4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, July 6, 2004
41V
R e Oro w ---dgL- di . I atfdlj
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SINCE 1890
NIAMH SLEVIN SUHAEL MOMIN
Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of
the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
Bush, interrupted
Court reins in administration, affirms due process
Blazing sofas
Couches ban an intrusive, pointless infringement on rights
ast week, in two separate rulings
regarding the Bush Administration's
methods of detaining terror suspects,
the Supreme Court made a crucial stand
defending the right of those held by the gov-
ernment to challenge their detentions in
court. The rulings, which struck a delicate
balance between the need to interrogate and
punish terrorists and rights this country holds
dear, deserve to be applauded. However, some
questions remain regarding both the applica-
tion of these rulings and a similar third case
that was dismissed on technical grounds.
In a case brought by the Center for
Constitutional Rights on behalf of 16 foreign
citizens held at the United States military
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Supreme
Court ruled that those held by the govern-
ment as enemy combatants in Cuba have the
right to challenge their detentions in federal
court. The 16 individuals allege that they are
innocent of any terrorist activity and were
apprehended mistakenly in Afghanistan dur-
ing the chaos of war.
The Administration held that they have no
right to challenge their detention, relying on
a World War II era precedent that no federal
court had jurisdiction over detentions outside
the United States territory. The Supreme
Court argued that since Guantanamo Bay has
been exclusively under American control for
over a century, it is subject to the habeas cor-
pus provision of the Constitution. The ruling
left unclear, however, whether the Court
would hold habeas corpus to apply to
detainees held at other foreign locations.
Thus, this ruling may have the perverse effect
of actually encouraging the military to rely
instead on secret detention camps abroad;
potentially in use by the CIA, these camps
offer few legal protections and are subject to
little oversight.
The court also addressed the case of
Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen
apprehended by the Northern Alliance in
Afghanistan in 2001 and since held by the
U.S. military, without charges, as an enemy
combatant. Sandra Day O'Connor, on
behalf of the majority, wrote the controlling
opinion, stating that Hamdi could be held
as an enemy combatant but denying him an
ability to challenge this status in court vio-
lated his due process.
In the most interesting case concerning
the detention of suspected terrorists, howev-
er, the Supreme Court delayed taking a posi-
tion, ruling instead on technical grounds.
Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested at
Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on
suspicion of conspiracy to make a radioactive
"dirty bomb," but since held without being
charged, filed suit challenging his detention
in New York against Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. The Court, however, held
that Padilla should have filed suit against the
military officer in charge of his detention in
South Carolina, significantly delaying a rul-
ing on Padilla's case. The case, which was
effectively sent back district court, will even-
tually return to the Supreme Court in the
future. Should the court not side with Padilla,
the Administration will have a Supreme
Court precedent allowing any American to be
detained as a terror suspect indefinitely with-
out due process.
Although these rulings clearly have
served to check the unprecedented usurpa-
tions of legal power by the Bush
Administration, they open the door for
egregious conduct by American officials
outside United States territory.
Furthermore, in the case of Padilla, a deci-
sion is needed as soon as possible, not only
to ensure Padilla due process, but also to
establish more stringent guidelines for
prosecuting the war against terror.
As early as July 19, the Ann Arbor
City Council could vote on and
approve a measure to ban all
porch couches, claiming they present a
fire hazard and should not be allowed
for the sake of safety. However, this jus-
tification is merely a cover for the true
reason some are pushing for their
removal: In the eyes of Ann Arbor prop-
erty owners, porch couches look trashy
and bring down property values. When
viewed rationally, it is clear that porch
sofas do not pose a significant enough
hazard to call for their forced removal.
The proposed ban on couches is an
unnecessary attack on the rights of the
student population and is an indication
of the poor opinion Ann Arbor residents
have for University students.
The idea that couches, specifically
on porches, pose a significant fire haz-
ard is absurd. Outdoor couches are no
less susceptible to flames than indoor
couches, which are not going to be
banned. Also, indoor appliances such as
toasters and stoves are much more like-
ly to create a fire than a cigarette tossed
onto a piece of outdoor furniture. Others
have warned that couches are a threat
because they can become waterlogged
and fall through weak porches. This is
surely not a common enough occurrence
to merit a blanket prohibition of porch
couches. City Council member Leigh
Greden proposed another justification,
telling The Ann Arbor News that "They
are an environmental hazard because
animals will live in them." Once again,
while squirrels and chipmunks might
occasionally choose to live in a couch,
rodent-infested couches should be han-
dled on a case-by-case basis, not by a
broad, intrusive mandate.
