Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Jul. 21st, 2009 09:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumOr, as we say in the Army (and lots of other places), Same shit, different day.
In 2005 I wrote about habeas corpus. It's probably the most important right we have. In the common law it goes back to the Magna Carta; which is so important there is a copy in the National Archives of the United States.
An orchestrated leak (a group of administration officials who got to speak, semi-officially, but anonymously... WTF?) makes it clear Obama has no plans to rescind the Bush administration recovation of that right for the prisoners, in Guantanamo, and intends to keep it to the indefinite future.
In the draft document released we find, The Detention Policy Task Force has thus far focused much of its work on developing options for the lawful disposition of detainees held at Guantámo Bay. Important questions remain concerning our policies in future regarding apprehension detention and treatment of suspected terrorists, as part of our broader strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The New York Times tells us, The goal, one senior administration official said, is to build a “durable and effective” framework for dealing with the detainees at Guantánamo and future detainees captured in the fight against terrorists.
Future detainees, policies in future. And a three tiered system of "justice. No longer is everyone equal under the law. No, some will be tried by civil courts, some by military commissions and some may never be tried at all.
Prosecution is one way, but only one way, to protect the American people from such attacks. Where appropriate prosecution must occur as soon as possible.
Only one way? I suppose they might be talking of preventative action, but I don't really buy it. This is a memo about how to deal with prisoners. What is the "other way" implicit in that statement? We already have an example, of "other ways", the Bush adminstration refused to release people it admitted were guilty of nothing. The Obama Adminstration did pretty much the same.
[edited to add] No, this adminstration seems to intend to continue the idea of the president having the right to keep anyone he wants in prison until he tires of them being imprisoned.
if the prosecution team concludes that prosecution is not feasible in any forum, it may recommend that the case be returned to the Executive Order 13492 Review for other appropriate disposition"
Got that? If they can't win in a civil court, they have the commission, if that's not a feasible option, well then, just don't try them at all. The president will choose some other, "appropriate" disposition.
Winston Churchill, whom the neocons keep pointing to when they want us to agree with some jingoistic bit of policy they prefer, had this to say about that:
You might consider whether you should not unfold as background the great privilege of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary indiviuals against the state. The power of the Executive to send a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government wether Nazi or communist... Extraordinary power assumed by the executive should be yielded when the emergency declines. Nothing is more abhorrent than to imprison a person or heep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation.
He said this in response to the British Courts releasing Nazis during the Battle of Britain. That was a far more existential struggle, in a far more difficult time. That Tuesday was horrid. But it was a drop in the bucket to what was happening to England.
Churchill didn't care. He might have wanted to engage in "preventive dention", but when the courts rebuked him, he admitted they were right. Going so far as to let Herbert Morrison say, with War Cabinet approvel, in the House of Commons, "While considerations of national security must come first, I am not prepared to let anyone die in dentention unneccessarily".
In a war, a real war; a struggle to the last, against an army which had run them off the continent, and was chasing them across Africa, while raining bombs on them every night, that was the policy of Great Britain.
But we, "The Greatest Nation on Earth", of whom that same Churchill said, "...we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
And we have, yet another, adminstration which seems willing to toss that into the dustbin of history. We didn't need to do it in the War of 1812 (when our nation was invaded, and our Capitol burned), nor the Civil War (though Lincoln tried; the courts pulled him up as short as they yanked Churchill), nor World War One, not even in World War Two (though we did a terrible thing to the Japanese Americans... even they were told they would be released when the war was over. This "war" has no end).
No, this "war" which has cost us, really, about 3,000 dead (ten percent of one years deaths by automobile; the combat deaths don't really count in the tally. We chose to wage both the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, we didn't need to have them), this war is the one we choose to let Habeas Corpus, and search only with a warrant and freedom from self-incrimination, go by the boards.
I'm an American, damn it, but if those things are gone, there is no bloody point to being an American. I might as well be in China, or Pinochet's Chile, or any other dictatorship there ever was. If this goes on, I will probably leave. I spent eight years under Bush, fighting against this crap. If the other side is going to do the same thing, then the experiment in mass participation we tried is failed.
