We will not allow the enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms. –George W. Bush, September 12, 2001
As most of you have heard, Congress recently rubber-stamped a bill at the behest of the President that will supposedly “help fight terror.” The Village Voice has a nice summary article:
Right after 9-11, then attorney general John Ashcroft was directing the swift preparation of the USA Patriot Act. He sent a draft to the aggressively conservative James Sensenbrenner, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill included the suspension of habeas corpus for terrorism suspects–the right to go to a federal court to determine whether the government is holding you lawfully.
Sensenbrenner angrily recoiled at the proposed disappearance of the Great Writ and forced Ashcroft to strike it from the Patriot Act. Five years later, Sensenbrenner helped shepherd through Congress the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which prevents detainees held by us anywhere in the world, not only at Guantanamo, from having lawyers file habeas petitions in our courts concerning their conditions of confinement.
In 1798, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson–who insisted habeas corpus be embodied in the Constitution–said to generations to come: “The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen [freedom from arbitrary confinement]…”But now, the Republicans’ Military Commissions Act can not only remove this bedrock of our liberty from prisoners outside the country but can also strip habeas protections from legal immigrants here, as well as from American citizens.[Link]
In the wake of 9/11 many of us South Asian Americans have dealt with the erosion of civil liberties by joking around about it. “Hey, don’t talk in Tamil at the airport or they might arrest you as a terrorist.” Or what about “Hey, be careful going to Pakistan because they may suspend your 5th Amendment rights and ask you to take a polygraph when it is time to return to America.” Behind all of these nervous jokes is the suspicion that under these new laws perhaps anyone, including U.S. citizens, could be arbitrarily labeled a “terrorist” and stripped of their rights. The Bush administration counters by arguing that we should trust them and that they will only pin the label of “terrorist” on the real bad guys. You see, under the Patriot Act once you are officially designated as a “terrorist” you are in a whole new legal reality.
Now consider for a few minutes the case of Luis Posada Carriles. 30 years ago last week he masterminded a bomb plot that brought down a Cuban jetliner off the coast of Barbados. 73 people aboard were killed.
New documents made public on Thursday by the US National Security Archives prove the participation of Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch in the bombing of a Cubana airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people on board.
Among the documents posted are four sworn affidavits by officers in Trinidad and Tobago police, who were the first to interrogate the two Venezuelans — Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo — who were arrested for placing the bomb on flight 455. Information derived from the interrogations suggested that the first call the bombers placed after the attack was to the office of Luis Posada’s security company ICI, which employed Ricardo. Ricardo claimed to have been a CIA agent (but later retracted that claim). He said that he had been paid $16,000 to sabotage the plane and that Lugo was paid $8,000.
The interrogations revealed that a tube of Colgate toothpaste had been used to disguise plastic explosives that were set off with a “pencil-type” detonator on a timer after Ricardo and Lugo got off the plane during a stopover in Barbados. Ricardo “in his own handwriting recorded the steps to be taken before a bomb was placed in an aircraft and how a plastic bomb is detonated,” deputy commissioner of police Dennis Elliott Ramdwar testified in his affidavit. [Link]
According to US National Security Archives, Carriles helped down this airplane in much the same way as the suspected terrorists in London were planning on bringing down airliners a few months ago. This act was also historically significant:
The attack marked a new era of fear. It was the first act of midair airline terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. [Link]
Where is this terrorist Carriles now? Well…he was arrested on immigration violations as he tried to sneak into the U.S. from Mexico and is currently sitting in a U.S. jail awaiting deportation. The border system does work! Only in this case maybe the Bush administration wishes that it didn’t. Some of you can see where this is headed I’m sure:
Posada Carriles’s legal odyssey has turned into a diplomatic quandary for the Bush administration and a test of the president’s post-Sept. 11 credo that nations that harbor terrorists are guilty of terrorism. While the United States does not want to free a terrorism suspect, it is also reluctant to send him to Cuba or Venezuela, countries that not only remain hostile to the Bush administration but that, according to court testimony of a Posada Carriles ally, also might torture him.
Attorneys for the Justice Department must respond by Thursday to a Texas magistrate’s recommendation that Posada Carriles be freed by a federal judge because he has not been officially designated a terrorist in the United States and cannot be held indefinitely on immigration charges.
“This is the moment of truth for the Bush administration,” said Peter Kornbluh, a senior Cuba analyst with the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research library at George Washington University.
