An aside: Comment to Sean Hannity regarding KSM

Here is a comment I placed today on Sean Hannity's website:

I am [an] avowed ULTRA-conservative. And it's on THAT basis that I say you are COMPLETELY wrong on the KSM issue. You constantly accuse Democrats of not reading the constitution, but on this issue, I HOPE you have not because otherwise it means you have purposely ignored what is written in the document.

Over and over you have stated that KSM should not have the same rights as "citizens." I wonder where you get the idea that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens.

If I am a citizen of France, visit the United States, and steal someone's wallet, am I not afforded the same protections as a citizen? I hope you would say I am.

Just in case you ARE ignorant of the wording of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, here are the relevant portions (emphasis mine): "The right of the PEOPLE to be secure...."; "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...."; "In all criminal prosecutions, the ACCUSED shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...."

NOWHERE in the Bill of Rights is CITIZENSHIP a requirement to be protected by the constitution. The men who wrote the document knew there were MANY non-citizens in the country, and if the framers meant to exclude them, the word "citizen" could have easily been used. So PLEASE STOP using the phrase "the same rights as citizens." It is misleading and JUST PLAIN WRONG.

If you want to support military tribunals for the terrorists, find another way besides mistreating the constitution.

Sadly, no one particular political party has a monopoly on misleading the public.

Gitmo

This is my first blog post. I hope at least some find it informative and/or thought-provoking.

I am a "conservative" and a libertarian. Can you guess from those identifications how I believe the Gitmo detainees should be tried? I think many would guess incorrectly.

The ONLY way for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to be tried is in a civilian trial. The rationality behind military tribunals is suspect at best. Here are a few reasons:

1. From everywhere on the political spectrum we hear about the ways in which the constitution protects the citizens of the US from the government. But where do we get the idea that the constitution only protects citizens? The Bill of Rights does not mention citizenship as a requirement to be protected. The fifth and sixth amendments apply not only to citizens, but to every person accused of a crime in the United States.

2. Military tribunals are best convened for POWs from the military of a recognized belligerent country. In this way our government can deal with those governments from a stronger position during peace talks and other negotiations.

3. If for no other reason: A terrorist is more likely to receive a death sentence in a criminal jury trial in New York City than in a military trial, in my opinion.