Law And The Struggle For America's Soul

The current cycle of legal news has placed American society in a fascinating light not only within the nation, but across the world in many ways. The outcry surrounding heiress Paris Hilton's early release and subsequent house confinement had opened the doors on social disparity and access when it has to do with class and race. It was further punctuated today when an appeals court had overturned the decision regarding the confinement of Genarlow Wilson, incarcerated for having consensual sex as a seventeen-year old with a fifteen year-old female. Before his mother and lawyer could even celebrate the turn of events, the Georgia Attorney General decided to appeal the ruling.

How quickly, the bottom drops out.

Before one could catch their breath, then there was the no-confidence vote on U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Marked as a show of no support for his office, it was well known that even some Republicans disapproved of the tactics that Mr. Gonzales employed during his tenure. But, as partisan politics always shows (in the name of conventional wisdom), the Republicans blocked the vote and the action within the Senate failed.

As news of this came down, there came the decision in an appellate court that barred the U.S. Government's attempts to hold a detainee indefinitely without charges. The Washington Post explains this succinctly:

The decision by U.S. military judges on Monday to dismiss the war crimes charges against two detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has reignited a debate over how to try those accused of terrorism, prompting members of Congress to challenge the Bush administration over a legal system that they say denies proper rights to detainees and has yet to bring a single case to trial.

In dismissing the charges against detainees from Canada and Yemen, the judges ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 lacked jurisdiction because that law limits cases to those who are deemed "unlawful enemy combatants." Because a tribunal had officially deemed both men "enemy combatants," the letter of the law did not allow the detainees to go to trial, the judges determined. Prosecutors say they hope to try about 80 of the 380 detainees at Guantanamo, but all such cases are now on hold -- one more setback in a five-year effort to bring even one case to trial.

This was in conjunction to Congress entertaining a habeas corpus proposal to allow detainees in Guantanamo Bay to fight their charges in American courts:

Members of Congress who have opposed the hastily written commissions act renewed their calls yesterday for a new system, demanding that detainees be moved to U.S. federal courts or that the law be rewritten to grant them important rights, such as habeas corpus.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an outspoken opponent of the Military Commissions Act, said yesterday that legislation he and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sponsored to restore habeas corpus rights will be taken up by the committee this week. Both senators have argued that the law is dangerous because it suspended habeas corpus, or the right of detainees at Guantanamo to challenge their detention in federal courts.

"These court decisions underscore that, far from being beyond reproach, the system set up by this administration in the weeks before the last election is not adequate and cannot be trusted with the liberties of millions of people," Leahy said. He called Monday's decisions "the latest rebukes" of the "legally suspect systems for addressing detainees."

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said legislation restoring habeas corpus rights will be brought to the Senate floor, possibly this month.

What does this mean?

Americans are experiencing the growing pains of searching for the soul lost by the current Administration. Just think of it. After 9/11, people were afraid to speak because they didn't want to be called "unpatriotric". We quietly witnessed "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad while enduring problematic issues afforded to civil liberties at home. And then, the anger started to rise when the pictures were released showing the flag-draped coffins of the war dead. In November, the fury hit a fever pitch when the United States populace turned out the old Congress and ushered in new politicians to make meaningful changes overturning the drastic actions taken by the Bush White House.

The anger continued to swell as the body-count continued to rise at the cost of war. Now, we've gotten to the point of caring about how legal issues affect us in the face of the War on Terror. It put us all on a path to question how societal views us legally and socially through viewing thought-provoking and compelling cases which challenge our perceptions and ideas. Furthermore, such events that depicts an unbalanced legal system often introduce issues that we need to explore when scrutinizing the people we vote for office. In that way, if there are people in office that would allow the unbalanced scale of justice to continue, why should they continue to serve the people--especially if they are not looking out for them?

It's strange to say so, but when the public outcry occurred as a result of Ms. Hilton's early release, it showed that the public could not be hoodwinked into the meaningless propaganda of the past. We were sick of Enron. We were sick of the oil companies profiting. We were tired of seeing all the Executive Statements pass. And the best of it, we were beginning to question how our country treats us legally opposed to others who existed in upper one-percentile of wealth. It was infuriating to see yet another rich person get away with facing the law.

With the news of Mr. Wilson, this righteous anger is carried on in an examination of what is right and wrong in society, especially when questioning our own societal positioning. And painfully, it revealed that the legal system is broken in many ways and needs fixing--especially when it comes down to partisan attempts to steer the law one way or another in terms of governmental policy.

The news about the jurisdiction of courts, detainees and Guantanamo Bay take these issues to an even deeper level. If the government imprisons "enemy combatants" without just cause, what could happen if the scales of justice were turned on us? Disturbing to think about, yes, but rather meaningful in trying to reflect upon how unequal things are in terms of social positioning and politics. And then, it might go into further territory when one questions whether partisan politics is responsible for tailoring our civil liberties and treatment under the law. Out of that, one might start the question why was our privacy undermined in the practices of wiretapping and datamining.

What it comes down to is that the current interest in the latest legal issues of the day shows that people are beginning to question themselves and society in the wake of 9/11 culture. We're not acting like sitting ducks anymore. The best thing is that the righteous indignation from the United States populace is forcing our politicians to look at their own actions when making decisions to affect us. There is more to go on this aspect, but when people began to struggle to find themselves after such dark times, they begin to launch social movements which challenge the way things are in small ways. You never know. It might even introduce new faces on the political landscape who will work for meaningful change and for earnest attempts in trying to employ the law in a balanced light.

In the end, this is a time to be hopeful.