Hi. It's do or die time for freedom here in Washington, D.C., and as usual for the 21st century the bad guys are winning and the good guys are running away from a fight. The doomclock is ticking for the writ of habeas corpus and the only thing that stands between it and obliteration is the moral backbone of members of the U.S. Senate.
Says The Washington Post this morning (it's a truly chilling article, and worth reading in its entirety for the way it sums up what's at stake):
White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley met with Republican senators yesterday in an effort to reach final agreement on legislation that would govern the military trials of terrorism suspects ... A vote is expected in the House today on a version of the legislation that the White House supports.
And what's in that version?
It affirms the Bush administration's assertion that it has an incontestable right to hold persons detained as "unlawful enemy combatants" for the duration of the battle against terrorism.
And who are "unlawful enemy combatants" again (another important article worth reading)?
[A]nyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.
This is a very bad thing. There are many more bad things about this bill, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in the above articles.
Who's going to stop them? Not the Dems, according to CQ (via TPMMuckraker):
[N]ow that the Republicans have worked out a deal on detainees, Democrats are not planning any organized effort to filibuster the deal in the Senate, even though they may not agree with some of the specifics in the legislation.
With just a few days left before the election recess, Democratic aides say they are not going to give Republicans an opportunity to paint them into a corner.
“We’re going to do what we can to limit the amount of daylight between us and them on national security issues in order to neutralize this as a political issue,” a senior Democratic aide said.
This is, frankly, unacceptable, unconscionable, and must not be allowed to stand. Yesterday we printed the bold words of Sen. Patrick Leahy on the matter. On Monday,he told the Senate Judiciary Committee:
This provision would perpetuate the indefinite detention of hundreds of individuals against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence, without any recourse to justice whatsoever. That is un-American, and it is contrary to American interests. ...
It would be utterly irresponsible for Congress to neglect our oath to the Constitution and the American people and pass this unconstitutional legislation in the hope that the court will ultimately rescue us from our folly. Doing so would only undermine the War on Terror by prolonging the legal limbo into which the administration has dragged the entire regime of military detentions. ..
If this Congress votes to suspend the writ of habeas corpus first and ask questions later, liberty and accountability will be the victims.
Fine words, but these words mean nothing if senators are not willing to put their habeas money where their habeas mouths are.
It is absolutely urgent, imperative, essential and non-elective that you call your Senator today, this morning (remember, this may be being voted on as you read this--and if not today, then tomorrow) and tell him or her to filibuster the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
A symbolic resistance is not enough. We need a real resistance now.
For more arguments as to why this is a spectacularly scary moment for all of our freedoms, whether or not we are citizens, whether or not we support the "War on Terror," check out Hilary Bok, a John Hopkins professor (via Glenn Greenwald, in a post that is well worth reading in and of itself, if you are willing to watch the 30-second ad):
[T]he main question raised by the "compromise" bill (pdf) is a different one, namely: who has the right to question, in a court of law, any aspect of our treatment of alien combatants held outside the US? As far as I can tell, with very limited exceptions, the answer to this question is: no one but the very same government that set the system up in the first place.
This means, basically, that this bill will remove the entire system of detention, with the exception of its military commissions and combatant status review tribunals, from any judicial oversight at all.
Courts do not get to decide for themselves to investigate some activity that they suspect might violate the law. In order for a court to consider the question whether something is lawful, someone has to bring them a case that raises that question. By preventing anyone but the government from bringing any such case, this bill ensures that unless the government decides to bring one itself, no case that would give the courts a reason to consider anything that goes on during a prisoner's detention and interrogation can ever be brought. Which is to say: it removes the entire system of detention, except for its military commissions and CSRTs, from any judicial review. Literally anything could be going on during interrogation and detention, and the courts would have no way to pronounce on its legality, or to require anything to change.
Need more convincin'? Here's Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and here's SCOTUS Blog weighing in.
Why are you still reading this?
--Ethan Heitner |
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:08 PM
