NYT Editorial: American Liberty at the Precipice

[Rose Siding]

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 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, 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/opinion/22thu1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[4dsc]

1. Here's rightie arguement..

This is rightie's justification for supporting this ruling..

They do NOT represent a Country. So the Geneva Convention does not apply.
They were NOT in Uniform, so the Geneva Convention does not apply.
They cut off our Soldiers HEADS, so the Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Here's this leftie's argument:

What we deny to others is eventually denied to ourselves.

[SutaUvaca]

2. Can a newbie recommend? 'Cause I do..

for this NYC article. The full article needs to be widely read 6 times a day by MSM mouths and on the floor of Congress.

Kudos to the NYC for this phrase "The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties..." being in print for the public to see. Plus, they correctly note that the court should have taken the opportunity to rule that the heinous Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional. We'll hold our breath to see if the Supremes rise to that occasion.

[In Truth We Trust]

3. IMPEACH NOW! Let there be justice and rule of law! Or fascism forever.

[againes]

5. This administration makes me sick

It makes me sick how this admin goes to war, first for WMD,
then when we don't find WMD's it is to free the Iraqi's from
the horrible dictator Sadam.  It is ironic that our own
dictator is trying to take away our freedoms to give them to
others.  But we only want to free those who can provide us
with oil revenues.  

[In Truth We Trust]

6. Welcome to DU Againes! You are so right-they are nothing if not hypocrites of the first order.

[againes]

7. Thank you

Thank you so much I am very happy to be here!!!  Nice to be
able to vent my frustrations with others that share my views. 
Unfortunately I live in TX, so not as many around me share my
views.  

[tbyg52]

11. I do, I do!!!

(Both views--I'm assuming, since you're here--and location.)

Edited to add: Welcome! :hi:

[TiredTexan]

13. Welcome from another

Texan........ We're pretty lonely down here, but very strong, because we have to be........

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. The law has to be changed back (move Congress, move?)

[meldroc]

9. Good article, but one gripe... U.S. citizens are vulnerable too...

The NY Times article claims that habeas corpus will only be taken away from non-citizens (that's bad enough.) Which is absolutely wrong. There's a reason why the MCA of 2006 has that language about "unlawful enemy combatants", and that's because of case law. Case law. Specifically, law coming from Ex parte Quirin, where several people accused of being German spies during WWII were declared to be "unlawful combatants" and denied habeas corpus, then executed. One of the alleged spies in this case was a U.S. citizen, and the court specifically ruled that U.S. citizenship doesn't protect him.

The language in MCA2006 is vague enough that literally anyone can be declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant", and summarily denied habeas corpus protection, subject to a military tribunal, maybe even executed. NOBODY is safe.

Daily Kos has this article that explains in greater detail how the MCA2006 is designed to be abused...

Also check out this post on DU by Harvey Korman that explains things. Very scary...

[Perzuki]

15. Bush Official Admits US Citizens Qualify as Enemy Combatants

On February 2, 2007, a Bush administration lawyer testified in front of a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia. Here is what he said: "Under the Military Commissions Act, a U.S. citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant." Then he added that on such issues the courts may not interfere with the President's judgments.

The real, the intended, targets of the "Military Commissions Act" are American dissidents.

[Maraya1969]

10. W adminstraion......America's shame.

And I bet if you tell a right winged nut that you felt bad for these people who are being denied basic rights they'd say you were supporting the enemy. :banghead:

[bonito]

12. K&R

[IWantAChange]

14. are Repugs so ignorant they don't understand Chimpy is the greatest threat ever to our Democracy??

in 6 short years he has turned back freedom hundreds of years for every man woman and child that is a citizen of this country