Military Commissions Act unjust, hypocritical

When I first heard about the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act, I was… When I first heard about the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act, I was distraught. Actually, that’s an understatement. I was very close to tears. Don’t laugh. It’s not like I’m usually this hysterical when it comes to laws I don’t agree with. It’s just that this law goes against everything America stands for and completely ignores the values set forth by our founding fathers. As soon as President Bush put pen to paper, I felt as though I was watching our U.S. Constitution being torn to shreds.

The Military Commissions Act gives the U.S. president the unconstitutional and unprecedented power to indefinitely detain anyone he deems as an “enemy combatant” — U.S. citizen or not. It strips alien prisoners of the right of habeas corpus, or the right to know the charges against them, thus ignoring this provision of the Geneva Conventions. It accepts the use of secret evidence and coerced evidence, or testimonies that are acquired through torture, in military commissions trials. And it grants U.S. officials immunity from prosecution for torturing prisoners.

And American citizens are not exempt from these unjust provisions. Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was named an “illegal enemy combatant” and detained to Guantanamo Bay. Another U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, was detained as an “unlawful enemy combatant” and held in prison for three years before he heard the charges against him. In fact, author and attorney Glenn Greenwald even referred to the Military Commissions Act as the “legalization of the Jose Padilla Treatment.”

But don’t worry; the law is sure to help us win the War on Democracy — oh, excuse me — the War on Terror.

Okay, so, obviously, I’m still a little angry. After all, the law basically disregards the values enshrined in this nation for more than 200 years. It can single-handedly wipe out half of the Bill of Rights. And it puts us in the hypocritical situation of trying to instill and encourage democracy in foreign countries while our own rights and liberties are being stifled here at home. But instead of getting all fired up and emotional about how our rights are being stepped on (and they are) or about how our president is overstepping his authority (and he is), I think I’m going to look at this law a little more rationally.

Although I’m no fan of sacrificing our rights for the false hope of making America safer from terrorism, maybe it’s for the better. When a democracy is challenged and restricted, it tends to become stronger. When a right or a freedom is taken away, people start to realize its worth and no longer take it for granted. This encourages greater public participation in political discourse and involves more people in the political process. Because what motivates people to get out there and vote more than an unjust law?

Don’t believe me? Just look at America’s history. It’s riddled with unconstitutional laws that have come and gone with little to no damage to our democracy. Take President John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to publish “scandalous” writing and allowed the deportation of “dangerous” aliens. This law was extremely opposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who sought to inform the public about its constitutional violations. In fact, they succeeded in drafting resolutions that called on the states to abolish the act.

Also, the Military Commissions Act isn’t the first time a law has lifted habeas corpus. That’s right, President Abraham Lincoln sacrificed it during the Civil War, but, sure enough, it came back soon thereafter. And how about President Woodrow Wilson’s 1918 Sedition Act, which restricted any speech that was believed to be a threat to an American victory in World War I. This act barely lasted a few years. What I’m trying to say is that unconstitutional laws simply cannot survive in strong democracies because, once they challenge the democracy, the public is sure to challenge them right back. And the ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is a sure sign of a resilient democracy.

Furthermore, it is clear that government encroachment upon freedom is a trend that often comes up during times of war. While this is no doubt unsettling, it is also strangely reassuring. It’s somewhat relieving to view the Military Commissions Act as another hasty and ill-thought-out war response that is sure to disappear in a few years.

So I guess I’m no longer as hysterical as I was on the morning of Oct. 17, when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. As much as it pains me to see rights and liberties disregarded, I suppose it’s not that bad. Who knows? This act could be a significant test for America’s democracy. It could even be a significant test for the American people. And, if we’re lucky, it won’t last any longer than the two years left of Bush’s term in office.

Dry your tears and start thinking rationally by e-mailing Elham at elk23@pitt.edu.