On Left and Right, Concern Over Anti-Terrorism Moves: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he intends to hold hearings on the military tribunals directive and other recent steps that have been taken without consulting Congress.
It'll be interesting to see if such hearings go anywhere, or if they're even held. Somehow, I can't see this congress as having the courage to overrule an executive order at this time. (And who would you call to testify on the Administration's side? They've made their reasons for doing these things plain enough, however insufficient they may be.) Mind, it's unusual that the Shrub and his Minister of Injustice could have managed to pull together the far left and the far right -- on mostly the same grounds, even -- in denouncing the military tribunals and the attorney-client communications violation. Normally, I'd say that if you managed to piss off both sides that much, you'd probably managed to find the compromise path, since nobody was satisfied; in this case, I think the Administration managed to locate the worst possible methods to achieve their goals.
"Terrorism isn't the only threat to our way of life," [Ralph Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation] said yesterday. "We need an attorney general who will stand up to terrorists, but we also need an attorney general who will stand up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
Yes, well ... the problem there is that Ashcroft doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights. Not as such, in any event. Nobody who took their protections seriously would have even thought of doing the things he's done, even at a time like this. (And a stealth attempt to suspend the right of habeas corpus, too. My, my, what busy little beavers our leaders have been.)
The Philadelphia Daily News also points out some unintended inferences in what the Administration has been saying lately:
"Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes in the United States are not entitled to, DO NOT DESERVE, the protection of the American Constitution," Ashcroft said Wednesday. Cheney, when located, said, "They DO NOT DESERVE the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process."
However, as the Daily News points out, this is the same military justice system used for armed forces men and women who are accused of committing crimes or breaches of regulations. Apparently, our own soldiers aren't good enough for our own courts. And I don't believe that's quite the way the Administration meant this to be interpreted.
Any way you look at it, this is simply an appallingly bad set of ideas. I hope that the Administration backs down -- although I don't expect it -- or that Congress decides that, yes, they are in Washington to fulfill a function, dammit! and reverses the orders by legislation. Don't expect that, either.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!