De facto suspension of the Constitution-"Whether A US Citizen Or Not" Evidence NOT Applicable

[kpete]

Monday, April 14, 2008
De facto suspension of the Constitution - Bush pronounces a detainee "an unlawful enemy combatant" and the person loses all human rights

robert parry posting on consortium news via alternet...

Under the Bush-Yoo theories, all Bush has to do is pronounce a detainee "an unlawful enemy combatant" -- whether a U.S. citizen or not, whether there is any credible evidence or not -- and the person loses all human rights.

As radical -- and as shocking -- as these theories may seem to many Americans, Bush is within one vote on the U.S. Supreme Court of having his vision enshrined as"constitutional."

If one more vacancy occurs among the five "non-imperial" justices -- and the replacement is in line with Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-and-Alito -- the U.S. Constitution could be effectively altered to eliminate key individual liberties -- from habeas corpus and other fair-trial rights to bans on "cruel and unusual" punishment to protections against self-incrimination and "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Though civics books tell us that the Constitution can only be amended by two-thirds votes of the House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of the states, the reality is that five ideologues on the U.S. Supreme Court can alter the nation's founding document by simply voting as a bloc.

And since the "war on terror" is unlike other wars -- in that the enemy is vaguely defined, the duration could be forever and the war's location can be anywhere -- the Bush-Yoo logic suggests that the de facto suspension of the American constitutional Republic is not just a short-term emergency measure.

Instead, the shift from a Republic, with legal protections of individual rights, to an Empire, led by an Executive who can operate without any constraints, would be permanent. As long as the President says some danger lurks out there, he or she could assert "plenary" -- or total -- powers as commander in chief.

Though Bush may not get another chance to further shape the Supreme Court with the appointment of another Roberts or Alito, his successor likely will. For some Americans angered by Bush's assault on the Constitution, John McCain's past support for Bush's judicial appointments may represent one of the strongest reasons to vote against him.

The future of the American Republic may be at stake.

"may" be at stake is a serious understatement... the future of the american republic HAS BEEN AT STAKE for a number of years now and WILL CONTINUE TO BE AT STAKE even after the inauguration of a (presumably) democratic president on 20 january 2009, if the current mechanisms of unfettered executive power are not both ROLLED BACK and FORMALLY REPUDIATED prior to that time... i don't want those mechanisms in the hands of ANY president... not mccain, not hillary, not obama...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/81638/
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2008/04/de-facto-suspension-of-constitution.html

*******************

This statement from Bush -starkly follows the logic of John Yoo.

Q Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.

more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/14/bush-the-country-is-at-war-therefore-we-do-not-torture/

[formercia]

1. Hail Caesar

I guess Junior must have studied ancient Rome.

[spanone]

2. and it appears no one could care less

[gratuitous]

5. Whaddya mean?

Golly, weren't you watching the teevee yesterday? I saw a long parade of multi-millionaires telling me how swell it is to be poor! And how the political and economic developments of the last seven years are nothing to be concerned about (much less be bitter over). And if anyone would know how people living paycheck to paycheck feel, it would be someone pulling down five mil a year!

Now that's some creamy, delicious caring, that is.

[Wizard777]

3. I believe the legal term for this is civil death. It's used in executions.

You are deprived of all rights. Including your right to life. There are other implications to civil death. You can execute your will to transfer assests to next of kin. They can even collect on life insurance. But as far as the deprival of rights goes. Civil death is the only thing I know of on that level.

Also Civil Death is where the phrase they've got you dead to rights comes from.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. Why aren't Obama and Clinton screaming about this? Why aren't they addressing

the lawlessness of the administration as if it doesn't exist? Never mind......

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Good question. I wonder also.

[hootinholler]

11. Good one!

If I don't laugh I cry.

-Hoot

[Solly Mack]

7. Bush said that back in 2005. I remember it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. isn't this power codified via the Military Commissions Act?

Wouldn't overturning the MCA as unconstitutional via the courts, using Youngstown as precedent, be a way to reverse the "Unitary Executive" and begin to restore the Constitution? This could be done after Bush leaves office, and would provide a number of benefits:

1) it would remove the blanket immunity for all involved in authorizing torture, allowing for prosecution in the US,

2) in destroying the Unitary Executive theory (by upholding Youngstown), it eliminates a legal precedent for future presidents,

3) it raises the consciousness of the general public on the issue of executive power; most Americans don't know about Youngstown, or have a clear understanding on the balance of powers. I believe most americans, relying on personal experience in their families and at their jobs, see the President as "Big Daddy"/CEO of the nation, which is a simpler concept than the "separate but equal" three branches of govt. Challenging the MCA would, hopefully, raise the average american's awareness of this.

Of course, the Roberts SCOTUS could uphold the MCA, in which case, we're all screwed.

But if we don't challenge the MCA (not just repeal it via legislation) aren't we in the same boat?

[Solly Mack]

9. More or less, yes

‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/cheney/military_commissions_act.pdf

[AzDar]

10. Kick...

:kick:

[riderinthestorm]

12. I feel ill when I read shit like this. It literally hurts my heart and mind.

This isn't "new" news but everytime I read it again, it hits me like a punch in the gut.