Dr. Steven H. Miles is the author of Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror (Random House 2006). Miles, an expert in medical ethics, human rights, and international health care, is professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty member of its Center for Bioethics. His book explores the role of military physicians in aiding and abetting abuse and torture at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantamano.
Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration will unveil proposed new legislation to respond to the Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A final version of this legislation remained concealed right up to the day before the Senate hearing. Such secrecy disarms the public-and more importantly for today's hearing, congressional staffers who need to brief their bosses-from analyzing and understanding the draft. This secrecy, aside from some leaked drafts of the bill, should sound alarm bells about what the administration is about to propose.
Since September 11, the president has consistently ignored the law in the name of national security. While courts have resisted his claims of unbridled executive power, Congress has largely stood on the sidelines. But that could change soon, with a major legislative fight taking shape on military trials and detentions. If Congress ends up blessing the executive's power-grab, it may prove itself to be the most dangerous branch, by giving the president what he has so far lacked -- the stamp of democratic approval.
How Large Retailers Can Be Neighborly Pay a Living Wage and Health Benefits
By Annette Bernhardt and Nik Theodore
Across the country, communities are exploring ways to bring dignity and economic security to low-wage workers and their families. Chicago is right in the mix, considering a law that would require large retailers to pay their employees a living wage and health benefits.
Eighteen years ago , Justice Antonin Scalia assumed the prophet's cloak and forecast threats to the Constitution's core balance of powers. A threat, Justice Scalia explained, sometimes comes "in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf." Today, another wolf scratches at the door: And it is a beast that has already inflicted heavy damage on the Constitution.
Certainly nobody can dispute that the Supreme Court handed the president a significant defeat last month, invalidating his jerry-rigged system for trying suspected terrorists of war crimes at Guantanamo and rebuffing his claims of unbridled executive power. If the administration wants to conduct military trials, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it must follow the time-tested procedures of the United States' own Uniform Code of Military Justice and obey the minimal safeguards mandated by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Colorado is moving into a lively and important election season, but more than 28,000 citizens of the state will be barred from participating because of felony convictions. Like every American, they have much at stake in the upcoming elections, but they will have no voice unless current law is changed.
When the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the Bush Administration's military tribunals, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger III pronounced it "simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever."
The Supreme Court's ruling last week in Hamdan that military commissions erected at Guantánamo are inconsistent with our military law and the Geneva Conventions has already prompted fierce-and flawed-debate. One key question, especially relevant in next week's Judiciary Committee hearings on Hamdan, is whether and how the Geneva Conventions apply to military commissions. The many factually and legally incorrect assertions clogging the air make it worth stepping back to understand what Geneva does, and why it matters for our success against the terrorist threat.
Prices vs. Wages: A False Dichotomy
Prices Versus Wages: A False Dichotomy
First, Do Harm
Dr. Steven H. Miles is the author of Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror (Random House 2006). Miles, an expert in medical ethics, human rights, and international health care, is professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty member of its Center for Bioethics. His book explores the role of military physicians in aiding and abetting abuse and torture at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantamano.
We're All Enemy Combatants Now
Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration will unveil proposed new legislation to respond to the Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A final version of this legislation remained concealed right up to the day before the Senate hearing. Such secrecy disarms the public-and more importantly for today's hearing, congressional staffers who need to brief their bosses-from analyzing and understanding the draft. This secrecy, aside from some leaked drafts of the bill, should sound alarm bells about what the administration is about to propose.
Branching Out
Since September 11, the president has consistently ignored the law in the name of national security. While courts have resisted his claims of unbridled executive power, Congress has largely stood on the sidelines. But that could change soon, with a major legislative fight taking shape on military trials and detentions. If Congress ends up blessing the executive's power-grab, it may prove itself to be the most dangerous branch, by giving the president what he has so far lacked -- the stamp of democratic approval.
How Large Retailers Can Be Neighborly
Chicago Tribune
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
How Large Retailers Can Be Neighborly
Pay a Living Wage and Health Benefits
By Annette Bernhardt and Nik Theodore
Across the country, communities are exploring ways to bring dignity and economic security to low-wage workers and their families. Chicago is right in the mix, considering a law that would require large retailers to pay their employees a living wage and health benefits.
Wiretapping Unbound
Eighteen years ago , Justice Antonin Scalia assumed the prophet's cloak and forecast threats to the Constitution's core balance of powers. A threat, Justice Scalia explained, sometimes comes "in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf." Today, another wolf scratches at the door: And it is a beast that has already inflicted heavy damage on the Constitution.
No Charge, No Exit
Certainly nobody can dispute that the Supreme Court handed the president a significant defeat last month, invalidating his jerry-rigged system for trying suspected terrorists of war crimes at Guantanamo and rebuffing his claims of unbridled executive power. If the administration wants to conduct military trials, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it must follow the time-tested procedures of the United States' own Uniform Code of Military Justice and obey the minimal safeguards mandated by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Allowing Parolees to Vote Would Rebuild Lives
The Denver Post
July 16, 2006
Allowing parolees to vote would rebuild lives
By Neema Trivedi & Jenny Rose Flanagan
Colorado is moving into a lively and important election season, but more than 28,000 citizens of the state will be barred from participating because of felony convictions. Like every American, they have much at stake in the upcoming elections, but they will have no voice unless current law is changed.
Hamdan v. Rumsfield: Guidepost or Relic?
When the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the Bush Administration's military tribunals, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger III pronounced it "simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever."
What Geneva Means to Hamdan
The Supreme Court's ruling last week in Hamdan that military commissions erected at Guantánamo are inconsistent with our military law and the Geneva Conventions has already prompted fierce-and flawed-debate. One key question, especially relevant in next week's Judiciary Committee hearings on Hamdan, is whether and how the Geneva Conventions apply to military commissions. The many factually and legally incorrect assertions clogging the air make it worth stepping back to understand what Geneva does, and why it matters for our success against the terrorist threat.
Pages