In Case I Disappear
By William Rivers Pitt - Friday 29 September 2006
I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. “Be careful,” people always tell me. “These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren’t being followed.” A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a “safe room” set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said.
I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn’t yet been red-lined, I thought.
Matters are different now.
It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, “Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.”
It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of “enemy combatant” that has been established by this legislation. An “enemy combatant” is now no longer just someone captured “during an armed conflict” against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an “enemy combatant” anyone who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”
Consider that language a moment. “Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called “War on Terror.”
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an “enemy combatant.” It’s that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I’m not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America’s Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Stop flattering yourself.
September 30th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
This legislation is very telling from a psychological standpoint. What would any decent, honest human being fear from letting a prisoner stand trial or face his/her accuser? Nothing — which shows that Bushco and the rubber-stamp repubs (and dems) know that what they are doing is wrong.
This is the type of law that despots make.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Ken,
Do not make the mistake of assuming everyone who would like to speak out against Bush does - especially in the presence of fanatical, shrill, hateful, misinformed, stuck-in-denial, tribal loyalists. People are afraid of you, and this government.
Many are afraid, and people like you make them more afraid because you refuse to depart from your blind acceptance and loyalty and you lash out at dissenters. It is the support of Bush from people unwilling to object to the frontal assault on the checks and balances underlying our rule of law, and the unabashed dismembering of the Constitution.
I went to the priesthood session with a group of LDS democratic candidates. In one conversation Rob said something rhetorical about political balance, and the response was “no, its better if we have all the power.”
You cannot be a student of history and not understand how dangerous that is. Especially for a Mormon. It is not the LDS community that keeps these guys in power, it is the American Christian-evangelist movement, and they do not like you.
Be careful what you wish for and God bless the blind followers, for they know not what they do.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Cliff
The church has never told us to “blindly follow”. The LDS belief system is based on studying the scriptures and finding for yourself whether they are true.
The same goes for politics too.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
It is disengenuous to excuse the monolithic political loyalty to the republican party by pulling out a statement.
The LDS church is also pro-choice and anti-polygamy but…
Either the church doesn’t really mean it (the letters) OR the members ignore the letters.
Which one is it?
September 30th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Cliff
It is much safer to speak out against Bush than it was to speak out against Clinton. “Arkanside” was a common term during the Clinton administration. I have never heard the term Texaside used during Bush’s time in office. Not to mention all the Clinton critics that found themselves audited by the IRS after crossing the Clintons. You must not remember how viciously Clinton’s goon squads would go after anyone that wrote a book exposing their corruption. The list is long of the lives destroyed because they dared speak out. The recent interview with Bill Clinton on Fox News shows the seething bile that he exudes against anyone that questions him.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Cliff
I seldom see true hatefulness or even anger from people on the right. When conservatives are involved in protest they do not show anger. Remember Dan’s Bake Sale in Fort Collins Colorado about 10 years back? I attended that when Rush Limbaugh came out. It was a protest but it was more of a party atmosphere. There were a lot of smiling happy faces. This is opposed to a left wing protest where everyone has angry snarling faces. I have attended liberal protests where you see real hate in their eyes. You can tell these are not happy people. It’s the same when you listen to Rush Limbaugh as opposed to someone like Al Franken. Rush Limbaugh is fun to listen to because he has good humor and cheer when he does his show. Listen to Al Franken and the guy is too angry to be funny or entertaining. That is why Rush is successful and Air America is going out of business.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Cliff
When I participated in Mayor Rocky Anderson’s discussion did I seem like an angry person? No, not at all, in fact I was enjoying myself. When I met Rocky did I treat him disrespectful, scream at him, or give him hateful looks? On the contrary, I treated him very respectfully along with all the other participants and the audience; however some of the audience members seemed like they where throwing daggers from their eyes. One even implied I was a Nazi. I’m not saying everyone from the left are like that and I’m not saying no one from the right is, but it does seem like the left is a lot more anger issues. You for instance treated me very nicely and even though we get in some good debates I still consider you a friend. I enjoy this forum because it is good stimulating discussion without getting too personal or crude like many forums get.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:40 am
‘Fanatical, shrill, hateful, misinformed, stuck in denial, tribal loyalists”, = rational, informed, free-thinking, citizens, who reject stolen elections, lies, wrongful wars, torture and making excuses ex post facto for thier crimes. Hmm, caveat emptor.
