Jared, I both agree and disagree with your comment on Nice Guys Finish Last. I think I have more to say than a simple comment. So, here's a post.
For starters, the role of the Supreme Court is much more than just the check between executive and legislative. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made" (US Consitution, Article III, Sec 2, NARA). Obviously, since SCOTUS deteremines which cases do and do not fall under their jurisdiction, this gives the Court an awful lot of power and authority. So for them to say what you said, that the current administration has "abrogated itself the right to play cop, judge, and jury" most certainly falls under their jurisdiction. The Executive Branch in no way has such powers. Courts are set up by Congress, and then fall into the realm of the Judicial Branch (again, Art. III, Sec. 1). Whatever the current administration believes their wartime responsibilities to be, they must include in them the suspension of Constitutional powers (ironically, Bush et al. state that their constitutional oath of office keep them in check while they modify the Constitution to suite them).
All that said, I don't know where to come down on whether or not US Constitutional rights apply to citizens of other nations. Does an "enemy combatant" have the right to a jury of his or peers, when those peers are citizens? Doubtful. I don't think the Constitution has jurisdiction over other nations or their citizens in any way. Which is fortunate, because the Constitution is not a perfect document (Recent calls for an amendment defining marriage come to mind).
However, while the Constitution does not define the rights of others, I am reminded of an idea mentioned by Joseph J. Ellis in his book Founding Brothers. The writers (or writer, if you think it was all just Jefferson) of the Declaration of Independence wrote the document to express some pretty high ideals. All men created equal? Endowed with unalienable rights? All citizens have the right to government's protection? These are ideas as unattainable as the stars. Indicative of extreme liberalism in that epoch. Immediately after such a grand statement of ideology, the task of the colonies became creating a government to live up to such ideas. The Constitution and Bill of Rights stuck because they were the best attempt made in time allowed. Ellis's thesis is that many members of the Revolutionary Generation were entrenched in a struggle to make the government under the Constitution live up to the ideology of the Declaration.
What I derive from this is that we still live in said struggle. Our Constitution is not the highest limit of our rights, but only the observation post from which we can begin to see what we should strive for. And, here's where I get back to Jared and Brian, if we actually believe in the vision of our Founders, even in times of war we should seek to make known just what we stand for as a nation. Human rights, fairness, equality. Justice and liberty for all. Whatever your pleasure.
So, now I will avail myself of my Constitutional rights to say this: the current administration is rife with misdirected ideology. I think they believe that all means are valid to reach their own end of private prosperity. The wealth and success of a few is worth the manipulation and injury done to the many. Military Tribunals are just one manifestation of this narrow-mindedness. In that instance, they are allowing the (Executive) Justice Department unlimited time to build cases against the worst of the detainees, so they may try them without the normal court rules of the Judiciary or the Constitutionally derived war rules of the Congress, convict them, publicize the result, and thereby vindicate the whole war. All in the name of "Public Safety and Welfare" and Homeland Security.
Just my personal opinion, from the outside of the political scene, looking in.
Recent Comments