Fascism checklist: legalized torture, legalized surveillance

The LA Times article excerpted below is horrifying. So are the views expressed. Amnesty International is 'concerned' about the upcoming bill, primarily because of it's 'ambiguity.' There is 'worry' that the Bush administration 'would use the language to claim approval of tough methods.' 

What kind of nonsense is this? Why the soft language? Why the diplomacy? WHERE IS THE FUCKING OUTRAGE? The whole purpose of the new bill is to make legal practices that are currently illegal. That's it. That's why the Bush regime wants it. It wants the power to torture--and it wants the rest of us to know that it can torture and surveill and detain without cause, without explanation, without limit.

Defense Lawyers Assail Legislation on Detainees - Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON — Military defense lawyers assailed compromise legislation for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, contending Friday that proposed rules would prevent them from learning whether evidence used against their clients was obtained through coercion or torture.

At the same time, rights groups that initially endorsed the compromise between the Bush administration and key Senate Republicans expressed reservations, saying it appeared on closer reading to be vague and could give President Bush and future presidents too much latitude.

For a piece that is actually informative--while properly--outraged see the following at the WSWS:

Along with the authorization of torture, the compromise bill would allow evidence obtained through coercion to be introduced in the military commissions that the legislation establishes. While the bill nominally bans evidence obtained by torture, this is purely a formality since torture is defined so narrowly.

Thus, prisoners deemed to be “enemy combatants” can be tortured and “evidence” thus obtained can be used in kangaroo military courts to convict and execute them, or prosecute other “enemy combatants.”

The compromise measure states explicitly that the Geneva Conventions will not create any enforceable rights for the individuals under US control. It also states that no court will be allowed to hear a habeas corpus or other lawsuit that is brought by any “enemy combatant” under US custody. This provision would apply retroactively to 2001, and would therefore throw out the hundreds of cases brought by Guantánamo Bay detainees that are currently in the courts.

The measure codifies the category of “enemy combatant”—a category that the Bush administration has used to justify the holding of prisoners indefinitely and without charge.

The denial of due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution is one of the most significant aspects of the compromise, since it creates a class of prisoners who have no legal rights. Professor Boyle noted that this is one of the principal foundations of a totalitarian state. He quoted Hannah Arendt’s comment in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, that “The first essential step on the road to total domination is to kill the juridical person in man.”

Finally, the bill establishes various procedures for the military commissions. The administration conceded some points on the question of secret evidence. The administration’s version would have allowed such evidence with virtually no constraints. The compromise allows for classified information to be withheld, but states that “to the extent practicable” the judge must provide an unclassified, summarized version of that which is withheld. This provision remains in dispute, however, with Republicans in the House of Representatives pushing for language that would give freer reign for secret evidence.

The agreement also allows the use of hearsay evidence beyond what is admissible in normal military courts-martial hearings.

The secret evidence compromise was modified under the pressure of the Republican senators, particularly Lindsey Graham, who argued that the administration’s version would have great difficulty getting past the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in June that aspects of the military commissions established by Bush were unconstitutional, including the use of secret evidence.

The largely cosmetic changes to Bush’s torture bill contained in the compromise measure will do nothing to repair the shattered moral and political credibility of the United States around the world. The flouting of international law and evisceration of constitutional guarantees flows organically from the nature of the imperialist policy of the US government, a policy that is supported by the entire political establishment. A policy of war and aggression is inextricably bound up with the use of brutal methods and the destruction of democratic rights.

It can be stated with certainty that the Democrats will provide whatever votes are necessary to get this legislation passed, provided that the Republican agreement holds. Throughout the debate, the Democrats have played an utterly cowardly and complicit role, sitting on the sidelines while the disagreements between the Republicans were worked out.

The Democratic Party leadership has made clear that it will not oppose any of the measures implemented by the administration under the pretext of the “war on terror” and “national security.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid signaled his support for the compromise measure worked out between the White House and the Senate Republicans, saying, “Five years after September 11, it is time to make the tough and smart decisions to give the American people the real security they deserve.”

Comments

[Alain]

Jodi, thank you for posting this. While the Republicans are clear in their disdain for the rule of law, the democrats seem content to step back in order not to appear "soft" on terrorism. This sort of calculated cynicism is not only disgusting but also exemplifies why most Americans, even those who support them, think the democrats are largely spineless jelly fish, who will do or say anything and stand for nothing. One can imagine, even if the dems gain controll of the Congress (which appears less likely) it is clear that nothing will really change - the President will continue to rule by fiat and the legislature will enshrine his decisions into law.

[Jodi]

Thanks, Alain. I fully agree on the spongebob party (not slight to Mr. Squarepants intended). Why even think it would make a difference if this party can't rally an opposition to torture and surveillance? But Amnesty International? Come on! I really didn't think things were that bad. Is the poor fanatical left wing blogosphere and its unwanted conspiracist comrades the only opposition left/Left?

[Matt]

There is *some* outrage, actually.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/no_free_passes.html

(To add the knee-jerk sneer requisite in certain circles, however dubiously or ultimately helpful: "all it takes is a little doodling on the Clinton halo, apparently.")

Trying my hardest to alienate everyone at once, you see.

Digby is excellent

[Alain]

Thank you to whoever posted the Digby Link. The terrifying aspect of the detainee legislation is that anyone the President or Pentagon says is an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" can be disappeared. Why would a country enshrine such broad powers into law?

[Matt]

You're welcome.

And indeed, the literary world might also well take note.

[dc]

Interesting article about the administration's motives for passing the 'torture bill' now. They fear losing control of one house of congress, and before that happens, hope to immunize themselves retroactively from prosecution for war crimes. It's not about torture, it's a desperate attempt to evade punishment.

The Supreme Court could toss its provisions as unconstitutional. Or a future congress could repeal them. But given who now sits on the court, and the liklihood that many of the 2006 elections will be stolen through vote fraud, they may well get away with it. At the very least, it will be a lot longer before it all catches up to them, a lot harder to clear all the hurdles in the way of prosecution.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-22.htm

[dc]

Rivers Pitt

[Kenneth Rufo]

You know, as much as I typically ignore the unnamed troll, I actually think he/she/it is actually making an interesting claim here, albeit in the usual sophomoric packaging, which is that habeas rights are both lexically and historically biopolitical rights, and as such are inscriptions of the right of the state to adjudicate the confinement of the body, against other agents of the state that are responsible for the execution of that body. Don't get me wrong, as the bill is heinous and terrible and soul-numbing beyond reckoning, but I think it might be worth contextualizing or at least thinking through what it would mean to champion habeas corpus, rather than condemn the bill exclusively for other reasons. Just a thought.

[Chin]

http://kcsheehan.blogspot.com/2006/09/torture-compromise-and-out_115916669025597518.html

Olberman's ratings have gone up 69%.