There's a Reason Why We Call it the Bill of Rights-- Government Isn't Supposed to Violate Them

[ProSense]

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

There's a Reason Why We Call it the Bill of Rights-- Government Isn't Supposed to Violate Them

JB

This Christian Science Monitor article describes the government's treatment of one of its citizens, Jose Padilla, over the course of a five year period. An American citizen detained in the United States, he was entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, and, at the very least, a hearing to determine whether he was an agent for a foreign government. Instead President George W. Bush declared that he was an enemy of the state and without any legal process whisked him off to a military prison where he was held in solitary confinement for one purpose-- to break him.

<...>

It's important to remember that the Bush Administration did everything it could to deny Padilla even the basic right of habeas corpus. It argued that courts had no power to second guess the President's determination that Padilla was an enemy of the United States and could be held in solitary confinement indefinitely. It argued that no one had the right to contact Padilla and that no one had the right to know what the government was doing to him. It argued that courts should defer to the President's views about who was dangerous and who was not-- that once the President declared a person an enemy, that person had all the process that was due them and courts should respect that determination.

It argued, in short, that the President always knows best.

If the President had his way, the government, on the basis of information that never had to be tested before any neutral magistrate, could pluck any citizen off the streets, throw them in a military prison, and proceed to drive them insane.

Those are the powers that the Bush Administration sought. I will not mince words: They are the powers of a dictator in an authoritarian regime. They are the powers of the old Soviet Union, of the military junta in Argentina during the time of the disappeared.

To be sure, the President thought that Padilla was a dangerous man. But authoritarian regimes always think that the people they lock up are dangerous. They always do it to keep the country safe, to save the country from its enemies. The question is at what cost do they assume such power without accountability.

Attorney General Ashcroft held a series of press conferences telling us how dangerous Padilla was. (If the Attorney General says something at a press conference, who are we to doubt his word?) But despite all those press conferences, the government was never willing to put those claims to the test before a court.

more

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[TahitiNut]

2. It's appalling how poorly we comprehend such issues.

For example, I heard a talking head claiming that members of the Cheney/Bush regime are merely exercising their "Constitutional rights" when they refuse to testify before Congress.

:wtf: Excuse me?

The Constitution's SOLE role is to define the LIMITS of the authority delegated to the Federal government by the People! When someone, in the role of the Federal government, claims the very rights of the People as concealment for VIOLATING those rights, they should be REMOVED immediately from any role of public trust. Immediately. There can be no excuse for evading accountability in the role of a public official. None.

Impeachment is NOT a crimnal punishment and, therefore, there is no such thing as "incrimination." Removal from office is NOT a criminal penalty ... it's exactly the same as any lay-off or termination of employment and MUST be regarded as an "at will" issue if there's ANY legitimacy whatsoever to "at will" employment principles!

[ProSense]

3. Kick! n/t