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.
ambition * competence = constant .
I’m not sure who is more geekier—you for saying this, or me for reacting immediately with a “zing!” 😉
<
blockquote>Ther proportion of Muslim populations that support fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and even suicide bombings is actually quite high; the same goes for Muslim residents of the diaspora in Europe.
<
blockquote>
I disagree with the above. From what I understand about fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, this is a Taliban-esque interpretation of Islam, or Wahhabiism, Salafism, etc. Most Muslims (even in Europe) don’t want to go back to this interpretation of Islam. I will even go as far as to contend that most Muslims are moderate in their views of how they want to live. Most muslim women wouldn’t give up their freedom to drive, most muslims won’t want to give up watching TV, or listening to music, or many other things that in essence will be banned for them if they profess wanting to live in Taliban-land.
Regarding their support for suicide-bombers, a lot of people in the middle-east see images of palestinians being persecuted by Israel, their homes destroyed etc and this has an impact on their view of Israel and its biggest ally the US. They know their people are powerless to wage war against Israel but they still get a sense of satisfaction when the lone suicide-bombers plant fear in the hearts of the Israelis.
Someone above quoted something about long-term colonization of Middle-eastern countries as an alternative to the current strategy. That is just asinine! For us to try and colonize and control close to a Billion people is not even remotely in the realm of what is possible, even if everyone supported it. I am really not sure what we can do to change the perception of Muslims about America. But, I am sure that bombing, nuking, colonizing them aint the answer.
i had hoped we could leverage our common background to add something new to a somewhat jaded debate. at least i believe that recent indian history presents a petridish for us to learn from on resolving civic conflicts. in that context, having more than a passing awareness of the excesses perpetrated by a government in the name of nationhood – khalistan, j&k, naxalites etc – it just surprises me that there are people arguing that it is ok to strip citizens the right to habeas corpus.
Tell me how many people came to this discussion with the idea of hearing something that might change their mind, versus people who wanted to change other people’s minds?
I have my own opinion but its just frustrating that this same conversation can happen one million more times with roughly similiar outcomes. I say this even though I respect some of the members of this discussion a great deal
Although on second thought, never mind…..this is probably one convo where its not realistic to do things differently. But its just frustrating!
81
Is it OK to debate whether incarcerated men have the right to impartial review ? What are your views on it ?
Biege Sage:
Sahej:
I agree with both of you. There has to be a moderate path here, but neither the GOP nor the Dems seem to have a clue . I really don’t think the two-party system is serving the US well. Politics is a zero-sum game, where both parties just point fingers at each other, hoping the other’s loss will be their gain.
I don’t think this will get solved by through the parties, but in spite of them. These go to core issues in the present and future, and I wonder if established parties are very good at talking about core issues. I think the solution needs to come through talking sincerely and thinking outside of the parameters of established positions. I think the talking points type of discussion is built in to the current debate
i’m brown.
WHAT SHADE DAMNIT!!!! WHAT SHADE!!!! This isn’t black or white, it is brownish gray territory. It’s all about the shades of brown.
Saheli:
😀 …finally some recognition 😉 …
In my opinion, this is much ado about nothing. After all, how many of the nearly Three Hundred Million American citizens have been (adversely) affected by the Patriot act and its cousins/avatars?
Regardless, as someone correctly pointed out, civil liberties have always been curbed in time of great strife and uncertainty, and at times, by some of the most respected of your citizens/Presidents such as, Lincoln (suspended Habeas Corpus, ordered summary executions of suspected spies etc) and Franklin Roosevelt (interned American citizens by the thousands for no fault of theirs, also allowed executions of suspected spies of German descent etc, etc).
However, once the period of uncertainty passed, civil liberties were always restored, and restored with greater vigor. And, there is no reason to suspect that the same won’t occur again.
We give up on trying to convince each other and somehow we are supposed to convince extremists of the need for moderation. What delicious irony!
However, once the period of uncertainty passed, civil liberties were always restored, and restored with greater vigor. And, there is no reason to suspect that the same won’t occur again.
Main hoon na
x = y logistic regression analysis to the nth degree monozygote polymorphism on the 20th chromosome in 1567. republicanz.
Yeah, true. Though it can be hoped that if the Dems win a majority in Nov, they will provide a check on the executive and the govt will move towards some sort of a political Nash equilibrium.
So I understand that ‘Habeas corpus’ will be suspended until Jews are admitted in Mecca.. 🙂
BTW, Is it wrong to admit Jews in Mecca??. Afterall there used to be Jews and Christians and the evil pagans/ polytheists in Mecca not long back..
Is anyone else as amused with this thread of comments as I am?
Why would Jews want to go there? …Or anyone for that matter, unless it holds special significance in your particular religion, such as in Islam.
You are all henceforth not allowed to enter my apartment. Especially, no juice. That really hurts, doesn’t it? Muahahaha! And don’t try any of your habeas corpulents on me. It’s few tile.
To bring back habeas corpus…?…
side note: T.E. Lawrence a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia went to Mecca, apparently several times, beginning in 1916.
