The Senate has voted 65-34 in favor of S. 3930, “A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.” Here, “trial by military commission” means that, if you are an unlawful enemy combatant, you have no right to a trial by your peers or any other basic protections of the Bill of Rights. (Who counts as an “enemy combatant”? Whomever the government says. Even U.S. citizens who haven’t even left the country, much less engaged in combat? Yes.) And “other purposes” means torturing people.
I remember when Republicans used to look at government with suspicion. Now the motto of the Republican Party is “Trust us, we’re the government, we know what’s best and we don’t make mistakes.”
I have nothing to add to the discussion that hasn’t been said by more expert people elsewhere. I just wanted it on record, if the internet archives last a thousand years and I’ve been cryogenically preserved for the same length of time, that I was one of the substantial number of people who thought the bill was repulsive and anti-democratic. It will go down in history as one of those sad moments when a basically good nation does something that makes later generations look back and think, “What made them go so crazy?”
I can just quote other people. Jack Balkin:
The current bill, if passed [as it just was], will give the Executive far more dictatorial powers to detain, prosecute, judge and punish than it ever enjoyed before. Over the last 48 hours, it has been modified in a hundred different ways to increase executive power at the expense of judicial review, due process, and oversight. And what is more, the bill’s most outrageous provisions on torture, definition of enemy combatants, secret procedures, and habeas stripping, are completely unnecessary to keep Americans safe. Rather, they are the work of an Executive branch that has proven itself as untrustworthy as it is greedy: always pushing the legal and constitutional envelope, always seeking more power and less accountability.
Almost all the Republican Senators, of course, voted for the bill, Lincoln Chafee being the lone honorable exception. As Glenn Greenwald notes,
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.
Most Democrats were against (although not all, sadly). Hillary Clinton:
The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values…
The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices.”…
This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.
Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.
Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy — ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”
Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.
But words are cheap, and nobody stepped up to filibuster the bill. Democrats, as usual, put their fingers to the wind and decide to be spineless. The calculation seems to be that they won’t look sufficiently tough if they come out strongly against torture. They don’t get it. “Tough” means that you stand up for what you believe in, and that you’re willing to fight for it if necessary. How are you supposed to keep the country safe when you’re afraid to stand up to demagoguing Republicans? People know this, which is why it’s been so easy to paint Democrats as weak.
The “tough” stance of the Bush administration has taken Iraq, a country that formerly opposed al-Qaeda, and turned one-third of it over to al-Qaeda, in the process fueling Islamic radicalism and making the threat of terrorism significantly worse. If that’s what you get from “tough,” I’ll stick with “smart” and “principled” any day.
John D, yes you focus on a distorted version of one half of the record. You ignore the democratically elected leaders ousted by CIA coups, the military juntas supported by the state department, etc.
As for Europe, the record is pretty damn good. Thank you, well done. Alas, the history doesn’t end there. You are reading history in the narative supplied, as I said, lots and lots of small evils commited are justified by the big evils defeated.
Maybe you’d like to amend your history lesson by Latin America?
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
Or maybe the US/CIA condoned terror attacks on…. wait for it…. Italy? Of course being well informed on international history and US involvement in it you know all these things, right? If not, stop lecturing us “youngsters”.
Sean, I’m a recent initiate to your blog. Is it wrong of me to throw out a comment on an past blog? I’ve been hanging around hoping to see you stir up some blogging energy on Janna Levin’s luminous new book. It is stunning. Blew me away. I saw she received some impressive reviews but I can’t help but feel the general populous is not quite getting it. Have you read the book? It’s incredibly well-crafted. It is the best description of what it is like to think, to be lost in mathematics, that I have ever read. I’d really like to hear your take.
John D #24:
Beware of the terrible simplifiers. Many of the items you write are not at all black and white. I do wonder from your list if you have lived for any length of time outside of the US. I recommend Ekstein’s text for extensive references.
So not to dwell too long, let’s look at a small portion.
>-Helped end WWI in Europe, LEFT.
>-US Dragged into WWII:
>-Helped defeat Nazis, and put in place democracy in Germany, LEFT.
(Don’t forget that Soviets and the Americans were helping each other)
WWII.
First the deaths:
The Russian deaths in their ‘Great Patriotic War’ are thought to have exceeded 27 million. The Germans lost 3.8 million solders killed, and probably an equal number of German civilians died. Another three million solders were captured by the Russians, and of these about one million did not survive. Six million Jews died, and several hundred thousand French, English, American, Canadians, were killed, and so the list goes on.
