In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S. constitution, civil rights and human rights (i.e. military commissions, indiscriminate domestic spying, security sweep pre-emptive arrests, renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, etc.), including outsourcing of security and war efforts (Blackwater, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs. To whit:

(...) when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?

"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.

"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani.

"It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around" - Cernig is spot on with this reminder.

However, I would amend this truism to include security agencies alongside the military.

For indeed, remember this, as but one example? (emphasis added)

Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad (as apart of a national security or terrorism case) before (Foreign Affairs) consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.

Which made me conclude the following (emphasis added):

In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.

Without any outside oversight whatsoever.

Plain and simple.

(...) This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.

After 9/11, we have witnessed a gradual encroachment of security measures which have been eroding our rights of freedom and privacy - all the while either applauding such measures, or remaining indifferent to them, because They. Make. Us. Feel. Safe.

Same thing with regards to human rights overall - whereby too many folks out there actually approve of the use of torture.

What we are now witnessing is the gradual deferment of responsibilities of our governments towards security agencies and the military - with the same mind set of needing to feel secure, which in turn has elevated security and military entities as preeminent Saviors in which We Trust implicitly.

Even for law and order enforcement (meaning: martial law by any other way).

All aided, abetted and amplified by the all-too-eager, gung ho, subservient, approving, supportive, enthusiastic, complicit, propagandist, media.

Indeed, a sickening worship of all things authoritarian and/or military was gleefully on display at the RNC last September (for instance, whether it was about McCain, his wife or Palin, it was inevitably emphasised that either they have served, have as son currently serving and/or had a parent/grandparent who served during WWI, WWII or some othe conflict - the message being that they are from a "strong" bloodline of military service).

The DNC likewise delved into this theme, albeit to a much lesser extent - nevertheless, that a past parent of Obama served and Biden's son being deployed to Iraq were emphasised as well.

That is creeping and already well entrenched militarism for you - case in point:

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").

This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war.

Punditman likewise expressed herein his concerns last year over the same phenomenon apparently slowly sinking into Canada's own consciousness:

Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.

Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.

(...) Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?

Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.

Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?

(...) One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?

It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.

And that is without considering Harper's own drive to militarize Canada further. Peacekeeping? We Canadians apparently don't do that anymore:

(...) Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.

And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.

Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:

That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.

Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.

Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.

Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?

(...) The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively.

Indeed - for only through military might may one country be taken seriously.

Once again - it all goes back to the fact that Americans and Canadians are sill gripped by the all-encompassing fear of terrorism - which is used whenever convenient to further push more authoritarian security measures, increased militarization/military interventionism, or simply to win elections.

History has clearly shown that fear-driven radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, or any democracy, along with the slow erosion of the rule of constitutional law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crises, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of said republics/democracies - the fall of the Roman republic constituting an obvious, ancient example.

In other words:

Fear + Need for security + Erosion of the rule of Law + Religious fundamentalism + Militarism + Intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + Calls for a strong and powerful leader = A democracy facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.

And this little reminder of the 10 steps towards fascism:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2. Create a gulag;
3. Develop a thug caste;
4. Set up an internal surveillance system;
5. Harass citizens' groups;
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7. Target key individuals;
8. Control the press;
9. Dissent equals treason;
and 10. Suspend the rule of law.

All the necessary tools are already on hand.

As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It remains to be established whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to defer their entrusted powers and responsibilities to security agencies and the military.

We better wake up before it is too little, too late ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

President Bush's administration urged the FISA court to reject the group's request in late July.

The Justice Department issued a plea to the court arguing that no third party has any right to participate in the court proceedings and that it is "precluded from doing so here by statute, court rule, and mandated security measures."

But here's the kicker (emphasis added):

The court withheld decisions from the civil liberties group regarding the NSA surveillance program on the grounds that no classified information could be released to them, and without that information, the group would not be able to "present any meaningful argument on the questions posed."

Isn't this just rich? In one single sweep, this decision not only admits that secrecy overules disclosure against the interests of justice, but also uses that same primacy of secrecy in order to pre-emptively deny any recourse against domestic spying by any U.S. police/security agency.

In short: shut up and learn to live with it.

That's justice enough for you folks?

This outcome is exactly what was warned would happen (just one example here among so many).

And to add insult to injury (emphasis added):

A recent post on the blog Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets details how the FISA act creates "fertile ground" for those looking for a convenient excuse for surveillance.

