I know I’m late on these thoughts contained herein. I am so envious of the essayist that can write such intelligent verbiage in such short periods of time. Anyway, there were three things that happened last week that got my attention. And each had something to do with the present situation in the United States.
The first and most important was the passing of S. 3861, the Detainee Treatment Act. Among the many parts of the bill are the following:
Abandon the rule of law and give the President the freedom to interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he sees fit. The bill does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.
Provide immunity to those responsible for past human rights abuses and exempt from prosecution those who authorize treatment traditionally considered torture. It essentially says that not only is what was done in the past wrong, but those who did the wrongdoing and THOSE THAT AUTHORIZED IT (emphasis mine) are immune from prosecution. Nixon had Ford to pardon him; here the Administration pardons itself.
It will strip detainees of access to US courts. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners. The word is habeas corpus that, in common law countries, is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
And it broadens the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” to include not only those who fight the United States but also those who have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. Any “competent tribunal” created by the president or secretary of defense can make the designation.
The debate over the limits of torture and the rules for military commission dominated discussion of the bill until this week. Only in the last few days has broad attention turned to its redefinition of “unlawful enemy combatant” and its ban on habeas corpus petitions, which suspects have traditionally used to challenge their incarceration. Do we really believe that these measures will make us safer and will give us the “tools necessary” to defeat terrorism?
It seems that in the name of defeating “terrorism”, we are rapidly turning ourselves into the very state we have defended the world against for the last two centuries. The United States was founded as a reaction to tyranny. In WWII we fought against the fascisms of the Axis Powers. In the late 1940’s and the 1950’s we “ducked and covered” in our unity to defeat the Communist threat. We awarded the Nobel Prize to those who described the horrors of political detainees in Stalin’s gulags. One of the backer’s of this bill, Sen. John McCain has first hand knowledge of being a prisoner of our enemies. Since I was small, we were taught that we are the good guys; we treat our enemies like we treat ourselves by the rule of law. We, as citizens may want to re-think that idea. Because we could be treated by the rules of this law as there are no provisions to dissuade its use against innocent American citizens.
Which leads to the next point. When has forceful interrogation done anything except strengthen the resolve of those being tortured? One needs only to thumb through Irish literature and songs to see how effective the British use of barbaric means had on the will of the Irish people. One listen to the “Patriot’s Game” will show you the generational influence of torture. The aforementioned Senator McCain would be able to relate what his five years in the Hanoi Hilton did to his resolve. And, in that light, is the lure of being the POTUS so great that he would actually endorse much less condone this measure?
If this kind of program is instituted to stop terrorism today like it was used to keep enemies and citizens of the communist regimes in line or like it was used by the Spanish Inquisition to cleanse the Catholic Church of heresy then we are indeed in trouble. Because the weight of evidence that history produces shows that it has never worked. Who do we think we are to expect that it will somehow work for us?
Of all the arguments, the one I have never seen or heard is this one. If torture and political detention worked, then a major voting block of both sides of the aisle would not be in existence today. If this concept worked, then the Roman punishment of Jesus of Nazareth, and the subsequent torture of his followers throughout the First Century would have prevented Christianity from ever becoming a reality.
Finally, what kind of leader, whether he’s on a baseball team, in the workplace or the POTUS, tries to blame his shortcomings on someone else, especially the one that preceded you?
Even if those accusations were true that Clinton dropped the ball on the eradication of the bin Ladin problem, what about your own watch, Mr. Bush? The simple fact is the Administration has had five years to bring about some revenge or closure or progress in the hunt for this guy, yet, nothing has happened. As Clinton said on TV, “Why are you asking me? What about the guy in charge now?” It won’t be Chris Wallace (whose career is shot because everyone will expect the swicheroo he pulled on Clinton) asking. But isn’t there anyone beside Keith Olbermann to say, “How dare you, Sir?”
No comments:
Post a Comment