> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
[snip]
> This
> says, instead, that the moral code that we have adopted as a society,
> enshrined in the Constitution, is superior to that of our enemies, and we
> have the right to try them according to our standards.
But we're not doing so. We're invoking special wartime standards. We are
lowering our standards, as we have done before, yet it's not clear that the
circumstances are parallel. It does seem like the right thing to do, but it
should be done with utter clarity, not this muddiness that implies that
foreigners have fewer rights because they are not U.S. citizens, which is
what was said. After all, we hold our Constitutional rights to be
self-evident, we believe they are based in a truth that transcends national
borders.
> That the specific
> _procedures_ we adopt are different in war and peace, and
> different for our
> citizens and non-citizens who have taken up arms against us, is
> not morally
> relative - it's nothing more than common sense.
I think you misunderstand what I'm questioning. It's not that there's
something wrong with applying different standards in different
circumstances. That is, as you say, appropriate.
Cheney: "They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would
be used for an
American citizen going through the normal judicial process..."
That's a hell of different argument than "A nation in our situation has no
choice but to do things differently, as we have done during wartime in the
past."
Ashcroft: "Foreign terrorists... in my judgement, are not entitled to and do
not
deserve the protections of the American Constitution..."
Clearly, American terrorists do, however. Again, a far cry from what
*should* be the issue, the needs created by the present danger.
> The procedures of justice
> might be different from time to time and place to place - _but civilian
> courts do not have a monopoly on justice_.
There you go -- that's exactly what the kind of language they should be
using, not the jingoistic rhetoric about foreigners -- if only for the sake
of international relations. If we're not seen as standing up for equal
rights (which occasionally have to change due to circumstances) for all
human beings, regardless of nationality, then we have abandoned the
Consitution and any claim to moral high ground. I think they're doing what
needs to be done, but they're defending it wrongly.
Nick
