Does Guantánamo Violate The US Constitution?

// Last updated on //

In November, before Obama’s election, we presented an article calling attention to how obviously naïve and dangerous it was to consider the release or US trial of all prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. On Thursday, President Obama signed an executive order to shut down Guantánamo within a year.

The recklessness of Obama’s apparent plan came home to roost once again. According to the New York Times, another detainee released from Guantánamo, and a Saudi no less, has become a leading operative of Al Qaeda.

obama_signs_gitmoshutdownWe think this a brilliant move. Obama is saying he is strengthening our fight against Al Qaeda. In reality, he supports strengthening Al Qaeda’s ranks by releasing murderers and terrorists to better target America and Israel.

If these men that we bring to trial are found not guilty, shall we release them onto the streets of New York? Or do we export them to our allies in the Middle East?

In response to our first article, radicals and liberals chimed in, referencing the Constitution. Their arguments were weak, but what shocked us was they appeared more concerned with the rights of terrorists that would kill Americans than the safety of fellow Americans. This is truly a sad statement about the liberal thought process.

Of course, our Constitution clearly applies to all US citizens and non-citizens living within US borders. However, at our option, we can deport someone instead of trying them if they are not a citizen. The Constitution even applies to foreigners in some instances with respect to US law, but it does not apply to war criminals. There are separate guidelines for prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions.

NEXT READ:  A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Crime

guantanamo_navalbase_cubaThe reasons due process and the right to a trial are not afforded prisoners of war are simple. It is not possible to follow civilian guidelines in war conditions, and the soldiers are not police or lawyers. Imagine if a man had just shot one of your fellow soldiers dead, but before you could respond, you were required to acquire a warrant for his arrest.  Shall we, as liberal judges have stated, allow terrorists to murder Americans and our allies at will and then sue us because we did not give them due process?

In response to Obama’s plan to free Muslim extremists, we present a suggestion for dealing with all potential terrorists going forward. We believe our solution will mitigate the problem quite effectively. We suggest immediate execution of any suspected terrorist within range of the US Military.

If we are humane and capture terrorists, we are much worse off than if we execute them. If we execute a terrorist, he has no rights, but capture him, and the liberals and radical element in the US will embrace him as a brother.

Obama, in his endorsement of providing release or trial to those at Guantánamo, is supporting terrorism, not America. He is valuing the rights of war criminals over those of Americans.

Facebook Comments

Related Post

4 Responses to "Does Guantánamo Violate The US Constitution?"

  1. adabar   January 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    If the evidence is not sufficient to keep a Gitmo inmate captive then he must be released immediately. It is not just to keep someone locked up indefinitely without when they have never being convicted of a crime. It defiles all human right. Once released, the real terrorists will show themselves as we have seen recently and if re-captured, there will be no doubt of their guilt, and can then be locked up for good. They must be allowed out to do their worse so they can be terminated or given the chance to terminate themselves. The only saddness to this story is the innocent people that will serve as collateral damage in the process. This is the unfortunate reality of the life we are living today, God help us…

    Reply
  2. Arn Gunnutes   January 26, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Actually, the Bush WAR CRIMINALS were so smart, they kept NO COHERENT RECORDS of the “crimes” of the detainees.

    So, WHAT will be used as “evidence”, unless we are back to more Kangaroo “tribunals” which DON’T REQUIRE EVIDENCE?

    Gee, thanks to the TREASONOUS Bushes and the PNAC, they will have to be released for LACK OF EVIDENCE…

    George W. Bush
    “Pallin’ around with Saudi TERRORISTS and their FINANCIERS since 1974.
    He does TREASON
    RIGHT!!”

    Reply
  3. Jordan   January 26, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    “There are separate guidelines for prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions.”

    What about part 3 of the third Geneva convention…you know the one that says you CANT TORTURE POWs??? We wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place had GB not been used illegally to torture SUSPECTED terrorists. Its no surprise that after that they want to hurt Americans.

    I’m not saying closing GB is worry-free, but your solution is the either inhumanely kill people or hold them illegally indefinitely? I don’t get the point of this article

    Reply
  4. Terr   August 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Did I just walk into an unused script from The Colbert Report? There’s no way someone could honestly pen such an ignorant editorial calling for such illegal and immoral activity.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.