Habeus Corpus

Jose Padilla indicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Padilla’s Case was about to go to the Supreme Court to have his status as an enemy combatant reviewed. Without a doubt the individual who was held, without being charged for three years, was charged because of the upcoming Supreme Court Review.
This individual originally made headlines as a “dirty bomb” suspect (I believe in Chicago). Dirty bombs are a technological impossibility. So we had a U.S. Citizen being held without charges in a navy Brig for three years for allegedly attempting an impossible act. The question is whether letting this case go too the Supreme Court would have been a good thing. With our new justice: which way would it go?
I think the Stare Decisis of “Ex Parte Milligan” would have won out. We need Habeas Corpus and if wartime is the justification then rebuttal is already in Ex Parte Milligan that eternal question: “If wartime is the justification for erosion of our constitutional rights then what the fuck reason is the war being fought for?” Certainly it is not being fought to defend our freedoms. Hopefully the logic contained in such a conundrum as well as the precedent of Ex Part Milligan should lend weight to the advantage of maintaining our rights.
On the other hand the risk that the Supreme Court would fail to check the executive’s unbridled power and create a lasting precedent for the suspension of habeas corpus. This is such a terrible outcome I am at some level relieved that the decision didn’t get to the Supreme Court, to allow the possibility of such a catastrophic blow to our civil liberties. After Bush v. Gore and the decisions on not making public the documents and conversations at Cheney’s NEPDG. The Supreme Court has become co-opted by the executive and there is a chance they would agree with the “enemy combatant” status argument concerning a U.S. citizen allegedly attempting a technologically impossible act. Here is my burning question:
“Does it have to get worse before it gets better?”
Is it:
1.Better to have the Supreme Court unmasked and decried for allowing the executive to become tyrannical; thus making it apparent to everyone that the checks and balances in stalled by our founders have collapsed.
OR
2.The executive be scared of judicial review thus providing marginal protection from the police state (One won’t be held for MORE than 3 years without being charged).
And of course there is a third possible eventuality which is far worse:
3. The Supreme Court agrees that suspension of Habeas Corpus is constitutional. They should make the corruption of the court obvious and the tyranny of the executive apparent, but most people just don’t care.
There is a strong possibility people will just ignore it.
Using terrorism to justify such a worldview and patriotism to justify apathy individuals will compartmentalize away the existence of the fascist police state that will have started ruling over us when Habeas Corpus is suspended.
Our state may have become tyrannical at the point it suspends Habeas Corpus and reverses Ex Parte Milligan.
Will such a debate emerge at the point this happens? Or will a PR blitz and the “mainstream media” help everyone forget the constitutional rights they had?

Common Sense

The front page of todays NYtimes reads: "Pentagon aims to shift inmates from military base".
I wrote about this situation coming up earlier; as I'm sure many also expected this outcome. The reason inmates were put on the Gitmo base in the first place was that the executive branch of the United States federal government wanted to imprison "Terror suspects"(translation: Muslims) OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of the US federal court system.

The Supreme court did not fall for it and actually decided something right, despite Scalia and Rehnquist still being on the bench. They said that these individual had to get a trial or be released. The conservative media went crazy talking about how this would release terrorists in to the wild and bedlam would pervade. The truth of the matter is if they don't have enough evidence to go to trial on, then the person is most likely not a terrorist. Just like you and I(The average US citizen) we cannot just BE imprisoned, there must be evidence presented at a trial and heard by an objective(in a perfect world haha) judge and jury. That is the standard I feel comfortable with, and NO these individuals are not US citizens, so by law they didn't have the same rights. After that supreme court case though, the precedent has been set, if we take control of a bunch of people that are not POWs(or the bullshit legal fiction they tried to create "enemy combatants") they need a trial. The constitution says PEOPLE not CITIZENS.

But that's in the past what I had surmised is that the executive branch would drag their feet on the Gitmo detainees. It turns out they found an even better solution. This way they will be 100% sure that the federal court system will not ensure that these HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS. They are exporting them to Saudi Arabia and other countries, where they will undoubtedly be tortured. Not only that but the CIA will probably still have access to them so that the US can keep torturing(its hard to quit cold turkey).

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that they are getting away with it. They first put them in Cuba because they thought that the courts couldn't reach them, but federal sovereignty by pure COMMON SENSE(and stare decises) extends to military bases, territories, provinces, native reservations, and embassies. So after the exec is shut down by the supreme court here is the plan:
1. Wait for the PR to cool down, it only takes about a month or two for people to forget whatever was the hot media topic(prisoner torture, tsunami, bush's draft dodging, etc).
2. Slowly at first start moving prisoners to other countries that have close operational relationships with our military and intelligence apparatuses.
3. The mass exodus, move everyone that would get released for lack of evidence to these other countries(like Saudi Arabia). Because of number 2 it will look like the precedent has already been set and because of number 1 your average American will not make the connection between this movement and the court decision.
4. Keep the people you have evidence on in Gitmo give them trials and in foreign countries continue to torture other individuals that are most likely peaceful civilians(because if they weren't the evidence would be there to go to trial on).

So years from now if they start sending American citizens to Saudi Arabia for interrogation by US corporations specializing in torture(like Titan Corp. In Abu Ghraib), we will know how the precedent got set.
What to do now? I don't know
Dissent is now treason and individuals who exercise their right to peaceably assemble are quickly gassed and jailed.
So I end with one of my favorite quotes that I have put up in this blog before, but it still never gets old.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, only make violent revolution inevitable" -JFK

-Jimothy J. Jones-