Laura Ingraham suspends the Constitution

Laura Ingraham, radio talk show host and sometimes TV guest host does not believe in the checks and balances provided in the United States Constitution. FOX News has given her a platform to express her views.

The US Supreme Court ruled June12, 2008 that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. In reaction to that, Ingraham, appearing as guest host on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, said that if she were President Bush, with only months to go in his administration, she would ignore the Supreme Court.

The issue surrounds the concept of Habeus Corpus. This ancient cornerstone of our judicial system ensures that the government cannot hold people without charge, or without a hearing to determine whether the imprisonment is justified. Some of the detainees at Guantanamo have been held for six years without a hearing.

One can argue that these might be, or are, dangerous people and that they are a threat to our security if they are released. The U.S. Constitution prohibits suspension of habeus corpus rights “unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

People like Ingraham assume that the public safety might be at risk if Guantanamo detainees are released. She might be right, but how does she know, if they have not had a hearing? One could argue that after being held without charges for six years a person could be more of a threat.

George Will, on ABC’s This Week argued that to give these people a hearing might strengthen the government’s case against them and strengthen world support of current American policy. If they are that dangerous, then let the world know how bad they are. If they are being held for good reason, let the world know.

But Ms. Ingraham’s comments go beyond arguing the legalities under the Constitution. She advocates throwing out the Constitution. To her and hence to her broadcast mouthpiece, Fox News, no matter what disclaimer they broadcast, separation of powers is to be ignored should she deem it inconvenient.

In the play A Man for all Seasons, Sir. Thomas More says, “Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake!” Ms. Ingraham should consider where she would be if an Administration felt that advocating throwing out the constitution warranted being held without charge, perhaps because it constituted rebellion. In that case, I would fight for her right to a fair hearing.