By Brigitte L. Nacos
As European allies pressed for the closing of the Guantanomo
Bay prison, President Bush signed a bill
into law that allows tough interrogation of terrorists and terrorist suspects
and establishes military commissions to try these detainees. The only comforting
news surrounding the event was the protest against torture outside the White
House. The President used the signing ceremony to hail the Military Commissions
Act of 2006 and assure Americans that the new law “sends a clear message: This
nation is patient and decent and fair, and we will never back down from the
threats to our freedom.” The truth is, however, that this nation has backed
down by retreating from our most esteemed values. The legislation that Congress
adopted and the President signed into law is the latest proof of this retreat.
While Republicans control both houses of the Congress and the White House, a number of Democrats also supported the
un-American piece of legislation—12 members of the Senate and 32 in the House.
This begs the question whether a big
Democratic victory in November and majorities in both congressional chambers
would bring about changes and deny the President the legislative support he has
enjoyed.
In the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza (The Fix) writes
about the importance of partisan turn-outs on the election results in early
November. The question is indeed, whether the Democratic or Republican base is
more energized and poised to turn out on Election Day. And while there are poll
results suggesting that Democrats are more motivated than Republicans this time
around, much can change in the last weeks and days until Election Day.
But even assuming that November 7, 2006 will give Democrats
the majority in one or both houses of congress, it is difficult to imagine fundamental
policy changes if a small but decisive minority of Democrats in the Senate and
the House continue to support the administration’s agenda—as in the case of the
Military Commission Act and many other post-9/11 measures. As the President signed this Act the other
day, he stated that this law “will save American lives.” Will it really? What
useful information can interrogators get from detainees who have been
imprisoned for several years without any contact with the outside world?
The rush to what is sold as counterterrorist measures before the upcoming election is hardly a coincidence nor is the fact that most politicians are not courageous enough to speak out against what amounts to a surrender of American values. That’s true for Republicans and for Democrats. And too few voices in the media have been as clear as Dan Froomkin who writes the following about the latest addition to these counterterrorism measures:
“President Bush this morning proudly signed into law a bill that critics consider one of the most un-American in the nation's long history. The new law vaguely bans torture -- but makes the administration the arbiter of what is torture and what isn't. It allows the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant. It suspends the Great Writ of habeas corpus for detainees. It allows coerced testimony at trial. It immunizes retroactively interrogators who may have engaged in torture."
Un-American, indeed.
Comments