In my most recent post, Rewriting History, I stated that there are some disturbing parallels between the Bush Regime’s approach to power and that of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The Military Commissions Act that the House and Senate passed this week for President Bush’s signature is a spectacular example of such a parallel.
In the 1930’s, the Nazis were able to imprison and detain enemies of the state indefinitely under the guise of “protective custody”. The idea was that these people would not be safe in public because of their views so the Nazis set up a legal apparatus, protective custody in concentration camps, to rid themselves of their enemies and any other undesirable elements. Anyone not fully invested in the goals of the Nazi Party was a candidate for such treatment.
The legislation passed last Thursday essentially gives the Bush Administration the same power except that the key designation is “enemy combatant”. The power to designate a person as an enemy combatant lies within the Executive branch and there is no oversight. Virtually anyone, including all American citizens, can be deemed an enemy combatant, and those who are, cease to have any rights or protection normally afforded by the United States Constitution. One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill is the denial of habeas corpus to enemy combatants, which means that such persons can be detained indefinitely without a hearing or trial. Although habeas corpus is not specifically provided for by the Constitution, it is certainly understood by that document and its authors as the right of all citizens in a free democracy. The Constitution’s only reference to habeas corpus states that it can only be suspended during a rebellion or invasion, neither of which is occurring today.
Another controversial piece of this legislation is its codification of “alternative” interrogation techniques and the retroactive protection of all individuals involved with the use of such techniques prior to the passing of this bill. In plain language, the United States of America can now use methods deemed as torture while interrogating terror suspects, and anyone who has used torture in the past is now safe from prosecution. Seriously, is this the brand of legislation that you could have ever imagined being passed in the United States? This is the kind of stuff you expect from Third World Military Juntas, not the alleged leader of the Free World, the good ‘ole USA.
When we question the wisdom of such legislation, the Bush Administration tells us that they are doing this to protect America and the American way of life. But here lies the great paradox. If one begins to dismantle the rights and protections recognized by the US Constitution in the name of security, then what is left to protect? For many, the American way of life is simply a given, but that way of life is defined and protected by the Constitution, a document that was drafted in reaction to a tyrannical monarchy. When the President begins to assume powers that have not been given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and when he begins to strip the rights and protections afforded to all Americans by the Constitution, then it is paradoxical to state that these measures are being taken to protect the American way of life. They are destroying it.
On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers destroyed 4 planes and 2 buildings. Ever since that day, the Bush Administration has assaulted the Constitution and the rule of law, all in the name of security. In the process, they have done more damage to this country than any terrorist organization could ever do. They have destroyed what it means to be a free and just society. America can no longer lead by example in the cause of freedom and democracy because it is a country that has eschewed the rule of law in favor of unchecked Presidential power. Our credibility is busted.
Can we save our country? The prevailing wisdom is that we need the Democratic Party to win back the House and Senate from Republican control, but that’s no guarantee. While a Democratic controlled Congress is more likely to apply checks and balances to the President, the Democratic Party has not articulated a genuine vision for dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaeda and a myriad of other problems facing this nation. Strong leadership within the Democratic Party must emerge within the next few months in order to begin the process of unraveling the mess created by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, no such leader seems to be ready to step up and fill those shoes.
As long as the United States has its nuclear arsenal, it will remain a significant world power and will continue to be a player in global events. However, America’s stature in the world is decreasing. The War in Iraq is bleeding the economy of both financial and human resources. If America can survive this tumultuous period and eventually restore its lost freedoms, how will history judge this current cast of leaders and legislators? I’ve stated numerous time my thoughts on the President, but the Republican controlled Congress deserves more than its fair share of blame. In fact, I hope that history judges them as an embarrassment on the legacy of our nation. They have been nothing but complicit in the destruction of the foundation of our country; essentially standing idly by while their President usurps power and leads this nation on a path to destruction. History should judge them harshly for not representing the people and for not stopping our President from continuously breaking the law. They have not fulfilled their role in government and they have betrayed the people in their quest to remain in power. It’s time they lost control of Congress so that we can start writing some of that history.
2 comments:
The events of the past week have certainly increased the possibility of a Democratic retaking of Congress in the next election. It is a sad commentary that it took a sex scandal to make a major change in the poll numbers and not the escalating violence in the Middle East. Iraq keeps getting pushed to the back pages of our daily "news"papers and the mainstream media's obsession with the latest murder or other sensational headline maker. But will a possible Democratic majority really make a difference in our overall foreign policy? It remains to be seen, the Democrats have not as yet offered a solid alternative.
Will,
I agree with you that it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country that a sex scandal may tip the balance in Congress.
And while a change in leadership may not have a significant effect on foreign policy - you're right, the Dems have no viable, alternative plan - it does give some hope that Congress will begin to be more forceful with Mr. Bush.
Of course, Bush can just go on ignoring laws and not telling anyone about it, as he certainly wishes he could with the NSA spying. Will the Dems be brave enough to attempt impeachment? I hope so, but I severly doubt it. That's sad because if the roles were reversed, the Repbulicans wouldn't hesitate.
Post a Comment