|
Some have been there for four years now--with no charges against them, no trial, no contact with the outside world. Many have suffered horribly--have been tortured, have gone mad, have been killed. Prisoners who have gotten out, because their countries negotiated their release, have established that many prisoners are completely innocent of any crime, and even if they were guilty of something, their treatment has been illegal and heinous.
The Supreme Court, which failed to insure that their PREVIOUS ruling was enforced--they ruled that the prisoners must have real trials and then let the Bush junta get away with military tribunals all this time--has also left themselves a cowardly out. They basically said that Congress can re-write the law to ALLOW tribunals. Thanks a lot. They're leaving it up to the Diebold Congress whose chief concern--besides looting us blind--is that we might burn a flag.
If the SC was sincere, they would have ordered the release of the prisoners, or ordered the lower court to do so. There has not been such a disgrace of the US justice system since the internment of Japanese-Americans, and the slaughter of the Indians--and the lynchings of black citizens in the South. And now we know there are OTHER prisoners and prisons--anonymous prisoners whisked off on black flights to torture dungeons God knows where. It is absolutely horrible what these Bushites have done, and it must be STOPPED NOW.
But I don't think that's what the SC intends. I think they're making believe that we have a "balance of powers" and still have a democracy--liberal candy for the '06 elections. It's all a charade. I wish I could be more optimistic. Experience tells me not to be. I'm certainly GLAD they've ruled this way--mainly for the sake of the honorable people in the military who have been fighting against these illegal orders. There are many brave people in our military who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. But I don't think it will materially affect the prisoners--who have been the victims of very great injustice. And I don't think it will change the horribly corrupt and sadistic culture of the Bush junta.
Another thing that bothers me is that we have no idea who they are "detaining" and torturing, or why. Personally, I greatly doubt if their purpose is to keep America safe. And I think that this junta is perfectly capable of imprisoning witnesses to their other crimes, potential whistleblowers, business opponents, and anyone who interferes with their many nefarious purposes, whom they can get their hands on with impunity. We have no reason whatsoever to trust them. And the same with spying. They no doubt now have blackmail material on potential political opponents here at home, and abroad. That may explain some of the cowardice we see in Congress, and throughout our political system. I don't sense that the Bush junta has any boundaries at all. They are capable of anything. That is the danger of powers like these--indefinite detention and torture--and that is why they seek such powers. They are illegitimate office holders, thieves and brigands. Those who hold legitimate power do not NEED to torture people.
Some people might feel like it's okay to bend the rules on detention and torture in the case of a real threat--the "24 Hours" scenario (a US city threatened by real people with a real nuke). My position on that is that, if the President or anyone else, decides that torture is necessary in some dire circumstance, they should take the legal consequences--confess what they did, explain why they did it, and subject themselves to judgment by the courts or the people. But we should never, never, NEVER make torture legal, or suspend habeas corpus. Never! People died for these principles--recently, and over many centuries. They must remain absolute. To do otherwise is to lead us right down the road to Nazi Germany and the death camps. A dire circumstance COULD come up, in which an honorable person might feel compelled to break those laws for the greater good. I agree that it COULD happen.* I think the honorable thing to do is to then open it up, and be honest about it, and take the consequences. If so much is at stake, why shouldn't the lawbreaker take the consequences--except out of cowardice? More than likely, if it WAS a real dire emergency, the lawbreaker would be forgiven. My point is to RESPECT THE LAW--so as not to create a culture of lawlessness, which is exactly what the Bush junta has taken the opportunity (9/11) to do. What I am proposing is the mode of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. You break the law, and then you stand there and get beaten for it, or go to jail. If what you are doing is JUST, you will eventually win on moral grounds. Society decides. Lawful government decides. Not YOU. Because you are not an emperor. And that is something that this stupid little man in the White House, and his protective junta, have been very, very mistaken about.
-----
*(It could happen through no fault of ours. But more likely, it would happen as the result of people made desperate and driven insane by our policies. So one good way to PREVENT ever having to make that decision--that torture was necessary to protect peoples' lives, for real--is to aim our policy toward justice and peace. The more injustice you inflict on the world, the more likely it is someone will seek revenge. Help give people a dignified life and self-determination, and respect and hope, and they won't likely want to nuke one of your cities. This was the theory of the Marshall Plan after WW II. )
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
