A White House Plan to Erode Our Liberties (The Nation)

A White House Plan to Erode Our Liberties

Aziz Huq


Early this week, judge advocates halted two prosecutions in the Guantánamo military commissions established under the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA). This is not the first setback the Administration's second-tier court system has hit; the Supreme Court invalidated an earlier iteration of the commissions in 2006. And it won't be the last. But while this week's setback likely will be speedily surmounted, it casts an unexpected light on the MCA's real purposes, and what's at stake when the Bush Administration plays politics with national security.

Understanding the significance of this week's ruling means delving into a bit of procedural arcana. The devil in the MCA is, almost literally, in the details--and unless we attend closely to the rococo details of the statute, we'll miss the ways in which the Administration intends to slowly erode our liberties.

At the beginning of this week, the military commissions' two judges--Army Col. Peter Brownback and Navy Capt. Keith Allred--dismissed charges filed against Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan. The rulings focused on a question of categorization--basically, the judges found that Khadr and Hamdan had been wrongly classified. But how did this happen?

The MCA, which created the military commissions, states that only an alien who is an "unlawful enemy combatant" can be tried in a military commission. It also defines "unlawful enemy combatants" in tremendously sweeping terms to include anyone who has "materially supported hostilities." Many civil libertarians, including myself, expressed grave concerns about the scope of this provision. Read in tandem with recent Supreme Court cases, it might be taken not merely as a gateway to trial by military commission but also as a sweeping new executive detention authority.

...(snip)...

What this week's rulings show is that the White House's protests about the urgency of the MCA were false and that the Administration was going for bigger fish. It was laying the foundation of a far broader detention and coercive interrogation policy for the future. And in large part, this effort has succeeded.

This is why the MCA needs to be rolled back: It is far more than a piecemeal erosion of the rights of Guantánamo detainees. It is the spearhead of a more sustained and long-term incursion on all our civil liberties. Senator Christopher Dodd was one of the first to introduce legislation pushing back against the MCA. Many pieces akin to his bill have been introduced in a piecemeal fashion--most important the restoration of habeas corpus--but none is as comprehensive as Dodd's bill. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/huq

They're saying is a US citizen is charged with terrorism it means they effectively "renounced" their citizenship. Presto, instant enemy combatants not not entitled to anything, except maybe a plane ride to an eastern European dungeon.

is going to suspend elections next year. why would`t the democrats roll back the laws/directives after all they are in power and are sworn to uphold the constitution. i`m totally confused why the democrats have not done this yet...

opposition party. They are the equivalent of those "opponents" rising boxers go up against, there to give the appearance of putting up a fight while sure to lose.

The "two-party" system is a scam to provide the appearance of choice without actually providing any.

majority, y'all. If the GOPers have their way, our liberty and our Constitution will continue to be obliterated.