Bush’s Detainee Bill was okayed by the Senate yesterday evening by a 65-34 vote.
The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush’s plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.
Polimom’s written on this subject a number of times, and there’s little more I can add this morning. Time for some mental conditioning.
The way to show one’s “toughness on terror” is to abrogate habeas corpus — the fundamental protection of an individual from the power of government, and specifically the Executive Branch.
This isn’t a suspension á la Abraham Lincoln; this is codified law. But we’re okay, because this government would never abuse its power; they’re looking out for us.
The United States isn’t in a traditional war that might one day end; we’re in this (we’re told) for the long haul. Generations, perhaps. That’s a very long time for someone to be detained without recourse, don’t you think? But not to worry… the government is making us all safer, and without this bill, the terrorists would be on our front porches.
I gather that people who have supported this bill don’t mind that “enemy combatant” isn’t limited to people from other countries, right? (LA Times)
The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.
This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops “during an armed conflict,” it also allows him to seize anybody who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.
If it’s not just terrorists from overseas, or fighters, everybody’s comfortable with this too, right? They can’t visualize any situations where innocent people might be caught up in a web. It’s really not a problem if a person is mistakenly pulled in… even though they have no recourse to review of their situation. If they were really innocent, they wouldn’t have been under suspicion anyway… right? Because this government is going to be careful. And of course, Bruce Ackerman must be wrong, because… well…
We should all be at ease with the possibility of our own citizens dropping into irretrievable holes in other countries. We won’t mind that at all, as a nation. Our government will be very understanding; after all, we’re in this together. (Note: if this sounds a tad unlikely to you, you’re probably a terrorist sympathizer. It’s not at all political,though.)
It’s all for the greater good… and the people we’re fighting are doing it to us already. They started it.
It’s bad, but not very bad. Glenn Greenwald provides a great example of how we should be handling our consciences:
During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.
Clearly, Specter’s tough on terror, and he’s safely in the right camp. He’s a model for how a proper patriot should be supporting our Executive Branch in its quest to save us all.
It’s all good. It’ll all be okay. (Repeat)
*repeats* It’ll all be okay, It’ll all be okay… How come I feel like it won’t?
Polimom
Well, it looks like the ‘stealth’ debate about whether we should view the problem of trans-national radical Islamic fundamentalism as ‘war’ or as a ‘law enforcement problem’ has been settled — and most people didn’t even know we were having a debate. The winner: it’s war! The framework is complete with special rules for handling captured prisoners and defining “enemy combatants”.
There are a number of things that are disturbing about this new legislation: the abrogation (not suspension) of habeas corpus, the invidious distinction between citizens and resident aliens, the granting of authority to the President to declare someone an “enemy combatant” based on no particular criteria, and the open-ended duration of this “special authority”. The Supreme Court struck down effectively this same set of rules when they were promulgated by the President in the absence of Congressional legislation. We shall see if these rules are OK now that Congress has spoken.
Most pathetic are the Senators and Representatives who voted for it while saying that “surely” the Supreme Court will strike parts of it down, so passing unconstitutional laws will not be harmful. Right. The Supreme Court has already upheld the McCain-Feingold “no free speech in politics near an election” law as well as near unlimited governmental authority in eminent domain cases (Kelo). I would not hold my breath waiting for them to ride to our rescue here.
While I personally come down on the “it’s war” side of the debate, I am distressed at the none too gradual erosion of our constitutional rights, and the pusillanimous behavior of our elected representatives in response to it. I can only hope that there will be a strong counter reaction to all of this soon.
Maybe an issue for 2008? But where will the principled, pro-liberty candidate come from? It won’t be McCain. It won’t be Hillary.
Maybe your Representative, Ron Paul will run. He was one of only seven Republicans in the House to vote against this bill.
It seems like, in times of war, we should not be so worried about Contstitutional issues. We’re fighting to protect the Constitution and even the rights of non-Americans to have their own Constitution if they want one. So it’s ok to just ignore ignore the messy, inconvenient parts of the Constitution until the war is over and everyone has their own Constitution, see? It doesn’t seem fair that we get to have a Constitution & related civil liberties, if some others suffer without. In fairness, we have to give up some freedoms to show fraternity with their suffering. See?
Not that anyone ever actually signed an actual declaration of war or anything. But this isn’t that *kind* of war. It’s the kind of war where we have to suspend civil liberties here at home so that we can better protect (or enable) them somewhere else. Got that? And it doesn’t really have an end, or a goal. It’s just one of those war-like things that’s there to help make things better. Nobody’s opposed to ‘making things better,’ right?
Anyway, speech is next. That whole messy ‘freedom of speech’ thing is inconvenient. I mean, who wants to always have to explain every little thing. Some Annoying People are trying to see this situation through a microscope, when really it’s all about the Big Picture. It’s like Spock says, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So sometimes you have to torture a few to control the many. Oops. Did I say ‘control’? I meant *protect* the many. See? There’s that microscope again. Maybe we need a law against microscopy….
Well, at least we can gain some small measure of comfort from the fact that this law will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts, and by the time a final ruling is issued and all the stays/injunctions are lifted (assuming it passes court muster), we will have a new Administration to deal with.
Am I comfortable with this bill? Nope. However, I am even *less* comfortable with capital punishment, because at least in theory if you “detain” someone and find out you made a mistake, you can release them. OTOH, unless your name is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and your resume reads something like “…Son of the Living God…Creator of Heaven and Earth…Savior of Mankind…”, bringing back to life someone you just executed just isn’t going to happen. (OK, maybe if you have one of those sarcophagus things from Stargate SG-1…) However, we have capital punishment, and apparently a significant percentage of those surveyed indicate that it is OK if on occasion we execute someone for a crime they didn’t commit… or a child… or someone who is mentally ill or retarded…
~EdT.
Ed T — you realize that execution is a possible outcome for detainees, also, right?
And Jess — probably you just haven’t
drunk enough kool-aidrepeated it often enough.Quoted from the LA Times – The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.
How come the Times does not tell everyone that the FBI, CIA, FEMA, even the CDC (Department of Health and Human Services) can already do that? Odd, isn’t it?
The Master, et al – FINALLY, somebody got the memo that was put out more than 60 years ago by Muslim extremist. They declared war even before that but we thought we were so beyond the little things done by such a ‘mosquito’. On 9/11 we found out that ignored ‘mosquitos’ can carry deadly consequences.
Folks, we’ve been at war. Americans were too arrogant and ignorant to admit it.
Polimom — y’all also know “execution is a possible outcome” of just being on your property.
Please google Ruby Ridge, Waco.