« Bond, James Bond. | Main | Conversations with the Devil »
October 01, 2006
Juan Williams does it again
I'm watching Fox News Sunday, and Juan Williams just finished saying that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that jihadis receive the same protections as U.S. citizens, provoking an exasperated guffaw from Brit Hume (and me on my couch).
Williams was responding to the passage of legislation in the House and Senate authorizing continued interrogation of our enemies, legislation opposed by the Democrats, who voted against it in overwhelming numbers.
There was a lot of crosstalk between the two men, but when Hume asked in a disbelieving tone if Williams was saying that we need to treat the terrorists the same as Americans, Williams blathered back about who we are as a nation is reflected by how we treat the throat-slitting jihadis (my words, not his).
Hume gave him his patented "Good Lord man, are you retarded?" looks, then said, "We had hundreds of thousands of POWs during WW2; were we less of a nation because we were denying them their Constitutional rights?"
Williams then responded that we were facing a different threat then, that they were soldiers -- a marvelous non-sequitur. Following Williams' meager logic, lawful combatants, i.e., uniformed enemy combatants like the Germans and Japanese, who are arguably signatories to and bound by the Geneva Conventions, are entitled to fewer protections than unlawful combatants, who follow no internationally-recognized code of conduct in their battle against the West.
Simply breathtaking in its moral obtuseness and stupidity.
Posted by Mike Lief at October 1, 2006 08:50 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Certainly some parts of the 14th Amendment are not applicable to non-citizens (often explicitly so), but the parts that were likely being discussed during the show you are referring to, i.e., the due process clause and the equal protection clause are applicable to anyone within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.
Of course that's why the president wanted to have prisons outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US so that the 14th amendment was not applicable to the persons being interrogated and/or tortured there.
From Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S. 202, 211
“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state 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.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”
In concluding that “all persons within the territory of the United States,” including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme...
Posted by: Private at October 1, 2006 04:28 PM
So you would interpret Plyler to apply to POWs? Would it apply to unlawful combatants?
Do you recognize the radical nature of your interpretation? Do you understand what effect such an interpretation has on our ability to fight -- and win -- wars?
I'm afraid I disagree with you. I do not believe that this decision -- or any future decision -- would require such rights being extended to the enemy. Furthermore, I believe that any court decision demanding the same would quite rightly be ignored by any administration -- GOP or Donk -- as an unconstitutional interference with the Executive's warmaking ability.
The Supremes sometimes simply get it wrong.
Posted by: Mike Lief at October 1, 2006 04:38 PM
I may not be a law talking attorney like "Private" but to me, Juan Williams, Private and everyone else who thinks that "terrorists" are soldiers, my legal response to you is "nuts."
I have hunted all my life. When I go out into the wilderness, I know that there are dangerous things lurking in the woods that can kill me dead. I prepare for those things and recognize them for what they are. I've hunted Alaska and I was under no misconception that a Grizzly Bear was some cuddly thing that I could warm up to and turn into a pet.
Juan Williams, Private and all the other liberal nut cases are lucky that they don't have to walk life's equivalent of the human wilderness alone because they don't have a fudgin clue of what lurks in the darkness, they don't understand the things that want to kill them.
They have the luxury of standing behind the Army, the Marines and the wall of freedom our troops give them. Without that wall, the response to their words of passiveness would be the war cry of those that would kill them because they won't accept a nutty religion like Islam.
Posted by: Red Stater at October 1, 2006 07:27 PM
Mike and Red Stater:
We may be on opposite sides when it comes to our view of the president and his motivations for acting, but neither my original post nor Mike's initial post raise this concern.
I am merely pointing out Mike's error when he criticizes Juan Williams by saying "Simply breathtaking in its moral obtuseness and stupidity."
Mr. Williams may well be morally obtuse, but to suggest in the quote and earlier in Mike's post that he is wrong for his view of the 14th amendment is unfair. Mr. Williams is open to criticism for anything he espouses, but to say he is stupid for citing legal precedent that the Supreme Court has issued is like saying he is stupid because of what someone else has said.
The opinion may be wrong, but Williams is merely noting the current state of the law. It is Justice Brennan and the rest of the court that may be open to critique for their stipidity, not Williams who is merely CORRECTLY pointing out what the law is.
Posted by: Private at October 5, 2006 07:59 AM