News

Printer-friendly version

Colin Powell, to whom history will certainly be kind, his UN show-and-tell aside, recently wrote a letter saying that the United States is in danger of losing its moral authority in the "war" on "terror." It took a bill threatening to violate, in spirit if not in letters, the laws of the United States and the Geneva Convention to get such a condemnation. Better late than never, I suppose.

Just don’t tell the folks in Haditha. Or Abu Ghraib. Or Guantanamo. 

 I received my tip that Bush wanted too much when members of his own party in Congress, who have been loyal to a fault otherwise, revolted from the bill. It’s an election year, and I doubt that anyone wants to explain to the voters why torture is a good idea. Unless, of course, you count the survivors of the Manson family as valued constituents. 

 Senator John Warner’s alternate proposal doesn’t smash completely the protections of the Geneva Convention, as Bush wanted. But, it’s a good start that renders the judiciary irrelevant on that minor question of American law. The separation of powers and the notion of judicial review have been subsumed into the almighty federal bureaucracy. It also changes the War Crimes Act, allowing some of the CIA’s more-creative techniques some measure of legality.
Goody, goody. I, for one, will be unpacking my thumbscrews. No one, then, can accuse me of a lack of "patriotism."

 I am sure that Bush’s recently packed Supreme Court dealt him a major blow when it blocked his military tribunals. I am equally sure that his otherwise-slavish Congress offended him when it didn’t let him have his way with the "terrorists." Like King Lear, though not nearly as poetic, Bush undoubtedly finds himself surrounded by traitors. I am positive that his ideologues and handlers see it that way. He really should have taken that whole "salt" thing as a compliment.
Of course, if he charges the detainees, that’s a different story. That might say something about the nature of the detainments. Then again, it might not. 

 The actions of the Bush administration, ranging from merely extra-constitutional to really illegal, are only part of a major problem confronting civil libertarians and people who care about the Republic. The government, once of, by, and for the people, has taken upon itself the duty to decide all matters of state – regardless of the decisions of Congress or the courts.
 I suppose that this problem could be traced back to the Civil War, where (despite the unquestioned nobility of the cause) the federal government triumphed once and for all over those pesky, but founder-beloved, states. However, in my lifetime, the administration of Bill Clinton can take the blame for massive expansions of federal power that today authorize anything in the name of the "war" on "terror."

 Clinton, and his ever-effervescent attorney general, Janet Reno, managed to convince themselves and Congress that any action, any violation of the law, or any brutality was necessary to fight what is often nebulously defined as "terror." The Posse Comitatus Law of 1878 was but a mere distraction in their quest to deploy the troops to enforce civilian law. When you fight a war that, by its very definition, cannot be won, then it doesn’t matter how you do it. 

 Democrats have no room for complaint whenever their loathsome avatar of everything provincial, Midwestern, and conservative does something against the grain of the founders’ sainted will. For, as any schoolchild knows, the blessed Bill Clinton started us down the primrose path. George Bush, far from being a semi-literate dolt, is taking Bill’s own notions of federal authority to their logical conclusion: the absolutism of the "unitary executive." Bush, apparently, is nothing if not a cold logician. As we have seen, his – if not His (for now) – logic is ever on the march.

 As much as I hate to say this, one person could say "I told you so." In November, 1998, Gore Vidal published "Shredding the Bill of Rights" in Vanity Fair. After the last eight years, it is a sobering document. The autocratic and authoritarian actions by a government obsessed with public safety have been cemented. The "war" on "terror" is never-ending, never to be won. It is only a premise for frustrated Federals to get their fondest wishes. From his Italian exile, Vidal can certainly reflect at length about what Cassandra must have felt – right before the Greeks left that nice present. 

 America has, until recently, been a nation of "little-d democrats" (credit Gore for that one, too) and civil libertarians. Under the aegis of terror, any action, no matter how illegal, is justified. International law is only for wishy-washy liberals (Commies, so I’m told) and those who want to give "aid and comfort" to terrorists. Right. 

 America is in grave danger of losing her moral superiority in the war on terror. As well as on every other front. No civilized nation of any repute has treated prisoners badly and gotten away with it. No such nation has stomped on treaties and gotten to wear white at the diplomatic wedding, so to speak.

I fear that, if the Bush administration (and whatever future governments the people inflicts on itself) insists on ignoring laws at home and abroad, the United States will go from the shining city on a hill to a city of the plain. And we all know what happened there.