Protect it or lose it: Habeus Corpus

Since its first “official” use in England in 1679, Habeas Corpus has been and still is considered by scholars to be the most essential “writ” or component to the Democratic experience.  Period. 
For those unfamiliar to the writ’s provisions, Habeas Corpus is the very backbone of public dissent for the average American and it is what allows us to question our government openly without fear of reprisal or indefinite imprisonment.
Because of the practical necessity of this writ’s existence, it has been stated in the U.S. Constitution.  However, due to either conspiracy or mere human incompetence (the latter being the more likely), this important writ, for the protection of your rights and the rights of everyone we know, finally gave up the ghost in 2006 with the publishing of the Military Commissions Act (HR-6166), having been fatally wounded in 2001 with the publishing of the USA Patriot Act. 
 Why haven’t you heard more?  You may want to sit down for this one:  because you haven’t been listening. 
For instance, I’d bet that few of us (students) have ever heard the name Jose Padilla before.  Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was imprisoned for three years in a military jail without formal charges brought against him or a fair and speedy court proceeding offered him because he was suspected of aiding and abetting terrorists.  Due to pressure by various civil liberties groups (and because his lawyer helped him file a plea of Habeas Corpus), Padilla was eventually transferred to a civilian court where he was found guilty for “criminal conspiracy charges” and was sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison.
While Jose Padilla was convicted and  imprisoned by a jury of his peers (I seek no argument of the appropriateness of his sentencing), keep in mind that he is a U.S. citizen who was unlawfully held without charge for three years. The point of this example and of the first part of this article is that as of Oct. 17, 2006, you are Jose Padilla. 
“Any person subject to this chapter [unlawful enemy combatants], who, in breach of allegiance or duty to the United States knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a a lation: any person named an unlawful enemy combatant, like Padilla was, can be removed from the civilian court systems and held until further notice,” according to Section 950q-v of the Military Commissions Act.
What may leave you feeling unsettled about that excerpt is the unprecedented potential for the revocation of your constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus that has been created in the name of national security.  If ever there was a time for public dissension and outcry; if ever there was a time to remember the political and moral philosophy that this country has come to be founded upon, it was totally three years ago.
     But then again, we’re better late than never.  Retired Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, along with other esteemed members of military command, has continued to counsel members of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on the inherent dangers of the USA Patriot Act, the MCA and the endangerment of the writ of Habeas Corpus.  Also, in the states of Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont, legislation has been passed that states that in the event that a federal agency crosses the line of constitutionality, the Patriot Act (I & II) and the MCA become null and void.  
     Admittedly, the purpose of the second half of this article is to inspire you to think, to question, to inquire and then to act in defense of our nobler traditions like Habeas Corpus.  Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) is quoted as having said, in reference to the USA Patriot Act, that, “Nobody read the bill.”
Our representatives and congresspeople cannot protect liberty alone.  It is up to you and me and everyone we know to be vigilant when the going gets tough and the issues aren’t crystal clear; to be the moral compass of our nation.
As I said earlier, we haven’t been listening to the pulse of the American political agenda and if we’re not attentive, that pulse may soften and die, taking with it the notion of a government composed of the people, serving their interests rather than its own.