Gee - ya think? (emphasis added)

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

Police and security agencies will inevitably abuse any and all domestic spying powers they are given for no other reason than they are driven by the following paranoid mode of thinking: because something/anything deemed potentially disruptive (even remotely or not at all) to the safety and security of citizens (or to the integrity of the nation's critical infrastructure) may or may not happen, spying on lawful citizens must be done.

In other words:

This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

I repeat: no one is safe.

Here's a (small) sample of what has happened/has been revealed to this effect since I wrote those words:

Bush White House has its own interrogation room;

Officials against torture memo feared wiretaps, physical danger;

Homeland Insecurity in the US Dividing Refugee Families;

FBI apologizes for improperly accessing reporters' phone records;

Citizens' U.S. Border Crossings Tracked (h/t);

Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border - No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies;

U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules (h/t);

I was Spied on by the Maryland Police (via here);

Research assistant of Pulitzer-Prize winner Ron Suskind 'detained by federal agents' and 'interrogated';

FBI wants power to investigate citizens "without any basis for suspicion" (h/t);

Woman kicked from federal building over lesbian shirt;

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors;

Dozens Detained Ahead of Republican National Convention;

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis;

More Protesters Arrested in the Twin Cities;

Gitmo ‘Justice’ for US Citizens? (via here)

Domestic Spying In Canada: Here We Are.

The "eternal value of privacy" is now quite devalued indeed (emphasis added):

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

(...)

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

(...)

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Indeed, too many people seem too self-absorbed, or too fearful of them "terrorists", or actually approve, or remain simply in denial, to be outraged or even give a damn about the slow destruction of our democratic principles, as well as our values of civil rights, human rights, human dignity and human respect.

Security - Hallowed Be Thy Name.

As I wrote previously:

We have been losing ourselves since the day after 9/11.

Looks like we have crossed the threshold of ever being able to find ourselves again.

So we keep on riding fast and hard onto that road to perdition ... well beyond redemption.

How I wish I'd be proven wrong.

I would've even welcome being laughed at for being so far "off the grid" on this - and gladly at that.

But alas ...


Update: Over at NION, diarist Truong Son Traveler provided two commentaries which merit some deserved highlight. First, a reminder of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", along with a "bottom line" meaning of what has been happening (emphasis added):

In one of his most influential essays, (Milton) Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism's core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as the shock doctrine. He observed that "only a crisis--actual or perceived--produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function; to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the cruisi-racked society slipped back into the "tyranny of the status quo."...

The Chicago School followers were ready and waiting and when their Pearl Harbor arrived. It has served their purposes well and now some of us are beginning to see and feel the consequences.

Others may never see. Klein writes that "Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the ...shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that 'facilitate the adjustment'".

This has given us The Patriot Act, acceptance of torture, signing statements, The Military Commissions Act, The Bush Doctrine of preventive war, Dick Cheney's one percent doctrine, the unitary executive, FISA with retroactive immunity for the Telecoms, etc, etc. all with little more than a few whimpers in opposition.

And second, a reminder of what Chris Floyd wrote last year (emphasis added):

Tomorrow is here. The game is over. The crisis has passed -- and the patient is dead. Whatever dream you had about what America is, it isn't that anymore. It's gone. And not just in some abstract sense, some metaphorical or mythological sense, but down in the nitty-gritty, in the concrete realities of institutional structures and legal frameworks, of policy and process, even down to the physical nature of the landscape and the way that people live.

The Republic you wanted -- and at one time might have had the power to take back -- is finished. You no longer have the power to keep it; it's not there. It was kidnapped in December 2000, raped by the primed and ready exploiters of 9/11, whored by the war pimps of the 2003 aggression, gut-knifed by the corrupters of the 2004 vote, and raped again by its "rescuers" after the 2006 election. Beaten, abused, diseased and abandoned, it finally died. We are living in its grave.

Both comments in turn reminded me of what I also wrote last year on the day of the 6th anniversary of 9/11:

So - what exactly happened on the day after the fateful and tragic morning of 9/11?

We lost and the terrorists won.

Right there and then.

Whatever else has happened in the six years which followed to this day merely constitutes the gradual and methodical enactment of the terms of our surrender.

No more, no less.

