Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, October 19, 2006
The
INDEPENDENT
Published on the first and third Thursdays of each month by
The Independent, LLC, 725 Bridge St., Vernonia, OR 97064.
Phone/Fax: 503-429-9410.
Publisher Clark McGaugh, clark@the-independent.net
Editor Rebecca McGaugh, rebecca@the-independent.net
Assoc. Editor Noni Andersen, noni@the-independent.net
Opinion
Congress, Bush don’t
need the Constitution
The United States has been a beacon for millions of
people who seek the same fairness in their govern-
ments that was carefully included in the U.S. Constitu-
tion by our founding fathers. It’s too bad that a majori-
ty of U.S. Congressmen no longer see the light of that
beacon and are helping President George W. Bush in
his quest for dictatorial powers.
Bush touts the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as
a clarification of rules for “questioning” terrorist sus-
pects. The only clarification, of course, is that the pres-
ident decides what the rules are – and they aren’t writ-
ten in any manual.
He also says that the act will allow prosecution of
“unlawful military combatants”…“through a full and fair
trial.” That is an outright lie.
This law lets the president, the Secretary of Defense,
or anyone they appoint, decide who is an “enemy” or
who “supports” the enemy. Any person so designated
could be detained indefinitely, and could be convicted
on secret and/or hearsay evidence, even through co-
erced testimony. “Coerced” has become this adminis-
tration’s code word for “tortured”.
The person accused by the president or his agents,
would also be denied a writ of habeas corpus.
So what is habeas corpus and why are so many
people and organizations outraged at what Bush and
his supporters call a “suspension” of habeas corpus?
Habeas corpus lets a detainee ask a court to require
a review of the legal reasons for the detention. It is a
writ and a right that actually predates the Magna Car-
ta, in 1215. It is included in the U.S. Constitution, and
is effective without any implementing legislation.
The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas
corpus only in case of an actual invasion or in case of
rebellion. Neither of these is occurring now.
Those who support the new law say that it applies
only to foreigners. But we are outraged when another
country jails an American on trumped-up charges. Is
this the model we want to follow?
Another problem is that this president regularly uses
“signing statements” that say he will follow only the
parts of the law that he deems appropriate. Which
parts of this new law will he ignore?
Opinion, continued
This is a problem that comes too close
to home to be comfortable, especially
considering how Vice President Cheney
reacts toward those who disagree with
him.
In Colorado, on June 16, Steve
Howards was walking with his 7-year-old
son at Beaver Creek when he saw the
vice president shaking hands and pos-
ing for pictures. As Howards walked
past, not three feet away from Dick Ch-
eney, he said, “I think your policies in
Iraq are reprehensible.” He and his boy
then walked on. Ten minutes later, a Se-
cret Service agent arrested Howards for
“assaulting” Cheney. He was taken to
Eagle County Jail. He was released lat-
er that day and charges were eventually
dropped.
Where would he be if he was declared
an enemy? Remember, under this new
law, no evidence is needed to throw a
person in prison and throw away the key.
Last June, John Blair settled a lawsuit
he brought against the Evansville, Ind.,
police, who arrested him in February of
2002 for holding a protest sign outside of
a political fundraiser featuring Cheney.
Blair, 60, a Pulitzer Prize-winning pho-
tographer in 1978, devotes most of his
time to environmental issues. He’d like
to shut down coal-fired power plants, for
example. He drew up a sign reading
“Dick Cheney, 19th-Century Energy
Man,” stood more than 100 feet from the
entrance to the fund raiser, and was ar-
rested for disorderly conduct, at the be-
hest of the Secret Service.
“A lot of people think what I did was an
act of courage,” Blair said. “Exercising
your rights should never be viewed as
an act of courage.”
The president of the United States,
with Congress’ blessing, can deny any-
one habeas corpus. Anyone and any
group can be spied on without judicial
oversight. And the people we elect to
represent us can send us to jail when we
say or write things they do not like.
Sen. Gordon Smith made a speech
supporting habeas corpus, then toed the
party line, and voted to destroy it.
In a March, 2003, editorial, I wrote
“[Bush] hasn’t yet totally destroyed
habeas corpus, but he has two more
years to work on it.”
It took a little longer than I anticipated.
Noni Andersen