No Appeal For Detainees
In our burgeoning police state, the newest development is a bill proposed by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham which would strip "enemy combatants" being detained by the government of any right to appeal their detention (link here). And the Senate just passed the bill. Especially after revelations about illegal overseas "black sites" -- top secret military prisons where terror suspects are detained without any recourse to fair legal proceedings -- this bill is especially disconcerting. Bush has now claimed the right to deprive anyone of due process simply by labeling them as an "enemy combatant", and is now attempting to legitimize this unconstitutional practice through the new law.
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Graham defended the measure by stating that, "Well, to be an enemy combatant, you have to have be found to have been part of a force, al Qaeda or some other terrorist network." (transcript here) Of course he never touches on the real issue of who will be doing the "finding" of who is guilty of a crime. The obvious problem is that whoever makes the determination, it certainly isn't going to be a judge. To those who either haven't heard of separation of powers or find human rights to be inconvenient relics (read: everyone in our Federal Government) this all makes perfect sense. To us real people, however, the prospect of Bush and company flushing habeas corpus down the toilet is very troubling.
Legally blocking any recourse to courts would logically complete the emerging system in which anyone, guilty or innocent (read: anyone who disapproves of the president), can be "disappeared", spirited off to a secret prison, and never heard from again. Of course if these practices were challenged legally -- which is now extremely unlikely now that the bill has passed -- Bush can simply deny having anything to do with the disappearances, just as he denies the existence of the jails themselves. Unless those people Bush chooses to dispose of are attractive white girls, no one will suspect that anything is awry. Even if they do fit that description, no one but Greta Van Sustern will lose any sleep over it. With the passing of this bill, the door will be wide open for virtually any conceivable intrusion on the liberties of Americans. The Democrats, who constantly spew empty rhetoric about valuing liberty, would have filibustered this kind of trash if they were worth anything at all. Once again the government is working to chip away at freedom and seize more and more power. No surprise there.
What is most disgusting isn't even that this unconstitutional filth was passed by the Senate (they've been using the Constitution as toilet paper for decades now), but that 1) Bush will sign it into law without any criticism from the "limited government" Republican crowd, and 2) with Bush packing the nation's courts full of power-hungry Republican sycophants and apologists for executive power, there's a decent chance that the obviously unconstitutional law will survive in the courts. Might as well stop saying "God Bless America." "God Save America" is more appropriate.
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Graham defended the measure by stating that, "Well, to be an enemy combatant, you have to have be found to have been part of a force, al Qaeda or some other terrorist network." (transcript here) Of course he never touches on the real issue of who will be doing the "finding" of who is guilty of a crime. The obvious problem is that whoever makes the determination, it certainly isn't going to be a judge. To those who either haven't heard of separation of powers or find human rights to be inconvenient relics (read: everyone in our Federal Government) this all makes perfect sense. To us real people, however, the prospect of Bush and company flushing habeas corpus down the toilet is very troubling.
Legally blocking any recourse to courts would logically complete the emerging system in which anyone, guilty or innocent (read: anyone who disapproves of the president), can be "disappeared", spirited off to a secret prison, and never heard from again. Of course if these practices were challenged legally -- which is now extremely unlikely now that the bill has passed -- Bush can simply deny having anything to do with the disappearances, just as he denies the existence of the jails themselves. Unless those people Bush chooses to dispose of are attractive white girls, no one will suspect that anything is awry. Even if they do fit that description, no one but Greta Van Sustern will lose any sleep over it. With the passing of this bill, the door will be wide open for virtually any conceivable intrusion on the liberties of Americans. The Democrats, who constantly spew empty rhetoric about valuing liberty, would have filibustered this kind of trash if they were worth anything at all. Once again the government is working to chip away at freedom and seize more and more power. No surprise there.
What is most disgusting isn't even that this unconstitutional filth was passed by the Senate (they've been using the Constitution as toilet paper for decades now), but that 1) Bush will sign it into law without any criticism from the "limited government" Republican crowd, and 2) with Bush packing the nation's courts full of power-hungry Republican sycophants and apologists for executive power, there's a decent chance that the obviously unconstitutional law will survive in the courts. Might as well stop saying "God Bless America." "God Save America" is more appropriate.
posted by Dan at 2:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home