The cynic in me tugs hard toward complete agreement (see here, here or here, as examples) with Chris Floyd's - and Arthur Silber's - conclusion that "it's all over and done with". Case in point:

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

(...) we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

(...) We gave the keys away to the foxes and let them guard the hen house without supervision, because we would not be bothered anymore with our "burdensome" responsibilities as citizens. Hence, we are only reaping what we have sown.

However, what remains of the naive in me keeps on pushing me at reminding all of us of the following:

We are living in a dangerous period of the history of our democraties. You can blame the politicians, the media, the corporations, the lobbying groups, or anyone else, yet the painful and ever so tragic truth remains this: we have only ourselves to blame.

Point of fact to this: it is we (at least, those of us who actually bother to get off the tv couch and go out to vote) who elect demagogues that "make us feel good, make us feel secure, make us feel at ease" while rejecting with disdain and mistrust the genuine candidates that are actually knowledgeable and better qualified as leaders.

So, let it be known ad nauseam: living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility.

And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?

Or this:

It is high time to remember that it is indeed we who guard all the doors and hold all the keys of our democratic values and institutions.

It is, in the end, up to us to act as the Guardians and Caretakers of our constitutions, our civil rights and our civil liberties.

It has always been up to us.

What remains to be established is whether it is effectively already too late, and if that is not the case, whether we will wake up to our responsibilities as citizens living in (dying) democracies.

In other words: we must draw the line once and for all - either we stand up for our civil rights and therefore win against tyranny-in-the-making, or cowardly stand down in the name of Security and lose everything.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President now stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively "crossed the Rubicon"?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?

Now read this news item (emphasis and extra links added):

(...) President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus (...)

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

And let us not forget about torture and other "necessary" actions required to "fight" this now-official, never-ending Global War on Terrorism(TM).

Once again, we should keep very much in mind the ever convenient rationale of security agencies as they perform their "duty":

(...) This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

Conclusion - no one is safe indeed:

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

Welcome to the Security State governed by the all-powerful President-Pontificate, who will win (someday in the far, distant future, perhaps) the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM).

The last, final few steps in crossing the Rubicon are being be taken.

Should he be still alive today, I am convinced that George Orwell would say: "I told you so".

Thus the slow march toward tyranny is nearing its completion.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

The following exchange cristallizes the sheer insanity which is now prevailing over what passes as reason these days (h/t):

American News Project notes that in yesterday’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked Doug Feith if a 20-hour interrogation involving “hooding” and “removal of clothing” was “humane.” Feith hedged, curiously claiming that “removal of clothes is different from naked”:

NADLER: : Let me ask you. How could you force someone to be naked -

FEITH: It doesn’t say naked. It doesn’t say naked.

NADLER: Removal of clothing. Removal of clothing doesn’t mean naked?

FEITH: Removal of clothing is different from naked.

This, coming from that same Douglas Feith who has claimed to have championed a policy of respect for the Geneva conventions during his tenure in the White House (ri-ight).

Let's have another example (h/t):

The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a “valuable” purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

“I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture,” Ashcroft said, responding to questions from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

He added, “the Department of Justice has on a consistent basis over the last half-dozen years or so, over and over again in its evaluations, come to the conclusion that under the law in existence during my time as attorney general, waterboarding did not constitute torture.”

Waters asked Ashcroft whether such techniques would be regarded as “totally unacceptable and even criminal” if they were used on American soldiers. “Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces,” Ashcroft said …

Let's have more (h/t):

During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former Attorney General John Ashcroft falsely claimed that waterboarding has “consistently” been defined as “not torture” and refused to agree that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques — including waterboarding — on captured U.S. soldiers is “unacceptable” or “criminal.”

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Do you think that if these techniques were used on American soldiers that they would be totally unacceptable and even criminal? (…)

ASHCROFT: My job, as Attorney General, was to try and elicit from the experts and the best people in the Department definitions that comported with the statues enacted by the Congress and the Constitution of the United States. And those statutes have consistently been interpreted so as to say, by the definitions that, waterboarding, as described in the CIA’s request, is not torture.

Which in turn must be followed by this (h/t):

Today, during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention facilities. According to Issa, “we treated our hospital patients worse” than we treat al Qaeda detainees. Former attorney general John Ashcroft chimed in, joking that doctors “were poking needles into me”:

ISSA: It is sort of amazing that as a member of the permanent Select Intelligence Committee, I’ve never heard any allegation of any detainee being denied food or water for a week. It’s clear that we treated our hospital patients at times worse than al Qaeda.

