Then They Came For The Americans

In the past, I've been criticized by uber-right commenters for daring to have an opinion on how the U.S. applies rendition, secret prisons and torture in the war of terror. Despite the fact that so far those subjected to abuse have been overwhelmingly non-American, we foreigners aren't allowed to moan about it, it seems. It reminds me very much of an old quotation from Martin Niemoller.

However, with the Senate about to follow the House in agreeing to give Bush everything he asked for, some Americans also think that the new bill makes a mockery of claims to champion freedom and liberty.

The Senate voted 48-51 against an amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter that would have allowed terror suspects to file "habeas corpus" petitions in court. Specter contends the ability to such pleas is considered a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

"This is a constitutional requirement and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court," said Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Three Republicans voted with Specter but others in the GOP caucus contended that providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals weighs down the federal court system.

"It impedes the war effort, and it is irresponsible," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Democrats sided with Specter.

"The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel.

I believe all those Senators are Americans. So is Dan Froomkin:

Today's Senate vote on President Bush's detainee legislation, after House approval yesterday, marks a defining moment for this nation.

How far from our historic and Constitutional values are we willing to stray? How mercilessly are we willing to treat those we suspect to be our enemies? How much raw, unchecked power are we willing to hand over to the executive?

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

It's a red-letter day for the country.

Here's another American - and a lawyer at that:

I can understand if the average citizen doesn't comprehend the idea of habeas corpus, but a United States senator? It is the foundation of western government. An accused must be allowed to see a judge. If the executive branch has the sole authority to hold people indefinitely without ever charging them, we cease to be a civilized country. That is nearly the textbook definition of tyranny. What is left of America?!

...The House has already voted and already passed the bill. They have betrayed us. Only 7 brave Republicans stood against the bill. Some of them are as conservative as it gets and I vehemently disagree with them on fundamental issues. Nonetheless, I will forever see them as American heroes. There is a bottom line. This is it.

34 useless Democrats voted for the bill. One of them is Harold Ford, Jr. who was a classmate of mine in college. One of them is Sherrod Brown who has been very helpful to our show and appeared many times with us. But this is not the time for personal friendships to get in the way of what is right. They have abdicated their duty. They have let us down. This is not the time for political expediency. This is the time for men of courage.

How about John Kerry - he's American isn't he?

“We’ve got to tell the truth about what’s happening right now – right now – in our country. We must start treating our moral authority as a national treasure that doesn’t limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn’t get it. Still. Right now – today — they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration.

At last, many Americans like Law Professor Bruce Ackerman are coming to the realization, with dawning horror, that it is only the whim of the Oval Office that will stop all of this being visited upon Americans too.

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.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

That isn't just the current incumbent, by the way. This bill will still be there if ever there's a Democrat ass behind that "the buck stops here" sign. Let's see the uber-right explain how they are happy about that!

Ironically, this bill will be passed 60 years to the week after the Nuremberg sentences were handed down. Sixty years later, America has decided to ditch its constitution and international law and embrace the way of the tyrant. The two events mark the beginning and the end of America as the super-powerful friend of freedom throughout the world, and the whole world is less for the passing of that friend. I'm going to leave the last word to conservative blogger Greg Djerejian as he riffs on the concept of the new creature Bush has made, the narcissistic and warlike America, and simply say "with bells on, Greg".

The irony is, what other country can assume a responsible mantle of world leadership at this turbulent time, if not us? Certainly not China, or the EU, or Russia, or anyone else. But we are dropping the ball, alas, including critically the moral high-ground, with our "evasive, quasi-participation" with regard to the Geneva Conventions (General Batiste's phrase), via the Addingtonian machinations bent on ensuring the Legislative Branch (wink wink) has blessed the Executive Branch's right to torture, albeit disguised with legalistic obfuscations or barely credible disclosure requirements in the Federal Register, among other such profoundly irresponsible chicanery that would have previously been unimaginable in our country anytime in the post-war era, if not well before then.