No one is working ‘on behalf of enemy fighters’

The ACLU, MoveOn.org, and a variety of other civil liberties groups have made today a “Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice” on Capitol Hill. The goal is straightforward: convince Congress to “restore the right of habeas corpus.”

Coinciding with this important effort is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from James Taranto who, predictably, offers the opposite perspective.

Some politicians have … undertaken efforts on behalf of enemy fighters. Senate Democrats, joined by Republican Arlen Specter, have introduced legislation that would restore habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees, although this is unlikely to become law as long as George W. Bush is president.

Colin Powell would go even further. “I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow, but this afternoon,” the former secretary of state told NBC’s Tim Russert earlier this month. “I’d get rid of the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts-martial.”

Mr. Powell claimed that “I would not let any of [the detainees] go,” but his proposal would inevitably have that effect. Once inside the criminal justice system, detainees would become defendants with full constitutional rights, including the right to be charged or released, the right to exclude tainted evidence, and the right to be freed unless found guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suppose this is about what one should expect from Taranto, but it’s probably worth noting how shamelessly demagogic this is.

First, Senate Dems and supporters of American civil liberties aren’t working “on behalf of enemy fighters,” and Taranto has to know it. They’re taking a stand in support of the rule of law, the American system of justice, and the U.S. Constitution. If Taranto disapproves of these bedrocks of our democracy, he should explain why.

Second, Taranto neglected to mention the next sentence from Powell’s Meet the Press interview: “[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds…. [W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open…. We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.”

Taranto, like far too many supporters of the Military Commissions Act, misses this simple point: abandoning habeas and the Bush/Cheney military commission system makes us less safe.

Taranto proceeds to lay it on really thick.

By granting constitutional protections to detainees, Mr. Powell’s proposal would endanger the lives of American civilians. It would also afford preferential treatment to enemy fighters who defy the rules of war. This would make a mockery of international humanitarian law.

In the long run, it could also imperil the civil liberties of Americans. Leniency toward detainees is on the table today only because al Qaeda has so far failed to strike America since 9/11. If it succeeded again, public pressure for harsher measures would be hard for politicians to resist. And if enemy combatants had been transferred to the criminal justice system, those measures would be much more likely to diminish the rights of citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism.

I find this utterly fascinating. Taranto is effectively arguing that if we don’t give up civil liberties now, terrorists will attack, which in turn will lead to a more drastic crack-down on civil liberties later — from people like Taranto.

I don’t expect much from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, but this demagoguery is unusually offensive. The point of the piece seems to be that if we fail to ignore our legal system, and if neglect to disregard habeas and the Geneva Conventions, we’re all going to die.

The mind reels.

And this is a voice of ‘reason’ withing the right side of the aisle? I wonder if his constituants want the kind of Amerikkka that Taranto wants?

  • I guess Taranto is advocating that we simply execute anyone who’s accused of any serious crime, without wasting our time on any kind of a trial.

    To do otherwise would be to “work on behalf of criminals”.

  • If these nuts hate the essence of the Constitution, what exactly do they like about America?

    Seems Taranto would be much more at home in Saudi Arabia. He’s welcome to leave anytime.

  • Maybe we should root for Murdoch to take over the WSJ. At least then no one would take it seriously . . .

  • More scare tactics. Fear mongering.

    I would like to know why Taranto and his ilk call themselves Americans when they are so clearly against what America stands for? How can we expect the rest of the world to respect us as a country of laws when bush/cheney/taranto, etc. want to throw them out the window?

  • When someone “undertakes efforts on behalf of enemy fighters” like “some politicians” mentioned by Mr. Taranto, wouldn’t that make them “enemy combatants?” Shouldn’t they be subject to indefinite detention if the President orders it? Can we afford to let these people run loose, undermining the work of our brave troops? Look at what happened on 9/11!

    Even stupid Republicans should be able to see where the loss of habeas corpus is going to take us – except that too many of them say that “if the ACLU is for it, I’m against it.”

    Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.” New Hampshire says “Live free or die.” To hell with terrorists, and to hell with Mr. Taranto. I want my country back.

  • “Once inside the criminal justice system, detainees would become defendants with full constitutional rights, including the right to be charged or released, the right to exclude tainted evidence, and the right to be freed unless found guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    it completely boggles my mind that anyone, absolutely anyone, would have the slightest problem with this. those who do should be forced to spend some time in that black hole called gitmo and see how much they enjoy being treated that way.

  • Taranto is a well-know fascist, pro-lifer, and wing-nut tool. Although his religious and cultural orientation is obscure (some lost tribe of Israel), he is rabid in his opposition to all abortions. He also unabashedly spews high-falutin’ venom and practices the politics of personal destruction.

    The Disgusting James Taranto.

  • “Once inside the criminal justice system, detainees would become defendants with full constitutional rights, including the right to be charged or released, the right to exclude tainted evidence, and the right to be freed unless found guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    It sounds like one of those sarcastic comments Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert would make, as a joke.

    But this clown is serious.

    Welcome to Amerika.

  • The whole system of disappearing people and warrantless wiretapping and irrebuttable restrictions on freedom of movement is not intended to make us safer.

    It is intended to make the ruling junta safer — it’s all there, field-tested and in waiting, for use on domestic opposition.

  • Once inside the criminal justice system, detainees would become defendants with full constitutional rights, including the right to be charged or released, the right to exclude tainted evidence, and the right to be freed unless found guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt. — Tarantula

    The horror! of such possibilities makes one’s mind recoil. That we should have to prove anything at all — much less beyond reasonable doubt — is casting aspersions at the president’s judgement! And the exclusion of tainted evidence! Whatever next??? Would you jail Jack Bauer???

    Sick.

  • Wow, imagine that, someone in this country having the right to be freed unless charged and convicted of a crime! What would the founders think??All these non-criminals not in jail! Egads people, what would Jack Bauer do????

  • I keep wondering why everyone seems to think a takeover of the WSJ by Murdoch would be such a terrible tragedy. From where I sit, they deserve each other.

  • I keep wondering why everyone seems to think a takeover of the WSJ by Murdoch would be such a terrible tragedy. From where I sit, they deserve each other. — CalD, @13.

    Not so. WSJ’s editorial board stinks to right heaven but its journalists are good and many (WSJ is one of the very few newspapers still around which has an office in Baghdad, for example). Murdoch is well-known for micromanagment of his prized possessions and this one is likely to be one of them. So, he’s likely to leave the editorial board to continue as before, but muzzle the journos.

    Which would really be too bad, because WSJ can often get away with stuff that other (“liberal”) papers cannot. I don’t know how many of you remember that *two* newspapers broke the story of illegal domestic wiretapping, banking-accounts watch, etc *on the same day*. One was NYT, the other was WSJ. NYT got pounded for it, with the r-w pundicks calling for its head on a platter, but there was total silence on the subject of WSJ doing the same thing. Unfair, yes. But, at the same time, it carried the same “extra weight” as, say, Lugar callling for Iraq withdrawal, vs Pelosi doing it. And, it gets read by more r-wingers (those who read in the first place) than any other newspapr does and they trust it. So, it’s really important that its reporting remains as objective as possible. That’s why, I think, NYT is doing the series on Murdoch now; to stop the buy-out or, at the minimum, to give the Bancrofts some ammunition to apply pre-nuptial “brakes” on Murdoch.

  • Comments are closed.