A controversial federal anti-terrorism bill implemented last week has some students and professors worried that it revokes rights bestowed by the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed Oct. 17, authorizes military tribunals to try “unlawful enemy combatants” and suspends habeas corpus, a legal concept allowing prisoners to challenge terms of their imprisonment, for some non-citizen defendants.
It also prohibits the accused from invoking the Geneva Conventions in a habeas corpus motion and gives President Bush lone power to decide when and how the government follows the conventions.
Bush has said the act is necessary to learn military intelligence without enemies finding out that the military has done so, but opponents say it gives too much power to Bush.
Some students began protesting the act with signs and a petition last week on campus.
A legal instrument dating to English common law, habeas corpus provides protection for the accused against excessive government action by allowing them to know charges against them and to appeal if they feel wrongly imprisoned.
It is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in Article One: “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.”
In November 2001, a presidential order gave Bush the power to detain people suspected of terrorism as “enemy combatants,” allowing them to be held indefinitely. The Supreme Court later ruled that U.S. citizens have a right to habeas corpus, even when declared an enemy combatant.
Debate continued about whether habeas corpus, like some other rights granted by the Constitution, applies strictly to citizens. The Court later struck down a law suspending habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The new act, however, updates that law, stating that no court will be able to hear a motion of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of a non-citizen detained by the U.S. who has been “properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
There is no limit, however, on how long a person must wait to be determined an enemy combatant without being able to challenge their imprisonment. Once classified as “enemy combatants,” prisoners can still challenge that designation in federal court.
The act passed the U.S. House of Representatives 250 to 170 and the Senate by 65 to 34. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), voted against the legislation, while Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) voted for it.
Junior Joe Callahan said he expected to see protests on campus last week. When none materialized, he took a sign and began protesting alone outside Lillis Business Complex on Thursday.
Callahan said he opposes several parts of the act, including provisions allowing hearsay in trials and admission of confessions obtained under torture. It also keeps documents from the defendant by making them classified yet still admissible during trial, he said.
Callahan said it legalizes torture outside of the U.S. as well.
“Taken all together, I felt I had to do something,” he said.
The Geneva Conventions outline international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war, including a prohibition against torture. Recently, the administration has refused to state whether it is using certain torture methods.
The administration defended the act during a press conference on Oct. 17. “What we have done is put together with – again, in consultation with Congress – ways in which we can, in keeping with our treaty obligations and laws, question enemy combatants, bring them to justice, or in many cases, what we’ve been trying to do at Guantanamo, try to repatriate them either to home nations or nations under which they have been charged with criminal offenses, and who, upon receiving them, will observe and honor their human rights,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
Philosophy professor Cheney Ryan said the act degrades the nation’s values.
“I couldn’t think of a worse thing that could happen,” Ryan said. “It basically gives George Bush the right to decide whether we abide by the Geneva Convention and when habeas corpus will apply.”
Ryan said the act gives the government the right to decide who is a citizen and to accuse people of being an “enemy combatant.” Ryan said he is sure the act will eventually go to the Supreme Court for review.
“There are parts that are unconstitutional,” Ryan said, noting that one of the legal questions is whether Congress has the ability to give this power to the Executive branch.
“It’s taking away the normal rights of people to have a fair trial,” Ryan said.
During an October interview with Fox News, Bush discussed the reasons behind trial by tribunal instead of traditional U.S. courts.
“Because there’s some – a lot of times there’s intelligence involved that would, if exposed, would make it very difficult for us to beat the enemy, to prosecute this war,” Bush said. “And the tribunal are people – are going to have – they’re going to have lawyers. But it enables us to protect certain intelligence. And the American people understand that.”
Callahan said he is looking to organize a protest march.
“This is worth standing up and saying, ‘I’m going to do something against this,’” he said.
A Facebook group started by history major Michael Hillis, one of three people protesting the act outside Lillis last Friday, had 835 members as of Tuesday afternoon.
Callahan and others have started a petition and are encouraging students to contact Oregon congressmen.
News Editor Parker Howell contributed to this report.