And hence, they deserve no protection under the constitution.

They do deserve protection under the laws of decency and fairness. Nothing more, nothing less.


--I agree 100%