Cliff, I think you nailed it when you said that it is our objection to the frontal assault on the Constitution, checks, balance and rule of law, that make us resistant. I’m sure the repubs are afraid as well, after all haven’t they too been exposed to the very best scare tactics, propaganda, lies and real carnage (which is better kept ‘over there’), that we all have? Our system isn’t perfect and has always been somewhat moldable and adaptive, BUT, adapting the whole structure of this Sacred Work in Progress to the pathology of a criminal enterprize just isn’t getting it.
Ken, you do not scare me. You are a fellow, affected by all this crap, just like the rest of us. It’s not too hard to understand. It IS hard to accept that you and so many others are unable to say ‘no’ to things that we know are wrong because we are fearful. What about loving your enemy, or turning the other cheek?This is the human condition? What are you afraid of? Do you feel that your representatives fairly represent your views on moral issues?
P.S. The big Shepherd in the sky doesn’t explicitly say, “Blindly follow”. That is just what the flock does. Woe be it when some half-baked tyrant interceeds.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
“I seldom see true hatefulness or even anger from people on the right.”
Really, Ken?
Rush compared Chelsea Clinton to a dog. Good cheer? Funny?
O’Reilly has been proudly and publicly been compiling an “enemies” list of liberals. He warned one caller that Fox security would be paying him a visit.
Coulter says we should kill the leaders of the “ragheads” and forcibly convert the masses.
Michael Savage gleefully told of the story where a protester fell off a bridge, claiming that the “hand of God pushed him off.” Savage also told a caller during his short-lived TV show to “Go get aids and die, you faggot.”
And that’s just a few of the things I’ve heard off the top of my head from my limited, occasional listening of Right-Wing radio.
Not hateful or angry? Only to those with blinders.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 am
Fine slapddown Derek. But this is just another example of the right’s tactics. No substance, refusal to address the issues, just attack the messenger.
It wouldn’t matter much to me if the right were excruciatingly pleasant. Wrong is wrong. Lying is lying. And evil is evil.
The Republican Party of The United States gov’t has been hijacked by the far right.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:29 am
Thanks, Cliff. And you’re right. The Devil can speak with a silver tongue as easily as with venom and rancor. But even if being pleasant was a sign of moral rectitude, Ken’s underlying premise that conservatives are more reasonable and pleasant is fundamentally flawed.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:32 am
If an Inalienable Right falls in a torture chamber, does it make a noise? Is it a scream?
Stick a fork in our ass, we’re done, everyone who voted with bush on this is on the political bye bye list.
….and about the rights’ tactics, are you still boxing with rules democrats, while the fight is for our Nations life, and is clearly a bar brawl, gang street fight? Got a bat? Where are your sex trade operatives, why are we not setting this gang of perverts up? We have been doing it 24/7 to sex offenders for years now. Do you think the left is too rightous? You can consider that while squaloring in gulag. Remember Solzhenitzhen, resist or lose all.
GROW SOME HIDE AND BECOME DEVASTATING. THE RIGHT MUST BE HUMBLED AND CRUSHED!!! They ARE simply bad people, they just don’t know it, much like an abusive hound on a chain. (That’s for Chelsea)
Please, please, please, do not come to a bi-partisan middle ground solution to this issue. It is fundamental to our Nation and CANNOT be altered, those who attempt,succeed, sponsor such an effort are TRAITORS!!! FIGHT YOU LILLY LIVERED DAY DREAMERS!!! NOW, NOW, NOW!
How’s that for venom and rancor?
Remember, Skywalker killed the Rancor with the Force.