In this maelstrom, the roles of victims and perpetrators was sometimes not very clear at all. Examples.
While the whole continent of Europe was on the move, the roads of Europe become clogged. A State Department report in June 1945 estimated the total number of refugees in Europe at 33 to 43 million. The Allies faced an enormous problem as hundreds of thousands of refugees fled westward; so the Allies blew up bridges leading west in order to stop the tidal wave of fleeing humanity.
Germany became a wasteland. Between 1943 and 1945, the Allies dropped about 1.25 million tons of bombs on German soil, most cities were unrecognizable even to people who had lived there all of their lives. A normalization of horror ensued. What the Allies rained down from the sky, the Soviet advance continued (in their own way) on the ground: rape, pillage, murder, burn, and rape again.
1.25 millon tons of phosphor bombs rained down on your head is probably not something that you can comprehend very well, so I’ll put it in human terms, via a friend of mine from Braunchweig. In the 1960s there was this saying, which, translated literally, was: “Oh, boy, you are completely in the bucket” and it meant you were knocked out, severely punched, something in that direction. This expression has its origin from that time. After the 1940s air bombs, people were carrying their burned relatives to the cemetary in 10-liter-buckets. Why 10 liter buckets? Those were the buckets they used to try to put out the fires. How could a human fit into a 10-liter bucket? Since the water was used against phosphor bombs, the water only intensified the firestorm. Human beings had been shrunk to a size that fit into the very water buckets that were used to extinguish the fires.
Moreover, as awful as the war had been, it could have been worse. During the summer of 1944, when it seemed for a time that the Normandy invasion had stalled, and when London was being subjected to a steady dose of V-1 rocket attacks, Churchill and his advisers did give thought to gas and bacteriological warfare. They backed off for the moment. A year later, after the fighting had stopped in Europe, the Americans, who in relative terms had a light war, did not twitch as they dropped their new atomic bombs on Japan. Had these been available earlier, would they not have been used on Germany? Many Germans were convinced they would have.
-Invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Freed millions. Democracy in place
ER… Invaded AFghanistan after 9/11. Ousted Taliban, provide substrate whereby democarcy might grow.
Diverted many forces to irrelevant and ultimately disastrous war in Iraq. Left Afganistan way under-garrisoned, LEFT with the job undone. Taliban resurgence growing, chaos in Afganistan about as bad as in Iraq.
Just because the USA has done some good things in the past doesn’t mean that it isn’t utterly fucking up right now. And, indeed, it is utterly fucking up right now.
-Rob
M. Brown — I don’t have Janna’s book yet, but I’ve ordered it and hopefully will have a chance to talk about it. She’s an amazing writer, no doubt. But let’s not stray too far off topic, although perhaps it’s too late.
We, the people have spoken, more than once: safety over liberty, security over constitutional rights. The quality of the average citizen has steadily declined since the Depression. We are cowards and slackers living off the hard work and good deeds of our recent ancestors. Dubya is only a taste of things to come.
It’s obviously true that at least the second election voted Bush in.
My point remains, however; when fed up with fear by the enormously powerful corporate media, I won’t blame people for actually geting frightened. You only know what you’re taught, and although the stories of the WMD fraud were told, it’s still a part of a larger picture of GWB as one of the white-hats standing firm against terrorism and other kinds of evil. Being ashamed of people gathering around someone they believe to be a savior in times of crisis is pretty much being ashamed of human nature; IMHO that will lead to nothing but depressed apathy.
The whole record of US merits on the international stage is, well, ambiguous.
Yes, the US helped ending the terrible and meaningless WWI in Europe. However, they also fought in the russian post-revolutionary war, on the side of the tsar and Germany and Austria/Hungary who were supposed to be the enemy; giving Red Russia a lot of good reasons for the paranoia that led to the Cold War.
Yes, the US fought Nazi Germany during WWII, and we are thankful for that. However, German tanks were build by the Ford Corporation, and the paper forms for the administration of Holocaust were provided by, IIRC, IBM. The US were not alone here, all too many of the European countries have a similar record, the leading corporation of my own country being no exception.
Yes, the US gave billions in Marshall aid, but that money didn’t come for free. As for Denmark, we recieved some of the help, too, but it restricted our financial politics, the money were to be spend largely in US businesses, and it was even a part of the deal that a certain number of hollywood movies were played in our theatres! The aid was welcome, but it was not a christmas present, it was a part of an ideological war against the USSR and should be viewed as such. I bet the USSR would have done the same thing, for very much the same reasons (gaining sympathy and influence in Europe), had their entire industry, infrastructure and even their labor force not been blown to smithereens during the war.
