This is how it starts - Democratic Underground

BobcatJH

(504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-27-06 01:44 PM
Original message

This is how it starts

We're indeed living in strange times. Times when our government sees nothing wrong with illegally spying on its citizens. Times when many of our citizens see nothing wrong with our government torturing prisoners of war. And times when, to both the party in power and its supporters, down is literally up and, among other things, the war in Iraq is a smashing success, our presence there has made the world a safer place and that, thanks to our actions, global terrorism is on the decline. While the administration's ludicrously misguided response in the face of the just-declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate is bad enough, there remains a portion of the findings that should send chills down your spine. Couple that nugget with some behind-the-scenes dealmaking on legislation concerning detainee interrogation and military tribunals and it soon becomes easy to see this nation, this democracy, headed to a far different place. This is how it starts.

An article in Wednesday's New York Times cites Republicans, despite the fact that a deal on the government's eavesdropping seems dead for now, as feeling "optimistic" about a bill codifying rules for the interrogation of detainees and for military tribunals. Said Lindsey Graham, who has previously voted to support amnesty for those who would torture, mutilate and murder our troops in Iraq, "I think we are good to go." But despite Graham's claims and what Bill Frist termed earlier this week as "technical changes", significant changes made to the legislation point to a future America few would recognize. One change, for instance, pertained to detainees' rights to confront the evidence being used against them. The original language, per the Times, said that a detainee could "examine and respond to" all evidence. In the changed language, however, only "respond to" remained, leaving a scenario with secret trials and potentially trumped-up evidence a possibility. Graham, meanwhile, called the omission "literally just a drafting error" and that the original language would return. Since when has "being caught" been synonymous with "drafting error"?

Another change to the original language of the bill pertained to evidence allowed in court potentially collected without a warrant. Previously, evidence taken "outside the United States" - even evidence taken without a warrant - was permissible in a court of law, due in part to the idea that the evidence in question could have come directly from the battlefield. The altered legislation, however, omitted the phrase "outside the United States". Think about that. Without that key phrase, authorities could shed any pretense of adhering to our legal traditions. Who needs a warrant when any evidence, no matter how ill-gotten, is allowed? If that's not bad enough, the altered legislation also redefined the meaning of an "unlawful enemy combatant", moving from those "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to those who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." About that change, John McCain said, "Most of us feel if someone is engaged in actively assisting Al Qaeda or terrorists that they should fall under this legislation." Oh yeah? What seems practical on paper becomes anything but in reality. What does "actively assisting Al Qaeda or terrorists" mean? Who decides who is "actively assisting Al Qaeda or terrorists"? The president, who is poised to be the decider in terms of what is and what isn't torture? Or his associates, who have long equated the Democratic Party with our adversaries? How comforting.

In total, these anything-but-technical changes represent yet another frightening attempt by this administration and its rubber-stamp friends in Congress to ram through a serious piece of legislation without allowing the proper time for scrutiny. If this suggestion sounds familiar, it should. Remember the process by which the White House forced the Patriot Act through Congress? I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but our democracy does not, and should not, work that way. If we're going to debate a piece of legislation whose fine print would change the face of this country as well as the course of our legal and ethical tradition, don't you think it right to actually take the time to discuss it? And not to beat yet another dead horse, but the chance that a drastic omission amounts to a drafting error equates roughly to the likelihood that George Allen, as Digby pointed out, didn't know the meaning behind the word "macaca" when he used it to describe an opposing campaign staffer. Hint: Not likely at all. I wonder how many of our rights will disappear thanks in no small part to these drafting errors.

Now, keep in mind what the Times reported when looking at this portion of the declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate. "Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies," it says. "This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint." Think of the implications of this statement. Especially considering that this administration has, in the past, spied upon peace groups, gay rights advocates, environmental activists, journalists and everyday Muslims. Especially considering the disdain with which this administration views dissent. Especially considering the expansiveness with which this White House defines those it terms opposed to our nation's interests and the lengths this to which this administration will go to destroy its opposition.

If that's not bad enough, consider the next statement in the key judgments, which reads, "We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support." Again, think of the implications of this statement. This administration, as we know, seems perfectly willing to expand what groups or individuals it considers its enemies to near laughable proportions. Imagine, if you will, a future where your participation in online democracy places you at odds with your government. Where writing for or commenting on a blog can land you on the no-fly list. Where even reading this story or stories like it makes you an enemy of the state. Far-fetched, perhaps. But can you honestly tell me that it can't happen here? Consider the vitriol the right directs at MoveOn. At Daily Kos. At the rest of the progressive blogosphere. How long, I wonder, until it stops being rhetoric and starts being something else entirely? We've already heard numerous right-wingers calling for people's deaths. We've also already seen what the so-called faith-based religious right is capable of when confronting its detractors. All of a sudden, the worst-case scenario doesn't seem like something better left to a work of science fiction.

This is how it starts. First, the Bush administration seeks to make its illegal behavior legal by forcing Congress to vote on a loaded bill with scant time for debate. With that bill, and with others like it, we're told over and over again by the White House and the Republican spin machine that we're only talking about the worst offenders on the planet, the terrorists that want us dead. But, when you start to look closely, the changes made to the law could potentially affect far more than just our enemies. With that in mind, you start to shudder when you realize how fast and loose the Republican Party, the party in power, plays with how they define "enemy". Then you remember all that was suggested, and done, without the imprimatur of the federal government. Pretty soon, the America you remembered becomes a far different place. A place where party sympathizers turn informants. A place where taking part in the political process can brand you an enemy. A place where the state's enemies are dealt with rather harshly. Above all else, a place where you could look around, shake your head, and say that it could have been different. It could have been prevented. And it would have been different and therefore would have been prevented if more people, the people who are looking the other way now, had spoken out. Had said "Enough is enough." Had questioned the direction this administration is taking this country. And, if so many elected officials from the party in power had also spoken out and not sought to put politics first. Similarly, if more elected officials from my party had spoken out on the immorality and complete un-Americanness of this entire debate. But neither instance has, to this point, occurred. That saddens be, because this is how it starts.