ASCHROFT: What’s more, they were poking needles into me all the time time.

Now comes the logical outcome (h/t):

Appearing on Shepard Smith’s Fox News show yesterday, O’Reilly explained that he “held (the released footage of Rev. Jesse Jackson criticizing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) before an interview) back” because “it was not relevant to the general subject — one civil rights leader disparaging another, over policy.” Towards the end of the interview, Smith asked O’Reilly, “do we know who leaked it?” “No,” replied O’Reilly, adding that he would find out because he had “the waterboard over here”:

O’REILLY: So, we held it back, and then, some weasel got the whole thing, leaked it out to the internet, and here we are.

SMITH: Do we know who leaked it and what’s happened to that person?

O’REILLY: No, but I have the waterboard over here, and we have a couple of people that, you know, we’ll dunk. We’ll find out.

When Smith said, “we don’t allow torture here,” O’Reilly replied, “well, you talk to some of my guests.”

All of the above reminds me again of this:

(...) whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".

Indeed - Gitmo is really more like a boy scout camp than it is a prison camp. Why, it is practically Disney Land!

Not. At. All.

Nevertheless, there you have it. From first denying any torture, we've come to redefining torture as not torture, to trivializing it and, now, to make it a subject of asinine jokes.

Never mind the dirty little secrets that torture by the military is not really new, and that torture of detainees of the Global War on Terror(TM) began well before Bush and Co. decided to undertake the necessary legalese gymnastics in order to justify it "legally" after-the-fact,

And never mind that torture techniques currently being used (yes - torture is still going on) came from China, and that privatizing torture can be good business.

No, never mind all that because the new truthiness of the day is: torture is A-OK.

No wonder, then, that there are politicians who still think that torture techniques, such as those used in Gitmo or those revealed in Abu Ghraib, are nothing more than hazing pranks from some Fraternity.

No wonder, then, that U.S. politicians are doing their best to close down hearings on torture.

No wonder, then, that radio loudmouths can proudly say - and without any backlash whatsoever - that they would hang any lawyer doing their job in defending Gitmo detainees.

No wonder, then, that the President can claim with a straight face that critics of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and renditions are slandering America.

And it is no wonder, then, that Bush allies/emulators (like my Prime Douchebag of Canada) actually support implicitly the use of torture, by either mendacious denial or by using the same types of euphemisms, obfuscations and sleight-of-hand double-talking in doing so.

Once again, as I previously wrote:

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

All the while, we keep on ignoring the following simple, self-evident verity:

I also think of those dozens (hundreds?) who have been tortured over the years, thanks to the Bush administration's policy which has ever been supported - if not encouraged and staunchly defended - by pundits, lawyers, justices, politicians, warhawks, chickenhawks and all assorted fear- and hate-driven neocon enablers, supporters and apologists - including all those ostriches who would rather bury their heads in the sand rather than face the awful, ugly truth:

The U.S.A. has become a rogue state which practices indefinite detention and torture.

And who cares if some of those "evil Muslims" die in the process, right? After all, indefinite detentions, secret tribunals and enhanced interrogation techniques torture are valuable means and tools for the defense of freedom, liberty and democracy ...

(...) I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

Every single one of these fear- and hate-driven incompetents have pushed us from the moral high ground of justice, freedom and human rights into the bottomless precipice of barbarous and savage injustice.

And this other one:

That. Is. Justice. For. You.

All in the sacro-sanct name of Security.

Doesn't it make you feel so proud and patriotic?

God bless America and God bless Canada, f***ing indeed.

But the ugly truth is that all of us are guilty for our silence and absence of outrage. All of us have been irremediably stained for such a sociopathic lack of basic human decency, empathy, compassion and contrition.

In the meantime, the apparent majority of our fellow citizens either approve, remain complicit with their silence, just don't want to know, or simply don't care - as they are being conveniently distracted on a daily basis by the whims and vagaries of vapid and insipid (if not asinine) traditional media outlet accomplices (yet one more example here).

Thus I ask again:

(...) what does it say about a society where those who are the most pro-war and pro-torture can only change their minds after undergoing waterboarding?

I think it is now safe to say that the answer to that question is the following: simply read again the very first paragraph of this essay.

That is what "it says" about our societies.

