|
Fourth Circuit scores
one for American
freedom, unlike King
George
Gene Racz,
Columnists, thnt Online, June 18, 2007
My first inclination was to blame it
on Latin.
You know, like making a prima facie case regarding the status quo
of millions of U.S. citizens who don't even know what habeas corpus
means.
So I'm thinking maybe they all need
to do one big mea culpa and admit they don't even realize that their most
cherished, fundamental, Constitutional right is in jeopardy.
"Habeas corpus" is Latin for "that you have the body." Black's Law
Dictionary defines the legal term as "a writ employed to bring a person before a
court, most frequently to ensure that the party's imprisonment or detention is
not illegal."
In other words, the government just can't arrest you and throw you in jail to
rot indefinitely without you knowing the specific charge(s).
That kind of governmental behavior would be frighteningly un-American, wouldn't
it?
So I found it eerily strange last year when there was no widespread, national
outrage when President George W. Bush, acting more like King George III,
stripped noncitizens of their rights of habeas corpus if he was able to
brand them as "enemy combatants." (And we're talking about civilians
here.)
And there was nothing close to a collective national sigh of relief last week
when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down the
president's self-imposed ability to declare civilians in this country "enemy
combatants" and hold them indefinitely without charges or a trial.
I saw Keith Olbermann flip out for about seven minutes straight on the airwaves
last year when Bush signed the Military Commissions Act. That was about it
in the mainstream media. Beyond that, there was mostly ho-hum apathy, and
it really has nothing to do with Latin.
As Americans we have alter egos and brag about our alma maters. We know
what per capita statistics are and appreciate a good per diem
stipend when we get one.
We can respect a veto and analyze rules verbatim. Or vice versa.
What we don't understand, I suspect, is that "it" can happen here — it being the
erosion of our civil liberties to the point where we have a police state.
Alfred W. Blumrosen, Thomas A. Cowan Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers Law
School in Newark, noted that right after 9/11 "what Bush wanted was literally a
blank check to go after anybody anywhere." Bush got a blank check for
noncitizens only, but some legal scholars point out that Bush's Military
Commissions Act may actually apply to U.S. citizens as well due to the vagueness
of the language in the statute.
Blumrosen, who is writing a book regarding the powers of the president and
Congress with respect to war, points out that Bush has ignored laws requiring
him to obtain warrants for domestic surveillance and wiretaps of American
citizens.
"And if he can do that, I think they can pick you and me up," said Blumrosen.
"It's one of the most uncomfortable things you can imagine — the only thing
standing between us and a full-fledged dictatorship is the writ of habeas
corpus."
I'm thankful the traditionally conservative Fourth Circuit made a stand for
freedom.
I'm also thankful this persona non grata masquerading as president is on
his way out.
Gene Racz holds a master's degree in Public Affairs and
Politics from Rutgers University's Bloustein School. He is co-author of
"Bury My Heart at Cooperstown" (Triumph 2006) and can be reached at
gracz@thnt.com
|
