Are Democrats Turning a Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?
by
Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts
DIGG THIS
Unless November’s
new blood improves the Democratic Party’s civil liberties pedigree,
the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next
January.
In its disregard
for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva
Conventions, the US Constitution and statutory law, the Bush administration
has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney
executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints
that provide accountability and prevent despotism.
The Bush regime
was able to evade these restraints, because Republicans controlled
both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as
a weapon to forestall political opposition.
With signing
statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority,
the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach
of Congress and the judiciary.
The Bush regime
was a coup d’état against the Bill of Rights and the
jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll
back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.
Judging by
Democrats’ statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats
have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats
are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition
that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that
permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying.
If Bush threatens
to veto the resurrection of US civil liberty, the Democrats can
impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an
illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.
Bush is the
most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to
be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will
not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty
of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."
Do Pelosi and
the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect
and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to
remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done
to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five
being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether
children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties
from arbitrary government power.
Do Democrats
share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern
terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the US Constitution?
One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional
protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However,
without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is
a terrorist.
Currently,
a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any
of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military
officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated
suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military
tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to
them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure.
In other words, you are guilty if charged.
As the case
of US citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these gestapo police state
proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy
combatant." He was held in a US prison for three and one-half
years with no charges and no warrant. He was kept in isolated confinement,
tortured, and denied legal representation.
In
order to avoid US Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the
Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years
of Padilla’s life. However, the charges have no relationship to
the Bush regime’s original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American,
was an al Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive
dirty bomb in an American city. The US government no longer designates
Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge
has disappeared, and US Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has
criticized the government’s indictment as vague with sketchy evidence
"weak on facts."
The
reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely
without evidence is that it has no evidence. The reason the Bush
regime passed torture legislation is in order to produce the missing
evidence by torturing a suspect into self-incrimination. "Evidence"
procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for
centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack
and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats
cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices
that now pass for US justice, then they, too, have failed the American
people.
November
13, 2006
Paul
Craig Roberts [send
him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall
Street Journal
editorial page and Contributing Editor of National
Review. He
is author or coauthor of eight books, including The
Supply-Side Revolution
(Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments,
including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and
Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before
Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's
Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was
a reviewer for the Journal
of Political Economy
under editor Robert Mundell. He
is the co-author of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright
© 2006 Creators Syndicate
Paul
Craig Roberts Archives
|