 |
Tuesday,
February 24, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Government
can’t hold combatants
Human
rights should be respected
The
Supreme Court agreed last week to hear a case challenging
President Bush’s self-assumed right to hold U.S.
citizens without charge and without counsel simply by
labeling them as “enemy combatants.”
The case in question, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, centers around
one Jose Padilla from Chicago who was arrested after visiting
Pakistan. The Bush administration maintains that he was
part of a plot to commit terrorist attacks in the United
States.
Though this case is separate from one concerning prisoners
being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it still has enormous
potential to affect Americans’ civil liberties in
wartime.
However much we’d like to forget it, America’s
record of upholding the rights of its citizens in times
of war is worse than unsatisfactory: It’s appalling.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ
of Habeas Corpus, imprisoning thousands without trial.
During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt sent hundreds
of thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps,
robbing them of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.
Now, using his “war on terror” as an excuse,
Bush wants to expand his powers just as his predecessors
attempted.
Every American, especially the president, should know
that you cannot simply throw someone in prison and explain
your actions as “necessary for national security.”
That power represents something grave and frightening,
and threatens the liberties of every American.
The threat of a terrorist attack does not justify the
federal government withholding the rights of its citizens.
To allow such an action would mean nothing less than victory
for the terrorists from which we are trying to protect
ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