Ben Franklin told a woman who asked what kind of Gov't the Constitutional Convention had given them (which, it must be rememebered, was a patch, it was United States of America 2.0, because the Articles of Confederation had proven to be a flop), "You have a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
Well, if it can't be kept, I'll be, reluctantly, going, to someplace more civlised, Canada, if they'll have me, or Britain, or Ireland, or the Netherlands, or Germany. Someplace where the whim of the Executive isn't able to chuck my ass in jail, indefinitely.
Because Churchill was right, habeas corpus is the supreme right, from which all the others depend. This shit has got to stop..
In 2005 I wrote about habeas corpus. It's probably the most important right we have. In the common law it goes back to the Magna Carta; which is so important there is a copy in the National Archives of the United States.
An orchestrated leak (a group of administration officials who got to speak, semi-officially, but anonymously... WTF?) makes it clear Obama has no plans to rescind the Bush administration recovation of that right for the prisoners, in Guantanamo, and intends to keep it to the indefinite future.
In the draft document released we find, The Detention Policy Task Force has thus far focused much of its work on developing options for the lawful disposition of detainees held at Guantámo Bay. Important questions remain concerning our policies in future regarding apprehension detention and treatment of suspected terrorists, as part of our broader strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The New York Times tells us, The goal, one senior administration official said, is to build a “durable and effective” framework for dealing with the detainees at Guantánamo and future detainees captured in the fight against terrorists.
Future detainees, policies in future. And a three tiered system of "justice. No longer is everyone equal under the law. No, some will be tried by civil courts, some by military commissions and some may never be tried at all.
Prosecution is one way, but only one way, to protect the American people from such attacks. Where appropriate prosecution must occur as soon as possible.
Only one way? I suppose they might be talking of preventative action, but I don't really buy it. This is a memo about how to deal with prisoners. What is the "other way" implicit in that statement? We already have an example, of "other ways", the Bush adminstration refused to release people it admitted were guilty of nothing. The Obama Adminstration did pretty much the same.
[edited to add] No, this adminstration seems to intend to continue the idea of the president having the right to keep anyone he wants in prison until he tires of them being imprisoned.
if the prosecution team concludes that prosecution is not feasible in any forum, it may recommend that the case be returned to the Executive Order 13492 Review for other appropriate disposition"
Got that? If they can't win in a civil court, they have the commission, if that's not a feasible option, well then, just don't try them at all. The president will choose some other, "appropriate" disposition.
Winston Churchill, whom the neocons keep pointing to when they want us to agree with some jingoistic bit of policy they prefer, had this to say about that:
You might consider whether you should not unfold as background the great privilege of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary indiviuals against the state. The power of the Executive to send a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government wether Nazi or communist... Extraordinary power assumed by the executive should be yielded when the emergency declines. Nothing is more abhorrent than to imprison a person or heep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation.
He said this in response to the British Courts releasing Nazis during the Battle of Britain. That was a far more existential struggle, in a far more difficult time. That Tuesday was horrid. But it was a drop in the bucket to what was happening to England.
Churchill didn't care. He might have wanted to engage in "preventive dention", but when the courts rebuked him, he admitted they were right. Going so far as to let Herbert Morrison say, with War Cabinet approvel, in the House of Commons, "While considerations of national security must come first, I am not prepared to let anyone die in dentention unneccessarily".
In a war, a real war; a struggle to the last, against an army which had run them off the continent, and was chasing them across Africa, while raining bombs on them every night, that was the policy of Great Britain.
But we, "The Greatest Nation on Earth", of whom that same Churchill said, "...we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
And we have, yet another, adminstration which seems willing to toss that into the dustbin of history. We didn't need to do it in the War of 1812 (when our nation was invaded, and our Capitol burned), nor the Civil War (though Lincoln tried; the courts pulled him up as short as they yanked Churchill), nor World War One, not even in World War Two (though we did a terrible thing to the Japanese Americans... even they were told they would be released when the war was over. This "war" has no end).