Not entirely convinced? Then glance over these few headlines:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

FBI might use profiling in terror investigations (h/t);

Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names (h/t);

Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions (h/t);

CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list;

Prosecutor turned up on US terror watch list;

Torture and the rule of law;

RCMP slammed for storing secret files on Canadians (see also here);

CSIS keeping tabs on Olympic protesters (see also here);

U.K.: What do we do now? (see also here);

Homeland Security blocks voter drive (h/t)

Council used terror law to spy on fishermen;

Congressman still faces airport screening problem.

And I could go on and on and on and on.

If we can accept something so inhuman and barbaric as torture, and if furthermore we become so accepting/used of it that we can trivialize and even joke about it, then we can accept anything.

And so we have.

And frankly, I've used up all my outrage and my contempt on these matters. I wrote letters (newpapers, elected representatives), I've written blogs, I've been discussing this over and over in the public place (in RL) ...

Still, most people seem too self-absorbed, or too fearful of them "terrorists", or actually approve, or remain simply in denial, to be outraged or even give a damn about the slow destruction of our democratic principles, as well as our values of civil rights, human rights, human dignity and human respect.

And I - at least on this day - just don't know what to do about this anymore.

We have been losing ourselves since the day after 9/11.

Looks like we have crossed the threshold of ever being able to find ourselves again.

So we keep on riding fast and hard onto that road to perdition ... well beyond redemption.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

The act was passed in 1979, in the wake of the Church Hearings and other congressional action that exposed and shut down the FBI's COINTELPRO domestic spying program. From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the FBI was spying on tens of thousands of American citizens, with little or no oversight. What began as a search for communist inflitrators widened into surveillance on political groups, right and left, that were seen as threats. After Watergate and the end of Nixon's "imperial presidency," as it became apparent that the FBI had been used as a tool to stifle dissent, Congress put an end to COINTELPRO with a series of statutes that forbade electronic surveillance except by means of a search warrant.

But the intelligence agencies argued - persuasively - that this left a gap in terms of intelligence-gathering on foreign agents operating in the U.S. Having to go to an ordinary judge, many of whom have only minimal security vetting, and lay out specific "sources and methods" information to get an intelligence wiretap warrant, might compromise the security of those "sources and methods." In some instances, it might put the lives of informants and other assets at risk. The intelligence agencies argued that they needed another, more secure way to gain such warrants.

And thus was born FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - and the very first secret court in our nation's history. Yes, the FISA Court is a secret court. FISC judges undergo full security vetting, because they will have access to "sources and methods" material, the factual allegations constituting probable cause for a FISA warrant. The affidavits for FISA warrants are classified. The subject cannot see the affidavit, nor challenge its factual basis in court.

See how FISA and its FISC constituted an affront to the 4th Amendment to begin with? That is what some bloggers have been decrying all along since the current "telecom immunity" issue began - most notably Chris Floyd (example here) and, especially, Arthur Silber (example here).

But as if this was not bad enough, then came the "breaking of the wall of separation" between intelligence gathering and regular law enforcement (emphasis added):

And that seemed reasonable, because the original FISA specified that no information gained by means of a FISA warrant could be used in a criminal prosecution. There was a "wall of separation" between the intelligence-gathering and law enforcement sections within the FBI. The former was to investigate foreign espionage cases; the latter was to investigate crimes and gather evidence for prosecution. And because FISA warrants were not reviewable in a trial court, the two were not allowed to mix.

That ended with the USA PATRIOT Act. The consensus, after 9/11, was that the plot might have been stopped had the intelligence and law enforcement agencies been able to share information. Foreign-trained and -financed terrorists acting in the United States do seem to pose a special case, as they are not "spies," but rather are plainly "criminals." Thus the USAPA took down that "wall of separation," allowing information gained from FISA warrants (and other classified intelligence methods) to be used by law enforcement agencies and in criminal prosecutions.

And thus, after being maimed by FISA proper, the 4th Amendment was effectively killed once and for all by the USAPA. In other words (emphasis added):

Not even (a) trial judge can see the FISA affidavit. It is classified, "sources and methods" information. The prosecutor can show the judge that a FISA warrant was indeed issued, but that's as far as it goes.

Because (the defense) can't see the factual allegations underlying the FISA warrant - not even the trial judge can see that - (the defense) cannot challenge the validity of that warrant. It's not reviewable. Not at trial. Not on appeal. Not ever.

Which means they could have said anything they wanted. They could have had only the flimsiest pretext of probable cause. They could even have lied outright. You'll never know, so you can't challenge it.