The prospect of freeing Posada Carriles, who is also a suspect in a series of 1997 hotel bombings in Havana that left one Italian tourist dead, has outraged Cuban leaders. Havana is papered with Cuban government posters and billboards invoking President Bush’s position on harboring terrorists.
“It’s as if you were to say to the American people that country X has found Osama bin Laden, who arrived without a passport or a visa, and that he is being held as an illegal immigrant but will not be sent back to the U.S.,” Ricardo Alarcón, president of Cuba’s general assembly, said in an interview. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>So we have a real life, honest to goodness terrorist in our custody. All we have to do is designate him as a “terrorist” under the Patriot Act and we can hold on to him and keep him in a jail cell for his crimes. With the new law we can even strip him of Habeus Corpus. Why doesn’t the Bush administration just call him a terrorist already and be done with it?
In a brief submitted to the judge Thursday evening, the administration of President George W. Bush said it opposed the release of Luis Posada Carriles and argued that granting him freedom on bail may have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.But, while referring to Posada as “the admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks“, the administration declined to officially declare him a terrorist under the USA Patriot Act which, unlike the immigration law, gives the government authority to detain him indefinitely.[Link]
<
p>Could the administration’s reluctance stem from the fact that Carriles’ act is rumored to have been CIA sponsored and the victims were Cuban nationals? Also, what would the Cuban American voters in the battleground state of Florida think if we labeled this “freedom fighter” as a terrorist?
“It simply indicates that, as far as we’re concerned, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; it completely undercuts our position against terrorism,” according to Wayne Smith, who served as Washington’s top envoy in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
“Bush himself has said numerous times that anyone who shelters a terrorist is a terrorist,” Smith, a Cuba expert with the Centre for International Policy here. “Under that definition, President Bush and members of his administration are terrorists because they are effectively harbouring Luis Posada Carriles…” [Link]
For the record I do not support sections of the U.S. Patriot Act nor do I support the bill that passed in Congress last week. I just wanted to point out why our founding fathers were sound in their logic and why I believe that a President should never be given the powers that are currently being granted by the American voters through their Congressional proxies. The word “terrorist” is not always an objective description and can be employed as a political tool as we see here.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The principles of freedom and democracy are wonderful ideals, but unfortunately the US Government is and always has been selective in their application. We scorn dictators and oppressive regimes that deny people freedom but support those who provide us with some tangible benefit. Whether it’s oil, buying jet fighters from us, or allowing us to have a military base in their country, we will turn a blind eye to things that should offend our sensibilities. So the question becomes how much are we willing to sacrifice for the illusion or reality of security? It would be nice to address the nature of the conflicts, but to question one’s own integrity amounts to charges of treason, sedition, or being unpatriotic.
Still few people are willing to remain faithful to their values and principles when they are tested. The Amish forgiving and attending the funeral of the man who murdered their daughter is a testament to true nature of forgiveness.
All this reminds me of a quote attributed to Golda Meir in the movie Munich, “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.”
Mr J and his peeps, in the US constituion, also allowed for Habeus Corpus to be suspended. lincoln suspended it during the civil war, grant suspended it in regards to the KKK (another terrorist group), and only FDR abused it (japanese internment).
You’re right to worry, but you’re avoiding addressing the tough questions that Mr. J himself grappled with.
Good point. Bush is right to rename this a war on islamic fascism. We’re not firghting a means here, especially a means we’ve used.
As for the suspension of the writ, Jefferson by no means thought it should be indefinite as seems to be the case in practice (Gitmo) and the MCA…
Thanks for highlighting the loss of habeas corpus rights for EVERYONE even SUSPECTED of being a terorist…which these days we know includes young Brazilian men wearing jeans and backpack…
I think it’s a terrible blow for the US Legal System that in a country with a written constitution which is meant to be supreme law, the Patriot Act has remained in place and has been used time and time again to deny people their human rights.
Well if it is it would be one of the precious few the world has seen from it so far. I don’t care if half of ya voted for him, I dislike Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld et al so much I even feel sorry for the Americans living under their tyrannical, farcical rule.
Except for Manju, who is clearly beside himself with joy over every chance to defend Bush because, hey, other people have done dumb-ass things too. The point isn’t that people haven’t suspended habeas corpus before, it is that it should not in any way be happening now, in the 21st century, right NOW. And you can’t even use Clinton’s extra-marital affairs to cover up this clear breach of a right which is not only part of US law but a fundamental doctrine in international law.
