Op-Ed: Habeas Corpus Doesn't Live Here Anymore

What does the former Soviet Union, China, Colombia and the modern day United States have in common? It isn't communism since the USA is a democracy. It's illegal kidnapping, torture and hiding of individuals that the government deems to be dangerous.

Habeas corpus used to be the way of the US. Times have changed. Habeas Corpus is the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. One word. Guantánamo. Habeas Corpus doesn't live in the States anymore. Not if the President thinks you're against the government. Not if his government made up a new act of government called the Military Commissions Act. The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. The government has been taking questionable people into custody for six years now. They have lied to the suspects that they were businessmen, nationals from other governments and whatever else may work. The CIA has become much like the Gestapo, sneaking in and taking people off to question them for years. It's been very hush hush. Details are buried as far to the back of the newspaper as possible. Let's not alert the masses, they may want some answers that don't come from a Cracker Jack box. There have been times when it's not been until years later that the details come out, even to the families of the captives. They have kept secret that the CIA has invaded people's homes in foreign countries to imprison and interrogate. One thing that most of the detained have had in common is their religion. They are almost always members of the Muslim faith. Not surprising. We all know that all terrorists are Muslim. (Not my opinion, simply the way it seems when it comes to the Bush administration.) The CIA has a term for these kidnappings, “extraordinary rendition”. Scheuer said the CIA invented rendition because it was ordered by the White House to deal with al-Qaida but had few options on what to do with terrorists it captured. “The practice of capturing people and taking them to third countries arose because the executive branch assigned to us the task of dismantling and disrupting and detaining terrorist cells and terrorist individuals,” he said. “And basically, when the CIA came back and said to the policymaker, where do you want to take them, the answer was - that’s your job. And so we developed this system of assisting countries to capture individuals overseas and bring them back to the particular country where they are wanted by the legal system.” Hossein Alikhani v. United States, Case 4618/02 Alikhani sued the government of the United States after he was kidnapped by two undercover U.S. Customs Service agents posing as directors of ITR in October of 1992. The agents had gotten Alikhani to meet them in the Bahamas. Under false pretenses they arranged for him to travel to another Bahamian island to do business and some fishing. The true destination was a prison in Florida during Hurricane Andrew. The final ruling in the case? Finally, referring to a number of national court decisions[3] in which, according to the State, luring without force was found to have been justified, the United States argues that it cannot be said that there is any customary international law or general principle which has developed against “luring.” In late June 2005, it was reported that an Italian judge had issued arrest warrants for 13 U.S. CIA agents accused of kidnapping imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in Italy in 2003, and sending him to Egypt for questioning regarding possible terrorist activities. The CIA officers have not nor will not be turned over to Italian authorities. While the taking of Nasr was in violation of the Geneva Convention and the United States-Italy Extradition Treaty the States have not admitted any wrong doing in this case. An Italian defendant who had been convicted on a charge of conspiracy to import narcotics into the United States countercharged that he was brought into the United States illegally after being forcefully abducted from Uruguay. He wanted to be returned to the country that he was residing in before being kidnapped. His appeal was denied. He had been wanted for drug charges here in the States therefore the agents were within their rights to get him into the country for those crimes. One can argue that the cases presented were not Americans so Americans shouldn't worry about it. I leave you with this thought. If a government gives so little regard to the citizens of another country would it do the same with it's own? If you talk back and ask questions are you in danger of being whisked away on a "fishing" trip? It's just a thought. additional resources: http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20050413000655263 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28197504%2969%3A2%3C406%3AUSVT5F%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H&size=SMALL&origin=JSTOR-reducePage http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/63-05.html