Somebody is missing the point

There has been much ado of late about President Obama's mishandling of terrorist suspects, from the underwear bomber to the decision to change the venue of the trial of terror suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al in New York City.

The controversy regarding Umar Farouk Abdulmudallah was focused at first on the failures of the Transportation Security Agency and the intelligence community in their task of preventing the attempt in the first place. But later frenzy was associated with the apparently horrendous mistake made in reading Abdul his rights, including the right to remain silent. This humane treatment of a person suspected of violating the US code prohibiting acts of terrorism has driven conservatives mad. Even after his consequent interrogation was said to have provided actionable intelligence.

The more recent decision to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial away from the US District Court in Manhattan was a reaction to the huge NIMBY response from the Mayor, residents and businesses in the region of the court. This effort to deny KSM the right to a public trial has been one of the few bipartisan efforts to come out of the 111th Congress.

What is at issue here is that the conservative propaganda machine is pumping Obama's actions in dealing with terrorists as a Judas goat to frighten the public and propagate the idea the Obama is weak in the area of national security - mainly because he has repudiated the Cheney/Bush efforts to re-write the Constitution. Much of this effort is built around the idea that terrorists are not "citizens." This thinking was most clearly stated by Virginia Republican Representative and Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor on Jan 7th

"Many Americans are incensed to see that the Administration is treating Umar Abdul Mattallab as a common criminal with the rights of a U.S. citizen, including the right to remain silent, a lawyer at taxpayer expense and a civil trial, rather than an enemy combatant who committed an act of war. The Administration's treatment could afford a murderous terrorist the opportunity to negotiate a plea bargain and a lesser punishment - and that is not acceptable."

The text of the Constitution of the US uses the word "citizen" eleven times and only once in reference to the application of rights, in Article IV Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Clearly a distinction that was intended to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. The word "citizen" is not used once in the bill of rights.

In contrast the word "people" is used five times in the Bill of Rights, and is used most prominently in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is the third word: "We the People...."

There is nothing in the Constitution, or even in the US Criminal Code that implies that the law of the land is applicable only to citizens.The Constitution was written as it was because, at the time, the US hoped to become an island of liberty in a world of capricious autocracies. The Declaration of Independence stood on the firm principle that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among others) were the inalienable of all people, not just the residents of one country, or the members of a certain class.

Umar Abdul Mattallab did not commit an "act of war." The United States of America is not at war. This man, and the "shoe bomber" and the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center violated certain and specific sections of the US Criminal Code. There is not now, nor was there ever, a need to engage in combat to bring these people to justice, although certainly there was cause to bring force to bear on the rogue state that harbored these criminals.

The effort to deny these people of the right of due process, prior to denying them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in specific violation of the 5th amendment which states simply that "No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"(the word citizen does not appear in this amendment) and of the 14th amendment, which applies the 5th to the States and again says simply that "No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This amendment makes the specific distinctions between a citizen - in stating that the rights of citizens of the US shall not be abrogated by any state - and those of a person, as per the quote above.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Cantor is earnest in his assertion that "Many Americans are incensed," but this is because Americans are notoriously ignorant of their own history. Cantor's role should be to educate his constituency about our Constitution. Sadly, before he could do that, this elected representative would need to be educated himself.

Powered by Qumana