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.