The real rationale behind banning
couches is evident: Ann Arbor property
owners will benefit. Despite their conve-
nience and comfort, these pieces of fur-
niture can be an eyesore for those who
wish to make the city appear upscale.
Porch couches can seem seedy and have
the potential to bring down the property
values of homes close to student hous-
ing. Students, with their crass tastes and
often sloppy lifestyles, are viewed by
permanent residents as a liability to the g
city. Because Ann Arbor has drawn its
city council wards in such a way to mar-
ginalize students, students (who make
up a large chunk of the city population)
are minorities in every single ward.
Thus, there is no adequate representa-
tion of student voices in government;
Landlords and property owners are able
to pass such restrictive legislation.
It should also be noted that the City *
Council is attempting to pass a ban over
the summer, when most students have
left town and are unable to contest the
ban. This tactic, often used by the
University administration, is simply
way to get around student activism.
Members of the Michigan Student
Assembly who are in Ann Arbor this
summer should not forget their duty to
represent the student interest; MSA rep-
resentatives and officers should orga-
nize resistance to the pending couch
ban. All those who are concerned are
encouraged to actively oppose this
restrictive legislation by attending the
July 19 City Council meeting, which
will be held at 7 p.m. at 100 North Fifth
Avenue. This attempt to strip student
rights should not be allowed to pass
without the active and vocal dissent of
the student community.
r. U
P roponents of a constitutional
same-sex marriage ban, after fail-
ing to muster sufficient support in
the Michigan State Legislature, began a
petition drive to place the issue on
November's ballot. Led by Citizens for
the Protection of Marriage, this petition
was required to have almost 318,000
signatures to be successful; as of last
weekend the group had over 324,000.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State's
Bureau of Elections opened for the sole
purpose of accepting these petitions. If
certified, the state's general public will
be able to enact a discriminatory,
regressive amendment that was clearly
defeated by the legislative process.
Currently, gay marriage is already
against Michigan law, however the state
constitution has no provision against it.
Traditionally, to amend the constitution,
the proposed amendment must garner
super-majorities in both houses of the
state Legislature and then receive the
Wedding wail
Balloted gay marriage ban denies equal representation
public's endorsement in a general elec-
tion. This past March, state Senator
Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) sponsored
such an amendment, but it failed to gain
the two-thirds majority needed in order
to pass. The end result: The direct initia-
tive, sponsored by Citizens for the
Protection of Marriage and supported
by a small fraction of the state, is able to
completely bypass state Senate, a body
representative of all Michigan citizens.
Merely 318,000 petitioners rendered
the state Senate impotent. A similar
instance occurred just a few weeks ago
when 318,000 citizens were able to pre-
sent a bill, banning a type of partial-
birth abortion, to the state Legislature
that could not be vetoed by the Gov.
Jennifer Granholm - rendering the
state's popular chief executive power-
less. The intricate representative democ-
racy spelled out by the state constitu-
tion, as well as the system of checks and
balances designed to protect the state's
citizens, is unnecessarily undermined by
this ballot initiative.
Ballot initiatives intrude upon the
rights of the minority, subjecting their
rights to the overwhelming majority. Only
318,000 citizens, a mere percentage of
the population, are needed in order to get
an issue put onto the ballot. This empow-
ering of select individuals is only exacer-
bated by the fact that it takes enormous
financial means to enable such an expen-
sive process as launching a ballot initia-
tive. Ballot initiatives, although well
intentioned, only work to silence the
many while placating to the opinions of a
well funded few. These initiatives also
become problematic due to the use of
unclear and misleading language that can
confuse some everyday citizens who are
not adequately informed in the nuances
of legal phrasing.
Protecting marriage for the hetero-
sexual majority, while depriving the*
right to the homosexual minority is dis-
criminatory and superfluous. Because
Citizens for the Protection of Marriage
has already collected the required num-
ber of signatures, the bill will most like-
ly appear on the ballot in November. It
will allow Michigan citizens to vote for
anti-homosexual legislation. It is impor-
tant to remember that the fate of this
bigoted bill will rest with Michigan vot-*
ers and citizens should use their ballots
to reject this attempt to circumvent the
democratic process.