The War on Civil Rights

It gratifies me to see that the Republicans and the Bush administration have finally abandoned their efforts to undermine civil rights. Instead, they have chosen to cut them down in huge swaths.

In one afternoon, in a series of bills passed in both houses of Congress, Republicans have decided that it is appropriate to set aside the Geneva Convention rules against torture, the writ of habeus corpus, and the prohibition of warrantless search and seizure.

This being modern politics, this major defeat for freedom was followed by more than its share of political posturing. In both the House and the Senate, Republican leaders directly baited the opposition, promising to label anyone who dare vote against the measures pro-terrorists.

First we have Senate Majority Leader John Boehner: "The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people. . . . To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them.""

Not to be outdone, Representative Dennis "New Orleans should be bulldozed" Hastert added as he vigorously pounded his chest: "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Yes, Dennis, that's right. The Democratic party is trying to encourage terrorist attacks on the United States. Just to clarify a point for your ignorant, addled brain, Democrats are not in favor of giving terrorists more rights. They are in favor of maintaining the rights accused people already have. Rights you are trying to take away.

No, I don't think terrorists are good people. But I would remind the Republican leadership that Saddam Hussein is being tried right now based on the principles you want to set aside. Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted, and executed without any of his legal rights being abridged. What's good enough for Timothy McVeigh should be good enough for any terrorist.  

The Geneva Conventions have been the standard of international law since 1949. Habeas Corpus was codified into British Law in 1679. The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the process of search and seizure that they formulated it into the Fourth Amendment and ratified it in 1791.

These laws have been around for a very long time, and for the most part, no American leadership has had the audacity to tinker with them. (Some have violated their provisions. But attempts to legally modify them have been thankfully rare.) It should not be my responsibility to defend these principles. It should be the responsibility of the Republican leadership to explain with great, great thoroughness why laws that have been accepted without question for decades and centuries are suddenly no longer appropriate for modern living.

I cannot sit quietly while this is happening.

Messieurs Hastert and Boehner dare their opponents in Congress to vote against them and face the wrath of the voters. I will take up that challenge.

I promise that I will never, ever, vote for a candidate for office who has voted for these measures or has publicly supported them. If a politician wants my support and my vote, he had better get to denouncing this, right here, and right now.

Comments

[KH]

Habeas Corpus has been an issue this side of the pond as well in the last year with huge parliamentary arguments over the proposal to extend the period of detention without charge (i.e. before seeing a judge) to 90 days. This ended up being reduced to 28. The argument was made in very similar terms to the ones you report - if you support civil liberties you are pro-terrorism. The attitude of "if you haven't done anything wrong why would you mind" has, for the moment anyway, beaten the centuries of rights building for the ability to lead a life without being watched by the state.

[Michael Hebert]

KH: I am sorry to hear that. I was dimly aware of the controversy you describe in Britain.

I find it disappointing that the people who now are making the argument that we must suspend or modify basic rights are conservatives. In the 1960s extreme liberals used to say "Better Red than dead," meaning it was better to become communist than to die in a nuclear war with the USSR.

Isn't this what conservatives are saying now? Better Red than dead? That it is acceptable to abandon certain principles of liberty in the name of survival? I know it is a good distance between detaining foreign-born prisoners for months without formal charges and totalitarianism, but, as the Chinese say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[Phillip Gordon]

I agree. The republican party (and our Executive branch in particular) has given terrorism more than they ever could have won on their own. They have handed them our civil liberties, our economy (in the form of billions spent in Iraq), and our international credibility (which Bush is single handedly responsible for). I don't know how they think they can run in this election on terrorism, when the world has had countless major terrorism attacks in England, Spain, Indonesia, India , Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and of course Iraq since 9/11. I would remind readers that the shoe bomber was in an American-filled plane with working bombs but failed to ignite them before being subdued. The world is not safer from terrorism. Karl Rove really thinks the average US voter is an idiot by choosing terrorism as his national campaign platform. Nobody thinks the Democrats are perfect, but they can't be any worse on this issue. And they are certainly on the right side of the issue when it comes to civil liberties.

[Deirdre]

Having lived through the civil rights and the Vietnam era, I find the current climate in the oval office terrifying. The impact on terrorism will be minimal. Ask Isreal about stopping lone bombers with wire taps, border restrictions and detention centres.

This is really about reducing the rights of the American people, so the conservative agenda can be pushed forward with minimal protest.

[Mr. Gunn]

They can add me to the list of people who will never, never vote for a republican candidate, not if a republican majority leads to this sort of abuse.