>Baker City Herald | Baker County Oregon's News Leader

Baker news NE Oregon Classifieds Web
web powered by Web Search Powered by Google

Follow BakerCityHerald.com

Baker City Herald print edition

view all Baker City Herald print publications »

The Baker City Herald is now online in a Replica E-edition form and publishes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Current subscribers have full access to the E-edition.

View Paper

If you are not a current subscriber, subscribe today for immediate access.

Subscribe


Recent article comments

Powered by Disqus

Home arrow Opinion arrow Editorials arrow Who needs a trial?

Who needs a trial?


Imagine that a U.S. citizen is arrested as a suspected terrorist, on U.S. soil, and then placed in military custody for as long as officials deem necessary.

Oh, and this citizen doesn’t get a trial, so the mere suspicion of complicity in promoting terrorism is sufficient grounds for an open-ended detention.

It sounds like the plot of a novel.

In fact it’s part of a bill that the U.S. Senate passed by a 93-7 vote on Dec. 1.

Greatest deliberative body in history, right?

To their credit, both of Oregon’s senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, voted no on S. 1867, the National Defense Reauthorization Act. And President Obama has threatened to veto the bill.

Nonetheless, we’re troubled that legislation which raises such obvious questions about its constitutionality would have gotten this far, and with such majority support.

(Perhaps because, as is typical in Congress, the detention provisions are part of a larger bill with much less controversial parts — in this case, billions of dollars to keep the military running.)

The bill’s proponents argue that the military’s role in detaining terrorists is necessary because U.S soil is part of the battlefield in the war on terror.

That’s certainly true.

But there’s a vast difference — or should be — between having the military deal with members of al-Quaeda caught operating in America, and how we treat American citizens, in their country.

As with any piece of legislation, there is some confusion with S.1867.

Some legal experts have concluded that although the bill requires the military to detain suspected foreign terrorists caught in the U.S., in the case of American citizens the government would have the option of doing so but could also confine American terrorist suspects to the civilian court system and its constitutional protections.

We’re not reassured.

When it comes to our constitutional rights and the government’s protection of them, we consider the word “optional” inappropriate.

We hope the president holds true to his vow to veto this legislation in its current form.

 
blog comments powered by Disqus
News
Local / Sports / Business / State / National / Obituaries / Submit News
Opinion
Editorials / Letters / Columns / Submit a letter
Features
Outdoors / Go Magazine / Milestones / Living Well
Baker Herald
About / Contact / Commercial Printing / Subscriptions / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Commenting Policy / Site Map
Also Online
Photo Reprints / Videos / Local Business Links / Community Links / Weather and Road Cams / RSS Feed

Follow Baker City Herald headlines on Follow Baker City Herald headlines on Twitter

© Copyright 2001 - 2014 Western Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. By Using this site you agree to our Terms of Use