TheAgitator.com
Rule of Law
Sunday, February 3rd, 2008I’ve mentioned before that the “what’s next?” argument about Bush administration violation of civil liberties in pursuit of the war on terror is getting harder and harder to make. We’re pretty much to the point of “what’s left?” One of my points in that post was that not only is the administration illegally spying on American citizens, its supporters have actually argued for arresting and imprisoning journalists who dare to write about it.
It looks like that too has now gone from the fantasy wishes of neocon war cheerleaders to reality. The DOJ has just subpoenaed New York Times reporter Jim Risen for the names of his confidential sources, knowing full well that he’ll refuse, at which point they’ll toss him in jail.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, the really infuriating thing here is that when Congress subpoenas the Bush administration, the White House either ignores the summons entirely, or “accidentally” loses the possibly incriminating evidence members of Congress are looking for.
what should we label ourselves, as “citizens” becomes inaccurate?
I sympathize with this sentiment, as I trust the State about as far as I can kick it in stockings. However, I must admit that I am getting a trifle weary of the blame being placed on Bush. The rot started a long time ago, some of the worst happening under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. None of the Presidents since have done much to improve matters, and most have made them worse. Bush has merely followed in the wake of his predecessors. He catches hell for it because the liberal Establishment is still pitching a hissy fit that Bush did not let them steal the 2000 election, hates the idea of an effective war on terrorism, and is perfectly willing to condemn Bush for doing what they would defend (say) Clinton for doing.
It is also very hard to take seriously charges that this administration is violating the Civil Rights of citizens when the same people who make such charges believe that (for example) the Geneva Convention applies to non-uniformed combatants, who attack civilians deliberately, use religious buildings and hospitals for cover, operate outside of a formal command structure, and is fighting in a non-signatory state anyway …. who, in other words, the very kind of people that the Convention was written to exempt.
Is Bush encroaching on our civil rights? Probably. Will that change significantly under his opposition? Yes; it will get worse.
An effective war on terrorism? Really?! You think so?
Comparing what Clinton did to what Bush has done is laughable. There is no comparison. Even is we presume to take what you say as the truth (what past pres. have done), how does that make it ok as it relates to what Bush has done?
As far as non combatants…again you couldnt be more wrong. You can’t claim to hold the moral high ground while your trampling on the rights of not only non citizens but on your own citizens. That’s not even talking about how the world perceives the US now.
It’s sad to see people spewing out the same ignorance year after year in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Terrorism equals some poor bastard who must resort to the use of unconventional attack, ie suicide bombing, in lieu of having an actual state sponsored airforce, navy and army.
Oh, the bravery of being out of range.
The Poor Man’s Air Force
A History of the Car Bomb (Part 1)
By Mike Davis
Russian proverb - the fish rots from the head.
Here in the US the fish has been rotting for at least the past 120 years when our benevolent nation annexed the sovereign nation of Hawaii in the name of empire. Thus we have the humble underpinnings of modern day Pax Americana all bought and paid for with our tax dollars inorder to have corporate access to cheap natural resources and sweat-shop laborers.
So a great big thank you to the oligarchy and the plutocrats at the helm of our ship of state.
Rule of law equals whatever they decide it will be which is largely dependent on whether you are a have or a have-not.
Got money?
I don’t claim any moral high ground. I simply point out that the people doing so at Bush’s expense have the moral stature of slime mold. They have, many of them, been consistent totalitarianism fans (so long as the totalitarians were smart enough to master a little Marxist patter), have always opposed ANY effective action against terrorists no matter who was in office, and are serial violators of civil rights whenever it suits their ideas of expedience.
The only effective difference between Fascists, Marxists, Socialists, and the various sad fans of a certain Austrian Corporal is one of uniforms. Morally, they are all swine.
CSP, I’m sypathetic to your point of view as I am also not a reflexive Bush hater, but to say things got bad under Wilson and never really got better is just wrong. From a conservative/libertarian point of view, Wilson was the worst president we’ve had by an order of magnitude, and civil liberties are much much much more protected now. I also think you’re wrong about the Geneva Conventions. We basically were already following Geneva (specifically the third and fourth Conventions) type rules in combat and spearheaded an effort to codify these rules for myriad reasons . As someone who served, I don’t have a problem with sidestepping a technical rule for a technical reason, but wholesale disregard for the Conventions is really abandoning our core values.
CSP
Fallacious arguments + invoking Hitler + Bush apologist?
phew gj
> what should we label ourselves, as “citizens” becomes inaccurate?
“Feudal serf.”
C. S. P. Schofield writes “when the same people who make such charges believe that (for example) the Geneva Convention applies to non-uniformed combatants”
I grant that belief exists, it’s not a pure strawman. However, (1) it’s not entirely absurd and (2) it’s politically marginal enough to be a semi-strawman, because your politically effective principled opponents are upset at much grosser violations than you acknowledge (and, I grant in advance, there are plenty of unprincipled opponents too, seizing on any any old criticism just because they are applying a double standard).
If you think the belief is manifestly absurd, I suggest you read a bit about case law in war crimes. The WSJ ran an article years ago about things that we punished the Japanese for after WWII, and I vaguely remember that when they executed captured American bomber crews on the grounds that they were targeting civilians, that was not a defense, so case law doesn’t seem to be nearly as simple as “obviously they’re war criminals caught redhanded, so they’re no longer protected, like duh.”
If you think it’s near the politically effective core of the principled criticism, I think you’re out of touch. If you wanted to make it an honest acknowledgement of the mainstream of principled criticism, you’d have to say “*people* *suspected* *of*” and “*ties* *to*,” not just “non-uniformed combatants.” If “the worst of the worst” in Guantanamo had turned out to be all at least as bad at people who had been caught on video personally fighting out of uniform, I think the wind would have gone out of the sails of the principled anti-Guantanamo movement. Do you disagree?
I actually wish the politically effective opponents cared about your version of the belief. Regardless of one’s views about the merits of the policy of picking up suspected opponents and torturing them, the meta-policy of selectively trashing written law on the theory that everyone can see it’s stupid — instead of, um, officially changing pretty easily if everyone can see it’s stupid — seems both transparently dishonest and pragmatically unwise.
And, incidentally, check out this article about how fighting out of uniform can have immediate tactical risks, not just the strategic risk of all (three?) principled war crimes legal theorists of the right wing blogosphere declaring that it’s now open season on war crimes against one’s entire organization:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a300a4d68-48cc-4b6d-a456-b14ee38364c0
(I don’t know how URLs work on this comment page; if that very long URL doesn’t come through, Google for the quoted phrase “Extraordinarily keen observation” and keywords ares and homepage.)