| President Bush has just won another victory in his "war on terror" by getting the Republican leadership in the Senate to support his effort to pass legislation related to the detention of prisoners and the rights they are accorded while being detained. In net effect, President Bush was able to get Congress to reverse a Supreme Court ruling issued against the Bush administration's use of military tribunals because they lacked proper congressional authorization and procedural safeguards. Once signed into law, some of the key provisions of the bill are that the President and the Secretary of Defense will have the authority to define who is an enemy combatant; and that detainees will no longer have the right of habeas corpus, i.e., the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. Court of Law deferring to military courts that have lower thresholds for rules of evidence than the courts. The bill will also allow for the use of evidence seized in the U.S. or abroad without a search warrant to be used in these trials. In a recent letter to the editor published in The Capital Times, my good friend and colleague Don Downs, University of Wisconsin professor of political science and law, weighed in on the issue of national security and the checks and balances that need to be in place in a piece entitled "How to stay safe and free." Referencing crackdowns on dissent during WWI and the internment of the Japanese in WWII, Downs cautioned us to watch the powerful as "History ... provides us ample reasons for us to be on our guard against enhanced executive and governmental power in times of war or conflict." President Bush argued that the new rules of engagement are desperately needed to address new types of warfare and a growing threat to national security. This growing threat has been documented with Bush's release of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The Washington Post quoted Bush trying to put a positive spin on this document when he noted "that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffused and independent." In reality, however, the NIE document paints a very different picture that suggests that in our efforts to destroy al Qaeda, we have become, as the proverbial saying goes, victims of our own success. We may have won the short-term battle only to lose the longer-term war. The NIE noted that while counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al Qaeda's leadership, there is a rapidly expanding and spreading "global jihadist movement" where new generations of Muslims are committed to attacking the U.S. and the West. For these individuals, Iraq is a "cause celebre" that has inspired jihadists to continue the struggle elsewhere. The recent expose by Washington Post's Bob Woodward in his book "State of Denial" has documented the fact that the Bush administration has intentionally played down the level of the insurgency in Iraq when all of the classified intelligence reports indicated that it was growing rapidly and out of control. A similar report by British intelligence which was recently leaked to the media further corroborated these findings. The report noted that the war in Iraq has unleashed a whole generation of radical jihadists committed to terrorist acts against the U.S. and the West. The report was also critical of Pakistanis for supporting terrorists and militancy in the Arab World. These realities, coupled with the results of a recent survey of the Iraqi people that documented the fact that 6 out of 10 Iraqis support attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces, in net effect, mean that there will be an ever increasing number of prisoners of war and detainees ending up in the American military/penal system. While it is clear that we as a nation face major challenges ahead, we must not allow the fact that we are facing a new, long-term intractable war to allow us to compromise our Constitution and remove us from the moral high ground. Some Congressional Democrats and a few of the Republicans tried valiantly to address these concerns in the debate leading up to the passage of the bill. They sponsored unsuccessful amendments that attempted to retain habeas corpus rights for detainees, provide Congressional Oversight, and a five-year sunset clause on the legislation. Senator Patrick Leahy testified that suspending habeas corpus wiped out 200 years of jurisprudence. Several others lamented that this legislation undermined the Geneva Convention that protected all soldiers in time of war and that the chickens would come home to roost when other nations modify or change the provisions of the Geneva Convention putting American troops who become prisoners in jeopardy. Quoting Jonathan Rauch, Dr. Downs puts in perspective the net result of what has transpired with the passage of this new draconian legislation: "Instead of making proper legal provisions for these practices, Bush has run the war against jihadism out of his back pocket, as a permanent state of emergency. He engages in legal ad-hockery and trickery, treats Congress as a nuisance rather than a partner, and circumvents outmoded laws and treaties when he should be creating new ones." There are, unfortunately, many periods in our history when the U.S. government used its powers to abuse the rights of its citizens such as the infamous CIA and FBI CoIntelpro Program -- that allowed for the illegal spying on American citizens for the purpose of deliberately trying to destroy the reputations of Civil Rights and Black Power leaders with false rumors and trumped-up charges. In times of war and political strife, our government has proven that it cannot restrain itself from using executive powers to undermine the rights of many who have been falsely accused. Anyone who is concerned about justice and our system of checks and balances should be vigilant and deeply concerned that this new legislation will set us back by not advancing our national and international interests by retreating from the moral high ground in the name of national security and the battle against terrorism. |
| The Literary Divide/ Dr. Paul Barrows Losing the moral high ground on the War on Terror |
 |
 |