Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Do we believe in our principles or not?

Tonight, I saw a conservative blogger with an internet radio program ask the question “Do terrorist[s] have the same right[s] as an American”. The very first response I read was “hell no”. Another person said “In a patriotic America: NO, but in Obummer America: yes!”

I’m afraid I have to take exception with these two responses. It may not make me popular with some conservatives, but my answer to this question is a very simple and unqualified “Yes they do.” You see, I don’t believe that it’s up to me to decide what rights any man has, nor do I believe it’s up to any of you to do so either. Not only that, but I believe that any so-called “conservative” that thinks that it is has a sadly confused notion of what conservatism is.

Conservatism isn’t about anti-terrorism. It isn’t about being hawkish in the modern world. Neither is it about being anti-Islamic. Conservatism isn’t about favoring big business, protectionism, isolationism or being against the United Nations. Conservatism isn’t about rejecting every initiative of the Democratic party, and it’s not about being a global warming denier either. Conservatism has nothing to do with whether you want to burn hydrocarbons as fuel, eat meat, or carry a concealed fully automatic rifle down your pants on your way to the local grocery store. It’s not about NASCAR, racism, moonshine or marrying your cousin but not the gay man down the street. No, these are all caricatures of  conservatism.

Conservatism is about honoring the past, preserving our heritage and defending liberty. Real conservatism is about securing and safeguarding the rights of the individual and about living responsibly in a state of ordered liberty. True American conservatives believe in these principles and they believe in their consequences.

One of our founding documents is the Declaration of Independence. This document informs us of the beliefs of our founders, beliefs that are based in part on the work of men like John Locke. It informs us about the nature of men in society, about the source of our rights, the purpose of government, and how to deal with a government that works counter to that purpose.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Conservatives accept the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence as just that: self-evident truths. A real conservative accepts first and foremost that all men are indeed created equal. This doesn’t say that a man born to Muslim parents in Afghanistan isn’t equal before God with a man born to Christian parents in Pennsylvania – No indeed. It says that they were created equal. We cannot say otherwise and still claim to be honoring conservative principles.

In a patriotic America we cannot declare a man, whether he be a terrorist or not, to be undeserving of the equal protection of his rights with every other man. In fact we must remember and accept that that man was endowed by his creator – who also happens to be our own creator – with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights do not come from the Declaration of Independence. They do not come from the United States federal government. They do not even come from the Constitution. Instead they are given to all men equally by a just and caring God.

If we are conservatives, we cannot pick and choose when to uphold our principles and when to abandon them due to political passions. Either our principles are based upon self-evident truths, or they are a lie. There is no middle ground.

It should be obvious to most of you what the question asked originally was about though. You’d have to be living under a rock to not know that the question refers to the decision to try several of the terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay in United States criminal courts in New York. Do not confuse my assertion that terrorists have the same rights as American citizens with support for this ludicrously stupid idea.

The conduct of war is not law enforcement. To treat it as if it was is to invite defeat, if not mere ridicule before the world. To treat the capture of enemy combatants and the enemy’s officers on the battlefield as though it was an arrest on the streets of an American city is utter folly. Under what law will they be charged? How can we claim jurisdiction over the citizens of another country outside the borders of our own country? If we do these things, how can we claim that this upholds the rule of law? Do the people that favor such actions suggest that we now go to China and arrest people for violations of United States copyright law? Should we go to Saudi Arabia and have the sheiks arrested for prohibiting to our citizens the right to freely exercise their religion? How then can we claim legal jurisdiction over the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Much has been made by many conservatives lately about the words of the President regarding this situation, and the idea that he has already decided upon the guilt of the detainees receiving a civilian trial. It has been said that President Obama has said that they will be found guilty, and that they will be executed. If this is so, then either the President is going to ensure that nothing more than show trials will be held – and the rule of law will not be upheld – or he has simply lied to the world because there is no way to determine the outcome of a civilian trial by jury until the evidence has been presented,the defense has made its argument, and the jury has arrived at its verdict. These civilian trials will be trials by jury won’t they? After all, our Constitution requires that the trial of all crimes will be by Jury – in the last paragraph of Article 3 section 2.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

This reminds me: I’m pretty sure that Pakistan, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured, or Afghanistan where he probably planned the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001 are not within the borders of any of the United States. So of course, it must be the case that Congress has passed a law specifying where these trials will be held – right?

Let’s face it. The detainees at Guantanamo were not arrested. They were not read their rights per Miranda. This was not a criminal arrest – it was a battlefield capture during a time of war. Acts of war are just that – acts of war, not crimes. There are those that believe we should treat these prisoners of war according to the Geneva conventions. Even that is folly. Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions. These combatants don’t honor the concept of a “just” war – nor do they honor the conventions regarding “civilized” warfare as outlined at Geneva. They don’t wear a military uniform – they dress as and hide behind civilians. They attack civilian rather than military targets. In point of fact, they themselves act contrary to the Geneva conventions at every turn – to claim that they therefore deserve the protections of those conventions is to deny the truth. They don’t want the protections of the Geneva conventions.

So, in some future war – say against Russia, or China, or even France – imagine that a force of United States troops are captured on the battlefield. Do you honestly expect our opponents will afford them a trial by jury in a civilian court? Especially if the battlefield in question is within the borders of the United States? And if they are afforded such a trial, will it take place in one of the major cities of Russia, China, or France?

No, the decision to hold these detainees over for civilian trial in New York has nothing whatsoever to do with affording them the protection of their equal rights with Americans. It’s a politically correct solution to a problem that ought to be dealt with by a military tribunal. Until the enemy is utterly defeated and has unconditionally surrendered to us – or until we are defeated and have surrendered to Al Qaeda these detainees should be held indefinitely. No prisoner of war can or should expect any different treatment.

And conservatives should not deny our principles for the sake of an angry reaction against terrorism – or for political points. Either our principles are valid and true – or we are nothing more than hypocrites ourselves.