Yes, the US tore Quwait out of the hands of Saddam in ’91. It’s not like quwait was any kind of free country neither before nor after that war, though. It’s a plain, old-fashioned dictatorship, with one dictator or the other. Furthermore, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Saddam’s invasion of quwait was an epilogue to the Iran-Iraq war, a war that Iraq started with the heavy financial and technological support of the US. Yes, Saddam was our friend in the Free World back then, remember?
Reagan standing up against Communism? I was a kid in the early 80’es, and I was, like my parents, dead-scared by the aggressive ways of mister R. I remember a sticker I saw once, with a drawing of Reagan saying, ‘We’ll fight to the last european!’. Maybe things were obvious over there, but here they were not. We’d be the first, not only to be hit by the nukes, but also to be rolled over by the US and russian tanks, soldiers and entire war machine, with little hope of survival if The Big One came. To Reagan and Kruszthev alike, Europe was a chess board; to us it was our homes and lives, and lots of us did not like the big guys playing it tough on our behalf.
Thoeger:
The caveats you mention are, for some reason, poorly known throughout much of the country. And caveats, nuance etc , as we know, are usually quickly dismissed as practices of the weak, dishonest, and unpatriotic. Remember: “Actions, not words” (A saying by Chuck Norris on the back of many a Marvel comic book in the 80s).
The points John D. mentioned above are pretty much what I and many others were told prior to college. (Vietnam is usually deleted b/c it’s just too depressing…it was only a tie…not a clear win). I have to say, his list is not totally wrong. Rather, it’s presented in terms of black and white and that’s what is easily digested. Especially if you’re hearing this as part of the winning and hence, virtuous, side. If this is what you know, then of course it is inconceivable that anybody should dislike the US (the hand-wringing “why do they hate us?”) except for the truly misguided. You have it exactly correct: “you only know what you’re taught…or what you choose to learn!”. And you make your decisions and votes accordingly.
Thus, as Rob Knop pointed out, people are not supporting our One True Party for necessarily deep reasons. Rather, they see their policices as epitomizing the best values of what we know about American history. Hell, since such policies have worked in the past and you’d have to be stupid or cowardly not to see that they’re working now, or require time. Who wouldn’t support them and the legislation they think best?
Here is a more complete description of the US’ record in the Middle East: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0210ahistoryles.htm
And a more concise version of above:
http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/112202_america.htm
It’s deeply disturbing that both the suspension of habeas corpus and the legalization of warantless wiretaps were legislated on the same day – those just happening to be two key provisions of the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree. The crucial – and very fortunate – difference seems to be in the apparent security of our political freedoms, and those of the press (which were, in contrast, censored after Reichstag).
“…as Rob Knop pointed out, people are not supporting our One True Party for necessarily deep reasons. Rather, they see their policices as epitomizing the best values of what we know about American history.”
That, unfortunately, is part of the reason that so many of the world’s population consider us annoying meddlers: giving high-sounding lectures about the innate values of freedom and liberty, and why the rest of humanity should willingly follow our lead, while having little or no (first-hand) knowledge of what the “real” world is all about; i.e. we tend to think we know everything there is to know (and understand it even better than the people who are directly facing the problems), when in fact in turns out we only understand as far as the eight ‘o clock news program will allow us to…
That is the greatest misfortune of our people.
Amara,
Thanks for the links. I am adding the sites to my favorite bookmarks list.
Jimbo
You’re welcome!
Pingback: It is Official at After Gutenberg
It seems to me that JohnD’s problem is similar to that of the current administration; if you don’t agree with him you:
need a history lesson. Those of you and maybe a few others who think the US is evil
BUGGED OUT of vietnam when left couldn’t stomach it.
remember how Carter pandered? nah, you’re too young)
few of you under 50 even REMEMBER what it was like living under communist menace….
-Communism collapsed around world. Social solution exposed for lie that it was.
You think they won’t do it?
you are a nazi/communist/jihadi sympathizer
This is the most liberal world agenda imaginable, and it is being promulgated by Bush. I think that is what bothers the liberals
That last one is a bugger isn’t it? I am trying really hard to imagine how a unitary executive totalitarian government can be a liberal agenda???? One of my other problems w/ his list is this time gap:
-Hugely bloody civil war freed slaves, preserved union.
