Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an unlawful enemy combatant, exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
Keith Olbermann

I cannot stop thinking about the implications of the recent signing of the Military Commission Act 2006 (the Act).

I don’t much about US politics (in fact I don’t know much about politics anywhere!) However, I used to know a bit about law. When I was a law student, I remember that the right to a fair trial was among the most important rights in any country respecting the rule of law. Such right earliest expression is the writ of “Habeas Corpus” as early as 1305 in Britain. Currently such right is included in the Universal Declaration and the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as the US, Mexico and the laws of most civilized countries. Basically it encompasses a the right to a competent and neutral judge, legal representation, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. In the American continent, the US was the first country to include such rights in its constitution. That is why the recent signing of the Act is so shocking for me.

I have heard many criticisms regarding president Bush, most of which I cannot validate since I do not know the full context of the country’s politic arena. Many of such criticisms however, I also heard while his first term. Hence, I was surprised when he was reelected. My interpretation was that Mr. Bush had relied mostly on the voterÂ’s fear to win the election (of course that may be an oversimplification). It seems to me like the Act, which basically eliminates the right of Habeas Corpus to any non-citizen that may be considered an unlawful enemy is also a child of fear.

Recently I took my wife and daughter to the airport. The security procedure was long and tedious. Of course, they had to be certain not to bring aboard no guns, explosives, flammable substances, sharp objects, etc. Lap-tops needed to be taken out of any bags and opened, shoes and belts removed and (the most recent security measure) liquids in closed containers where forbidden. The fingerprints had been taken when we first got here, so they were fully identifiable. The whole procedure took about half an hour. Don’t get me wrong, I fully appreciate the need for security measurements, but a voice within my mind kept telling me, “all this out of fear, what would they ask next?” It also reminded me a story told by an old friend, of darker skin and green eyes, how was stopped in one of such security lines, and held back for more than an hour, his belonging and body fully inspected (he almost lost the plane) without any explanation. We joked about it, concluding that perhaps he looked too Middle Eastern.

As everybody knows, this Act, allows the military to confine, without a fair trial, any non-U.S. citizen even a green card holder who has lived in the United States for decades’ who is determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant”, such combatants including any civilian who supported hostilities against the United States. Would a march protesting about US policy may fall within such definition? Probably so. If my friend was suspended without explanation, just for being dark skinned, what could happen to (as Olbermann’s quote above imply) those people, including US citizens protesting against the government’s policy? Could they fall victims to this Act? In all probability yes. Which citizens are more at risk of being mistakenly determined as non-citizens? Certainly people of color, Asians, Latinos, people from the Middle East, etc.

However, the horror does not end there. The real terrifying part of this anti-terrorist law, is the de-facto authorization of abusive interrogation techniques (aka torture) as long as they do not causes “serious” or “extreme” physical mental pain or suffering How far can a nation go to get rid of fear?

One of my old professors, when talking about confessions, used to tell us that confessions obtained by torture where of no legal value; since, using the appropriate “techniques” an “skilful” interrogator could easily make any subject to confess that s/he had in fact crucified Jesus. The type of techniques used to get the confession of the much-feared witches by the Holy Inquisition in the middle ages, but hard to believe in our own age.

I guess Roosevelt was right, the only thing to really fear is fear itself.

But then again, what do I know…