Redstate

Posted at 5:05pm on Jun. 17, 2008 Do You Support Habeas Corpus Rights for Osama bin Laden?

John Kerry and Barack Obama Do

By Ben Domenech

From Michael Goldfarb, we learn an astounding fact: John Kerry supports granting Habeas Corpus rights to Osama bin Laden. From the NY Observer:

When asked by a reporter about the McCain campaign's assertion that Obama would want to give Osama Bin Laden habeas corpus rights, Kerry answered angrily.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights -- this is not Barack Obama, this is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president he'd have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is, say anything, no matter what the other side has said, just say it, people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly. The truth is that this is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004 and the record absolutely contradicts it."

Obama himself, of course, already made the mistake of suggesting that granting habeas rights are just following the example of Nuremberg, where no such rights existed.

Conservatives would emphatically support Obama's position if it means as POTUS he would hold to the Nuremberg standard for international tribunals, since this measure would grant far fewer allowances for terrorists on trial than any court arranged by the current Administration. And it's not like Nuremberg was just a slaughterhouse - they acquitted more than one individual - they just weren't as interested in giving a whole slew of known killers and villains undeserved rights. Imagine if Nuremberg had the kind of allowances and presumptions of today's American courts? We'd have been arguing about these Nazis til the Reagan presidency.

It is a simple, straightforward, and reasonable position: Known terrorists, who have done nothing to earn the rights of American citizens but prove that they have varying degrees of skill in killing American citizens, should not have the same court experience as American citizens. The American people agree, emphatically rejecting the Obama-Kerry position in the ABC News/WaPo poll released today:

13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?

Should 34%
Should not 61%
No Opinion 6%

Even on a question that convoluted, people have no qualms: access to the civilian court system is not a universal right, but a right that terrorists do not deserve. If caught alive, Osama bin Laden should be tried and executed. He should not be granted rights he has no claim to, by birthright or service or any other measure.

Barack Obama must answer this question: why does Osama bin Laden deserve these rights?

Posted in Barack Obama | Gitmo | John Kerry | John Kerry good John McCain bad | scotus | War — Comments (123)/ Email this page » / Read More »