Lights Out For Democracy: Bush Signs Degeneracy Into Law
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/907/
Written by Sandy LeonVest
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
Last month's executive signing of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 marks still another dark chapter
in the history of US democracy.
Passed by both houses of Congress in late September and
signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2006, the
Military Commissions Act authorizes the US President to
round up even American citizens, label them enemy
combatants and deny them their day in court - forever.
The Act, as written, stands in direct violation of the
writ of habeas corpus, a judicial mandate ordering that
a defendant be brought to court to determine whether or
not that person is imprisoned lawfully.
Under the Military Commissions Act, legal residents who
are not citizens are denied access to federal habeas
corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's
suspicions. The language in the Act would practically
guarantee that a US president could never be tried for
war crimes in an International Criminal Court and, if
the federal courts support the president's initial
detention decision, ordinary Americans will be required
to defend themselves before a military tribunal without
the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal
trials. Congress has authorized this presidential
overreaching with the support of existing constitutional
doctrine that allows the Supreme Court to consider
congressional support a key factor in assessing the
limits of presidential authority.
The organization, "Human Rights First" (HRF) has
denounced the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
declaring that, "by passing this law, Congress has set
the United States at odds with the Constitution, the
laws of war, and American values." HRF's Washington
Director, Elisa Massimino stated that, "this was the
moment for Congress to pass legislation that reflects
the fundamental values of this country. Instead, it
rushed to adopt an ill-considered law which history will
judge harshly...The many flaws in this law raise
fundamental constitutional issues."
Among the Act's more egregious aspects are the denial of
an independent judicial review to detainees; the
elimination of accountability for past violations of the
law; the allowing of evidence obtained through coercion
and granting the Secretary of Defense authority to
deviate from long held standards of military justice for
fair trials. Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and
political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next
Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of
Terrorism" wrote in the LA Times that "the legislation
goes far beyond the legal struggles about foreign
terrorist suspects [at Guantanamo Bay]" by authorizing
the president "to seize American citizens...even if they
have never left the United States...Once thrown into
military prison, they cannot expect...any other of the
normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
The language in the legislation is subject to
interpretation, the enormity of which is breathtaking
both in scope and potential impact. It gives the
president almost unlimited power over citizens and legal
residents, who, as Ackerman puts it, "can be designated
enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a
Middle Eastern charity, and...held indefinitely in a
military prison."
Yet, Constitutionally regressive as the legislation may
seem on its face, the Military Commissions Act is more
profoundly far-reaching than the dismantling of the US
Constitution.
In 2002, the US, under the Bush Administration, withdrew
from a treaty to establish an International Criminal
Court (ICC) charged with trying those accused of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This
despite the fact that the jurisdiction of the ICC
received well over the requisite number of ratifications
from other members of the United Nations. In an
unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush
administration announced back then that it did not
consider itself bound by President Clinton's December
31, 2000 signature on the treaty to create a permanent
war crimes tribunal. The only states that actively
opposed the court were the US and Libya, provoking the
outrage of human rights organizations and UN member
states.
The ICC's jurisdiction went forward without George W.
Bush's signature.
Since the Bush Administration declared long ago that it
had no intention of playing by the same rules it
(selectively) enforces, its behavior has been eerily
consistent. Still, the significance of setting such a
precedent cannot be overemphasized. By allowing US
military personnel and others who serve in government to
torture detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions
Article 3, the Military Commissions Act, simply put,
codifies inhumane and degenerative behavior.
The significance of the Act's passage with respect to
the current Administration is not so much that it is
outrageous or uncharacteristic, but that it enables the
president to move dangerously closer to placing himself
above the same Rule of Law he so eagerly applies to
everyone else. And while the Bush Administrations'
proposal to downgrade the humane treatment requirements
of Common Article 3 was not explicitly included in the
Military Commissions Act, there is general consensus
among constitutional attorneys that its language makes
enforcement of those standards far more difficult.
This sorry chapter in US history is made still sorrier
by the absolute impunity with which George W Bush
routinely issues his public assurances that "the United
States does not torture." Like his repeated
mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" or his insistence
on "staying the course" in Iraq, those assurances are
meant to redefine reality. In doing so, the
Administration gives new meaning to the old adage that
in politics a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
That Bush's "repetition equals rightness" strategy has
worked for him - at least until very recently - speaks
volumes not only about the degeneration of national
literacy, but that of American values.
In a world where the US finds it can no longer consume
and kill its way out of crisis, staying the course is no
longer an option. In the absence of that option, US
leaders are at a loss for solutions, as are a wide
swathe of Americans for whom consumerism has become a
way of life. Having grown comfortable in their passive
roles, it is understandable that many Americans are
having a hard time rising to the more active role of
citizen. A citizen, after all, is a "participatory
member of a political community." And participation
demands not only vigilance, but some degree of literacy,
creativity and hard work - all anathema to consumerism
and in direct contrast to the values they have been
taught to embrace. Americans' ignorance of their rights
and responsibilities plays directly into the hands of a
president who embodies the literal definition of the
word, which means "to ignore." Americans have become
easy marks for a president who has instructed them to
show their patriotism by going shopping, rather than
trouble themselves with active participation in a system
that cannot survive without it.
The ease with which the freshly signed Military
Commissions Act passed public scrutiny seems to validate
once again Bush's confidence in the passive nature of
American consumers. When a barely literate president can
so glibly dismantle what remains of constitutionally
guaranteed civil rights by talking over the heads of the
people, it's time for a radical change. That change will
need to include redefining American values as we know
them.
That may not be such a bad thing.
For additional detail on Human Rights First’s concerns
with the Military Commissions Act of 2005, see
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/ca3/hrf-ca3-092206.html.
Sandy LeonVest is an independent journalist and Editor
of the StinsonSolarTimes. Her published work can be
found online by googling "Sandy LeonVest" or visiting
www.leonvest.com
====================================================
H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
or
Our Grandchildren are Going to Hate Us!'
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mca-2006.htm