Published on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 by The Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado)
Mr. President, Tear Down That Prison!
by Nat Hentoff
Even though the prison at Guantanamo Bay for purported "enemy combatants" has damaged America's name and credibility, I was still surprised by the huge and diverse turnout at a June 26 rally in Washington, D.C., where, as reported by Associated Baptist Press, "Thousand of Christians and other activists withstood Washington's oppressive summer heat to rally against torture, indefinite imprisonment and other tactics the United States has used in the war against terrorism (at Guantanamo and elsewhere)."
During the rally, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa - intending to bring back memories of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall - sent a message to George W. Bush: "Tear down that prison!"
The Capitol Hill rally was organized by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union.
One of the prominent speakers was David Keen, chairman of the large and influential American Conservative Union (I once spoke at his invitation on a panel there, joining conservative Bob Barr to criticize sections of the Patriot Act.)
Said Keen: "I'm here today because as a conservative, I believe that America is the greatest and freest nation on the face of the earth, and I want to do what I can to make sure that my children and their children will be able to say the same." I share that hope with regard to my children and six grandchildren.
David Keen added: "I believe we can defeat our enemies without compromising the values that have made this nation great. No right is more essential to individual liberty than the right to be free from unjust detention at the hands of government."
That is why habeas corpus - as Thomas Jefferson insisted to James Madison - is in the body of the Constitution. In the invaluable recent New York-based Brennan Center for Justice white paper, "Ten Things You Should Know About Habeas Corpus," author Jonathan Hafetz quoted Alexander Hamilton's definition of secret imprisonment as the most "dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
Hafetz, litigation director of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center, also cited Defense Secretary Robert Gates (New York Times, March 23) warning that reports of the treatment of the detainees (aka prisoners) at Guantanamo "taints" the fight against terrorism, and has negatively affected our international credibility.
Another speaker at the June 26 Capitol Hill rally was Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a candidate for the presidency, who has introduced the very aptly named "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007," which aims at removing those sections of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that emphatically do not reflect the rule of law at the core of this republic.
The Military Commissions Act, contrary to two Supreme Court decisions, bars Guantanamo Bay inmates from use of our federal courts by denying them habeas corpus rights. So did the Detainees Treatment Act of 2005.
Also working insistently in the Senate to provide basic habeas corpus rights to prisoners at Guantanamo are Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Penn. Sen. Dodd, at the protest rally, said that the consequences of weakening habeas protections should be apparent to every American.
But how many Americans could tell you what those protections are and that habeas' roots go back to the Magna Carta of 1215? That's a failure of our school systems for which the No Child Left Behind Act provides no remedy.
As for the Bush administration's undermining of this essence of our rule of law, Americans have a right to be told, as the Brennan Center report documents, that "there is strong reason to believe that (starting over five years ago) the effort to strip habeas rights from detainees is in fact an effort to hide unlawful conduct (by the government) ...
"The administration decided to hold individuals as 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo precisely because it believed prisoners there would be beyond the protections of American Law, and in particular habeas corpus. ... Two Justice Department lawyers (warned, however, on Dec. 1, 2001) "that if a court reviewed the detentions, it might find some of them illegal. ..." But those lawyers approved the denial of habeas, as did the administration.
You can see this Justice Department memorandum on page 29 of "The Torture Papers: "The Road to Abu Ghraib" edited by the NYU Law School's Center on Law and Security and published by Cambridge University Press. The huge, meticulously researched book is a boon to future historians and to we the people right now - as is "Ten Things You Should Know About Habeas Corpus."
Philanthropists, concerned with protecting the Constitution, should send copies of both to every member of Congress.
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of many books, including:
The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance (Seven Stories Press, 2004).
Â© 2007 The Daily Camera
Originally by CommonDreams from on August 1, 2007, 6:21am
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)