I’d better watch my Ethnic Speak…
Understatement of the
yearpast five years.I love John Yoo. So representative of Berkeley’s esprit de corps.
I dont know about others but I had a serious headache for a week after this bill was approved by Congress. The only good thing about this bill is that it will hopefully get knocked down by the US Supreme Court as violating the 14th amendment.
I think Manju exemplifies the problem with the Republican Party. These people have no problem with the suspension of HABEUS CORPUS for all legal immigrants! For anyone who thinks that the control of all levers of power in the hands of the Republican Party is good for our liberty, this should be a serious wake up call. Also citing the examples of the suspension of habeus corpus from the last century and the Japanese internment serves what purpose apart from justifying its current application? Manju’s dad could not become a naturalized citizen before the 50s and Blacks had seperate restrooms. So if Southern states re-initiate segregation, should we take solace in the fact that it has precedence?
A lot of the Democrats also voted for this draconian bill (12 dems in the Senate voted for it) Some of them are from the house like Harold Ford (TN) and Sherrod Brown (OH) who are democratic senatorial nominees from TN and OH. These mofos need to be held accountable as well.
Reminds me of the TADA days in India….
This is the part that left me most shocked, along with the fact no Republican defected (Chafee doesn’t count) despite all the controversy leading up to the bill passage. How the WH was able to push everyone to vote their way is, from a political standpoint, impressive…dangerous for the country, yet politically impressive.
I really hope that some judge out there gets to hear this case and tells the administration that they can’t have their cake and eat it, too. Though, I’m very skeptical.
In addition to the terrorist designation issue that Abhi discusses, the government’s refusal to extradite or deport Posada-Carriles to Venezuela is particularly interesting/arbitrary. The government did not bother to contest Posada’s claim that he would be tortured in Venezuela, even though the Venenzuela government has apparently given “diplomatic assurances” that won’t happen. Under other circumstances that are certainly no more credible, and may be a good deal less credible, such assurances appear to have been more than enough for the administration to justify rendition of someone to a country where they might likely face torture….
If anyone is interested, the Posada-Carriles detention order can be found here.
That’s what Bill Clinton apparently thought too when he pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN in 1999, despite opposition from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Congress, the FBI, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and his own wife, citing “Executive Privilege”
We are in a war. People forget the sacrfices that have to be made in order to win a war. Wars are not won on the basis of slick arguments. Just a few decades ago, there was a draft. If it was still in place, I am sure most desis here would have taken a cowards way out and run to Canada. Roosevelt limited a lot more rights than Bush has ever done. If current thinking was in place, USA would have never won WW2. It seems more and more people are vested in defeat of the US. Its what the US can do for me me me.
You’re right. And if there was a draft, there would be much greater opposition to this war, and Bush would not have been re-elected. End of story.
Are you in uniform, Vic?
As you can see with Vic, the right has become a parody of itself.
Last time I checked, Clinton left office at the beginning of ’01.
tu quoque = ad nauseam
Hello Vikram. I am watching you.
As you can see with Vic, the right has become a parody of itself
C’mon now you have used the same unimaginative remark more than once!
And if you have stooped to picking your political talking points in general and the ones on the war on terror in particular from The Village Voice, you might as well start getting your daily news from the National Enquirer.
And if you have stooped to picking your political talking points in general and the ones on the war on terror in particular from The Village Voice, you might as well start getting your daily news from the National Enquirer.
When did I do that?
What an utterly empty argument. I cited about a dozen sources above including declassified CIA cables.
How can we ever compare WWII to either the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict or to the greater ‘War on Terror’? WWII was a war where according to some estimates ~2.5% of the worlds population was killed. Almost every major economic power in the world was a participant in the war. There were major battles being waged in sea/land/air in Europe/Asia-Pac/No.Africa. link
The attempt by the right wingers to compare what Bush has started in Iraq to WWII is just an attempt to further stymie public-objection to the Iraq War. They tell people to look at what it took to win WWII and that we are in the fight for our freedoms yet again and that it is going to take the same level of sacrifice as it took to win WWII is just another ploy to try and shame the people that oppose the war. Anyone who doesn’t support the administrations point of view, let alone the war in Iraq, is un-American, hates baseball and apple-pie.
