Abandoning the Constitution in the Fight Against Terrorism Essay

Abandoning the Constitution in the Fight Against Terrorism During his hurt as governor of Texas, George W. Bush made it clear that he was unspiritual of the Constitution by denying due process to the people he penalize and refusing effective counsel to indigent inmates. As president, Bush, terrorized by terrorists, is abandoning more than and more of the fundamental rights and liberties that he-and his subordinates-assure us they are fighting to preserve. On Thursday, November 15, William Safire-The New York Times total conservative-distilled Bushs new raid on the Constitution Misadvised by a cross and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just faux what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. . . . We are let George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American detect of legal philosophy with military kangaroo courts. . . . In an Orwellian twist, Bushs order calls this Soviet-style abomination a full and graceful t rial. What Bush has done by executive order-bypassing Congress and the constitutional insularism of powers-is to establish special military tribunals to try noncitizens suspected of terrorism. Their authority get out extend over permanent noncitizen American residents, lawfully subsisting in the United States, as well as foreigners. The trials will be held here or in other countries-like Pakistan or liberated Afghanistan-and on ships at sea. The trials will be in secret. There will be no juries. Panels of military officers will be the judges-with the power to impose the last penalty if two-thirds of these uniformed judges agree. There will be no appeals to any of the sentences. (Even in regular court martials, judges must rule unanimous... ... Supreme judgeship (Olmstead v. United States, 1928), foreshadowed the advent of George W. Bush Our administration is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagi ous. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law it invites every man to become a law unto himself it invites anarchy. . . . To declare that in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the manner . . . would bring terrible retribution. Against this pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely erect its face. In 1928, the Supreme Court agreed with the governments subversion of the Fourth Amendments screen protections-setting the initial stage for the current vast expansion of electronic watchfulness by the Bush administration-and not only over suspected terrorists. The Court has another