Oh, and the FISC has refused fewer than five of the tens of thousands of warrant requests submitted, in the past 19 years. The FISC is, quite literally, a rubber-stamp court.

This is the "protection" offered by FISA. This is the "constitutional safeguard" so many of you are so up in arms to preserve. It is no safeguard at all.

See? It is a basic truism that one's constitutional rights exist only so long as one (or one's lawyer) can challenge their violation in court. In this respect, FISA is definitely not the last bastion of the 4th Amendment - as too many progressives out there like to claim in the context of the current issue of "telecom immunity" capitulation.

Even worse, there are those progressives who are actually supporting/defending/excusing some of the Democrats who capitulated, including Barack Obama (examples here and here), or worse - deciding to accept the lesser of two evils.

This is ludicrous, since, as Silber puts it:

(...) as odious and destructive of liberty and privacy as the new FISA "compromise" bill is, there is one perspective from which the momentous to-do about this legislation is very badly misplaced. The selective focus on FISA misses the crucial larger picture (...) if we were genuinely concerned about civil liberties and privacy, we would return to the Fourth Amendment and the procedures it requires, and the FISA regime would be abolished entirely. That's right: it would be abolished. No one wants to do that. Too radical, doncha know. That's scary talk, much scarier, it would appear, than the tyranny which daily strengthens its death grip on all our throats. Nonetheless, if you want to understand the nature and scope of the decades-long attack on individual liberty, you had better remember what FISA is.

Moreover, understand the nature of the old FISA regime, which appears to be just fine with almost everyone, Republicans, Democrats, progressives, everyone. Steny Hoyer has helpfully spelled out the near-omnipotent powers of FISA under the old scheme. Understand how comprehensive it is, and how comprehensively it destroys civil liberties.

Silber then goes on to provide but a few further examples of "sinister instruments", detailing their forceful penetration into every aspect of the lives of Americans.

And Chris Floyd to add:

Watch the layers peel away. The FISA compromise bill is abominable, without question; anyone who supports it cannot possibly be regarded as a serious believer in constitutional democracy. Yet behind this truth is another one, noted above: the FISA system itself is an abomination for a free people. And behind this comes yet another, grimmer truth: the FISA system, either old-style or the new Obama-abetted version, is just a miniscule part of the "endless array of weapons" at the disposal of the National Surveillance State (...).

In short: no one is safe.

And I submit here this further axiom - Canadians are not safe either:

The free sharing of intelligence databases between American security agencies and Canadian ones paves the way for full, unrestrained and potentially abusive domestic spying-by-proxy on both sides of the border. Why? Because Americans can spy on Canadians without warrants and Canadians can spy on Americans without warrants, being allowed to store their data into databases ... which are in turn freely shared between American and Canadian security agencies.

That's North American integration for you.

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

And that is not taking into account the plain, typical bureaucrat, often frustrated by his/her bleak, menial job and driven by his/her petty jealousies. Such potential banality of evil is clearly illustrated by Silber:

The fact that every aspect of our lives is regulated, directed and controlled has a further result, one of the most dangerous of all: If someone in government decides to go after you, he has an endless array of weapons from which to choose. Even if you emerge from the battle with your life largely intact, anyone in government who wishes to do so can turn your life into hell for years on end, even for decades. It may all begin with some pathetic bureaucrat in a cramped, stifling cubicle. Perhaps someone cut him off in traffic that morning; perhaps he had a fight at home the night before. Perhaps he's just a rotten human being. He happens to come across your name on some document, and he thinks: "I know: I'll go after him. That could be fun." And your life is destroyed.

Once again: welcome to the Security State of North America, my friends.

Food for thought, eh?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended tough interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects approved by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, saying they were necessary to protect America from new attacks.

In her most extensive public comments about how the administration dealt with detainee interrogations in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, Rice insisted the methods of questioning complied with both U.S. law and treaty obligations.

But she acknowledged that those rules had since changed and that the United States was a "different place" then, adding that the administration's top priority at the time had been preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points.

"The fact is that after Sept. 11, whatever was legal in the face of not just the attacks of Sept. 11, but the anthrax attacks that happened, we were in an environment in which saving America from the next attack was paramount," Rice said.

"But even in that environment, President Bush made clear that we were going to live up to our obligations at home and to our treaty obligations abroad," she told an audience (...).

