I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. "Be careful," people always tell me. "These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed." A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a "safe room" set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said.
I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn't yet been red-lined, I thought.
Matters are different now.
It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."
It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
Things are certainly not where we would wish them to be vis-a-vis the state of our democracy, our foreign and domestic policies, the quality of our opposition party etc. yet this clarion call for paranoia goes much too far.
Our democratic processes have been subverted over many years, as the influence of money plays an ever larger part in those processes. Our electorate has grown alienated from those processes, or perhaps too comfortable by far with the concept of eternal freedoms. I do not believe for one second that we are at the point in our nations history when we may disappear for our exercize of the freedom of speech and the right of dissent.
That we need to work diligently to regain the path for our nation is obvious, that loyal democrats must work hard to overthrow the leadership that has transformed their party into a complicitious group is equally clear. That we are somehow transformed into the scenes from the movie "V for Vengeance" is far, far too much and certainly can be actually counter productive to our efforts,sorry Will.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, September 29, 2006 at 6:08:32 PM
Yes, you're right. All these people fretting over losing the heart of our Democratic ideals are nostalgia freaks! Those of us on the cutting edge are hoping soon for a country where the Decider makes all the rules. Put these whiny "freedom-lovers" on the rack!
by
Nezua (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 9:36:38 AM
the simple truth is that articles such as this do not lead folks to action (only lead some to stupid and facetious commentary) in fact they may lead folks to run and hide when they should be standing up and speaking loudly.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 7:27:46 PM
Get the hell out while you still can--and take your mother with you.
How true that "America" is an idea not defined by geography. The place between Canada and Mexico is no longer home to liberty and equality--and a majority of its citizens don't care.
As for those frogs still smiling away in the pot as it comes to a boil, just exactly when does a nation fall into tyranny? The loss of the writ of habeas corpus is certainly one valid marker. If you think it happens only when people like you are disappearing, better acquaint yourself with Rev. Niemoeller.
by
Ezekiel (16 articles, 12 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, September 29, 2006 at 6:24:14 PM
That does not mean they suddenly developed a spine.
It means that once the party leadership, which is the same leadership for both parties, was assured that they had the number of votes they needed to assure passage, they permitted the remaining legislators to vote against it in order to retain their credibility in future elections.
If they hadn't had enough votes to ensure passage, the legislation would have been held up until a critical number of balky legislators had been economically bullied into voting for it, or had met with fatal "accidents."
Democrats in Congress who voted for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Acts, and other parts of the Bush agenda, are complicit and they know it. They don't want Bush to stand trial for war crimes because they too could be found guilty. They will never attempt to impeach Bush for crimes that they themselves voted for.
This is fascism. The government can arrest whomever they wish, hold them without charges or trial, and torture them.
First they came for the illegal immigrants......
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 98 diaries, 1310 comments)
on Friday, September 29, 2006 at 6:59:45 PM
funny the govt got thsoe same powers ( or used similar ones) during World War I and II. Hell a Presidents executive orders are mainly from powers granted by Congress during WWI.
as for a change of freedom in the US. Sorry a bunch of bloggers ranting does not outweigh a lawyer in criminal law. And those "words" you quoted do have some legal meaning. And via court interpretation they will have more defined meaning.
/but go put on yout tin foil hat, it's already obvious you forgot to take your meds.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Friday, September 29, 2006 at 8:49:26 PM
And how many people hear have called someone a chickenhawk?
On this site no less? Personally I think it's an inability on their part to understand that people are willing to kill to support their view of reality. But it does not stop them using the term.
/people who actively prepare against a govt that they think will lock them away, when all they do is BS(err Blog) about said govt are suffering from a mild acute form of paranoia Rob. Thus Meds are appropriate.
// "inability to support an argument results to name calling." (paraphrased) No I think the facts are there and are discernbable to a computer literate person. When I insult I am pretty sure the person has character faults that could be readily mocked by those of greater verbiage and wit. True it would be more subtle, but I don't write for a living, and only read as a consuming hobby.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 5:26:21 AM
You are just like most everybody else...that is 'the problem'! You 'believe' in Reality. Except, reality is real, and it does not operate according to the beliefs of the majority. That only 'defines' our 'pathetic beliefs' of what we think reality is.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 5:50:33 AM
The Democrats are really an asset to the Republican, much more than a threat.
The latter are sure when they speak to the American Public...they can look America in the eye. (as there is really more truth to every word they utter than they are a lie...words are relative) The Democrats are not only afraid and guilty, as just pointed out...but their conscience is really affected. They suffer as a result of going against their own principles. This in turn makes the 'sick', and they cannot accept what they know deep down. When they have to lie, they tend to become angry and emotional, and they often blame the victim who came to them for help. They, unlike the 'bad guys' have to betray, and that hurts people like myself a lot more than the 'bad guys', because we have long ceased to be confused about them, the enemy.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 9:36:05 PM
The author knows what he is talking about...exactly. This is also true if you have been severely harmed, or witnessed severe state and federal crimes. If you report the crime, it will be denied. If you are seeking a plaintiff lawyer...good luck. It does not matter how strong and hard the evidence is. And if you get lucky with an inexperienced lawyer, and even more lucky to find a 'real expert witness', like one who can prove facts of fraud and forgery easily, and with 100% accuracy, you are 'over and done with'...because they will plain old lie, and not even try to sound convincing. No other witness will take a second opinion..no lawyer will do so either, and the 'expert witness' has total and complete immunity...he can not be sued, questioned or held responsible for any thing he decided to say. Many of them are in private practice but work undercover for the state and government. I would never believe it but unfortunately I no longer have that luxury. I know it is true, and you don't have to be poor either.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 5:36:20 AM
Katrin knows the truth. But most people have to experience it for themselves and learn the hard way.
In Nazi Germany there were Jews who went to court because they or their businesses had been harmed, and were shocked, shocked, I tell you, to find that the crimes weren't considered to be crimes if they were committed against Jews.
In the fascist U.S. today, crimes aren't crimes if they are committed against illegal aliens, legal aliens, people of color, females, children, the poor, or anyone who disagrees with Bush.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 98 diaries, 1310 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 4:34:37 PM
"In the fascist U.S. today, crimes aren't crimes if they are committed against illegal aliens, legal aliens, people of color, females, children, the poor, or anyone who disagrees with Bush."
methinks you don't know the legal definition of "crime(s)".
And I doubt you properly phrased that statement;unless you meant that anyone can "commit" against your list of "victims".
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 8:22:21 AM
cute yo can't back up your accusation, so you call me a troll.
yep that will when you support. not!
/but please go ahead and act like this admin's actions are more excessive than previous wartime admin actions. FDR was a socialist and LBJ was a crook. But both were loyal democarats. They also committed actions far worse than GWB has.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 8:19:16 PM
Be sure you also tell your family and friends that you will not commit suicide, and if you ever feet differently, you'd let them know. Maybe even put that in writing. 'Suicide' is one of the preferred homicides in regards what you are talking about. Perhaps a greater risk than disappearing.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 9:01:23 PM
23 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
