|
A Dangerous New Order New York Times Editorial, October 19, 2006 Once President Bush
signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and
Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the
new order created by this unconstitutional act. Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the
federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits
filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay.
They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of
habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take
that undemocratic step. Not satisfied with
having won the vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, quickly issued a
statement accusing Democrats who opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006
of putting “their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America.” He said the
Democrats “would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent
Americans’ lives” and create “new rights for terrorists.” This nonsense is part
of the Republicans’ scare-America-first strategy for the elections. No Democrat
advocated pampering terrorists — gingerly or otherwise — or giving them new
rights. Democratic amendments to the bill sought to protect everyone’s right to
a fair trial while providing a legal way to convict terrorists. Americans will hear
more of this ahead of the election. They also will hear Mr. Bush say that he
finally has the power to bring to justice a handful of men behind the 9/11
attacks. The
truth is that Mr. Bush could have done that long ago, but chose to detain them
illegally at hidden C.I.A. camps to extract information. He sent them to
Guantánamo only to stampede Congress into passing the new law. The 60 or so men at
Guantánamo who are now facing tribunals — out of about 450 inmates — also could
have been tried years ago if Mr. Bush had not rebuffed efforts by Congress to
create suitable courts. He imposed a system of kangaroo courts that was more
about expanding his power than about combating terrorism. While the Republicans
pretend that this bill will make America safer, let’s be clear about its real
dangers. It sets up a separate system of justice for any foreigner whom Mr.
Bush chooses to designate as an “illegal enemy combatant.” It raises
insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. It does
not require the government to release prisoners who are not being charged, or a
prisoner who is exonerated by the tribunals. The law does not apply
to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the
foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find
threatening. It further damages the nation’s reputation and, by repudiating key
protections of the Geneva Conventions, it needlessly increases the danger to
any American soldier captured in battle. In the short run,
voters should see through the fog created by the Republican campaign machine.
It will be up to the courts to repair the harm this law has done to the
Constitution. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19thu1.html |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