Rice noted that legal restrictions on the treatment of detainees had evolved significantly between 2002 and 2003, when administration officials had allowed harsh techniques, including one that some believe to be torture, and the passage in 2005 of the Detainee Treatment Act that prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"Now, there has been a long evolution in American policy about detainees and about interrogations," she said. "We now have in place a law that was not there in 2002 and 2003."

"So the ground is different now," she said.

Oh, really?

We have gone from due process, habeas corpus, the 4th amendment and upholding the Geneva Conventions, to extraordinary renditions, indefinite detentions, loss of habeas corpus, torture, military commissions and the shredding of the Geneva Conventions.

That is not "evolution", but rather devolution pure and simple - and having made all of these savage grotesqueries legal after the fact (or through signing statements) only cemented the reality of this rapidly downward spiraling fall to perdition and utter perversion of every single tenet of morality, civil liberties and human rights.

Regardless of whatever typical double-talk, double-thinking, legalese theorycrafting-in-an-echo-chamber Madam Rice offers and which, in essence, admits on the one hand "to Hell with the law and international conventions" while, simultaneously on the other, offering disassembling platitudes regarding the respect for laws and international conventions.

To this effect, there is one, single account on which Madam Rice spoke factually: the "ground" is indeed definitely different now than before 9/11.

Let me count the ways:

1) Extraordinary renditions: Yes, now that they have been exposed and decried, that should be the end of it and we all should move along, right? Well, how about some justice for all those who were victims of such barbarous crimes (like this guy, for instance, who got Canadian justice but not American justice)? How about some trials for the perpetrators of these same crimes, including those who devised and came up with such callous disregards for basic due process, justice and civility? Oh, right - they have all been exonerated by law after the fact and if any other country in the world should decide to do the right and just thing and put such bastards on trial, well ...

Regardless, if you think that extraordinary renditions are over and done with - then guess again ...

2) Indefinite detentions: thanks to the gutting of habeas corpus, these are legal now and, apparently, retroactively at that. Why, even children and teenagers ("child soldiers") are fair game (take this one, as but one example). And if you think only "terrorists" and "unlawful combatants" constitute the sole targets of such detentions, then guess again one more time (emphasis added):

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act — such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections— Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.

(...) While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners. Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.” In Section 950v, “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” “Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

(...) “Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’— American citizen or otherwise — who crosses some ill-defined line.”

And on a related note:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

U.S. residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war;

U.S. planning big new prison in Afghanistan.

Welcome to the land of liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... but don't you fret - apparently, being a detainee is pretty much like living in a frathouse ...

3) Torture: whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

4) Military tribunals: as pretty much anyone who deals with reality suspected, if not predicted, these tribunals are nothing more than rigged, show trials held behind closed doors. Military lawyers are pressured/harassed by their superiors to either prosecute maliciously or not defend their clients to the best of their abilities - and if they chose the high road, they will suffer the consequences. Even military judges are fair game to this effect.

And even if you are lucky enough to be finally cleared of all charges, you are either stranded as a "no land's man" or kept indefinitely as a "guest" nevertheless because, well, the Bush administration feels like it.

These tribunals are about getting results and giving way to political convenience. This is not due process and definitely not justice - this is all about the rule of whim of the moment.

Banana Republic, anyone?

And I am not even getting into the gutting of FISA and all that illegal domestic spying stuff - except to strongly suggest to those who still think that "it's all good and it can't be abused" to, well, guess yet again - I offer one small example to this effect.

So yes indeed - the "ground" is definitely different now than before 9/11: America, its constitution, its republic and its moral standing have become as ruined as the ashes, dust, rubble and metal scraps of the towers of the World Trade Center.

In this respect, I wrote the following recently:

I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

And yet, and yet ...

It. Was. Necessary.

I think we've been handed the perfect excuse to justify *anything*, thanks to Madam Rice - just let your imagination - or inner savage, rather - run wild with it.

Because that's what has been happening with regards to human decency and human rights over the last seven years or so.

Vive la civilization, eh?

In the end, all I can do is dare to hope that the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America, Sen. Barack Obama, will seize the moment and the time to unequivocally renounce again all these affronts to, and perversions of, justice and human rights - and consequently renew his pledge to right such immoral, inhumane wrongs once and for all.

To paraphrase what he has so eloquently said:

America, this is your moment. This is your time. Your time to turn the page on the policies of the past.

Now, that is something that is truly necessary ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)