Throughout most of history, when nations have sent their soldiers into combat, they have not asked them to gather “evidence” on the people they are fighting. People understood our soldiers would already be fighting to survive, and they did not need additional burdens. Instead, the People expected their soldiers to follow rules of engagement. The People did not want their soldiers to kill indiscriminately.
Today, our Supreme Court decided to rewrite the rules. See here and here.
Some people are more rightly upset with this nonsense than I. See this post.
Advertisement
Okay, Tom, can I tell you what I THINK you are saying here, and then you can explain?
The Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners have to be tried in court in order to be detained. Is that right? And if so, is this in ALL cases?
The court’s decision is 134 pages long, and much of it is legal jargon. So it takes some effort to figure out it full implications, and I have only just started. Here is a link to the decision.
The immediate impact is that the prisoners can submit habeas corpus petitions. Consider this definition.
habeas corpus – a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, esp. for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty, used as a protection against illegal imprisonment.
The government now has to justify detaining these people. That requires evidence. Since soldiers on the battlefield do not gather evidence, many of the prisoners at Gitmo will be released. Based upon experience we already have, we know what will happen. If these prisoners are released, many of them will rejoin their murderous confederates and help them kill our people.
Why do we have this nonsense? I can only guess. However, it seems to me that Christians have always had trouble reconciling war with their moral beliefs. During the Roman era, some Christian men delayed getting baptized until late in life. They feared some aspects of their conduct, such as the need to fight in wars, would so stain their souls that only the sacrament of baptism could wash away their sins.
Centuries latter, Augustine of Hippo “invented” the concept just war. Here is a summary of the conditions required for a just war as refined by Thomas Aquinas.
1. The war is authorized by legitimate authority. That is, on the authority of the sovereign.
2. The cause must be just and the belligerents must have rightful intentions.
3. The war is declared as a last resort, after other means have failed.
4. The means used in the war are just.
5. There is a reasonable chance of success.
6. The good achieved in victory will outweigh the evil produced during the conflict.
Undoubtedly, many will disagree, but I think what we have done in Iraq qualifies as a just war. The decisions involved were not black and white. Nonetheless, I think the only point of serious contention is number 3. Was our invasion the last resort? The president made a judgment call.
Ever since the president decided to invade, some people have made their own judgment calls. Some have acted as if they are trying to sabotage the our president’s efforts. Now that hostilities appear to be finally waning, the Supreme Court has decided to step in. What qualifies court to decide that hostilities have waned? Do we want nine Commanders in Chief?
The Constitution is clear enough.
Article. I. Section. 9. Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. (from here)