No, this "war" which has cost us, really, about 3,000 dead (ten percent of one years deaths by automobile; the combat deaths don't really count in the tally. We chose to wage both the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, we didn't need to have them), this war is the one we choose to let Habeas Corpus, and search only with a warrant and freedom from self-incrimination, go by the boards.
I'm an American, damn it, but if those things are gone, there is no bloody point to being an American. I might as well be in China, or Pinochet's Chile, or any other dictatorship there ever was. If this goes on, I will probably leave. I spent eight years under Bush, fighting against this crap. If the other side is going to do the same thing, then the experiment in mass participation we tried is failed.
Ben Franklin told a woman who asked what kind of Gov't the Constitutional Convention had given them (which, it must be rememebered, was a patch, it was United States of America 2.0, because the Articles of Confederation had proven to be a flop), "You have a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
Well, if it can't be kept, I'll be, reluctantly, going, to someplace more civlised, Canada, if they'll have me, or Britain, or Ireland, or the Netherlands, or Germany. Someplace where the whim of the Executive isn't able to chuck my ass in jail, indefinitely.
Because Churchill was right, habeas corpus is the supreme right, from which all the others depend. This shit has got to stop..
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 02:36 pm (UTC)Yup. That -- in the broader sense of the continuation of the application of the Unitary/Imperial Presidency (in the Nixonian/Bush2ian sense of "If the President does it, it's not illegal/wrong") theory -- is (so far) my only Serious Disappointment with President Obama. (There are three or four others that don't quite deserve the upper-case, and quite a few more that probably aren't "serious".) The idea that The Government, or anyone in the Government -- even the President -- can order the imprisonment, indefinitely, without a fair & speedy trial, of _anyone_ is simply outside of all of the American traditions and ideals that are a crucial part of my heritage, both intellectual/emotional and genetic.
There is, I think, much Truth in the old saying: "People get the Government they deserve". As long as the American people allow themselves to be bamboozled (or Terror-fied) into accepting an autocratic and authoritarian third-world-type government, that's what they (and those of us who Protest it *sigh*) are going to get. I really don't think the Obama Administration will use these Powers on more than a handfull of people (though that's enough to tarnish our escutchion). But with the precedent of two Administrations -- representing _both_ of the major political Parties -- embracing this Doctrine, the stage is well-set for future abuse, increasingly serious & widespread. Maturing this would probably take the U.S. longer than Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia did (with such horrific results during my childhood & youth), but it does seem, pretty clearly, to be In Progress.
Our nation was fortunate in having had its foundations designed and constructed by people who -- despite their sometimes-strong differences of opinion and ideals -- were thoughtful, rational, idealistic, and -- above all -- _honorable_. Conditions changed, many tiny steps (harmless in themselves) were taken, and our Government has become so shabby (& shoddy) that a new coat of paint every four or eight years isn't going to repair or conceal its delapidation. The veritable cornerstone of it -- the concept of Equality Under The Law -- hasn't quite fallen out yet, but it's been prised askew, and that'll be, at best, difficult to repair.
In today's world, hardly any candidates for high (or even most mid-level) Political Office can expect (& few can even hope) to win the election without spending more money than their major opponent. And the amount of money they have to spend in order to win election is almost always between several and many times the amount their official pay for the job will be. I think I'll go ahead and say "This kind of situation does not attract _honorable_ people", because my sense of "honorable" in public servants involves carrying out the will, and acting in the best interests of, the individual Citizens who voted for them. (And yes, I know of at least one person --most likely the same one you're thinking of -- who would probably argue that GWBush was honorable because he did, in fact, greatly reduce the taxes of the Very Wealthy People who contributed vast sums of money to his campaign, to the extent that they now pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than people like me, just as he had promised to do. I don't buy that argument.)
A System in which our elected representatives are more beholden to their Big Business & Extremely Wealthy campaign contributors than they are to us, the ordinary citizens, strikes me as being broken -- not just "seriously damaged", but _broken_, because they're the only ones who could fix it and doing so is apparently not to their self-interest.
Meanwhile... you're returning to a California that probably has, in fact, a Failed Government. It's certainly no longer a leader, among the states, in much of anything I think governments ought to do.