Does Judge Bates Know How to Read?
A while ago, we said that the Obama rule was "Bush lite," now, we are beginning to wonder if that was an understatement. The Obama rule wants to hold detainees, held in various prisons around the world, indefinitely without trial the same as Bush did. This is not justice in any sense of the word, and though many will say these are terrorists, which in some cases is undoubtedly true, that does not mean that all detainees should not have a right to trial. It has been found, after all, that many past and present detainees have done nothing to warrant their detention, and were picked up on rather spurious claims. Not only that, but the present wars that our nation are involved in are not even declared wars by the Congress, so the 5th Amendment exception that some may use regarding court hearings for some detainees is not convincing.
Federal Judge John Bates conveniently overlooked the 6th Amendment of the Constitution in recently upholding the Bush/Obama standard in holding detainees indefinitely without trial. Did he read it, the amendment which says that accused persons shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, or did he not understand the forthright language of that amendment? Bypassing habeas corpus in some cases, means that U.S. officials and judges can overlook habeas corpus in any case, including criminal cases involving U.S. citizens.
In the 21st century, time and time again, the Constitution has become just a guideline for officials instructed to enforce it, as opposed to a grand treatise having the force of law. When are "we the people" going to start voting in real representatives of the people who actually respect the Constitution? Soon, we hope.
Post-script (5/21/09):
We realize, of course, that federal judges are not elected, but these judges are recommended and appointed by politicians that are, and given the poor state of the judiciary, along with the government generally, almost the entire legislative and executive branches of government should be electorally defeated in the coming elections.
[revised on 6/2/09]
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
Federal Judge John Bates conveniently overlooked the 6th Amendment of the Constitution in recently upholding the Bush/Obama standard in holding detainees indefinitely without trial. Did he read it, the amendment which says that accused persons shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, or did he not understand the forthright language of that amendment? Bypassing habeas corpus in some cases, means that U.S. officials and judges can overlook habeas corpus in any case, including criminal cases involving U.S. citizens.
In the 21st century, time and time again, the Constitution has become just a guideline for officials instructed to enforce it, as opposed to a grand treatise having the force of law. When are "we the people" going to start voting in real representatives of the people who actually respect the Constitution? Soon, we hope.
Post-script (5/21/09):
We realize, of course, that federal judges are not elected, but these judges are recommended and appointed by politicians that are, and given the poor state of the judiciary, along with the government generally, almost the entire legislative and executive branches of government should be electorally defeated in the coming elections.
[revised on 6/2/09]
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
Comments