George W. Bush is the 43rd president of the United States. Since 1789, 43 men have been elected by the American people and have sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Presidential Oath of Office, Constitution, Art. II Sec. 1, Clause .

No other president has done more to break that oath than George W. Bush.

He led the U.S. into a war with Iraq by convincing Americans that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he would use to against us. He then used that war and the war on terror to justify the suspension of our “unalienable Rights” (Declaration of Independence), including our right to free speech, our right to freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and “cruel and unusual punishment” (Constitution, Bill of Rights).

Now he has forced through the Military Commissions Act. This 38-page piece of legislation details a new code of military commissions, and it looks dull and innocuous enough. On page 37, however, is a paragraph that has made many people around the world sit up and take notice. It says: “No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination” (Military Commissions Act, http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/s/s3930.pdf, 10/10/06).

Suspension of habeas corpus essentially reduces the Bill of Rights to a list of nice, but impractical ideals we abandon when things get too tough.

Of the 43 presidents who have served this nation, at least 14 have served during wartime. (Depending on your definition of “wartime,” it could be as many as 22.) None of them needed to disregard the Constitution with the recklessness President Bush has exhibited. They were able to do the job of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, amazingly without suspending habeas corpus most of the time. The one notable exception was the great Abraham Lincoln, who temporarily suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. His decision generated a tremendous debate that continues today. Was his action unconstitutional? Most experts agree that it was. In his defense, however, we should remember that Lincoln was facing a war like no other president has had to deal with: both sides were American.

Bush has no such extraordinary circumstance to justify his decision. The war is not between Americans; the war is not on American soil. In fact, the distant nature of the war has been a rallying cry for hawks: fighting the terrorists “over there” keeps them away from us, after all. And we have little indication that this suspension of a fundamental right provided by our founding fathers will be temporary. In fact, President Bush assured the Iraqi prime minister today that we have no timeline on getting out of Iraq; we’ll be there indefinitely (Bush pledges to keep US troops in Iraq, AP, 10/16/06).
Obviously, habeas corpus is simply an obstacle to the way Bush wants to run this country and his war. It is a complication and an inconvenience. So he got rid of it. What frightens me is that there is no outcry as there was when Lincoln did it, and Lincoln was far more justified. Are Americans becoming complacent? Or do most people just not understand what is happening to our rights? Either way, I am reminded of the words of Edmund Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (Columbia World of Quotations, 1996).