-Helped end WWI in Europe, LEFT.
The two million or so indigenous native peoples who were systematically slaughtered here in North America (including many of my relations) seems to have been worthy of us attention. Hell, without all that genocide none of the rest of his list would merit distinction as being of value now would it? Similarly he failed to mention our nuclear ambitions which led to atmospheric testing, dropping two bombs on Japan, destroying some Pacific Islands, and inducing cancers in thousands of US citizens. Naaaaa, that would be nit-picking, sort of like his line about Communism collapsing; can you say China???
Well, I am glad I stirred up the natives with my little “history lesson.” I apologize to Sean and the others. I hope we don’t swamp the “cosmic stuff!”
I enjoy pontificating/reading about world history…
You certainly pointed out to me how history is a nasty business. I appreciate that. The world does indeed suck big time, at all places, all peoples and races, at all times. The US, and liberal Western civilization barely floats to the top of this cesspool of human history, doesn’t it (sorry I offended some of you there…)? I too read some years ago how Churchill wanted to use gas on the Germans, and I was rather taken aback. So much for liberal tendencies, huh. Basically kill or be killed. I also do not apologize for using the A-bomb on Japan. In fact it probably saved many many millions of Japanese (and American) lives. The imperial Japanese were the original jihadi wackos (slightly lacking in appropriate indiscrimminate slaughter of innocents, rather preferring combatants…). The invasion of Japan probably would have looked like the invasion of Okinawa to the tenth power. Total defeat was the only option. Too bad we don’t have that option with the jihadi thugs. Except for the occasional slaughter of innocents, it seems to be just a media war on who does the least damage to the innocents. The jihadis are winning, thanks to their leftist sympathizers. That is too bad. Have no fear people, it looks like we will have a show circus during Bush’s last years, of impeachment excitement. Can’t wait. Osama must be hoping he lives long enough to ride a victory parade thru DC. OTOH, Hillary may become a man among men (my sensibilities preventing me from expressing it differently) We can hope, no…?
I have read a lot of Churchill. I am just stunned at how deeply pacifist Europe (and yes America) was after WWI. Hitler could have been thwarted and probably toppled 4 times, easily if they had stood up to him. I credit that supremely weak kneed pacifism for the deaths of those almost 100 million people one of you listed. A lesson for today to be sure. What do we want this world to look like???? Do you think a jihadi world will pay much attention to particle physics?? Women particle physicists? Are we willing to promulgate our beliefs in this nasty business of history, or have we become such weak kneed liberals feeling sorry that we have caused pain and suffering along the way? The Jihadis want to cause as much pain and suffering as they can.
Reagan certainly scared a lot of people, didn’t he! Carter was too scared to do anything about Iran. I partially lay the blame for our whole modern predicament on Carter empowering the original Iran jihadis by doing NOTHING. People would have died to be sure (nasty history stuff again…), but methinks he could have landed a few divisions and caused the Iranians some grief. Certainly not today! Why do you think they released the hostages when Reagan took office?? So Reagan topples communism, Carter gets the Nobel peace prize. I think I prefer Reagan. (I know that is simplistic, but hey, this is gonzo journalism!)
You know, if we want to exorcise all our liberal ghosts of wiped out peoples, races, civilizations, along the course of our nasty history, we should all just kill ourselves in all countries but Africa, and let them start the grand trek out of there again.
And yes, I still see America as a shining light. Tell me please, why we are being invaded from Mexico. Are these people coming looking for oppression do you think? Or is it opportunity? Oh, I see, they are being forced to come by the terrific social policies of the Mexican gov. It is amazing we have been able to absorb these 10’s of millions. So far… Can’t wait for you tell me how they are being oppressed working at all those low end jobs….
And tell me why are there legions of Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indis, Chinese, Koreans at my place of work- mostly first generation. All fine people. Why don’t they go back home? Why are they becoming citizens, of all things, of this oppressive country? I am an engineer, and white, and am definitely in the minority. That is OK with me if these people love America for what they have found. Some of you should think about that too… (just some of you..)
I do appreciate the references. Lots of great references/links herein..
John
John, so it seems that if it weren’t for the Jihadis, the Neo-Cons would be finished. 🙂
I commisserate with your feelings. This morning, in line for Brunch, people kept asking me why I was stabbing a nearby stack of newspapers with a plastic fork. Luckily, I was pacified by a large stack of bacon.
