American Liberty at the Precipice

EDITORIAL / New York Times 22feb2007

In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.

The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus — is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage that last fall’s law — and this week’s ruling — have done to this basic freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military tribunals that the Bush administration established to try the Guantánamo detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an “enemy combatant.” This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees’ claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under which Congress can suspend habeas to “cases of Rebellion or invasion,” which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said, the act’s alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it before this term ends.

Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.

The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties does not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. That measure, among other steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.

When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of the Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance to a democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their confinement in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 11, but the bedrock principles of American freedom must remain.

source: 26feb2007

Reactions to
"American Liberty at the Precipice"

(4 Letters)

New York Times 26feb2007

To the Editor:

Re “American Liberty at the Precipice” (editorial, Feb. 22) is so upsetting that it almost gives me cause to stop writing letters to the editor!

I could someday be classified as an “enemy combatant” for my strident opposition to the Bush administration’s horrific war in Iraq. American men and women sign up for the armed forces and the National Guard to defend the very Constitution that President Bush has shown complete contempt for.

These soldiers face death, and serious physical and emotional injury. And because of our torture of captured prisoners — at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and through the policy of rendition — our men and women are now subject to the same or worse treatment should they be captured.

Where is the public outrage? Why has Congress not had the courage to stop President Bush by using the power of the purse? Our very way of life is at the precipice, and we must stop this administration from breaking the law of the land!

Henry A. Lowenstein New York, Feb. 22, 2007

•

To the Editor:

The laws of the United States used to be both practical and moral: they protected lives and property without infringing upon human rights. All that changed with the Bush administration.

For the past six years, the president and the Justice Department have taken a series of actions that have promoted expediency at the expense of morality. Pushing through the Military Commissions Act is the most egregious example.

While the federal appeals court affirmed that the administration has the legal grounds under the Military Commissions Act to hold people indefinitely without trial, that does not mean it is the moral thing to do.

The Democratic Congress must act immediately to undo this legislation, which makes the violation of human rights a law of the land.

Robert J. Inlow Charlottesville, Va., Feb. 22, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Arguing that suspending habeas corpus should be limited to “cases of Rebellion or invasion” ignores the nature of the current war on terrorism, and is, in my opinion, seriously misguided.

In fact, one wonders whether Judge Judith W. Rogers, a dissenting judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, truly understands that we are fighting a nation-less, plainclothed, civilian-targeting, prisoner-beheading enemy.

Only the foolhardy ignore the nature of this enemy, much less afford them the right to be treated as American citizens.

Certainly our forefathers could not have foreseen the type of war that we are currently engaged in. Were they to envision this situation, I believe that they would not have forced us to treat these enemy combatants with the respect and dignity afforded United States citizens. They made the distinction between those who deserved these protections and those who didn’t.

Just ask the American public, which has an uncanny way of understanding when American rights are deserved and when they’re being given away indiscriminately.

Andrea Economos Scarsdale, N.Y., Feb. 22, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Re “Court Endorses Curbs on Appeal by U.S. Detainees” (front page, Feb. 21):

In ruling for the White House, the federal court has made a mockery of the tenet that prisoners are innocent until proved guilty. By stripping the right of habeas corpus, and then upholding this decision in the court, our system is becoming a mirror of those governments that President Bush so strongly claims to oppose.

Supporters of this decision claim that this is the price we pay to win the war on terror. But at what cost? The prisoners of Guantánamo Bay have been languishing for more than five years. They have been stripped of their right to recourse, and treated as the enemy.

Some say that winning the war on terror is worth any cost. The cost in this case is lost innocence.

Sarah Peck Somerville, Mass., Feb. 21, 2007

source:  26feb2007