Islam appears to have survived the defilement.
side note: T.E. Lawrence a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia went to Mecca, apparently several times, beginning in 1916.
Also, How can you miss Richard Francis Burton?
Nice!
No, I suppose I’ll keep:
-voting for the Aotearoa/New Zealand Green Party who have consistently expressed opposition to Acts such as those discussed above.
-supporting the human rights lawyers working on the Ahmed Zaoui case, as I know that the New Zealand government is not above sinking to the same level as other Western governments in a post-9/11 era
-being a member of Amnesty International and an active supporter of rights such as habeas corpus
-holding the Bush administration for contravening constitutionally important rights such as this because at the end of the day the USA has used such legislation much more than any other government, it is the world’s most powerful country and not only does it have the worst record in upholding its own fundamental rights, it has also enshrined such rights more than any other country in the world.
Freedom, democracy and individual rights are what America stands for more than any other nation on this earth. If I criticise the Bush administration’s contravention of these rights it is through admiration for the American ideal and concern for its citizens. If citizens are not safe in the richest, most powerful nation in the world with the strongest legal tradition of emphasising individual rights, then what does that mean for the rest of us?
I said before in my own statements that while there are some who use anti-Bush rhetoric to hide anti-American sentiment, I am not one of those people.
And I do believe that there is a strong need to emancipate the African American vote in the USA. In a country where penalties for crimes in which African Americans are more likely to be involved in are disproportionately higher than penalties and sentences for other crimes, the denial of the right to vote casts a large shadow on the legitimacy of Bush administration. As does the view held by many others in many other parts of the world that the administration has used the tragedy of 9/11 as blackmail to carry out illegal wars.
From intellectual critiques to documentaries on Bushisms to the angry words written on placards at protests against the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, I do believe that the majority of the international community is in their own way saying ‘BUCK FUSH.’
Sorry wrong link:
http://www.freezaoui.org.nz
Is FOIL or INSAF planning anything? The case of Posada Cariiles is a glaring one…but there are so many other examples. A shining exampleof rebuttal of the degradation at airport has been deviced by Brazil. They require only citizens of ONE country to be photographes and fingerprinted..guess which one? If YOU KNOW THE answer, you will also know who are supporting the PSDB candidate with big money against Workers Party’s candidate for presidency, Lula.Lula has to be correctly criticized for some things, but for this he deserves admiration. Way to go, the PT government of BRAZIL. Another world is possible.
Guru Nanak went there too, although I suspect he may have got away with it because people couldn’t identify which formal religion he belonged to.
The Romans used the same technique. They targetted the elites for “Romanisation”, as a mandatory requirement for the latter to gain formal imperial citizenship. It had other benefits too (from the perspective of the Romans), as Risible has alluded to.
I don’t support the morality of such actions, but there are historical precedents for this as per the European colonial period not so long ago. Whether this would be feasible today is of course possibly a different matter.
Back to the main topic….
I guess the people concerned — ordinary civilians, politicians, military etc — need to decide whether they hold this principle as so inalienable from an ethical viewpoint that they are prepared to risk injury/death/defeat rather than compromising the principle. Difficult choice: Idealism vs Pragmatism.
Too much idealism : Naivete and self-destructiveness. Too much pragmatism : Ruthlessness and cynicism.
10th October, 2006
I have lived in the Middle East for over five years and would like to add my two fils towards this topic:
The despots benevolent dictators governments of the countries that accommodate US Bases pay towards their upkeep. This includes all bills including salaries, housing etc. for personnel. In a country like Bahrain (majority are Shias, but Sunni King rules), this arrangement is purely to ensure that the ruler isn’t overthrown by a local uprising, and to act as a deterrent to any neighbouring despot who might want to invade Bahrain. The local Arabs are justifiably angered when they see the US preaching democracy on a selective basis and their wealth being looted. Also, the US marines whom the locals come in contact with are mostly uneducated, uncouth, loud-mouthed kids who get drunk and beaten up every night in some shady bar while wrangling over hookers; they contribute immensely towards sketching an erroneous perception about all Americans, in the minds of the locals.
In hindsight, that should have been: despots/benevolent dictators/governments. My boss walked in on me and I pressed post in haste; sorry;) Peace
Too much idealism : Naivete and self-destructiveness.
Utopianism is all well and good if it proceeds from a courageous appreciation of the world as it actually exists. –André Malraux
The idea of a long-term colonisation, coupled with indoctrination into some ‘American’ value system, is laughable enough to warrant a few books worth of scorn (at least). However, it typifies the uniquely American mindset of superiority and the right to do as it pleases in a uni-polar world. Funnily enough, the whole concept of elites does not apply to Arabic societies as much as to those based on European Aristocracies. The most respected individuals in some places can be religous scholars and Imams. I would love to see yo try and ‘Americanise’ them (lol). Btw, this process of neo-colonisation is directly responsible for the situation in Iraq today. I am consistently flabbergasted at the comments here which relate to imposing values or changing another culture. That it is not surprising to hear it on a site dedicated to the Brown Uprising is indicative of our times. To those who seek to change us, I say come on over and try. Let us see how far you get. Oh hang on, you’ve already been trying in Iraq. Guess I spoke to soon…
That does it; I am “founding” a new website called Brown Uprising. Recruiting has commenced and all who are interested in the position of Brown Minion, please mail me your CVs. Many thanks.
