American progressives are entering open revolt against Barack Obama in response to Obama’s decision to reverse course, and reinstate George W. Bush’s military tribunals – a separate and unequal system of kangaroo courts to be used against the people America despises most. As the ACLU points out, no matter how much President Obama reforms these tribunals are inherently unjust. For the law to be just, it must apply equally to all, with the same standards of evidence and same procedures for all people, regardless of the crimes they are accused of. This principle is established in the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

If President Obama were really reforming the military tribunals to make them as just as American domestic courts, then there wouldn’t be any need for the tribunals. The very purpose of the tribunals, under Obama as well as under Bush, is to create unfair conditions against which defendants cannot possibly prevail.

The Obama Administration acknowledges that this is the purpose of the courts in his justification of the reopening of the tribunals. Obama Administration officials, talking with reporters from the New York Times, “said the decision to proceed with military commissions came partly as a result of concerns that some detainees might not be successfully prosecuted in federal courts.” Obama fears that his prosecutors could not prove guilt in a fair trial, and so he is using Bush’s system of unfair trials in its place.

It’s a disgusting perversion of the American way, but what are we to do about it? Well, it just so happens that there are three bills in Congress right now that could address the problem to some extent, ending military tribunals by the U.S. government and sending prisoners from Guantanamo into American courts or into existing United Nations courts, both with their pre-established standards of justice. These bills might not be perfect, but they’re a strong improvement over Obama’s Bush-like approach in that they do not rely upon the creation of courts set up to deal with “special” crimes after the crimes took place.

In the House of Representatives, there are 2 bills, roughly the same: H.R. 374, introduced by Jane Harman in January, and H.R. 1315, introduced by Adam Schiff in March. Schiff’s bill is more problematic, in that it also allows for courts martial, although under pre-2001 rules of trial. In the Senate, there is S. 147, a bill by Diane Feinstein, contains the same language as Jane Harman’s bill and was introduced just a few days before the Harman bill.

In the months since these bills have been introduced, Congress has failed to act to promote their passage. Schiff’s bill has no cosponsors. Harman’s bill has only four cosponsors. Feinstein’s bill has just three cosponsors. All these bills are currently stuck in committee.

Whether these bills, or new legislation like them that would prohibit Obama from moving forward with his Bush-style tribunal show trials, are moved out of committee will be the test of whether Democrats in Congress are willing to stand up for the Constitution or are content to acquiesce, and bring their political party in alignment with the Bush-era politics of fear.