The closest comparison to the Iraq war is the Vietnam War. A localized conflict where we grossly under-estimated what its going to take to win. Regarding the War on Terror, I believe its a sham to use the word ‘War’ to describe our struggle against terrorism. If this is a war, it has to be a war mainly of ideas, not just of weapons.
I grew up in the middle-east, in Qatar, and I have seen first hand what almost every local thinks about America’s foreign-policy. Most locals don’t really hate the American people, but, when it comes to the American govt, there was almost universal hatred, and this was before 9/11. People in Qatar were relatively wealthy and they did not feel the sense of hopelessness that some in other middle-eastern countries feel and that leads them down the path to Al-Qaeda. But, most in the middle-east are relatively poor and with very poor prospects for a stable future. These people are indoctrinated from a very young age on the wrongs that Israel and its ally the US have done to all Muslims. This hatred is our enemy and what we have to target. We can’t fight this hatred on a battle-field. If we use weapons to fight this, well, we are on our way to becoming a state similar to Israel, where decades of conflict have now created a society that is perenially wary of the next attack.
Are you in uniform Vic?
I am a US Army Veteran having served three years (I only saw two others desi in the US Army, and one was a nurse). I went enlisted and the GI Bill certainly helped me. In case anyone wants to know my MOS was 54 B (NBC), and I did my basic at Ft. Jackson, and AIT at Ft McClellan at Army Chemical School. My personal opinion is that there should be a mandatory draft, as it instills a sense nationalism and service in individuals.
If there was a draft, more people would be exposed to ground realities of winning a war. I know if there was an existing draft prior to Bush, it would have certainly helped Bush. Its pretty obvious now that anyone who instutes a draft commits a political suicide.
Vic, thank you for speaking up. I can’t stand the implied chicken-hawk meme behind the question, “are you in uniform?” It’s intellectual sloppiness and it’s funny how often in blog comment sections it ends up with a reply like yours. Oops. It’s like saying you can’t be a progressive if you don’t pay more in taxes than you are meant to, or somesuch nonsense.
What an utterly empty argument. I cited about a dozen sources above including declassified CIA cables.
And yet The Village Voice piece was your headliner. That publication is a champion at selective information.
…brown.
Cool, you are quite observant I see. Last I checked FALN was still free in ’06. No President past or present is above using skewed political reasons to justify controversial decisions.
Indeed. Comparisons with WW2 are truly egregious. They represent an absence of thought. They represent grunting unthinking platitudes. This current campaign is in no way comparable. In fact I cringe whenever I hear or read the comparison.
It’s alright though, North Korea just dropped a nuke, the world is a much safer place.
Ahem. The British and Russians (30 million dead Russians) and Canadians with the help of millions of Indian, African, Irish, Australian and Carribean soldiers ‘won’ WW2 alongside the American forces, who entered the war 3 years after London was first bombed by the luftwaffe.
Sometimes Sepia Mutiny makes me want to sing.
===
America!
FUCK YEAH!
Comin’ along to save the Motherfuckin’ Day!
America!
FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way!
===
How so? Wouldn’t there have been greater opposition to the war (since anyone’s family member could be drafted?). I think it’s a safe assumption that people are much less willing to go to war if it’s themselves having to fight. The families/selves of volunteer soldiers is a different story since they would have other motivations than just being forced into it. Could you explain, please?
Can we all stick to the arguments rather than asking who’s making the arguments, please?
Vic, could you elaborate on what you specifically have in mind?
Ah! The draft.
Yup.
Hey the NewYorker says “…. the government has recently denied, delayed, or revoked visas to a group of seventy-five South Korean farmers and trade unionists opposed to a free-trade agreement; a Marxist Greek academic; a Sri Lankan hip-hop singer, whose lyrics were deemed sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers and….
Holy Paratha, no MIA? Screw Habeus Corpus, but not letting MIA is just plain wrong. Bush Murdabad!
I would love to continue the debate…but I am at work, and have actual work to do. Perhaps later at home…then maybe not cuz I won’t change anyone’s mind.
Quick replies. Under Roosevelt…think about the Japs and their rights. If there was a draft, perhaps there would be more delibration about going into war, but once we were in a war, things like eavesdropping, and prisoners right would resonate a lot less. Would Bush have been reelected if there was a war? Who knows?
I meant to say if Bush would have been elected if there was a draft?….Ok back to work
Please do, if you have a moment — I genuinely was interested in what you had in mind. There is of course internment, but I was curious if you had a list of other things in mind as well.
