Human Rights, Human Wrongs
by Krysti Janusz
The problem with human rights is that everyone has them. Apparently this causes some dissention, and enough of it that morals have been questioned and the United States Constitution neatly violated by none other than those appointed to uphold it. So what's the big deal right? This type of action has become the everyday happening of the 21st century: not accepted but not necessarily abolished either. The question that plagues the U.S. public is, as of recently, who deserves the safety and guarantees of habeas corpus? Should a prisoner of the War on Terrorism be arraigned through the military commissions President Bush arranged specifically in conjunction with the September 11th terrorist attacks in November of 2001? Which, by the way, has resulted in the justices of the Supreme Court telling President Bush that “his plan for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution” three times to date.
The issue contended amongst the prisoners and the United States government is a question of whether a fair judicial process, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, is being carried out in regards to the 9/11 conspirators being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. The process of any “normal” conviction prohibits the use of violence or torture in attaining evidence, and perhaps more importantly, it prohibits the concealment of such devices in court. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 while, new and improved, still carries similarities to the military commissions of old, and contains "the relaxed rules on hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion mean that defendants could be convicted based on second-hand summaries of statements obtained through coercive interrogations - without any opportunity for the defendant to confront his accusers." (hrw.org) The Military Commissions Act legally allows for information conducted through forms of torture or hearsay to be upheld in court, and leaves the "burden" of proving anything otherwise to the defendant's discretion.
The larger issue of the MCA is what the Supreme Court has repeatedly seen and voiced as not merely trivial to the Constitution, but in violation of the Constitution due to its suspension of habeas corpus, a right afforded since 1679. The violation had been left unabated by President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress for as long as possible, but is now in large concern due to the upcoming presidential elections. The wonder of it all however, is that while taking the time and effort to have the Military Commissions Act passed, the Bush administration claims not to utilize the MCA in most pending cases at Guantanamo, but rather only a select few in conjunction with 9/11. The majority of detainees at Guantanamo will then be left in "prolonged detention without charge, stripped of their habeas rights, and without ever being confronted with the evidence against them" more or less a punishment of equal violation. The idea of human rights appears to have diminished within the walls of Guantanamo Bay, where "enemy combatants" will never be brought to justice in regards to the havoc and terror they have brought upon the people of the United States. And yet, it is this same people, the very same who have been wronged by these prisoners, who voice concern over the treatment the United States government has instituted in Cuba as of late.
It is said that the true character of a man is judged by the actions he takes when no one is watching, the same can be said for the super-power of the world. The leader of that super-power had this to say" I'll abide by the court's decision" but added, "that doesn't mean I have to agree with it." It should also be duly noted, nor does he feel the need to pronounce it correctly.
