Oct. 18, 2006
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety–Benjamin Franklin
From Wikipedia: “Known as the ‘Great Writ‘, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.”
In other words, if you are in prison you have the right to say, “Why am I in custody?” and the government must prove to a judge that you should remain behind bars, and if they cannot, you must be released.
Now on the surface that may sound like a bedrock American principle: If we are imprisoned, we have the right to know what we are charged with and then have a right to a fair trial. At least that is what the founding fathers thought when they wrote in The Constitution: “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.” (Article One, section nine).
Apparently, George W. Bush has slightly different priorities. In signing the Military Tribunal Act yesterday, George Bush effectively eliminated the Great Writ by declaring that anyone law enforcement officials deem an “enemy combatant” loses his right to protest his detainment. This includes anyone outside the U.S. captured by our forces, as well as the millions inside the U.S. who are not American citizens. The bill does make some provisions for U.S. citizens, but that point is mute. If they say you are an enemy combatant, how can you prove you are an American citizen? They can just detain you indefinitely and not allow you to appear in court.
What must it be like for other countries to open up their papers every morning and read about us? They see us invade a country that did not attack us, run secret prisons all over the world where we torture suspected terrorists, detain thousands of people indefinitely without charges, and wiretap our own citizens. All the while, we say it is in protection of freedom and liberty.
Read the last paragraph and pretend it is about any other country besides the one we live in. If we heard that in high school civics class, we would think it was about some overbearing dictatorship that we were committed to defeating.
What an example we are to the rest of the blooming democracies around the world. We preach to them the fundamental principles that we have stood on for 200+ years and cry afoul when they aren’t permitted in their countries, yet we do not hesitate to destroy those same traditions if we feel we are in the slightest danger.
John Winthrop, an early Pilgrim in the 1600’s described his idea of America as “The Shining City on a Hill”. We would be an example the rest of the world would follow, a country that would be morally superior to others, that would not lower itself, but rise above forces that wish to see it destroyed. That phrase has been used constantly by U.S. leaders since America was founded. Ronald Reagan, a hero to many in this current administration, used the phrase constantly. While we might technically still be a democracy, and still have rights and freedoms other countries dream of having, one thing is for certain: Shining City on the Hill, we are not.
For a much more elequent and intelligent analysis of the situation watch this Special Comment from Keith Olbermann.
