Oberlin professors briefed students on Monday in the packed Craig Lecture Hall on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which signifies the death of habeas corpus and human rights as we know them.

Students Baraka Noel, OC ’06, and College seniors Claire Miller and Grant Huling worked with professors of politics, law and Comparative American studies to inform students about this world-altering issue.

Noel described his inspiration to organize the event: “The passing of this law — and how little most people know about it — is so alarming to me that it seems like action is necessary, even if we’re not sure what to do.”

“We were all invested in raising this on people’s radars,” said Miller. “Information needs to get out there! Tell somebody. Anybody. Everybody.”

 “The government will only function if we demand it to do so,” she added.

The evening began with the screening of a segment of  “Countdown, with Keith Olbermann” a television show on MSNBC, in which news anchor and commentator Olbermann discusses the legality of what he calls “kind of the cornerstone of freedom” with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

Olbermann introduced the act as indicative of “a government more dangerous to our liberty than the enemy it claims to protect us from,” and compared it to Jefferson’s Alien and Sedition Acts and the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II — two more crimes in the name of national security.

Turley called the American public “constitutional couch potatoes” for allowing the act to pass without protest, and cited the dangerous “national yawn” over international politics. 

The professors then stepped up to speak. Visiting Assistant professor of Comparative American Studies Annette Portillo led the way, introducing the act and explaining its probable consequences.

“The demand for accountability is lost by the wayside,” said Portillo. “Let us not forget that [this policy has], directly or indirectly, been created as a result of how we have come to accept that some bodies and lives are more valued than others.”   

She urged the audience to “not get lost in the rhetoric and lose sight of how such policies are affecting real people.”

Next on the panel was Assistant Professor of Comparative American Studies Meredith Raimondo, who focused on the “cultural politics” of the bill.

“The Military Commissions Act participates in and helps shape the meaning of citizenship that [is] serious, consequential and of importance to all of us concerned — as the president would have it — with justice,” said Raimondo.

“I want to suggest today that these constructions of citizenship and nation make us all part of the War on Terror in an immediate and personal way,” she continued.

While discussing the act’s definition of “unlawful enemy combatant,” Raimondo lamented how this and other “national security measures” have “furthered the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them.’”

Ronald Kahn, professor of politics and law, dubbed himself “Mr. Domestic” for the evening.

“The right of habeas corpus is called the ‘great writ’ because it’s what a person can use to require the government to show why they’re thrown in jail,” explained Kahn. “What this administration has done is made a mockery of not only habeas corpus, but of its meaning as a general statement of the rule of law…It’s a great misuse of power.”

Kahn concluded: “The minute we argue that the right of habeas corpus and certain rights under the Constitution are no longer viable, we are in deep shit.”

Politics Professor Ben Schiff brought the evening to a close assuming the role of “Mr. International,” and explaining the “big picture” ramifications of the act. He cited the international dangers of the law, namely reciprocity, explaining that the worse we treat foreign prisoners, the worse our own captured citizens will be treated.

Schiff put the act’s severity in colloquial terms: “We throw ‘em in jail, we beat ‘em up, and they have no recourse. Oh, and no one can invoke the Geneva Convention as a source of rights. Cool, huh?”

Noel described the current situation as “alarming,” “crazy” and “scary.”

“[The government is] trying to revise the definition of terror so that non-violent civil disobedience – as endorsed by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr – would be considered terrorism as well,” he explained. “With this monolithic with-or-against-us mentality, people who try to change things, criticize the government or express unpopular opinions are painted as the enemy.”

Huling added, “We should not accept an America where we must nightly pray that the President have the sanity and mercy to spare us our freedom, and where the Constitution is just a piece of paper.”

Noel summarized his activism philosophy: “Nothing’s going to change if we don’t make it change.”