Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
During a press conference regarding the Muslim terror attack by an Uzbek immigrant, Sayfullo Saipov, President Donald J. Trump was asked if he would consider sending the suspect to Guantanamo Bay. It was a gotcha question, but in the emotions of the moment, Trump said, "Yes."
The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a constitutional facility. In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Therefore, the creation of a military prison off of the shore of the United States for the purpose of imprisoning enemy combatants is absolutely allowed from a constitutional point of view. Waterboarding is allowed, suspending Habeas Corpus is allowed, and detaining those prisoners without due process is allowed because they are enemy combatants captured during a wartime scenario, or as enemies of the United States, while acting in a manner as persons who are not members of our society, or citizens of the United States - and as the constitutional clause says, it is up to Congress regarding the "Rules concerning captures". Enemy combatants who are members of an enemy force are not protected by the privileges and immunities given to Americans by the United States Constitution.
The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a constitutional facility. In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Therefore, the creation of a military prison off of the shore of the United States for the purpose of imprisoning enemy combatants is absolutely allowed from a constitutional point of view. Waterboarding is allowed, suspending Habeas Corpus is allowed, and detaining those prisoners without due process is allowed because they are enemy combatants captured during a wartime scenario, or as enemies of the United States, while acting in a manner as persons who are not members of our society, or citizens of the United States - and as the constitutional clause says, it is up to Congress regarding the "Rules concerning captures". Enemy combatants who are members of an enemy force are not protected by the privileges and immunities given to Americans by the United States Constitution.
In the press conference, President Trump referred to Saipov as an "animal," and the President is correct. The enemy of the American System came into our country, ensured the entrance of 23 other persons into our country, and has shown us first hand how dangerous our current immigration and "refugee" policies are in this new age of Islamic terrorism, and progressive idea of open borders.
“We have to get much tougher,” the president said. “We have to get much smarter. And we have to get much less politically correct.”
The New York City terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, is a 29-year-old man, who was in custody at Bellevue Hospital on Manhattan's East Side while he was being treated for a gunshot wound to the abdomen by police after he committed a terror attack against Americans by striking with a vehicle on a bike path several people. After the dust of his terrorist attack settled, he had killed 8 people and injured at least 11 others. According to reports, while not a citizen of the United States, Saipov possesses a resident alien card (green card). Saipov is an Uzbek citizen who has been in the United States on a green card since 2010. His ID said he was from Tampa, Florida.
While not a citizen, as a resident alien Saipov is subject to the same laws, rules, and privileges of a citizen, minus things like being able to vote, serve on jury duty, and other privileges that comes with citizenship in the United States. That being said, does that mean he is subject to the same rules when it comes to due process? Must he be tried in civilian courts, or as a non-citizen that has committed an act of terror can he be sent to Gitmo without enjoying the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States?
History can help us understand the route that needs to be taken, regarding Saipov.
American Society, after the Revolutionary War, was plagued by loyalists to the crown. The Tories viewed the Americans who supported the fight for independence as being traitors to the British Empire, and were even willing to do what they could to sabotage the early American System. The Tories opposed the disorder and violence they believed the supporters of independence were fomenting, and sincerely believed that Americans would be best served by submitting to British rule.
Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pointed out what most patriots and supporters of American Independence believed, writing in 1776 that Loyalists were "Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves. . . ."
During the war, Tories who were residents of the new country were often tarred and feathered for their opposition to the establishment of the new United States of America.
Most State legislatures put into place laws allowing the confiscation of Loyalist property as a result of their opposition to the independence movement - a situation resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 marking the end of the war by including in the treaty the requirement of the States to provide fair compensation for dispossessed Loyalists. More than 4,000 claims were made by Loyalists after the war, but the provision had little public support, and the U.S. government, for the most part, did not carry out its end of the deal.
Most State legislatures put into place laws allowing the confiscation of Loyalist property as a result of their opposition to the independence movement - a situation resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 marking the end of the war by including in the treaty the requirement of the States to provide fair compensation for dispossessed Loyalists. More than 4,000 claims were made by Loyalists after the war, but the provision had little public support, and the U.S. government, for the most part, did not carry out its end of the deal.
While the end of the war led to thousands of Loyalists leaving the United States either for England, Canada, or to the Bahamas and West Indies, many remained.
The U.S. Constitution is filled with a number of provisions designed to protect the new federal government from infiltration by the Tories, and other enemies of the country. Only a natural born citizen (person born of two American Citizen parents) can be President of the United States. Tories tended to have at least one parent born in Great Britain. Also, both congressional and presidential offices require a term of residency in the United States so as to stave off the likelihood of divided loyalties or Tories entering office. Note that many of the Tories who fled the U.S. returned later in hopes of repatriation.
The U.S. Constitution is filled with a number of provisions designed to protect the new federal government from infiltration by the Tories, and other enemies of the country. Only a natural born citizen (person born of two American Citizen parents) can be President of the United States. Tories tended to have at least one parent born in Great Britain. Also, both congressional and presidential offices require a term of residency in the United States so as to stave off the likelihood of divided loyalties or Tories entering office. Note that many of the Tories who fled the U.S. returned later in hopes of repatriation.
In the end, however, Loyalists who stayed in the U.S. were generally able to retain their property, received pardons for their activities that may have been against the United States during the war, and were given the opportunity to become American citizens. In short, the actions of the time period suggests that while the Loyalists were in many ways akin to being enemy combatants, because of their residency in the United States they received different treatment than enemy combatants who were from a different shore.
Applying historical evidence to today's situation regarding the New York Terrorist, Saipov, because he was allowed to become a resident alien who was eligible for citizenship, it would be against constitutional provisions, principles, philosophies and intent to simply throw Saipov into Guantanamo Bay Prison. As a resident of the United States, he is entitled to due process, a trial by jury, and the penalties that may be given based on the laws of the State in which the criminal case is heard.
While I appreciate President Trump viewing Saipov as being no different than an enemy combatant bent on war against the United States, because that is exactly what Saipov is, if we are to remain true to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, we as citizens of the United States who hold the principles of liberty as being the basis of our society must follow those principles, even when it comes to a Muslim terrorist.
Once they are here, and have become a part of our society either by way of becoming a resident alien, or a citizen, they are entitled to the same privileges and immunities that all other Americans are entitled to receive . . . and that is one of the many reasons why it is so important stop the disease of jihadism from entering our country through immigration or refugee programs in the first place.
By the way, had he been a visitor, a tourist who was still technically a subject of Uzbekistan, a one way trip to Gitmo would have been definitely, and legally, in the cards for him.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment