Betraying The Oath Of Office
My grandfather got his picture in the paper for voting in the 1970’s, because he was 100 when he voted, and he voted Republican. My parents voted Republican too, Ike and Nixon. I voted for Reagan both times, and for Bush Sr too. But I won’t vote for Bush Jr because he has betrayed the Oath of Office.
In his April 13 press conference, Bush said “One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it.” However, he apparently didn’t mean it when he spoke the Oath of Office in January 2000.
areas – selection of vice president, voting rights, freedom of speech, and fair
and speedy trials.
Perhaps no right is more important to our democracy than the right to vote. It is important that these voting rights are not denied to any eligible citizen. To ensure this, the constitution was amended four times to expand and enforce the right to cast our votes. The 15th amendment assured the vote for all races, the 19th amendment extended the right to women, the 24th amendment banned restricting voting based on the payment of poll or other taxes, and the 26th amendment extended the right to vote to those 18 years and older.
But the President has failed several times to uphold these rights.
Before the 2000 election, the president allowed his brother in Florida to purge 57,700 people from voter registries, 90.2% incorrectly. They hand picked the company to create the list, and asked them to disqualify as many voters as possible, and this cost Gore an estimated 22,000 to 90,000 votes 1. And most of the people purged were Black or Latino. Since Bush won by only 537 votes, this clearly did not promote fairness or equal access for all citizens. But Bush remained silent and did not attempt to protect the voting rights of these voters. Worse, he has encouraged other states to do the same for the 2004 elections!
Next, Bush pushed to prevent all the votes from being re-counted, and thereby did not ensure that the counts were fair or accurate.
Recently, Bush has allowed republicans in Texas to redraw the states congressional districts to help the GOP pick up six or seven new House seats in the upcoming elections. This was driven by House Majority Leader Tom Delay, supported by questionable funding. This same type of redistricting also occurred in Colorado. In November of 2003, the well known retired newsman Walter Cronkite in an article titled “Choosing Voters” said “Concern over this essentially corrupt practice has been rising, and some states have been trying alternatives to redistricting-by-legislature. Iowa has adopted an independent commission, with salutary results—more competitive elections and more sensible, contiguous congressional districts.
Rigged elections here seem especially scandalous today, as we preach to the Iraqis and others in the developing world the virtues of representative democracy and hold ourselves up as the paragon of that virtue. It is high time we cleaned up our own house.”
And it is high time the President stood up against this type of attack against our Constitution. But instead, he has not acted, and he has kept silent.
And possibly worse of all, Bush has allowed the use of un-auditable voting machines. Machines made and controlled by companies with close ties to the Republican administration. Problems with these voting machines, and the corporations that promote them, have been well documented by Bev Harris in her book “Black Box Voting”. In the 2000 national election, Al Gore received a negative 16,022 votes, which to this day has not been explained. In Alabama in 2002 “Six thousand three hundred Baldwin County electronic votes mysteriously disappeared.” In the 2002 general election in Wayne County, North Carolina, thousands of votes were incorrectly reported. Similar things happened in Scurry County Texas, Arapahoe County Colorado, Denver County Colorado, Volusia County Florida, Davidson County North Carolina, San Francisco California… and the list goes on. In addition to these inaccuracies, Bev Harris proved that votes could easily be tampered with. In the coming 2004 national election as much as a third of the votes may be cast using these types of machines. Despite all of this, the President has been silent on this “ballotless” voting issue. Surely if he was committed to protecting the Constitution he would take action to protect the people’s votes.
The Bill Of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the constitution. The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. These rights are, under the current President, being either denied or eroded. Wherever the President goes, protesters are relegated to “free speech zones” where they cannot be seen or heard.
On February 2003 there were peace marches planned all over the world, including New York City. But the Bush administration – which was trying to sell the war in Iraq to the public - filed a brief urging the judges to deny the permit. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a speaker at the rally said, "I really cannot believe that a major city in the leading democracy in the world can refuse people this particular right."
Also in February, three Des Moines peace activists were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury to testify about documents that may have been a “possible violation of federal law”. Activists Brian Terrell, a member of the Catholic Peace Ministry, said "I think it's just part of the fact that more and more authorities are seeing dissent as criminal." Local peace activists said they worried that the subpoenas were part of an effort to discourage protests against America's actions in Iraq.2
These erosions to the constitution were seen in actions taken against other protests. A year before, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to bring criminal charges against the environmental group Greenpeace for protesting illegal logging. If successful, it would have had the potential to dampen other protests.
In May 2004, a World War II veteran was barred from hearing the President. Bill Ward tried to get tickets to see Bush in Dubuque, IA. When they asked for his identification they asked if he had voted for Bush in 2000. He replied “I didn’t vote for him then and I won’t vote for him now,” declared Ward. Ward identified himself to the campaign workers as a World War II vet who served in France and Germany. Critical of the war in Iraq, Ward said, “The only thing I wanted to do was get down to the riverfront and ask Bush some questions.” Ward recalled, “They asked some girl to escort me out and I told them I don’t need to be escorted out. I’m a veteran of World War II.” [Telegraph Herald, 5/4/04]
So free speech is something that President Bush does not feel strong enough to protect. He seems more concerned with protecting himself from people asking hard, but valid questions. And again, when these constitutional issues come to light, he takes no action.
"[After the American Revolution], there was to be no king. . . . Allegiance would go, not to a man with a crown, but to the law. . . . It was to be a 'government of laws and not men.' " —Law in America, Lawrence M. Friedman
The sixth amendment ensures the right to a speedy and public trial, and the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It should be noted here that except for voting and holding office, the rights spelled out in the constitution apply to everyone within the United States, not necessarily citizens. The ideal of ensuring quick and fair trials was added to the constitution because of the people’s resentment of kings arbitrarily arresting and jailing people for no reason. But President Bush has again demonstrated a lack of concern over protecting these rights. People are arrested arbitrarily, not charged, not given legal council, and held indefinitely.
There are many examples of these constitutional breaches under President Bush.
In June 2002 they arrested Jose Padilla, a US citizen, and locked him up in a Navy brig without charges, and with the sole authorization of the US President. No jury, no congress, just George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court declared in 1866 in a case involving the illegal detention of an American citizen by the Army (In Re Milligan), when dealing with a dangerous criminal, "the law [says] arrest him, confine him closely, render him powerless to do further mischief, and then present his case to the grand jury of the district, with proofs of his guilt, and, if indicted, try him according to the course of the common law." In the case of Jose Padilla, this clearly has not been done.
An article in the Detroit News (9/16/03) titled “Military Tribunals Challenge America’s Legal Tradition” asks the question “Are terror suspects entitled to the same constitutional protections as everyone else?” It observes that the Bush administration seems to have decided that terrorism is such an extraordinary crime that it should allow an exemption from the Bill of Rights. In World War II, tribunals were authorized by Congress, not the executive branch. With President Bush, there is no such oversight. This article also states that :
This lack of respect for the intent of the Bill of Rights is also shown in our treatment of people captured in Afghanistan and detained in Cuba. Hundreds of men were arbitrarily classified as “enemy combatants”. A label that conveniently allows for indefinite detention, no access to lawyers, and with no explicit stated cause for detention. Even if they do go to trial under these conditions, they can be tried by judges appointed by the president, and these judges have the sole authority to convict, including possibly death. This designation is so controversial that in December of 2003 a San Francisco federal appeals judge ruled that the prisoners must be given access to legal council, otherwise Guantanamo Bay would become a legal black hole with no escape.
Michael Ratner, president of the New York –based Center for Constitutional Rights, told the NY Times (February 2004) "The idea that you could theoretically keep someone locked up forever under these circumstances is reprehensible. . . . It's nothing to do with law as any person should understand it, at least since the Magna Carta. How do you know without a trial that these people are even dangerous? It all depends on the military's word." 6
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, wrote a report on February 6, 2004 titled "The Indefinite Detention of 'Enemy Combatants': Balancing Due Process and National Security in the Context of the War on Terror." The reports findings are relevant to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. If we take away non-American citizen’s rights to due process, this action could affect other countries who could detain and imprison their own "enemy combatants." This makes the Bush administration’s stated goal of spreading constitutional democracy to other nations somewhat suspect. The report concludes:
Military tribunals have been so controversial that even military lawyers are attacking them. A NY Times article said that the Bush administration’s plan to use military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees is getting some of its strongest criticism from the military lawyers who are taking part in the process. …"The uniformed lawyers have been especially forceful, not only in asserting their clients' innocence but also in denouncing the tribunal system as inherently unfair and rigged." 7
Under the Bush administration, the unconstitutional detention problems posed by the Guantanamo detainees have propagated to include Iraq and other places outside the United States. To this is added the loss of protection from “cruel and unusual punishment” written in the 8th amendment. The President’s reluctance to enforce these ideals in the US has allowed and encouraged atrocities to be committed around the world. According to an article in the UK’s Guardian, “Bush has created a global network of extra-legal and secret US prisons with thousands of inmates.”
And the detainees in Iraq, according to a report released on March 9, 2004 by Major General Antonio Taguba, have been tortured and treated in “cruel and unusual” ways. As it turns out, many of the orders to torture were given by private contractors, who are subject to neither Iraqi nor US Military laws. There are more of these contractors in Iraq than there are British troops.
As reported in the NY Times, the CIA has set up detention centers around the world. These have been justified by some classified opinions by the CIA and the Justice department. A former intelligence official told the Times "There was a debate after 9/11 about how to make people disappear." One of the secret legal opinions advised the CIA that it could skirt US law prohibiting torture by technically handing over custody of the detainees to another country. 9
So although our constitution says that everyone has a right to be accused and tried, and protected from “cruel and unusual” punishments, the Bush Administration seems to condone actions that are totally against these principles. The abuse is so bad, and so out of line with the main stream understanding of self evident truths, that various Civil Rights and Veterans groups are suing the government for illegally withholding records about abuses at US controlled detention centers. In part, the suit said ``There is growing evidence that the abuse of detainees was not aberrational but systemic, that in some cases the abuse amounted to torture and resulted in death, and that senior officials either approved of the abuse or were deliberately indifferent to it,'' . The groups include American Civil Liberties Union, The Center For Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
One definition of “Betray” is “To be false, or disloyal to”. President Bush’s actions do not demonstrate that he has been either true or loyal to our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. My parents used to often say “Actions speak louder than words”. And despite taking an oath, the President’s lack of action in protecting our constitution is way louder than his “… when I say something, I mean it” words.
1 “Jim Crow in Cyberspace: The Unreported Story of How They Fixed the Vote in Florida” ,The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast.
2 “DM Activist ordered to testify in court” by Jeff Eckoff and Mark Siebert, Des Moine Register, 02/05/03
3 “Right to Protest at Risk” by Judy Ettenhoffer, Madison Capital Times, 02/09/04
4 “Security keeps protestors outside hall” by Anthony Colarossi and April Hunt, Orlando Sentinal 03/21/04.
5 “How Camp Delta Allowed US to Avoid Geneva Convention” by Andrew Gumbel, The Independent UK 2/20/04.
6 “The Rumsfeld-Bush Legal Black Hole” by Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice 2/27/04
7 “Military’s Lawyers for Detainees Put Tribunals on Trial” by Neil A Lewis, NY Times 5/04/04
8 “This is the New Gulag”, by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian (UK), 5/6/04.
9 “CIA Sets up Secret Detention Centers ‘To Make People Disappear’”, Democracynow.org 5/13/04.
In his April 13 press conference, Bush said “One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it.” However, he apparently didn’t mean it when he spoke the Oath of Office in January 2000.
He has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution in 4 important"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
areas – selection of vice president, voting rights, freedom of speech, and fair
and speedy trials.
AMENDMENT XIIBush’s disregard for the constitution began even before the 2000 election. The 12th amendment specifies that the president and the vice president cannot be from the same state, and yet both Dick Cheney and George Bush were residents of Texas before the election. Dick Cheney lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas since 1995, and did not change his residence until after he was chosen for Vice President. Cheney did not satisfy the letter or the intent of the 12th amendment, and Bush allowed this, and thus did not preserve this part of the constitution.
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
AMENDMENT XV:
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude--
AMENDMENT XIX:
Passed
by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
AMENDMENT XXIV:
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section
1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other
election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice
President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax
or other tax.
AMENDMENT XXVI:
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment. Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Perhaps no right is more important to our democracy than the right to vote. It is important that these voting rights are not denied to any eligible citizen. To ensure this, the constitution was amended four times to expand and enforce the right to cast our votes. The 15th amendment assured the vote for all races, the 19th amendment extended the right to women, the 24th amendment banned restricting voting based on the payment of poll or other taxes, and the 26th amendment extended the right to vote to those 18 years and older.
But the President has failed several times to uphold these rights.
Before the 2000 election, the president allowed his brother in Florida to purge 57,700 people from voter registries, 90.2% incorrectly. They hand picked the company to create the list, and asked them to disqualify as many voters as possible, and this cost Gore an estimated 22,000 to 90,000 votes 1. And most of the people purged were Black or Latino. Since Bush won by only 537 votes, this clearly did not promote fairness or equal access for all citizens. But Bush remained silent and did not attempt to protect the voting rights of these voters. Worse, he has encouraged other states to do the same for the 2004 elections!
Next, Bush pushed to prevent all the votes from being re-counted, and thereby did not ensure that the counts were fair or accurate.
Recently, Bush has allowed republicans in Texas to redraw the states congressional districts to help the GOP pick up six or seven new House seats in the upcoming elections. This was driven by House Majority Leader Tom Delay, supported by questionable funding. This same type of redistricting also occurred in Colorado. In November of 2003, the well known retired newsman Walter Cronkite in an article titled “Choosing Voters” said “Concern over this essentially corrupt practice has been rising, and some states have been trying alternatives to redistricting-by-legislature. Iowa has adopted an independent commission, with salutary results—more competitive elections and more sensible, contiguous congressional districts.
Rigged elections here seem especially scandalous today, as we preach to the Iraqis and others in the developing world the virtues of representative democracy and hold ourselves up as the paragon of that virtue. It is high time we cleaned up our own house.”
And it is high time the President stood up against this type of attack against our Constitution. But instead, he has not acted, and he has kept silent.
And possibly worse of all, Bush has allowed the use of un-auditable voting machines. Machines made and controlled by companies with close ties to the Republican administration. Problems with these voting machines, and the corporations that promote them, have been well documented by Bev Harris in her book “Black Box Voting”. In the 2000 national election, Al Gore received a negative 16,022 votes, which to this day has not been explained. In Alabama in 2002 “Six thousand three hundred Baldwin County electronic votes mysteriously disappeared.” In the 2002 general election in Wayne County, North Carolina, thousands of votes were incorrectly reported. Similar things happened in Scurry County Texas, Arapahoe County Colorado, Denver County Colorado, Volusia County Florida, Davidson County North Carolina, San Francisco California… and the list goes on. In addition to these inaccuracies, Bev Harris proved that votes could easily be tampered with. In the coming 2004 national election as much as a third of the votes may be cast using these types of machines. Despite all of this, the President has been silent on this “ballotless” voting issue. Surely if he was committed to protecting the Constitution he would take action to protect the people’s votes.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Bill Of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the constitution. The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. These rights are, under the current President, being either denied or eroded. Wherever the President goes, protesters are relegated to “free speech zones” where they cannot be seen or heard.
On February 2003 there were peace marches planned all over the world, including New York City. But the Bush administration – which was trying to sell the war in Iraq to the public - filed a brief urging the judges to deny the permit. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a speaker at the rally said, "I really cannot believe that a major city in the leading democracy in the world can refuse people this particular right."
Also in February, three Des Moines peace activists were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury to testify about documents that may have been a “possible violation of federal law”. Activists Brian Terrell, a member of the Catholic Peace Ministry, said "I think it's just part of the fact that more and more authorities are seeing dissent as criminal." Local peace activists said they worried that the subpoenas were part of an effort to discourage protests against America's actions in Iraq.2
These erosions to the constitution were seen in actions taken against other protests. A year before, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to bring criminal charges against the environmental group Greenpeace for protesting illegal logging. If successful, it would have had the potential to dampen other protests.
“…Greenpeace was charged under an obscure 1872 federal law against "sailor-mongering," a long-ago practice by workers at brothels and taverns of
boarding ships to entice sailors ashore.
