September 24, 2009

US Court Erroneously Extends Habeas Protections to the Enemy

Michael Yon writes:

The Afghanistan assessment from General Stanley McChrystal comes not a moment too soon. His conclusions were easily predictable (and predicted). The war is not lost -- I believe it is salvageable -- yet there is no time to waste. The year 2010 will be decisive. My recent Washington Times op-ed (soon to be published) happens to be an extremely close summary of McChrystal's Afghan report.

Meanwhile, I have joined with several Senators -- and folks from the Special Operations community -- in a crucial court battle that carries grave implications to our national security.

Please read: Maqaleh v. Gates Amicus Brief

In short the brief states rightly so that the District Court and most Americans as well as most of the world seriously misunderstand the nature of the U.S. military’s ongoing operations against al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups around the world. In short the battle space of the war extends beyond the arbitrarily drawn boundaries of the countries involved.

This disconnect with the reality of war is evident when the court states that: "habeas rights might not extend to “the battlefield of Afghanistan,” and in an effort to twist reality to the courts warped view the Court insisted that “a meaningful distinction” existed because“[t]he only reason these petitioners are in an active theater of war is because [the U.S. Government] brought them there.” To even believe that is to misjudge the nature of war, and shows that the liberal courts have taken us once again to the jungles of Vietnam with their arbitrarily picked lines over which US Forces can not attack or capture the enemy.

The District Court’s limitation of the battlespace to the formal and porous borders of Afghanistan is irreconcilable with both the scope of hostilities and the far-flung activities of SOF in the war on terror. In the District Court’s view, capture outside of the political boundaries of Afghanistan favored granting access to habeas proceedings.

We can not allow Constitutional protections to be extended to non-citizens of the US and especially to those who wish to kill us simply because we are Americans. It is widely accepted that a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions protections do not extend to this enemy as they do not meet any of the qualifying standards for coverage, so why would US Courts extend Constitutional protections to a non protected class?

Clearly the US Courts have errored in their interpretation of the Constitution and by doing so they have signed the death warrants for every soldier engaged in the war.

No comments: