Better minds than yours (Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Goldberg, Posner) have said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. And yes, "suicide pact" certainly applies in an age of terrorism and WMD's. Much more so today than in Lincoln's day when he suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned people for encouraging treason and desertion. Or in Jefferson's day, when the issue was the purchase of land from a foreign power.
But, this particular issue is whether the executive branch - in this case, George Bush - had any of these powers. And that answer is a resounding no. There was no declaration of war, and no rebellion, so suspension of habeas corpus was clearly unconstitional ..
And Lincoln, who really suspended habeas corpus (Bush didn't - he simply didn't extend it to a new class) didn't have the right to do that - Congress did. But he did it anyway.
Torture is clearly outlawed by the Constitution, and the Senate has ratified UN convenants outlawing torture (and even acts that fall short of the 'official' definition of torture) as violating the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments.
There's still the issue of whether water boarding is torture. We waterboard many of our own military personnel (pilots, for example) as part of their training. Is that unconstitutional?
Invasion of privacy - especially in a time of no declared war - is forbidden. That is the primary reason that laws have been passed - such as the National Security Act of 1947 - to prevent domestic spying.
Was the Congressional resolution authorizing military force in response to 911 effectively a declaration of war? Sounds like it to me.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
fas.org |
