|
rights are inherent because a constitution frames them that way. there are functional reasons for that. the result is that within a legal system that operates on the basis of the premises outlined in that constitution, rights are understood as inherent. in a different type of legal system, that wouldn't be the case: for example, in an older-school monarchy, rights are, like everything else, granted by the king. within such a system, that is simply how things work.
that said, i have a problem with the way gitmo et al was justified legally and ethically and part of that has to do with unnecessary and/or arbitrary abrogation of basic legal rights guaranteed not only by the us constitution but also by international agreements that the united states is signtory to. i think the consequences are as you say grey wolf.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|