King George Swats Away Pesky Judicial Flies
He may have waited three weeks after it passed to sign it, but with the Military Commissions Act now law, the President isn't wasting any time
From the NY Times-
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...
The Washington Post has more-
Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents...
Our new standard- guilty until proven innocent. They hated us for our freedoms, you know.
Some miscellaneous notes: Bob Harris has a good piece on this issue, including noting the obvious that torture provides false and counterproductive information. And in his softball interview with the President, Bill O'Reilly actually managed to ask some decent questions about waterboarding and the administration's use of it. The President dodged and spun like crazy. The Red Cross, by the way, has condemned this law.
However, John Yoo- one of the architects of Bush's terror policies- has a clear message for the courts: "Get out of the war on terror". I agree, John, three branches of government were too cumbersome anyway. Checks and whatnow?
Finally, the aforementioned NY Times piece concludes-
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...
...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.
And the courts will likely be hearing this soon. Challenges have already been made, based on the obvious constitutional grounds (including, but not limited to, the fact that it says habeas corpus "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion"). But these cases take time to work their way up through the courts and the President and his minions know this. By the time this bill is inevitably declared unconstitutional and reversed, the President will likely be near the end of his term. They just wanted to buy more time. And if, by some travesty, the law is upheld, well that that's a bonus.
Keith Olbermann has another great segment exploring the larger implications of this bill.
The media as a whole, though? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home