Two questions:
1) to what extent is the suspension of habeas corpus political gamesmanship before the November election and not representative of a philosophical shift, meaning one that could be upheld by the 3 branches?
2) to what extent is such a suspension (whether for gamesmanship or philosophical reasons) to be expected in countries that have very strong and very prominent military institutions (I’m not asking whether it should or shouldn’t be suspended; rather, the relationship between the existence, suspension, or termination of h.c. vis-a-vis the military’s proximity to decision-making in central govt or overall strength of the military)?
Good question.. Why would early Muslims from Arabia went to Persia / India / other places??.. jihad maybe.. Call this a counter-jihad. 🙂
Lets bring in brother Ferguson here on long term colonization. When America stays for a long enough period of time to transform both the elites and institutions (and institutions cannot be transformed without elite consent), the results have often been very good:
I think he makes some good points about the attractiveness of Islam as an ideology as well, which, crucially extends beyond Muslims
Peace.
MD/Razib: Are you guys in favor of suspension of habeus corpus for legal residents?
Al M: No, but what has it been historically? Has it only applied to citizens in the past? I think being a citizen is something fundamentally different than not being a citizen, which I realize will horrify some of you. Sorry, I don’t have much time these days to google for such info.
Oh for heavens sake, it says it right in the post, doesn’t it? I am such a complete moron. And, I even read the post yesterday. Nevermind, I am totally distracted these days.
SM intern – feel free to delete my last comment for general dumbness.
Dont worry about comment #138. It happens to all of us.
Anyway, so you dont favor suspension of habeus corpus for legal residents?
Hopefully in the sequel to Team America they’ll have a few Indian-American philosophers on board to explain why killing Muslims with missiles will liberate the Islamic world and make the world a safer place. Oooh the salivation and drool is leaving drip marks on the keyboards.
Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, one after prosecuting the most malignant regime in human history and having been flattened by allied bombs to the point of famine and the other after a militant expansionist nationalism had been liquidated in the dropping of two nuclear bombs. Can you explain precisely where the comparison fits with Iraq? Or the touted invasion of Iran? There is no comparison. The comparison with Afghanistan extends as far as refusing to give up the organisers of the terrorist attack they effectively condoned an act of war. So Afghanistan should have received the sole attention of the world community in rebuilding efforts after the Taliban were ousted. Oh wait there is a comparison, Iraq was a Muslim country, something like 60% of Americans thought Baghdad was involved in 9/11 (dont they all have brown skin and moustaches these Hajjis?) therefore they deserved a good bombing and routing.
I should have lived to hear this. Macacas rhapsodizing about the burdens of empire.
FERGUSON: “It is. The great category error of our time is to equate radical Islamism with fascism. If you actually read what Osama bin Laden says, it’s clearly Lenin plus the Koran“
No wonder the intellectual left is in love. they have spotteed land, for the first time since 1989…..how sweet!
for some reason, I am remeinded of the – praying mantis.
What the heck does that mean. Taliban banned poppy cultivation, so everyone who opposes drugs is attracted to Taliban/Islamic ideology. Brotherhood based on religion is common to many religions, so they are all susceptible to Islam as an ideology. If anything it shows that all humans want the same thing and some of Islams’ attractiveness to muslims has nothing to do with Islam.
The greatest ideological battle of all times(coldwar) was won without occupation or colonisation. Coldwar was a much greater and dangerous threat than extremist Islam. We could have destroyed the whole earth in few minutes based on some random error. If world can triumph over communism without occupation, we could over Islam too. Cold war has given us enough experience over what works and what doesn’t in ideological battles. Excesses committed in the name of fighting communism have only delayed its demise. There was no suspension of habeas corpus during coldwar, though there were far more citizens sympathetic to communism than Islam.
Don’t tell me you belive that west didn’t win the battle, but communists lost it.
Hmm.. I thought communists are the first ones these folks take out.. Remember Najibullah hanging from the lamppost in Afghanistan.. First thing Pakistan did was to ban the Communist party.
People from Pakistan, a lof of african countries, former communist states will beg to disagree with you.
isaiah berlin defined two types of liberals – depending on their respective senses of liberty – positive or negative. the ones who believed in positive liberty promote the freedom to make an ass of themselves. the ones who believed in negative liberty wanted the state to curtail freedoms to limit our ability to hurt ourselves for the good of the society.
i guess the non-liberals are those who want to curtail freedoms of the few so the rest can continue to making asses of themeselves. 🙂
chengui.
Oh but those are inferior nations populated by darkies and alcoholics, not the great U. S. of A., land of the assimilated. Please don’t get in the way of the great Kritic’s Kriticism (TM).
House slave macacas onleee.