Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT editorial: A Dangerous New Order: Bush's unconstitutional act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:35 PM
Original message
NYT editorial: A Dangerous New Order: Bush's unconstitutional act
Editorial
A Dangerous New Order
Published: October 19, 2006

Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.

Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step.

Not satisfied with having won the vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, quickly issued a statement accusing Democrats who opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of putting “their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America.” He said the Democrats “would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans’ lives” and create “new rights for terrorists.”

This nonsense is part of the Republicans’ scare-America-first strategy for the elections. No Democrat advocated pampering terrorists — gingerly or otherwise — or giving them new rights. Democratic amendments to the bill sought to protect everyone’s right to a fair trial while providing a legal way to convict terrorists.

Americans will hear more of this ahead of the election. They also will hear Mr. Bush say that he finally has the power to bring to justice a handful of men behind the 9/11 attacks. The truth is that Mr. Bush could have done that long ago, but chose to detain them illegally at hidden C.I.A. camps to extract information. He sent them to Guantánamo only to stampede Congress into passing the new law....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19thu1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. "The law does not apply to American citizens" is inaccurate.
The new military trials and repeal of habeas corpus don't apply to US citizens.

However, the "unlawful enemy combatant" label can be applied to US citizens.

Therefore, if Bush labels me an "unlawful enemy combatant" and the judge who hears my habeas petitition rejects it, then I could be imprisoned for the rest of my life without trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. What habeus corpus petition? You'd never even GET to a court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pathetic - The NYT criticizes the monster it was responsible for creating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Pamper" with a fair trial? We assume that serial killers deserve a fair
trial. We gave Timothy McVeigh a fair trial.

And hey- since anyone who provides material support to a terrorist is an "Enemy Combatant", when are we going to see all those folks in Appalachia who helped Eric Rudolph hide out shipped off to Gitmo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-19-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I haven't heard anyone make that point about the most heinous criminals...
getting fair trials under our system. Heck, it looks like the powers that be are going to great lengths to at least give the appearance of a fair trial for Saddam Hussein. Yet Bush, in his decider capacity, can now decide who gets a fair trial under our system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-19-06 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-19-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC