Olbermann and the Death of Habeas Corpus
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published October 24, 2006, 3:15 pm in News, Military / Foreign policy.
Olbermann is quite the stirrer of news. His homage to Edward R. Murrow, which can be found in a myriad of places by now, including youtube, has caused quite the newsworthy stir itself.
First, let's talk about Olbermann's ploy here. I respect what he has done, but I don't respect the way he has done it. He's playing at being Murrow, the famous reporter featured in George Clooney's film Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), but Murrow didn't try to get people riled up like Olbermann does. Olbermann uses some fiery rhetoric, coming close to misrepresenting things to make his case about the Bush administration. And that's what really gets me. He targets Bush as if it is he who has done what Olbermann hates. But it's not Bush; it's our entire federal government.
The Military Commissions Act's Definitions
If you're not familiar with Olbermann's statements about the death of habeas corpus, let me summarize the bill for you. It is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was signed into law on October 17, 2006, and it is designed to provide military tribunals for "unlawful enemy combatants," in the wake of the problems caused by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The most interesting thing about this bill is not what it says but its definitions, which are really classifications.
Aliens
Nope, we're not talking about creatures from outer space, especially those that pop out of John Hurt's chest. An aliens is, according to the definition included in the Act, "a person who is not a citizen of the United States." Now this definition has always bothered me. It goes back to the way the Greeks defined everyone who wasn't Greek. They called them barbarians because the way they spoke sounded like "barbarbarbar," and I'm not talking about the cute little elephant. I hate the idea that there are United States citizes and then there are aliens, and let's face it, the fact is that there are lot more aliens than United States cititzens. But this is perhaps just my liberal side talking.
Lawful Enemy Combatants
Lawful enemy combatants are those who are members of an organized group hostile to the United States, or as the Act defines them, "(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
This defintion seems rather straightforward, and I don't have that much to say about it.
Unlawful Enemy Combatants
This one is the real kicker because of its implications. According to the Act, "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."
You may wonder why this designation is important in the first place, but it is, because this Military Commission Act only covers this type of person. Firstly, notice how the entire definition is geared toward our current hostilities. The Taliban and al Qaeda are specifically designated as "unlawful enemy combatants." How do we know an unlawful enemy combatant as opposed to a lawful one? Well, the defintion of "lawful enemy combatant" already spelled that out: they "wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war." I can't help but see this definition fraught with peril.
I am reminded of the old movie Red Dawn (1984) with Patrick Swayze. The U.S. is invaded by the Soviets and these kids wage a guerilla war against them. It's not a great movie, but it makes me wonder how our own government would label these people. According to the Soviets, they would be alien unlawful enemy combatants, and would thus not be subject to certain rights. We would probably just call them terrorists, and that would define them for us.
Danger! Danger!
The other problem with the definition of "unlawful enemy combtant" is the way it becomes circular. An "unlawful enemy combatant" is someone with X characteristics OR anyone we define as an "unlawful enemy combatant." Is that really what that last part of the definition says?
Yep, and that's what Olbermann objects to so strongly, I think. It really is pretty dangerous when you consider the broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and combine that with how the government can define anyone that way. I don't see any oversight here, either. There is no one to come in and say, well, sorry, but this person actually isn't an "unlawful enemy combatant." The decider decides, people, and it stops there.
I will admit, however, that I have to trust my government at some point. I have to trust that the people that I (or my peers) have elected to represent me will actually represent me. That's what a democratic republic is all about. But I can't pretend that that this doesn't bother me. I'm not worried about the Taliban or al Qaeda here, either. I am not "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" in any way. I have not supported the Taliban or al Qaeda through actual physical or monetary means. I think them and their ilk and all a bunch of reprehensibles who deserve to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
But I fear a time may come when I have inadvertantly supported some other "unlawful enemy combatants." If I happened to give money to a charity that provided subsistance to Palestinian refugees, for example, and that organization was then deemed as a supporter of terrorists, could I then be labeled as an "unlawful enemy combatant?"
Or what if the Secretary of Defense read my blog and determined that I was an enemy of the government and that I deserved such a label? He would have the authority to label me an "unlawful enemy combatant," and how would I have recourse to prove my innocence?
I admit that I don't fear these scenarios too much, for at some point I have to trust my government. But then I wonder about those Japanese Americans who trusted our government, too.
I realize that I haven't even discussed what the bill says, but I will try to get to that next time. Until then, good night, and, aww heck, just good night.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment