Document text
http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Obituaries Weather Archive Hot Topics Forum Photo Gallery Past Readers Polls Revels Etcetera Backpage O-Zone Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Online Games Movie Preview October 23, 2006 One cornerstone By Chris Honoré Tidings Correspondent Granted, any discussion of habeas corpus can make the eyes of even the most curious begin to glaze over. Habeas who? Clearly, for most Americans, the meaning of habeas corpus can be relegated to the fine print of our system of jurisprudence, no worries. That is unless an individual's circumstances abruptly change. Then habeas corpus, one of the cornerstones to our system of law, and a fundamental safeguard of our liberty, will be thankfully embraced. Without it, any one of us would be defenseless to challenge what might be the arbitrary accusation and illegal detainment by the state. This is no small thing, for we are a nation of laws and not persons, and everyone, citizen or not, is guaranteed the right to stand before a judge and challenge the propriety of their custody. Habeas corpus defines us as a people and has been celebrated as one of the most fundamental safeguards of our liberty. For this reason it is also called the "Great Writ." And it is habeas corpus that the White House, with the complicity of the Republican Congress, has repeatedly challenged. Consider the recent legislation, passed by Congress and signed by the president, regarding unlawful enemy combatants and the rights they are afforded. The law says that an enemy combatant is someone who provides "material support" to the enemy. How "material support" is defined is not spelled out; rather, it is left up to the president and the Secretary of Defense. If a non-citizen is arrested in America (or anywhere else) and deemed to be giving such support to an enemy of the United States — making contributions to a charity that is accused of supporting a terrorist organization, for example — that individual would not have the right to challenge his or her detention using a writ of habeas corpus. In other words, he or she could be detained indefinitely without ever hearing the charges. This applies retroactively to those held at Guantanamo Bay. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that under the provisions of the new law, legal immigrants could be held "until proven innocent, not until proven guilty." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) also assailed the provision in the law as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. Specter later supported the laws passage stating that it had some good items and that "the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus suspension, suggesting an unprincipled retreat on the part of Specter. Of course, it is possible to profile a terrorist, trained in Afghanistan, sent by Al Qaeda to America with a trunk full of plastic explosives and a plan to blow up an elementary school. Why would we ever worry about this individual's right to habeas corpus? Why should we be concerned for those held indefinitely, without charges, at Guantanamo, or those who are renditioned to other countries? This was the position of President Bush when he signed the Presidential Military Order on Nov. 13, 2001, giving him the power to detain certain non-citizens, identified as enemy combatants, to be held indefinitely without habeas corpus or legal counsel. If the Democrats insist that these individual, as despicable as they might be, must be afforded the same rights as all citizens, the Republicans can proffer the charge that the Democrats are soft on terror and care more about the rights of a terrorist than about the safety of the American people. It's a specious and dangerous argument. It is also playing politics with the Constitution. If we suspend the right of habeas corpus for some, then what is to guarantee that it will not eventually be suspended for all? What makes America America is that our system of laws is applicable to all who come before the bar of justice. Habeas corpus, as spelled out in our Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, applies to all persons. No president, Secretary of Defense, or committee chair gets to choose. Tangential to the detainee bill is the House surveillance bill, which was passed as well. The National Security Agency can now conduct electronic surveillance of international communications for up to 45 days without a warrant. The administration would then have to obtain permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and, in most cases, have to notify lawmakers. However, a congressional intelligence committee could rectify any warrantless wiretapping by approving same in 45 day increments without referral to the FISA court. As well, notification of FISA could be suspended if the administration judges there to be an "imminent threat" — an artful term which is as open to interpretation as is "material support." Should we be concerned that this administration, using the language of fear and 9/11, has pared away provisions of our Constitution? Indeed. No good can come of it. The Founding Fathers knew this. It is our duty not to forget. Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising Inkjet Printers Student Loans Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Advertisement: Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.