A very thoughtful and interesting, dare I say almost philosophical, discussion of the Manichaean nature of the Bush Administration is in the present Salon here. A quote:
The power to order people detained and imprisoned based solely on accusation is one of the most extraordinary and tyrannical powers any political leader can hold. One of the core rights established against the British king by the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century was that the king could not order subjects imprisoned except upon a finding of guilt arrived at in accordance with legal process. The Military Commissions Act thus literally vested in President Bush -- and in subsequent U.S. presidents -- a power no British king has possessed since 1244. The founders of the United States thoroughly objected to such tyrannical power. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to Thomas Paine, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Emphasis mine. Or rather, it should be yours...
- Log in to post comments
The argument I continually hear in response to my disgust at this horror in Guantanamo is that the right of the Constitution only apply to American citizens and that the "terrorists being held don't deserve rights."
While technically true that certain constitutional rights may be seen to be restricted to citizens and residents, the argument shows a complete historical ignorance of the reason that the Framers were so careful to guard individual liberties. Jefferson even proclaimed certain unalienable rights to be shared by all people (endowed by the creator in his parlance.) And yes, the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document on the government, it is important to note that he didn't see rights as being unique to Americans.
If the people being held are guilty of being terrorists against the United State, bring them to an open trial and prove the fucking case! Tyrants rule best not by suppressing the rights of their guilty enemies, but by destroying the innocents' rights.
I suspect that Bush's bracelet reads "What Would Machiavelli Do?"
It's ironic that Bush & Co. have gotten us into this fix by falling prey to what is, essentially, a Christian heresy.
Yeah, but what about the non-terrorists being held? Or has Bush dumped the assumption of innocence part of British law as well?
Bob
Why tarnish the good name of Machiavelli by associating it with GWB?
What's truly striking is that many of the Bush policies are completely and obviously illegal and unconstitutional - but it's taken years for the courts to even begin addressing this.
Our system's feedback processes are simply too slow.
Eh, isn't this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
I wouldn't have expected such reasoning from a philosopher. Off course there could be arguments against such powers, this just isn't one.
The thing about fallacies is that many of them (for instance, ad hominem) are only fallacious when they do not support the conclusion. It is not, say, a fallacy to bring a person's conduct into play when they are being judged for conduct.
Traditions are not, in themselves, good or ill. Habeas corpus, however, is a fundamental and constitutive right that was the outcome of centuries of struggle against abuse - for example the arbitrary arrest and sentencing of the Star Chamber. Losing it means that the basis of our modern legal system has been deeply eroded, not slightly adjusted.
I'm not arguing for our rights here, either on the basis of tradition or anything else. I take it as a given that our present rights should not be eroded. I am merely pointing out that they are indeed being eroded, not only in the USA, but, since I live in a common law country that is influenced by American precedents and policies, across the world.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Within the legal history of the U.S., where we claimed the right to rebel against the British crown specifically because we were being denied the rights other British citizens enjoyed, the traditional and unwritten British constitution was, in effect, a foundation of U.S. legal rights. In the course of the debate over our Bill of Rights, the point was made that the Bill was not to be construed to limit by enumeration the traditional rights American had always enjoyed before.
Thus, the tradition is, in fact, one of the issues under consideration and this President's assault on those traditional rights, with the craven assistance of Congress, is well illustrated by the fact that British kings, even when operating under the claim of the divine right of kings, were lesser tyrants than Bush is now. It is, I think, a point well taken.
The Kings & Queens of Britain always had to watch their backs; removing Kings & Queens was a pass time of the Lords & Ladies of Britain (happened in Scotland & England) so they knew that they couldn't always do as they pleased.
The big problem is that in the US & UK, for different reasons, there is no counterbalance to the overweaning power of the President or PM at present. No checks or balances leads us on the slippery road to an elected dictatorship and with the power of the state having expanded greatly (surveillance, ID cards etc) in the US & UK and I assume in Aus also we can only hope that our elected representatives grow backbones.
Saying that, we are to blame, the state has taken more and more parental powers over us and we have meakly accepted it.
The problem is that any democratic state, no matter how well constituted, is not completely immune to manipulation. The US Constitution affords a good many checks and balances, and in the UK, as Dr. Wilkins has stated, there is a very long legal and constitutional tradition limiting the power of the executive in such matters. What has happened in the US is that the events of 9-11 created an unhealthy situation in which the executive branch essentially did an end run around any opposition. It wasn't the President who seized these incredible powers, but rather those that hold the one of checks (Congress) holding its collective nose and delivering it to him. The failure was in an opposition too overawed by 9-11 and too afraid of a public lashback if they did what they were Constitutionally supposed to do.
What has happened since then, as the Iraq War and Bush's entire foreign policy has been shown to be not only arrogant and legally corrupt, but more importantly (from the point of view of realpolitik) completely inept in its execution, is that everyone has collectively decided to let him rattle about in the White House while they prepare for the next Administration to extricate the US from the quagmire in which they now find themselves. The only hope I have is that Congress rereads the Constitution and the history of liberties in the English-speaking world and regrows the backbone needed to put errant Presidents in their place.
if you examine the structure of the federal government coldly, the label that should come to mind is "elective monarchy", checked by the "elective oligarchy' of senate and house. there is no democracy here. consequently, it doesn't behave like a democracy.
the word 'democracy' has been 'newspeak'ed, if you use it in relation to the usa you are deluding yourself, or attempting to delude others.
I repeat what I once said to a visiting American researcher: Australia should invade the US, because it is badly in need of democracy and we know they've got weapons of mass destruction.