Walking blindfolded to tyranny

The American Senate has decided to do away with habeas corpus. Read about it here.

Habeas corpus is the most important of your rights, except the right to life, of course (which Americans do not have). Yes, free expression is good and it's nice to be allowed to combine peacefully but freedom from arbitrary detention is best of all.

It's the thing that stands at base of your right to a fair trial, your right to be judged by your peers, and your right not to be punished for things you did not do.

Habeas corpus is the writ that your legal representation can serve, demanding in court that not just reason be given for your detention (and proper charges laid) but that evidence for its needfulness is presented. Habeas corpus is the reason for bail. If the state cannot or will not show you to pose a danger, it is obliged to set you free on your promise to appear for trial (sometimes it demands a surety).

Why would anyone want to remove that right, which protects the innocent and aids the guilty not one bit, because they are still liable to be punished for their acts? Well, the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo (some of whom it has been ascertained are innocent of any connection with Al Qaida or other terrorists but are still detained; and perhaps many, most even, are innocent, but who can say, given that there has been no evidence presented -- you will laugh if you read through the Obsidian Wings posts and come across the examination of a detainee, in which the man detained is not allowed to know even what he is supposed to be denying, and is stuck saying "Well, if you will tell me what I am supposed to have done, I'll let you know whether I did it, but I can't deny what I don't even know I'm supposed to have done, all I can do is deny everything") are, according to Senator Graham, not to be afforded the right to ask in court to know why they are being held, nor to be allowed to present motions (in some cases, these are people who are asking leave to sue the government for severely abusing them, including a man who was so severely treated that he is stuck in a wheelchair, having been denied treatment for the vertebrae broken by his interrogators -- I warn Americans that they will start feeling much less happy with their nation, and perhaps even physically disturbed, if they start looking into this stuff). In effect, Graham's amendment says that if the Secretary of Defence has decided to lock you up, you have no recourse to the law. You cannot serve habeas corpus.

No one who reads this blog needs telling that a "democracy" does not lock people up and throw away the key without charge. Surely? You know that the law is there to protect us from people like the Secretary of Defence, to restrain those in power from exercising it arbitrarily? You don't need a lesson in why it's a bad thing to allow those guys to be unleashed?

You might think, well, we're fighting terrorists, so it's gloves off. But once the gloves are off, they don't ever go back on again. I read somewhere that one of the legal guys on the Bushista side said that someone who taught English to an AQ member or their kid (can't remember which), even if they didn't know the kid had a terrorist father or the guy was a terrorist, whichever it was, could be detained because they "aided the enemy".

That means you, guys. If you were to hang out with a Middle Eastern (or Caribbean) guy, maybe a funloving boozer like Mohammed Atta and his guys, perhaps give him a lift to pilot school, or just let him use your phone one time, you can be detained. You. You're innocent though, right?

Well, so fucking what? So what if you're innocent? They don't even have to tell you why you're being locked up, let alone prove you guilty of anything. And it won't help you that you're American. It didn't help Jose Padilla.

posted by Dr Zen @ 3:56 pm