|
Pres. Bush waited two weeks after Congress passed the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, to sign the law, effectively ending the First American
Republic. Even though this law will not – under normal circumstances – survive
the Constitutional review of the Supreme Court, and if repudiated would give
those convicted under its measures an effective ‘get out of jail’ card, we have
to wake up to the significant change of events now in place. KwC Legal blogger Jack Balkin Rights Against Torture – without remedies: "The President has created a new regime in which he is a law
unto himself on issues of prisoner interrogations. He decides
whether he has violated the laws, and he decides whether to prosecute the
people he in turn urges to break the law. And all the while he insists
that everything he does is perfectly legal, because, the way the law is
designed, there is no one with authority to disagree. "It is a travesty of law under the forms of law. It is the accumulation
of executive, judicial, and legislative powers in a single branch and under a
single individual. "It is the very
essence of tyranny." http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/rights-against-torture-without.html Terror and Cause and
Effect By Andrew Cohen, Washington Post, October 18,
2006 Cohen writes the Bench Conference legal blog. EXCERPTS: “Long after both President Bush and Osama Bin Laden are gone
from the scene, our successors-in-interest will look at this wretched law in
particular, and the events upon which it is based, and wonder why Congress
dramatically loosened the Bush Administration's legal leash at this time rather
than severely restricting it. "Reasoned voices will then ask: What did the White House do
between 9/11/01 and 9/11/06 to earn the trust and added authority that the
Congress now has given it? What did President Bush do along the terror law
front since the Twin Towers fell to cause Congress to place so much faith in
him and his Administration when it comes to tiptoeing the tightrope between
security and freedom? "The answer to these questions is nothing. So far, some legal
experts say, the Bush Administration's track record when it comes to exercising
unbridled power has been lame. To put it less mildly, as some legal
experts have, it is actionable. Over
and over again, they say, the executive branch has deceived Congress and the
courts. Over and over again, the Administration has oversold its terror cases.
Over and over again it has tried to hide its errors under the veil of 'national
security.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701090.html Law’s Reach Extends
to US jails The curbing of habeas corpus protections for 'enemy combatants' can now
occur domestically. Many say the measure won't survive court tests. By David Savage, LA Times, October 18, 2006 EXCERPTS: "The
military tribunals bill signed by President Bush on Tuesday marks the first
time the right of habeas corpus has been curtailed by law for millions of
people in the United States. "Although debate
focused on trials at Guantanamo Bay, the new law also takes away from
noncitizens in the U.S. -- including more than 12 million permanent residents
-- the right to go to court if they are declared 'unlawful enemy combatants.' "No one has
suggested that the Bush administration plans to use its newly won power to
round up large numbers of immigrants. "But before
Tuesday, the principle of habeas corpus meant that anyone thrown into jail in
the U.S. had a right to ask a judge for a hearing. They also had a right to go
free if the government could not show a legal basis for holding them. The Latin
term for 'you have the body,' habeas corpus is considered one of an accused
person's most basic rights." "Many legal scholars
predict the law's partial repeal of habeas corpus will be struck down as
unconstitutional." For instance: "The law does not qualify
under any of the tests for suspending habeas corpus spelled out there, said John D. Hutson, a former judge advocate general of the
Navy and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law School in New Hampshire. "'This is not a time of
rebellion.
There has not been an invasion, and there's no evidence the
"public safety" requires it,' Hutson said. 'Let's not kid ourselves. This is not about an
invasion. It is about the embarrassment of
holding people who, if they got to court, could show they should not have been
held.'" http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-habeas18oct18,1,5984793.story And Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley had this to say on Countdown: OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law,
ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the
sanity and honesty of the president of the United States? TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our
democracy. The framers created a system where we
did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a
system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because
we didn’t rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this
is. What,
really, a time of
shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed
today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values. It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve
become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave
the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people
turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it’s otherworldly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/ |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
