comments_image -

Justice at Stake: Ensuring That Prisoners in the U.S. Are Never 'Disappeared'

Right before the public kicked out the GOP in the 2006 elections, the Republicans succeeded in passing a law that could keep prisoners in the "war on terror" from ever facing a fair trial. It's time to rescind that law.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Critics of the War on Terror have argued since 9/11 that the Bush administration's multifaceted betrayal of human rights and constitutional freedoms poses a greater threat to our society than the threat it means to address. From domestic spying to Guantanamo Bay, torture by U.S. authorities to kangaroo courts, our prevailing practices have undermined the notion that we operate according to the rule of law, leaving the War on Terror looking more like a War of Terror. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) is an especially egregious case in point.

The MCA was ill-considered legislation passed in haste by a right-wing Congress that the American people have since rejected. Its most problematic provisions have drawn worthy criticism, but those provisions should not be repealed piecemeal. Instead, the MCA should be rescinded in its entirety. To the extent it offers any legitimate tools to law enforcement authorities, they should face calm, considered debate in the light of day.

Among the rights desecrated by the MCA are the right to representation and access to judicial review. The MCA rescinded habeas corpus for detainees at the president's whim, while Pentagon regulations have long restricted access by lawyers and the Red Cross to detention facilities. Not only have we condoned torture, we have muzzled lawyers seeking justice for its survivors.

The suspension of habeas rights is especially terrifying, for its original emergence heralded a world-historical shift in the tension between individual autonomy and rights versus arbitrary state power. Historically, the sovereign could act at will. "Off with his head" may seem a garish thing for the queen in Alice In Wonderland to say, but it was a decidedly less amusing edict for the subjects of pre-Magna Carta monarchs. Habeas was among the earliest and most fundamental bulwarks against such avarice, and our nation should pause before discarding it -- especially in the race to address a largely imaginary terror threat created by the idiocy of Republican presidents who armed and trained our current antagonists.

Without the right to demand that authorities "produce the body" of someone in their detention, U.S. authorities could -- like the Latin American paramilitaries they have long helped train -- simply make people disappear. When it still applied universally, habeas was a crucial check on the state's power to casually destroy people's lives.

On the one hand, the MCA suspended habeas only for some, namely "unlawful enemy combatants." And the first two military commissions conducted under its provisions -- as well as a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that recently ruled on the case of Ali al-Marri -- rejected the government's attempt to apply the MCA to the particular defendants before them. Finally, the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the habeas appeal of Guantanamo detainees, reversing its prior decision to decline the appeal.

But on the other hand, the decision that halted the military commissions at Gitmo did so on the basis of a formalistic distinction between Congress' language in the MCA and the Bush administration's classification of detainees. That discrepancy will be either excused on appeal, or rectified by the administration -- which classified the detainees however it wished in the first place. Rigged Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) offered a pretense of justice, while denying detainees even minimal procedural protections like the opportunity to challenge witnesses and contest evidence. And the Fourth Circuit ruling was exceedingly narrow, covering only enemy combatants living legally in the United States when captured. Finally, the Supreme Court is an unlikely source of relief, given that it rebuked the administration in the Hamdan case only because Chief Justice Roberts was ethically barred from hearing the case -- which he previously judged while interviewing for his Supreme Court nomination as a judge on the D.C. Circuit -- a second time.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: habeas corpus, justice
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox Blames Obama for Manufactured "Gas Crisis," Even After Prices Fall

By Shauna Theel | Media Matters

 
 
Why Did the Associated Press Make an Anti-Choice 'Correction'?

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Minimum Wage Not Enough for a 2-Bedroom Unit in Any State (Unless You Work Way More Than a 40-Hr Week)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board Will Investigate ALEC for Lobbying Violations

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Obama and Targeted Assassinations: Had Secret Kill List, Calls Killing American-Born Cleric "Easy Decision"

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Romney Excuse for Birther Trump Endorsement: I'm Running for Office and I Wanna Win!

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Women's Center In New Orleans Destroyed By Arson, Third Incident in the South

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
US Productivity Up, Wages Stagnant

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Scott Walker's Recall Strategy: Avoid Anyone Who Isn't A Walker Voter Already

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Contaminated by Fukishima Reaches US Shores

By Agence France-Presse

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]