What the law specifically prohibits is unofficial boarding of a ship about to arrive at its destination - which is technically what Greenpeace did. However, the law hasn't been used in more than 100 years, said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
"The extraordinary effort made to find and use this obscure law strongly suggests a campaign of selective prosecution - the greatest scourge of the First Amendment," Turley wrote in the Los Angeles Times. "Greenpeace was engaged in a classic protest used by countless organizations, from those of the civil rights movement to anti-abortion groups. It is a way for citizens to express their opposition by literally standing in the path of the government." 3
More recently, in March 2004 several people went to listen to President
Bush's speech inside the Orange County Convention Center, and were wearing anti
Bush t-shirts. Even though they had tickets, two police officers said the White
House Administration asked them to leave. In fact, anyone voicing opposition to
the President or his policies were required to stay 100 yds away from the site
of the speech.4
In May 2004, a World War II veteran was barred from hearing the President. Bill Ward tried to get tickets to see Bush in Dubuque, IA. When they asked for his identification they asked if he had voted for Bush in 2000. He replied “I didn’t vote for him then and I won’t vote for him now,” declared Ward. Ward identified himself to the campaign workers as a World War II vet who served in France and Germany. Critical of the war in Iraq, Ward said, “The only thing I wanted to do was get down to the riverfront and ask Bush some questions.” Ward recalled, “They asked some girl to escort me out and I told them I don’t need to be escorted out. I’m a veteran of World War II.” [Telegraph Herald, 5/4/04]
So free speech is something that President Bush does not feel strong enough to protect. He seems more concerned with protecting himself from people asking hard, but valid questions. And again, when these constitutional issues come to light, he takes no action.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
"[After the American Revolution], there was to be no king. . . . Allegiance would go, not to a man with a crown, but to the law. . . . It was to be a 'government of laws and not men.' " —Law in America, Lawrence M. Friedman
The sixth amendment ensures the right to a speedy and public trial, and the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It should be noted here that except for voting and holding office, the rights spelled out in the constitution apply to everyone within the United States, not necessarily citizens. The ideal of ensuring quick and fair trials was added to the constitution because of the people’s resentment of kings arbitrarily arresting and jailing people for no reason. But President Bush has again demonstrated a lack of concern over protecting these rights. People are arrested arbitrarily, not charged, not given legal council, and held indefinitely.
There are many examples of these constitutional breaches under President Bush.
In June 2002 they arrested Jose Padilla, a US citizen, and locked him up in a Navy brig without charges, and with the sole authorization of the US President. No jury, no congress, just George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court declared in 1866 in a case involving the illegal detention of an American citizen by the Army (In Re Milligan), when dealing with a dangerous criminal, "the law [says] arrest him, confine him closely, render him powerless to do further mischief, and then present his case to the grand jury of the district, with proofs of his guilt, and, if indicted, try him according to the course of the common law." In the case of Jose Padilla, this clearly has not been done.
An article in the Detroit News (9/16/03) titled “Military Tribunals Challenge America’s Legal Tradition” asks the question “Are terror suspects entitled to the same constitutional protections as everyone else?” It observes that the Bush administration seems to have decided that terrorism is such an extraordinary crime that it should allow an exemption from the Bill of Rights. In World War II, tribunals were authorized by Congress, not the executive branch. With President Bush, there is no such oversight. This article also states that :
“President George W. Bush maintains that as commander-in-chief he has the
constitutional authority to convene military tribunals. But the Constitution
grants the president no such power. Instead, it gives that authority to
Congress. Placing that power with the president would put in his hands the
authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches at once --
something James Madison defined as “the essence of tyranny." “
This lack of respect for the intent of the Bill of Rights is also shown in our treatment of people captured in Afghanistan and detained in Cuba. Hundreds of men were arbitrarily classified as “enemy combatants”. A label that conveniently allows for indefinite detention, no access to lawyers, and with no explicit stated cause for detention. Even if they do go to trial under these conditions, they can be tried by judges appointed by the president, and these judges have the sole authority to convict, including possibly death. This designation is so controversial that in December of 2003 a San Francisco federal appeals judge ruled that the prisoners must be given access to legal council, otherwise Guantanamo Bay would become a legal black hole with no escape.
"Unlike earlier wars, the struggle against terrorism is potentially
never-ending," a group of defense lawyers wrote in a recent brief. "The
Constitution cannot countenance an open-ended presidential power, with no
civilian review whatsoever, to try anyone the President deems subject to a
military tribunal, whose rules and judges have been selected by the prosecuting
authority itself." 5
Michael Ratner, president of the New York –based Center for Constitutional Rights, told the NY Times (February 2004) "The idea that you could theoretically keep someone locked up forever under these circumstances is reprehensible. . . . It's nothing to do with law as any person should understand it, at least since the Magna Carta. How do you know without a trial that these people are even dangerous? It all depends on the military's word." 6
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, wrote a report on February 6, 2004 titled "The Indefinite Detention of 'Enemy Combatants': Balancing Due Process and National Security in the Context of the War on Terror." The reports findings are relevant to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. If we take away non-American citizen’s rights to due process, this action could affect other countries who could detain and imprison their own "enemy combatants." This makes the Bush administration’s stated goal of spreading constitutional democracy to other nations somewhat suspect. The report concludes:
"It should take far more than the monstrous brutality of a handful of terrorists
to drive us to abandon our core constitutional values. We can effectively combat
terrorism in the United States without jettisoning the core due process
principles that form the essence of the rule of law underlying our system of
government.
