Sunday, December 30, 2007

Right to a fair trail...DENIED!


How far will a country go to fight terrorism? Will it start terrorizing its own citizens? Well, history has shown that, yes, a country is willing to do that, and more. In one of the top 25 censored stories identified by Project Censored for 2006-07, one story was about a bill passed by Congress, signed by Bush, that puts the most basic rule of a democratic society at severe risk - habeas corpus.

Habeas what? It's one of those Latin terms still floating around since 1215. That's right, for almost 900 years, this revolutionary idea helped shape democracies across the world. The Magna Carta, a set of laws created by King John of England under threat of civil war, took much power away from dictator governments by stating “no free man shall be…imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]…except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

In other words, you have the right to a fair trial. You have the right to not be swept up by a government net and thrown in prison for no reason. You have the right to defend yourself in court. Innocent until proven guilty. That is habeas corpus. That is what is threatened now for every American by the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Mainstream media, like the New York Times, did report on the act, but they only reported on one part of the bill. That part deals mainly with non-U.S. citizens labeled "enemy combatants" by the Bush Administration. These are the people being swept up in the "War on Terror," and thrown into secret prisons around the world, including Guantanamo Bay. There, these people, who aren't being charged with any crimes, are being held without access to lawyers or trial. Now with this law, they have no rights in U.S. courts to a fair trial, or a trial for that matter. The Times wrote in their editorial:
"The law does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening."


What mainstream media didn't report on was a part of the bill that does affect U.S. citizens. When defining what crimes can be tried by a military tribunal, it states "any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this [bill], or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission." Any person. Unless the word "any" has changed in meaning to mean something else, it sounds like the bill is talking about any, and all, people including U.S. citizens.

Some of the crimes triable by the military include murder, hijacking, rape, spying and terrorism. One of the crimes, wrongfully aiding the enemy, clearly implies that it is for no less than U.S. citizens. That crime states that "
Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States...shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

As pointed out by Robert Parry's article, who else other than a U.S. citizen would be in breach of violating their allegiance to the U.S. Unless Al'Qaeda now has some deep seeded allegiance to the country.

These vague, broad words and statements in the bill are cause for alarm for U.S. citizens. The government has shown itself in the past, especially with the Patriot Act, to misuse broadly stated parts of a bill to target U.S. citizens. Most frightening about this bill is the possibilities that come with it. Any chipping of habeas corpus, even if minor, should trigger some sort of alarm for any U.S. citizen that loves to have a lawyer present if the law comes down on them.

If that's not enough for you to be worried, listen to the statement made by Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on Jan. 18, 2007 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where he public says that
"there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away." What!!1! Even the senators did a double take with that one. And just in case the senators didn't understand what he said, he added:

"I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, 'Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.' It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended."

Wow! These are the people running our country! With such blatant disregard for the Constitution, one has to wonder what they're doing behind closed doors. The debate, as if there should be one, over habeas corpus and how the Military Commissions Act could be used caused one of the only outspoken senators about the constant assault on our civil liberties, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, to fight back with the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee on June 8, 2007, but awaits its performance before the Senate floor.


Photo of detainee at Guantanamo Bay prison being taken in shortly after it opened on Jan. 2002. Photo from the www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-12/23854197.jpg







Digg!

No comments: