"Common Cause Calls for The Resignation of SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt
Harshbarger: “Pattern of Conflicts Undermines Citizen and Investor Confidence”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only way this is going to happen is to Impeach Bush. And maybe, he should be impeached.
Now, you could put him in the category of a law breaker. I noticed Tayna Harding was sent to jail because
she failed to follow a judge's sentence. Bush ignores the law of the courts, the law of the people and
he is still President.
Unlimited Presidential Powers
The New York Times
Editorial
August 8, 2002
The Justice Department all but told a federal judge this week to take his
legitimate concerns about civil liberties and stuff
them in the garbage pail. The Bush administration
seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens
combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely
and deprive them of lawyers. It took this misguided
position to a ludicrous extreme on Tuesday, insisting that the federal
courts could not review its determinations.
This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law
and undermines the very freedoms that President
Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism.
The courts must firmly reject the White House's assertion of
unchecked powers.
The administration's autocratic approach is unfolding in the case of
Yasser Esam Hamdi. Mr. Hamdi, who was born in Baton
Rouge, La., to Saudi parents, was captured by the Northern
Alliance while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Hamdi
is being held in a Navy brig in Norfolk, Va., without having been
charged with any crime and has been denied permission to
see a lawyer. Judge Robert Doumar of the federal district court
in Norfolk asked prosecutors to submit documents, including
interview notes, so he could assess the claim that Mr. Hamdi
is an enemy combatant. On Tuesday the Justice Department
refused to hand over the documents, saying the courts had
no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Bush administration has framed the dispute as being over the
separation of powers and the right of the executive branch
to oversee the waging of war. The courts have, in fact, given
the political branches considerable leeway where wars are
concerned. But declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants,
and therefore not entitled to basic constitutional
protections, is a clear matter of domestic civil liberties.
The courts have an obligation to play an active role in reviewing these
determinations.
In the case of Mr. Hamdi, the evidence submitted by prosecutors
is thin. The government is relying on a two-page affidavit from
a Defense Department adviser that simply gives a brief outline of
Mr. Hamdi's alleged actions and declares him a combatant.
Given the importance of the rights at stake, Judge Doumar
was correct to ask prosecutors to hand over supporting materials so
he can satisfy himself that the right decision was made.
Judge Doumar acted at the behest of the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Richmond, Va., which advised him that he needed
to adduce more facts and hear more arguments before he could
order the government to let Mr. Hamdi consult with a lawyer.
Though the three-judge panel that issued the ruling was deferential to
the administration, Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
3rd, a conservative stalwart, warned that in the absence of judicial review,
"any American citizen alleged to be an enemy
combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel."
The Bush administration seems to be using the Hamdi case to
establish the principle that it has the exclusive power to decide
who is an enemy combatant. If the administration's position prevails,
we can expect to see many more cases like it. The
government will be free to seize anyone it wants simply by
saying the magic words "enemy combatant," and the courts will be
powerless to release such people from prison, or even provide them with lawyers.
This was not what the founders had in mind. They established a system of checks
and balances so no one branch of government would have unrestrained power.
And the Supreme Court has made clear, in case after case, that the courts have
just the sort of judicial review power that Judge Doumar has invoked. The parties
in the Hamdi case will soon return to court. If
the government has not changed its mind, Judge Doumar should insist
that it comply with his well-reasoned order.
nytimes.com Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company |