Ross
Using Aggressive Memetics Since 2006
I guess this is what happens when 50+% of the American people vote for a man who found it amusing to torture small animals as a child.
Donna, can you say something about the issue, instead of just critisizing fellow blogger?
To those who think black and white is bad; what is your preference then?
grey or colors?
For those who don’t like simplistic; perhaps you could move to france where they discuss everything to death.
And the frog sympathisers, perhaps you did not hear about the compassion a very young George W. showed his mother when his very young older sister died of leukemia. Why not read up on that; doesn’t fit in with a preconceived notion of what you would rather believe?
Having nothing useful to add, perhaps I can at least provide a service and start taking bets on how many posts it will take before someone invokes Godwin?
John D, why do you hate freedom?
Seriously:
a) Nobody here thinks the US is evil (in this comments at least). We just don’t think that it’s “good” by definition or divine destiny. If it’s good it’s good by it’s actions.
b) Nobody here thinks that we should never involve ourselfs in other countries, most of the countries opposing the US’ so called “War of Terror” and the “War on Iraq” were supporting the Blakan and Afghanisthan Wars. These were difficult decisions, too.
c) “Leftist sympathizers” want to understand the enemy to eliminate it. Instead of simply blindly waging vaguely or totally unrelated wars and thereby strengthening it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5384548.stm). We are against the war in Iraq because it’s a ’cause celebre’ for al Quaeda. We are shocked by this latest legislation because see a).
This is not about leftist sympathizers what the CIA has done and is now authorized to do is simply illegal. Several Attorney Generals are investigating CIA agents, some arrest warrants against CIA agents have been issued. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is quite simply an issue of modern civilization, the rule of law and reason. This is what makes us “good” and them “evil”.
d) I personally have repeatedly argued that the US has been one of the most benign Imperial Powers the world has ever seen. Often opting for indirect and economic influence rather then direct control. The Roman empire was so succesfull in parts because it granted total Religious freedom to the subjugated regions.
The counter narrative is that misguided capitalist policies backed by Europe and the US have wrecked many countries economies and limited their democratic freedoms.
e) In order to maintain it’s imperial influences the US agencies have, often without knowledge of the US people, resorted to anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-human rights methods, these deeds stand in contrast to the (not purely, though partially selfless) deeds you mentioned.
The US left? Well except of course for the military bases it has throughout Germany.
(And if you want to be legalistic about it: “Germany remained under nominal military occupation until 12 September 1990, when the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, the final peace treaty, was signed by the four powers and the two German governments, restoring German sovereignty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Control_Council)
f) Internally the US has shown time and time again that it has a great resillience to fascist tendencies, McCarthy, Concentration camps during WWII for the Japanese, and so on, all resulted in a backlash that undid these terrible things, so I have no doubt that this will happen again, because people like Sean and others who have commented will push things back. It’s not accidental that the US is the longest surviving democracy on this planet…
g) For me the central question is the following: The US (and to a somewhat lesser degree the EU) are militarily and economically the dominant powers in the world today. This will last for a few more decades until China overtakes us and the brief centuries of European dominance (of which the US dominance is just the latest chapter) of the globe come to an end.
What do we do with our power? We defend our values, of course. We cannot accept the limits on freedom of speech, science and culture that the terrorist threat has brought forth. This is not neccessarily best done by military power of course, ideally we would just be calm about the “terrorist threat” which is minimal anyways (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/17/flu_hernia_or_police.html).
But beyond that? Do we try to spread our values? If so these can only be our humanist values and not our christian values. Our humanist and democratic values were developed in a specific cultural tradition and context though, and though I believe them to be in some sense universal it’s likely that each soiciety needs to reach these universal values in their own way.
This is a diffcult question to which your postings have not contributed at all, in fact they merely distract from this, IMO, most real and urgent question facing us.
As John D clearly demonstrates (thanks John!), we tend to look at history through the filter of our politics and preconceptions. Therefore “proof by historic analogy” is deeply flawed, and can be used only as a rethorical trick. The real lessons of history are hardly ever learned.
#48: fh, I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I have often heard Americans claim that the US is the world’s oldest democracy – why? Iceland, Switzerland and Great Britain, for example, have had democratic institutions for far longer than the US has been in existence. New Zealand was the first to achieve universal suffrage, I believe, if your definition is the right to vote for all citizens. I thought blacks in the South effectively didn’t even have the right to vote till the mid 1900s. I am often bemused by the mandate assumed by US politicians to “spread democracy around the world” – its arrogant and ignorant.