From the Editor/ Enemies of the state: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams...
On September 28, the U.S. Senate officially handed President Bush the power to determine the rights of prisoners in federal custody. The bill strips “enemy combatants” of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and allows the President, alone, to define torture—which is identified as a war crime in Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. The bill also broadens the definition of enemy combatants to include anyone identified as such by the President or Secretary of Defense. Evidence may be seized anywhere in the world without a search warrant, according to the legislation. In essence, Congress voted to allow Bush to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he ties it to his “War on Terror.”
This bill will not substantially change the de facto policies of the United States. We know that Bush believes that he can legally kidnap any non-U.S. citizen in the world and transport them to a secret or remote prison, where they will be held without charges, denied legal process, and quite possibly tortured by U.S. officials or foreign collaborators such as jailers in Syria or Egypt. Bush has been doing just that for almost five years.
Now that Congress has given Bush its blessing on his detention and torture policies, would it now be possible to apply those principles to a U.S. citizen? Could a U.S. citizen be deemed an enemy combatant and imprisoned under such circumstances if the government labels him or her a risk to national security?
Already, during Bush’s presidency, legal U.S. resident aliens have been held for held for days, weeks and months without charges—until finally tried in secret or simply deported, deprived of legal recourse. Then there’s the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was held for over three years without charges.
Even if these policies are rarely applied to U.S. citizens, does that mean that the U.S. can imprison and torture other people with shameless disregard for human rights?
With Congress signing over even more Presidential power, it’s fair to ask, “How wide does this net now go?“ Bush has always acted as a law unto himself. Congress consistently agrees.
Perhaps we can best judge that policy by looking at it in the context of a dangerous world, in which our sovereignty is threatened by an enemy who opposes a free and democratic America.
To this end, I here reproduce excerpts from a document composed by a cell of revolutionary firebrands:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let the facts be submitted to a candid world ....
“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power....
“[d]epriving us in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury ....
“[t]ransporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences....
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people....
“He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation....
“A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
The American Declaration of Independence is a powerful document admired around the world for its articulation of basic human rights and its stand against tyranny. It reminds us of the rationale for the United States of America. Yes, there have been breaches of the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence—from the very beginning, when slavery was condoned by the founders. But the ideals that they put into words have had a profound effect on the world—making human rights and democracy the global standards.
Two-hundred-and-twenty-five years after the signing of the Declaration, the President of the United States is signing a law that will give him some of the worst privileges of King George. This is a terrible irony.
In a sense, little was changed by Congressional acquiescence to yet another Presidential power grab. It does not change what has already been happening without their open approval—or what has happened in the dark corners of other administrations. But when the Congress says that human rights are relative and gives the President powers reserved for kings and dictators, we have really lost our way as a nation.
—Eric Bond, Editor