Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The Rule of Law vs. The Rule of Power

President Shrub today signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, claiming, in part, that the future would judge us on "if we did enough to prevent terrorism".

Couple of ridiculous points:

Removing the concept of the "rule of law", with the US Courts as the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't allowed (enemy combatants would have no right to sue for being improperly held / charged / treated), is truly un-American. Nothing makes the attacks of 9/11 have more impact than if we throw out our democratic ways in the process of fighting terrorism. Even Americans, detained on US soil, could be labelled "enemy combatants", and never have a chance to a non-military tribunal, where hear-say and dubious evidence (resulting from "non-torture" interrogation techniques, including beatings, sleep and food deprivation, etc. Not allowed by US Military code of conduct, but the CIA has their own methods...)

"If we did enough" - we could bomb the rest of the world (ok - we'll keep Britain and Australia, our staunchest allies, and maybe Israel) and that would greatly reduce the chance of future attacks on America. Is that enough?

A key concepts in the Geneva Convention is that a common set of standards to apply to everyone. If Al Qaida capture American soldiers, tried them without proper legal representation, and then executed them, Americans would be horrified at their barbarism. Only difference is the Military commissions Act of 2006 allows us to do it as a government.

And, the law is retro-active, so it applies to any / all exhisting detainee's lawsuits in US court.

No comments: