Kiss Democracy Goodbye, Courtesy of Herr Bush
Posted on September 28, 2006 by Mystech in PoliticalViewed: 5437 times
Congragulations, your rights to Habeas Corpus guaranteed by a little piece of paper called the Constitution have now been abolished. The Bush Administration now has the power to imprison anyone, anywhere, for any amount of time, with no substantiated evidence, without a declared reason or charges… including American citizens. Of course, they have to declare said persons to be “enemy combatants” and that would take lots of effort… something like the Bush saying “Hey you, yeah you with the anti-Bush bumpersticker on your car. You’re an enemy combatant… get ‘em boys!”. Of course, Bush would never use this power for anything that trivial, right? Then again we are talking about the guy who says disagreeing with him is un-American and supportive of terrorists.
Let’s forget for a moment that these Constitutional rights are guaranteed except in times of Civil War or Invasion, although both of these exceptions are starting to seem preferrable to the slow erosion of democracy in America. Isn’t there pugent irony in the fact that while claiming to democratize the world, Bush and his Reich are doing more to incinerate that very concept here?
Right now, the thin line between a democratic presidency and an imperial regime is in the form of a Supreme Court ruling; and that ruling is only one Supreme Court Justice away from being in the pocket of the Bush Administration.
We often smugly ask ourselves how the citizens of various “repressive regimes” around the world could allow themselves to live under such rulers. Now, when some other smug country asks Americans how they came to surrender their freedoms and liberties, I wonder what answer we’ll offer?
Pipistrella says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 11:27 amI think that picture’s going to get you in trouble with a lot of your friends.
I’m with you, though. This whole thing makes me feel sick.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 11:31 amIf the jackboots fit…
Ian Lemke says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 11:41 amI’m fully in support of the picture and the sentiment behind it! I think we’re past the point of trying to be polite in the company of certain people. If they can’t see what’s going on… or worse yet, support it… then #$%& ‘em!
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 12:35 pmWhile I agree that the current administration is reprehensible in its policies and its fast and loose treatment of the truth. I Have a problem with the picture and the sentiment. We object to Bushes characterizing all those who disagree with him as unamerican and supporting the terroist, so we make our point by comparing him to hitler. That is not only inaccurate but hipocritical. A rational discussion of the differing opinions on politics makes our point for us. Resorting to this most low of political childishness is not helping at all. I am friends with a large number of people who dont agree with me politically including some people who agree with me on some points. I dont say “F*ck em” over this. As long as the person I am dealing with is a flat out racist or similar level of stupidity I will listen to there opinions and even learn something in the process. They are not bad people for the belief that we were right to go to Iraq. Bush, despite my disageement with him probably believes he is doing what is right and has his reasons for it. He is not evil.
Being reactionary and insulting only hurts the cause of those who want to oppose him and his policies. It makes the rest of us look like lunatics and fringers.
hapersmion says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 1:33 pmSo, in the store the other day I saw a book called “The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens” – I was tempted to pick it up.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 1:40 pmJeremiah… yes, yes, I’m sure they’re good folks who love their families and pets. They’re “just doing their job” as they see it. Now where have I heard that argument before?
Hapersmion… sounds like a good and timely read, but given the current course of things, you might want to wear a cap and sunglasses when you purchase it, and pay in cash. :-)
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 1:54 pmGeofrey, What does it help to call them nazis? How is us demonizing them any different than them demonizing us? How is anyone going concider you arguments again the policies if you sound like your rabid about it? Always keep the argument civil. It make you look better to those who are still on the fence.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 2:10 pmYou see it as name calling, I see it as hearkening to the all too powerful similarities between classical examples of oppressive and abusive regimes. And yes, Jeremiah, something are worth being passionate over (or rabid as you choose to call it). Just a few of those things included our liberties and freedoms. I’m sure many people dedicated their efforts to “maintaining appearances” right up until the point where the only people left to convince where themselves… Nothing’s wrong, everything’s fine, I did the right thing, and so on.
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 2:30 pmPassion is good thing. I am just as passionate about the fight. I express my passion in reasoned arguments and votes. The comparrison to hitler is really not accurate, fair, or helpful. He has not achieved his office on the backs of a minority. He has not in fact rounded up the citizens of his own country for sterization because they have genetic defects. He did not round them up for death camps. He is no where near that territory and you know it. It is a standard rote to demonize your political opposition. The Communists were not oriented to the total destruction of all human worth. The Japaneese were not obsessed with our american women and worshiping demons. The islamist dont all hate freedom. Republicans are not like Nazis. Your passion is better used in something other than inflamed and inaccurate rhetoric. Argue the points not with images designed to inflame temper.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 2:47 pmThe similarities are strong enough for my opinion at this stage in Bush’s regime and at A point in Hitler’s (and many other similar oppressive rulers) career. If you’re more comfortable allowing the abuses of an unjust ruler to reach a similar conclusion before feeling comfortable critizing the criminal tactics they employ, that is your perogative. If the future allows us the benefit of making our final points in hindsight, I’m sure we’ll both have some corrections and updates to make. I, however, do not believe that some distant armchair is the most effective place from which to comment upon and safeguard our liberties.
In the meantime, I’ll use my passion the way I please while I’m still allowed to do so in this country. If that includes inciting the passions of others, then so be it. When so much stands to be lost through the evocation of our fear, ignorance and desperation to those that would erode our liberties, is passion for the sake of perserving those liberties really such an awful thing? Perhaps in the formal halls of a debate, but something more than points for a debating team are at stake here.
I’m sure the more restrained and reasonable passions you speak of kept many people quietly safe as similar regimes came to power. Perhaps they will preserve you as well if we find ourselves continuing down that familiar path.
PS – I don’t see the comparison between the Republicans and the Nazis in my post above you refer to.
implementor says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:07 pmI know that what you’ve posted is what the Bush Admin. has wanted to do, but have they been very successful in doing so? From what I’ve been hearing, the courts have rejected or overturned much of what they’ve wanted or been trying to do, and the one person that I know of that has been captured on US soil and detained as an “enemy combatant”, Jose Padilla, is getting his day in court (very unnecessarily delayed, but he’s still getting it): http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15599993.htm
So, does the Bush Administration really have that power at this point, or not? They haven’t actually succeeded in doing this to anyone yet, have they?
I agree with your sentiments, what the Bush Administration has been attempting, and in some cases, getting away with (at least, initially, before court rejection) is highly illegal, and they’ve been wiping their asses with the US Constitution. However, how successful have they been to this point?
Also, do you know what legal avenues could be pursued against Bush and the members of his Administration after they leave office? I don’t think that impeachment is something that will realistically occur before Bush leaves office, but can he effectively be prosecuted for what he’s done while in office after leaving? Such as violating Jose Padilla’s civil rights, etc?
implementor says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:09 pmAlso, separate line of thought, do you think that Godwinning really helps your argument? In every serious political debate I’ve seen, as soon as someone pulls out the Hitler or Nazi reference, people stop taking them seriously. Do you think this kind of reference helps or harms your argument?
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:23 pmI sincerely hope that Mr. Bush and his accomplices are brought to justice for their crimes, but I’m unwilling to remain “reasonably passionate” and quietly hopeful until/if that comes to pass. “Dissent, after all, is the highest form of patriotism.” ;-)
The Hitler analogy is a strong one indeed. I had my concerns that it would have negative effects on my position, but I stand by the similarities. We all know the Bush regime has dragged their boogey men and specters out of the closet to stampede the American public behind their Enabling Acts. If they want to emulate the oppressive regimes of the past, I have a hard time not creditting their obvious inspiration.
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:24 pmI have not now nor ever had a problem criticizing the administration and its policies. I am just not florid and overwrought about it. You can fight for your liberties with out being insulting. I dont so much mind your insult to him cause well I dont much care for him, but I do mind the insult conveyed to all those who agree with him. By calling him like Hitler. you imply all those who agree with him are nazis as well. Is brad a Nazi? Or Jay? How about Krysten and Mike? If I agreed with him would you say I am a nazi? The language of critisism is important. By demoninizing him into this role you have cast him you have proved yourself no better than the men who say I am supporting terror by questioning the governments pursuit of it.
In the end I say you can be as florid as you like with your insults of the man and his policies. I will support your right to it. What I question is the wisdom of it. It does not help the cause. People tend to ignore folks who march out the Nazi card. It wont convince anyone. It just makes the rest of us who think Bushes policies are a bad thing look bad.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:48 pmThank you for your endorsement of my right to express my concerns with the injustices of the Bush Administration as I see fit. Your concerns over the marketability of my patriotism are duly noted.
As for putting the faces of friends on the argument… many fine, fine people tolerated if not endorsed evils in the past. Perhaps we should be more willing to a self-accounting early in our parts in the path our leaders take us down, instead of regretting it later from the comfort of hindsight and damage-done. No matter how painful and lacking in political correctness that accountability may be.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Or in this case, politeness and a reasonable passion.
implementor says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 3:52 pmJust did a bit more checking on this and found more out:
First of all, unlike you claimed in your original post, the writ of habeas corpus hasn’t been abolished YET. The bill that would partially do so has only passed the House, it hasn’t passed the Senate, and if it does (or remains intact, which I think is unlikely, see below), it hasn’t passed judicial review yet. While there are some things in the bill that claim to limit the courts jurisdiction in this matter, absent a constitutional amendment concerning the issue, the courts will likely decide for themselves whether they have jurisdiction over this matter or not, IF the bill passes the Senate.
Secondly, from what I understand about the bill, while the President could likely apply the label of “enemy combatant” to anyone he wanted, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which would subject someone to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal, only applies to aliens (such as those citizens of other countries residing in the US), not to US citizens.
From what I understand, the language in the bill states that no court or judge would have jurisdiction to hear or consider “an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.”
So, while this is still very bad, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus included in this bill doesn’t seem to apply to U.S. citizens.
Also, there has been significant opposition to this portion of the bill already, which suggests that this specific provision may not survive even if the overall bill is passed by the Senate – the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, have already proposed an amendment that would remove this provision.
So, the sky isn’t falling yet, does claiming it has when it hasn’t actually happened yet a good idea? Or is explaining what is happening in full, and letting people make their own decisions?
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 4:27 pmIf we’ve learned anything about Bush’s reign, it’s that he will enthusiastically, creatively and criminally warp, stretch and outright break any piece of legistlation up to and including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I do not believe that the weakly worded and slightly restrictive nature of this bill will prove any exception.
We already know we are dealing with a person that considers himself above the law of the land and the ultimate and divinely appointed “decider” when it comes to all aspect of government (legistlative, executive and judicial).
Given that, let me ask you this… Do you honestly believe that given his distain for democracy and our rights in the past, that a bill that further emboldens his violations will prove any obstacle to him in the future?
implementor says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 4:41 pmNo, I believe that you’re correct in that assessment. However, I don’t think that he can actually get away with it. Yes, he can try, but he’s tried in the past, and the courts have rejected almost all of his attempts, and he’s had to abide by those rejections, whether he’s liked it or not. I don’t see that changing.
He’s also only got two years left, and even many of the Republicans have started to oppose him on a lot of issues, not to mention nearly all of the Democrats. Add to that the fact that most Presidents aren’t able to accomplish much in the last two years of a lame-duck Presidency, and I don’t see him accomplishing much in the future.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 4:44 pmIt just passed: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Should I refer to it as the Military Commissions Act or just learn how to pronounce Reichstagsbrandverordnung?
Thanks for the anonymous suggestion of “Torture and Police State Act” from the mutual friend staying “safely out of the line of fire on this one”.
implementor says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 4:51 pmRemember, it’s only passed the House. Start contacting your Senators now and let them know what you think about this bill, here’s how to do it:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Mystech says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 4:56 pmThanks for the link, I was just reading a similar one by another rights advocacy group. I’ll add yours and other material to a follow up post so it doesn’t get buried here. In the meantime, don’t hold back spreading it around on my account.
Gieseppi says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 5:45 pmI’ve been saying that for a long time.
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 5:52 pmFor what it is worth I did send a letter to my local senator Bill Frist.
Okay I will say I am not certain of how much value will be paid to my words on this, as I am democrat. I am however a man who believes in the system. I believe that if a man has a concern about a bill before congress and they want it addressed they should go to the senator representing their area. So I here I am writing to express my concerns.
The Military Commission Act of 2006 concerns me. I see it is an attack on what makes us a great country. The act would effectively remove the protection of Habeas Corpus.
The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
Although the form of the writ of habeas corpus implies that the prisoner is brought to the court in order for the legality of the imprisonment to be examined, modern practice is to have a hearing with both parties present on whether the writ should issue, rather than issuing the writ immediately and waiting for the return of the writ by the addressee before the legality of the detention is examined. The prisoner can then be released or *bailed* by order of the court without having to be produced before it.
The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts “declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty”. In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency.
By deciding we need a whole new set of rules to apply these folks we bring to our shores, we do their work for them. They make us change whom we are to make war upon them. Is it not a better proof of our strength to say that we will apply the laws we have and have followed to the enemies as judiciously as we have to ourselves? This law will not make us safer but it will lessen us. I ask you consider this in your deliberation and speaking on this act and I ask you to withdrawal your support for it.
Jeremiah McCoy
Jeremiah McCoy says:
Post Author September 28, 2006 at 5:57 pmI am sorry you feel compelled the least effective means to make your point about the man and his policies. But hey I suppose there is a place for all at the table of discontent.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 29, 2006 at 8:40 amGreat letter, Jeremiah, I’m glad you sent it. I do take issue with your judgement of “least effective”. I think the least effective is the passivity and silence which seem to be the rule. While some people were engaged in reasonable passions, illustrating the disturbing simularities between our current regime and the formative steps of others has generated dialogue and more than a few letters like yours. My only regret is not doing so earlier and more broadly.
Incidentally, the Senate approved the bill, it now only awaits House reconciliation and the White House. Please join me in welcoming the United States as the newest member of the Axis of Evil.
jeremiah mccoy says:
Post Author September 29, 2006 at 8:54 amYour characterization did not cause me to send a lettter. This is not the first time I have sent letters to the senator first off, though not over this bill. Your Characterizations made more or less want to blow off the arguements about the bill ecause it was not about the bill any more it was about your use of imagery not as an honest and cogent arguement but to essentially alienate on the other side fo the political fence from you making sure they would not listen to your point.
When I feel I am involved in anything evil I will be sure to let you know. Right now I feel more like I am surrounded by sheep and idealoges. People to wrapped in the notion they cant change things that they do nothing and those who tell them what to think with fear and inflamatory words.
Here is a notion. Maybe this really is what the majority of americans wants, or at least half of them.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 29, 2006 at 9:21 amJeremiah, I did not say my analogy made you sent a letter, I said it generated more than a few letters LIKE yours. If you can’t stop altering my words (as the case with the Republican/Nazi comparison above), I will have to ask you to stop commenting in this forum. Thank you.
Regarading the inclination to blow off the issues… If someone feels inclined to abandon their convictions in the face of strong imagery, perhaps they would be better off re-examining the strength of their own convictions rather than the political correctness of a commentary on historical similarities and strong imagery. Frankly, that comes off as little more than “I’m upset, I’m taking my ball and going home.” and has no traction with me.
As for majorities and want they want, here’s another notion… perhaps people are being lied to and manipulated by the Bush Administration in order to dangerously undermine the Constitutionn and principles this country is founded upon. But, that’s small potatoes next to the thin skin of imagery interpretation, I suppose.
Tara M. says:
Post Author September 29, 2006 at 10:26 amI think arguing about the icon really just distracts from the issue. It may be annoying or offensive to some, we should support the right to have free expression of opinions even if we don’t like what’s being said. That’s still legal, right?
Also, if we plan to wait until things are so bad that the Hitler comparison is accurate before taking action, it will be too late. I am not crazy about bringingup Nazis in any political discussion (since it tends to get sidetracked into just this sort of thing) but I did take G’s message as being that there is a slippery slope to giving up freedoms and ignoring bad things our government does to “someone else.” Hopefully, the earlier we get upset about it, the easier it will be to halt it.
I hope we’re all writing letters this week.
Mystech says:
Post Author September 29, 2006 at 11:18 amIt is with regret that I have had to remove my first non-spam comment to Cafe Arcane. After a request to comply with a posting request, I have removed one comment by Jeremiah McCoy and asked him to refrain from this thread as a result. I am glad to have heard many of Jeremiah’s earlier contributions and hope that he feels comfortable returning to Cafe Arcane in future. Thanks.