A literal reading of the act makes it sound as if the Military Commissions only apply to alien unlawful combatants. Defenders of the law would stress this as a protection of the rights of U.S. citizens.
As it happens, that's beside the point.
Let's assume the full force of this law applies only to aliens (i.e. non-citizens), who have been declared 'unlawful combatants' by Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush - or competent tribunals they establish. What then, is the risk to you or I?
E got it immediately, but I took awhile. Here's a clue, the relevant language from the act:
1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.Do you see the weak spot?
Think for a minute.
If you're still scratching your head, Keith Olbermann spells it out in his commentary "Beginning of the End of America."
"And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"Yeah. Let's say a 'competent tribunal' decides you are an 'alien unlawful combatant.' Shortly thereafter, you're nabbed and thrown into a cell. What are your options?
I'd call my lawyer, my family...
You get no calls, no contact with the outside world.
My friends and family, they'd get lawyers - they'd sue!
How? How would they even know you were being held? The Government doesn't have to admit they even have you, since habeas corpus doesn't apply.
After all, you're an alien unlawful combatant.
But I'm not!
And you can tell your captors that, over and over again.
But nobody's listening. They don't have to.
2 comments:
So, again as Olbermann pointed out, now we have a government that's reliant on the good graces of individual humans. Bye-bye, rule of law. And I think for the first time, I actually understand the full meaning of the term "rule of law."
It's time - well past time - for people to get really angry about it and to start doing something about it.
I've been thinking about why there hasn't been much outcry about this issue (that I have seen yet, anyway). I wonder if it's because people are imagining what seems impossible - jack-booted thugs openly arresting people on trumped-up charges. Wouldn't your neighbors, family, friends, community, whoever make a fuss if you went missing? Maybe. But maybe not, if they were afraid enough of the same thing happening to them.
If you're thinking "Even George Bush would never go that far" that's still not a comfort. Maybe he wouldn't. Maybe he'll never abuse the law to imprison his political opponents, and he'll only ever arrest people who truly are terrorists. But the fact is, he won't be in office forever. Somewhere down the line, if there are no provisions for habeas corpus in our laws, someone is bound to abuse the system. That's how people are.
Am I missing something? Is there more of an outcry about this than I've seen? Or am I way off base about how dire this really is?
Post a Comment