| Wednesday, October 11, 2006 |
| That darned constitution |
Keith Olbermann hit another one out of the park on Countdown last night (video and transcript here), this time commenting on the big story we missed while chasing down Mark Foley's nasty IMs, namely the elimination -- not just suspension, elimination -- of habeas corpus by the derelict Congress of the United States, which handed the president a dictatorial writ of absolute detention and tribunal powers through the passage of a disastrous "correction" to the Hamdan case.
What is habeas corpus? Wikipedia defnes it this way:
In common law countries, habeas corpus, Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action. Simply put: a writ of habeas corpus ensures that you can't be jailed or tried without at least being told why. Or at least, you couldn't be jailed or tried without being told why before the 109th Congress of the United States handed powers even President Lincoln wasn't permitted to wield, over to George W. Bush.
The passage by the Senate of legislation sought by the White House, giving the president the power to detain and try anyone he alone determines to be an "enemy combatant" was a low point -- perhaps THE low point, in the history of the United States. Because by passing that law, Congress simultaneously subordinated itself to the presidency, and freed the president from any resraints contemplated in the Constitution.
In fact, the bill, S.3930 (aka the Military Commissions Act of 2006) is probably unconstutional. With any luck, the Democrats will take over at least one house of Congress and have the good sense to try and reverse it. What does the bill do?
The legislation sets up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to prosecute high-level terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and broadly defines what kind of treatment of detainees is prosecutable as a war crime.
The bill was a compromise between the White House and three Republican senators who had pushed back against what they saw as President Bush’s attempt to rewrite the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions. But while the president had to relent on some of the key specifics, it allowed him to claim victory in achieving one of his main legislative priorities. And what what was the compromise? So-called guardians of maverickdom John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham traded the preservation of the Geneva Conventions, which is a very good thing for our troops and for our national honor, for the Constitution itself. Still sound like a good trade?
The framers of the Constitution found it important enough to write into the founding document that:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine). To my knowledge, we're not being invaded (in fact, we do the invading around these parts...) and we're not in the midst of a rebellion (and no, Dubya, Bob Woodward going from nice to naughty doesn't count.)
And as Olbermann pointed out last night, the right not to be detained and tried (with the death penalty on the table, no less) without getting to know why underpins every other right granted to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. As Keith pointed out, having the right to speak and assemble doesn't mean very much if you're imprisoned in some secret gulag on the sole discretion of the president.
And for the authoritarian stooges out there who worship this president and fear terrorism so much that they need daddy to have absolute power to "stop the terr'rists," it might be instructive for you to remember that God's little vicar won't be in office forever. The next president with the absolute power to detain you and yours without going to a judge might be Hillary Clinton.
Tags: Keith Olbermann, CountDown, MSNBC, War On Terror, News, Politics, Bush, habeas corpus |
posted by JReid @ 9:31 AM   |
|
|
|
|
