If you visit the blogs of thinking people, you cannot help but notice the repressed political frustration of liberal-minded folk.  Over at Cosmic Variance, Mark comments on the appalling status of S. 3930.  Decide for yourself. Have a look at Section VII of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. 

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. [Bold typeface by Gaussling]

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001. [Italics by Gaussling]

In particular, note the words that I have italicized at the end.  Basically, the sponsors  of Senate Bill S. 3930 are shoveling dirt over what may be a portfolio of sins or crimes committed by the Bush Administration back to September 11, 2001. If you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying attention.

This is not the America that I have pledged allegance to these many years.  This is some new country that I do not understand.  A corner stone of our American civilization is Habeas Corpus.  A writ of habeas corpus is issued by a judge and requires that the state produce a detained person and justify the detainment of that person.  Look at section in bold, the proposed new subsection (e)(1).  This statute will bar any court or judge from issuing a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an alien detainee.  The other population barred from habeas corpus in this country are barnyard animals. 

At some point we have deviated from the principles so elegantly set forth in the Declaration of Independence. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

All right, this is just the declaration of independence. It does not enjoy any statutory weight.  The executive & judicial branches aren’t obligated to promulgate its principles. But Americans do look to this document for guidance in directing the moral rudder of our country. These words do set forth guiding principles for the governance of our country, but they do not provide for statutory bite.

So we cannot look to the Declaration for any statutory safe harbor in regard to  “inalienable rights”.

The US Constitution guarantees habeas corpus in Article 1, section 9, –

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

However, it pertains to US citizens and contains the “Invasion” exception.  These constraints no doubt serve as the rationale for the acceptability of this bill. Listening on NPR, I have heard an interview of a senator stating that he considers the 9/11 attack to be an invasion and how that meets the constitutional criterion for the denial of habeas corpus to enemy combatants.

How did the conservative party, a group that makes every effort to venerate themselves as the party of “values”, come to propose statutory backing to the notion that there are people who are unworthy or unqualified to enjoy certain inalienable rights that are ordinary to US citizens? How can the conservatives justify the loss of habeas corpus rights by an individual who is being held by the state?

One of the rhetorical tools in common use is demonization. A hallmark of conservative mentality is the ability to partition people into the worthy and the unworthy, the saved and the unsaved, the good guys and the bad guys.  George Bush has framed our conflict with terrorists as a battle between good and evil. When your opponent is defined on a moral plane with the dark forces of evil, it is easier to justify all sorts of responses that we would ordinarily shun. Such as locking them up and throwing away the key. 

Obviously, terrorists are criminals. And obviously they need to be incarcerated when convicted of their crimes.

If America is to retain its status as the shining example of how to conduct civilization, then we must speak out against the official dehumanizing of any person. Terrorists may be savage, murderous, and reprehensible, but the manner in which we treat such persons ultimately defines who we are.  If the notion is that we Americans are possessing of inalienable rights, then it has to apply to everyone.