Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides the following requirement for any newly elected President:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States.”
President Bush has spoken those same exact words on two occasions. The last time was less than two years ago.
In Article 1, Section 9, our Constitution also states:
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.
On October 17, 2006, The Decider, signed the military-tribunals bill. By doing so, he approved the following:
No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined … to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
What makes this portion of the new law even more threatening are the words that are no longer there. An enemy combatant or anyone suspected of being one, are not limited to: “outside the United States.” The new law will be applied inside and outside the United States as seen fit by the executive Branch and without oversight by Congress.
David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, amplifies the reach of this elimination of rights:
Now, it not only bars the men held at Guantanamo Bay from challenging their detention in court, but it also closes the courthouse door to non-citizens who are arrested in Los Angeles or Chicago and held by the military as a possible “unlawful enemy combatant.”
The new law also defines this term broadly to include not just terrorists and fighters but also people, including American citizens, who have “materially supported hostilities against the United States”. While a citizen could be arrested as an “enemy combatant,” he or she could still challenge the government’s action in court.
How can a president take the above oath to “preserve” and “protect” the Constitution and then turn around and sign a bill canceling part of it? What is it he is so scared of that he thinks what has worked in the past is no longer enough. Surely, as head of the most powerful nation in the world, he is not scared of a few terrorists? After all, that would be playing into their hands, wouldn’t it? On the other hand, maybe he is just playing us to keep his authoritarian buddies in control and destroy this nation from within? How ironic, we destroy ourselves while trying to keep others from just trying to destroy us.
We have done this before. It was wrong then – but it is far worse this time.
Andy Hailey