September 29, 2006

How About a Constitutional Amendment Against Freedom Burning?

From the NYT editorial, a far too mild summary of Congress's transfer of proto-dictatorial powers to George W. Bush:

Enemy Combatants:
A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

The Congressmen and women who supported this measure have betrayed democracy. They endanger our troops, and destroy American rights dating before the Revolution, even to the Magna Carta, with this fascistic poison. They have delivered one-man life and death power into the hands of the worst, most corrupt and incompetent president in American history. That constitutional amendment to prohibit the destruction of freedom would otherwise be known as The Constitution of the United States of America.

There is no center anymore. There are Americans, and there are Bushists. God help the former, and goddamn the others.

It's Bush OR America. Your choice.

For the moment.

3 Comments:

Blogger JAB said...

And let me add, in this, at this moment- Senator John McCain has become a political coward, afraid of Bush and his goons, afraid of losing his chance at the Presidency, afraid of losing what little influence he still has.

He whined for a week, and caved in.

It is the most serious political, personal, and moral failure.

September 29, 2006 at 2:32 PM  
Blogger Corresponding Secretary General said...

There was a time when I thought myself a pretty good writer, when I felt that if I could think it clearly, I could write it clearly.

No more. I am so alarmed and concerned about this bill/almost law that most of what I do is think about the Good Germans, who detested what was happening in their country but didn't know what to say.

I'm not saying Bush & Co. are fascists or nazis, not yet, but I keep seeing nibbles. Lots of nibbles. Was this what they, the Good Germans thought? Well, he's only denying Habeus Corpus to people who want to kill us, isn't he? Surely it won't go any further, will it?

I'm chapter and verse on the notion that the bill was rushed, poorly written, a political tactic. But am I just being naive about the difficulties of fighting an international insurrgency?

The bottom line is, I trusted these guys once and they betrayed me. I will never trust him again without proof. And this time, he's gone too far.

Resquiat in pace, habeus corpus. We loved you well and wait impatiently for your return.

September 29, 2006 at 7:36 PM  
Blogger Undersecretary to the Deputy Commissariat said...

The bottom line is that, yes, we all are probably a bit naive about how best to prosecute the war in all its minute, and perhaps even some gross details, just as most of us would be at sea if called upon to treat a case of esophageal cancer. That doesn't mean we can't demand an end to treatment until we can find a doctor we can trust.

Well, we can demand it, but it isn't going to happen before the change of administration - if that indeed happens.

What then is the least measure one must take if one is to be distinguished from a "good German?" Is it only to refuse to accept the prescription, or must one be vocal about it? Or is there yet more that must be done before one can honestly say to the next generation, I didn't let this happen?

October 1, 2006 at 1:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home