TAKING LIBERTIES?
Utah Rep. Chris Cannon Praises the Signing of the Military Commissions Act
By Tracy Medley, 10-18-06
Rep. Chris Cannon was on hand as President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in Washington D.C. on Tuesday. “With this critical legislation, we have given the people who keep us safe the tools they need to do their jobs and save American lives. It was an honor to work on this bill, and I applaud President Bush for signing this important legislation into law,” Cannon said on his website.
Cannon’s page summarizes the bill, saying it would; “create a new judicial system to prosecute terrorists, provide basic fairness in prosecutions, and protect soldiers on the battlefield” all while purportedly complying with international and U.S. law.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has a very different analysis of the bill, "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system. The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly. People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going change back anytime soon," he said on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, Countdown.
Turley’s sentiments were echoed by Senator Russ Feingold who made a similar statement on his website Tuesday, “The legislation signed by the President today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.
The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I am deeply disappointed that Congress enacted this law. We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation’s history.”
Cannon’s summary of the bill fails to mention two things; first that the bill will apply to American citizens and secondly the suspension of habeas corpus. So, in theory any American citizen suspected of terrorism could be imprisoned without proof or evidence. This aspect of the bill alone appears to fall in direct opposition of the United States Constitution which says in Article One, section nine, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Though proponents of the bill claim that terrorism may qualify under the term of “invasion.”
But, with no clearly defined enemy in this war on terror, mistakes are bound to be made and have been made. Navy Lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift who was assigned to defend Salim Hamdan, a suspected “enemy combatant" being held at Guantanamo, has made numerous claims of being unable to even speak with his client until Hamdan agreed to enter a guilty plea. In essence, according to Swift this detainee was forced to plead guilty to unspecified charges before he was ever allowed to see an attorney. Swift also asserts that his defense team was denied access to crucial and redemptive evidence during the proceedings. Swift bravely challenged the system at great cost to his career, despite eventually winning the case.
Such sweeping changes to our fundamental civil liberties beg the questions: must we choose between bodily and civil protection under the law? Has it really come to that? And what does the future hold for this law when the war on terrorism is over?
Chris Cannon and others may be proud today, but will they still be proud tomorrow?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I feel this bill is treason!
Perhaps Cannon did not mention that the Military Tribunal bill applies to US citizens because it does not. The bill limits the jurisdiction of these military courts to "alien unlawful enemy combatants," the operative word being "alien," with alien defined elsewhere in the bill (and in the common understanding) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
Matt's claim of "general consensus" among Republican Party leaders is perhaps unwarranted, and the charge of treason excessive. Clear majorities of both houses of Congress passed the bill, and in a remarkably short time frame (given the bitter partisanship that pervades the Capital these days) after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision made action necessary.
One of the "checks and balances" in our system is the power of the legislative branch to check a Supreme Court that has intruded in areas normally left to the more political branches of legislature and executive. In other areas of policy, Matt normally remembers this point, though he seems to have forgotten it here.
g
I appreciate your taking the time to comment.
I've been doing more research today and there is quite a lively discussion concerning the "American citizen" v. "alien unlawful enemy combatant" happening throughout the web.
One can be found Here!
There seems to be confusion over the terminology because American citizens can be deemed "enemy combatants." The language in the bill itself may appear to explicitly exclude U.S. citizens to some, but others aren't convinced.
Regardless, a lot of people seem uncomfortable with suspending habeas corpus, even for our alleged enemies.
From the Cato Institute: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/02/does-the-military-commission-act-apply-to-us-citizens/
I should start with a quick retraction of using the word "treason." It does not fit this situation as it is a word that is reserved for those over throwing our Government. Clearly our Government is not overthrowing itself. They are simply removing many of our Constitutionally protected Rights. I also want to make it clear that my use of the word was directed at the Bill, not a person. This bill has some poor word usage and is problematic.
The simple is that when you read this bill it starts by using the word "alien". This legally refers to a non-US Citizen. I have concerns about the application against all non-US Citizens though that is another subject. When you read through the bill, into the actual definitions the word "alein" is no longer used. So to make it clear "alien" is used in what is known as the "purpose" of the legislation, but when you actually get into the language itself, it is no longer there. That is almost like having a wor in the Chapter heading does is not used anywhere else in the chapter.
This can be seen as a simple clerical mistake. Or it can be seen as worse. I personally see it as the worse. Having served in the State Legislature and seeing the impact of laws drafted poorly I have learned to always look for the potential. Regardless of the intent of the drafting the actual language, mistaken or not, it leaves many Americans in legal limbo. And that is a limbo I cannot support.
If this is an error and the word "alien" was mistakenly ommited in all the crucial areas of the actual law, fix it. If it was not mistake...that is when I get worried. And considering the past actions of Washington, DC: unwarranted wiretaps by the millions, some of the provisions of the Patriot act, the Signing Statements, etc. I see a pattern that offends my sense of Liberty.
And I am using the words as best as possible to stick to the language of the law and those actions. I am not addressing these concerns at any person or individual. Just a disclaimer.