"Insistence on the rule of law will not undermine our national security.
Abandoning the rule of law will threaten our national identity." 6
Military tribunals have been so controversial that even military lawyers are attacking them. A NY Times article said that the Bush administration’s plan to use military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees is getting some of its strongest criticism from the military lawyers who are taking part in the process. …"The uniformed lawyers have been especially forceful, not only in asserting their clients' innocence but also in denouncing the tribunal system as inherently unfair and rigged." 7
Under the Bush administration, the unconstitutional detention problems posed by the Guantanamo detainees have propagated to include Iraq and other places outside the United States. To this is added the loss of protection from “cruel and unusual punishment” written in the 8th amendment. The President’s reluctance to enforce these ideals in the US has allowed and encouraged atrocities to be committed around the world. According to an article in the UK’s Guardian, “Bush has created a global network of extra-legal and secret US prisons with thousands of inmates.”
“Bush has created what is in effect a gulag. It stretches from prisons in
Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantánamo to secret CIA prisons around the world.
There are perhaps 10,000 people being held in Iraq, 1,000 in Afghanistan and
almost 700 in Guantánamo, but no one knows the exact numbers. The law as it
applies to them is whatever the executive deems necessary. There has been
nothing like this system since the fall of the Soviet Union.” 8
And the detainees in Iraq, according to a report released on March 9, 2004 by Major General Antonio Taguba, have been tortured and treated in “cruel and unusual” ways. As it turns out, many of the orders to torture were given by private contractors, who are subject to neither Iraqi nor US Military laws. There are more of these contractors in Iraq than there are British troops.
“Under the Bush legal doctrine, we create a system beyond law to defend the rule
of law against terrorism; we defend democracy by inhibiting democracy.” 8
As reported in the NY Times, the CIA has set up detention centers around the world. These have been justified by some classified opinions by the CIA and the Justice department. A former intelligence official told the Times "There was a debate after 9/11 about how to make people disappear." One of the secret legal opinions advised the CIA that it could skirt US law prohibiting torture by technically handing over custody of the detainees to another country. 9
So although our constitution says that everyone has a right to be accused and tried, and protected from “cruel and unusual” punishments, the Bush Administration seems to condone actions that are totally against these principles. The abuse is so bad, and so out of line with the main stream understanding of self evident truths, that various Civil Rights and Veterans groups are suing the government for illegally withholding records about abuses at US controlled detention centers. In part, the suit said ``There is growing evidence that the abuse of detainees was not aberrational but systemic, that in some cases the abuse amounted to torture and resulted in death, and that senior officials either approved of the abuse or were deliberately indifferent to it,'' . The groups include American Civil Liberties Union, The Center For Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
One definition of “Betray” is “To be false, or disloyal to”. President Bush’s actions do not demonstrate that he has been either true or loyal to our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. My parents used to often say “Actions speak louder than words”. And despite taking an oath, the President’s lack of action in protecting our constitution is way louder than his “… when I say something, I mean it” words.
1 “Jim Crow in Cyberspace: The Unreported Story of How They Fixed the Vote in Florida” ,The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast.
2 “DM Activist ordered to testify in court” by Jeff Eckoff and Mark Siebert, Des Moine Register, 02/05/03
3 “Right to Protest at Risk” by Judy Ettenhoffer, Madison Capital Times, 02/09/04
4 “Security keeps protestors outside hall” by Anthony Colarossi and April Hunt, Orlando Sentinal 03/21/04.
5 “How Camp Delta Allowed US to Avoid Geneva Convention” by Andrew Gumbel, The Independent UK 2/20/04.
6 “The Rumsfeld-Bush Legal Black Hole” by Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice 2/27/04
7 “Military’s Lawyers for Detainees Put Tribunals on Trial” by Neil A Lewis, NY Times 5/04/04
8 “This is the New Gulag”, by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian (UK), 5/6/04.
9 “CIA Sets up Secret Detention Centers ‘To Make People Disappear’”, Democracynow.org 5/13/04.
posted by Will4Earth | 2:26 AM
2 Comments:
Great article, don't you think?
Great piece.
How about reviving it for the 2006 election?
Post a Comment
<< Home