Forget the draft, was Bush even really elected the first time? Oh woops I forgot, it doesn’t actually matter how the votes add up to the Bush administration.
Would Bush have been re-elected if the votes of the 13% of African Americal males whose vote has been taken off them due to incarceration had been given the chance to vote?
Most importantly for the rest of the world (except for Tony Blair, and what a brilliant career move his support of Iraq turned out to be), would Bush had been re-elected if the rest of the world had a say?
NOTE to the Clinton bashers: I’m not saying that Democrats are better, or even slightly less worse (which is all I think they are), I’m just saying that there has to be a better way than electing an administration willing to overrule the human rights of its own citizens. Republicans dismiss anti-Bush views as anti-American but most of the world cares about American people, just not their current government.
I for one would be very scared to live in a country where potentially someone’s subjective decision on their terrorist-radar could get me locked up in a jail cell somewhere, watching the paint dry and keeping score on how many of my fundamental, constitutionally protected rights have been trampled on.
Vic,
Against what enemy? I hear a lot about war this, war that, but I still don’t understand what is meant. Perhaps since you have actually served in the military you can tell us what war we are fighting. Also, in this war, what constitutes victory?
Also, in this war, what constitutes victory?
When Jews are allowed in Mecca.
Forget the draft, was Bush even really elected the first time? Oh woops I forgot, it doesn’t actually matter how the votes add up to the Bush administration.
Would Bush have been re-elected if the votes of the 13% of African Americal males whose vote has been taken off them due to incarceration had been given the chance to vote?
I for one would be very scared to live in a country where potentially someone’s subjective decision on their terrorist-radar could get me locked up in a jail cell somewhere, watching the paint dry and keeping score on how many of my fundamental, constitutionally protected rights have been trampled on.
The very people who accuse the current administration of lying and fearmongering are in fact some of the most brazen practioners of both.
Does that make the point they brought up invalid or unworthy of discussion?
In comment # 39 the second amd third para should have come out italicized in addition to the first.
I too have served in the US Army (Iraq), and I am completely against a mandatory draft. You cannot force a sense of nationalism in an individual; at the most, it is cultivated out of necessity. Vic, you are flashing your colors, boy, and I cannot blame you – I support our men and women in Iraq 100 percnet. But at the risk of sounding like I’m having an existential crisis, I would often kick up dirt in the wastelands of Iraq and wonder which meaningless brutality I would be in charge of executing next. Let’s call a spade a spade – this is a war of images and perceptions, with no clear enemy. Maybe I was better able to perceive this since I’m older than a lot of the 19 year olds who I was in duty with, but make no joke – it’s a fucked up scenario out there, and I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone.
And Vic, before you get on your high horse, man, there are many ways to be patriotic. My brother is a doctor and his heavily taxed income helps pay for our war in Iraq; yes, it is a passive act, but it’s reality. So let’s think about the bigger picture before coming down on each other now.
Manju – Are you saying the objective of this war is reformation of Islam?
It’s a shame – they were very good points – much better in fact than the original italicized point.
Care to be more specific about that?
Yes, what are you saying? I asked the question of Vic and would still like to hear his reply. But since you’re answering too, please give me a full answer. Please tell me what we are at war against.
“The very people who accuse the current administration of lying and fearmongering are in fact some of the most brazen practioners of both.”
Yeah I don’t get this either. The current administration has a much larger “machine” as it were to propogate lies and fearmongering. Hate to make a racial parallel, but it’s much the same when whites accuse others of racism, when by a preordained power difference, it can never be possible.
Lastly,
BUCK FUSH
Thinking out aloud: Maybe thats the objective of this war – to answer that question? To me atleast, it has taught a lot. I understand the issues facing us much better than I did pre 9/11. Sadly though, I am more pessimistic today than I was before.
And on whose authority. As far as I understand it, the only wars currently authorized by Congress (which has the power to declare war) are (1) against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 (i.e., against Al Qaeda, mostly in Afghanistan/Pakistan), and (2) to implement the UN Security Council’s resolutions on Iraq and WMDs. If we agree on that much, then we can discuss the proper limits of each one, but to hear some people talk, we’re in a War Without End against an Endless List of Enemies.
And I certainly don’t recall anything about forcibly admitting Jews into Mecca, though I do, of course, recall this gem.
America! FUCK YEAH! Reforming Islam by bombing Muslims to FREEDOM to save the motherfuckin’ day!
Yeah!
high fives
Yeah!