Obama Says bin Laden Deserves Habeas Corpus Rights
June 22nd, 2008
From the New York Post in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to grant Habeas Corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers say if Osama bin Laden is captured he should have the right to defend his case in court.
Monroe Rising notes that this would mean the presumption that Osama bin Laden is innocent of the crimes of 9/11 until a court of law finds him guilty.
Obama also noted on June 18th that he would like to see bin Laden adjudicated in the manner of the Nazi War Crime Tribunals at Nuremberg. However, as John McCain noted on his Web site Nazi War criminals were not given habeas
“Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremberg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremberg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden….By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.”
Aaron Goldstein at Canada Free Press has a great summary of the history surrounding the Nuremberg trials.
Habeas Corpus is the right of those detained by the United States to be taken to court so that their case can be heard to determine if their detention is lawful or not. The police or the government, for example, cannot simply grab a person off the street and put them in jail with no cause or evidence that you have committed a crime. If they attempt it, you have the legal right as a person to have your case heard. This was not the case until this decision for those prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who were captured by the government in War as members of a stateless terrorist group. The Supreme Court granted these prisoners the right to be taken to court and forces the Government to make their case against them known.
During the Nuremberg trials, no such right existed under American law because they were being tried, in Germany under an international tribunal. While Obama may have been describing conditions whereby Nazi War criminals were given a trial, they did not appear to have the right to question their detention.
Many on the right are juxtaposing Obama’s profession as a Constitutional Law scholar with this very obvious historical and legal misstep.
Posted in Election 2008 | 7 Comments »
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 am
this article is so full of fail it's not funny.
Habeus corpus is not an american law. It has existed since before the magna carta was signed, 800 or so years ago.
You are stupid
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
1) Habeas not Habeus
2) While the United States by no means invented the Writ we are concerned with American law because Senator Obama is not the Prime Minister of England but seeking the presidency of the United States. It appears Senator Obama and his advisers, who are invoking the Supreme Court decision in relation to bin Laden's rights, is also suggesting he will be tried within the American legal system. This is counter to the history of the Nuremberg trials.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Right not write.
Habeas Corpus is considered a “universal right” under most western legal systems. It is a basic tenet of the UN's Charter of human rights.
Sure, everyone thinks he did it. but if you're going to kill someone for committing a crime, then you had better be damn sure you're getting the right guy. That's the whole point of habeas corpus. anything less is a mob mentality and I think we're beyond that.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Writ = “a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction. In modern usage, this public body is normally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are types of writs, but there are many others.”
I think it is pretty clear Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 as well as a host of other despicable acts.
Remember too bin Laden is currently not a citizen of any nation, Saudi Arabia stripped him of his citizenship.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Woops I could have sworn there was an E there.
Anyways, he's still human isn't he?
It comes down to this, If you're for human rights, everyone gets them. All of them.
If you're against human rights, or wish to apply them selectively or when you feel like it, then they mean nothing, and in the long run you are going to be no better than the Taliban or Bin Laden.
It's your call.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
We are talking about the law not a philosophical judgment. At this point there is already a presidential order, which Obama seems to suggest he will not rescind, to kill bin Laden on sight. So it is likely we will never have a trial. There are also better ways of dealing with it quickly and efficiently and more securely, but allowing the United Nations to setup a tribunal.
At the end of the day though bin Laden poses a unique case that does not necessarily afford him the right to American style due process and personal rights.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
> At the end of the day though bin Laden poses a unique case that does not
> necessarily afford him the right to American style due process and personal
> rights
That's all I needed to know.