FROM Scott Silliman
Guantanamo: The War on Terror and the Rule of Law President Bush ’ s claims of executive power over terrorist suspects have run into more trouble in both civilian and military courts. Last week, two military judges ruled that a Presidential order is not enough to give them jurisdiction over the prisoners held atGuantánamo Bay. Yesterday, a federal appellate court said the President cannot hold a civilian suspect without charge by calling him an "enemy combatant." Judge Diana Gribbon Motz said that would have "disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country. " Colin Powell wants to close Guantánamo , "not tomorrow but this afternoon." What ’ s the point of keeping it open? Are the White House and the Pentagon trying to protect interrogation techniques that may be counter-productive?
New Legislation Suspends Habeas Corpus for Terror Detainees After a White House compromise with Republican Senators McCain , Warner and Graham last week, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act . With a few exceptions, the final votes in the Senate and Congress went along party lines. President Bush's signing ceremony for the legislation, which sets the rules for the treatment of terrorist suspects, is expected to be a high-profile political moment. But conservative legal scholars are among those contending that the new law will violate the Constitution and pave the way for a police state. The writ of habeas corpus was designed to prevent kings from letting their enemies die in prison without trial. Will the new law give the President that kind of power? Will it allow torture under another name or does it protect traditional safeguards while making Americans safer from a new kind of danger?
The free-flowing leaks in the Trump White House President Obama tried to clamp down on leakers, but the Trump Administration is besieged almost as never before. Are the "anonymous sources" partisans or worried professionals? Are they endangering the republic or performing a public service?