The Bush Administration: Guarding your freedom and security.

Since Tuesday,the Bush administration has been refusing federal court orders to turn over documents on the interrogation of a United States citizen that the Bush administration is holding as an enemy combatant.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was one of two American Taliban who were taken prisoner by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan. He is currently locked in a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia without charges and without access to counsel during interrogations. Hamdi’s attoney has asked U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar to release Hamdi or at least provide him with access to counsel. Judge Doumar ordered the government to give Hamdi unrestricted access to counsel, but his decision was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit and remanded to Doumar, which advised him to hear more facts about the case before making a ruling.

The Ashcroft Department of Justice has taken the position that the federal courts have no authority to review the Executive’s determinations of who is and is not an enemy combatant. Thus, it has simply refused the judge’s order to hand over additional documents pertaining to Hamdi’s case.

I hope I don’t need to point out how dangerous a precedent it would set to allow the administration to unilaterally pick and choose whose civil liberties in wants to protect. But just for the sake of argument, let’s look at what’s happening here.

1. The Department of Justice and Department of Defense have detained three men who have been accused of attacking the United States: John Walker Lindh, Abdullah al-Mujahir (formerly José Padilla), and Hamdi.
2. One — Walker Lindh — was tried in open court according to Constitutional protections of civil liberties. Two — al-Mujahir and Hamdi — continue to rot in military prisons with no charges filed and with no access to counsel. The government has decided that these two will be test cases for their claimed war powers. Somehow it just happened to be the case that the government chose to take it out on the Puerto Rican gang-banger from Chicago and the Saudi Arabian-American, but not the rich white kid from Marin County.
3. The Executive says that Hamdi is an enemy combatant on the basis of a two-page affadavit from a Defense Department adviser which gives a brief outline of Hamdi’s alleged actions and says he’s an enemy combatant.
4. The Executive claims that his designation as an enemy combatant gives them the authority to hold him forever without charges and without access to counsel.
5. The Executive claims that federal courts have no power to review their decisions on this matter, and has refused to respect a court order to supply further documents.

So currently the administration is acting in brach of a court order and asserting its right to unilaterally designate anyone that it wants to to have no civil liberties protections whatsoever in the courts. As if deliberately going for perverse irony, the administration is basing its claims from the doctrine of the separation of powers, as if the Executive’s authority over the conduct of war gave it the right to suspend court proceedings whenever it says there’s war business going on. We’ll also simply note in passing that Congress has not actually declared any war in the first place.

There is a word for a system of government where the Executive arrogates the powers of life and death on the basis of the unilateral say-so – the dictates – of no-one other than itself. The word for that system is dictatorship. What’s scary to me is the complete arrogance with which they are proceeding, as if they feel completely comfortable in telling the courts to go fuck themselves, as if they no longer feel that there’s any point in even pretending to be accountable to the people or to the rule of law.

We have to make them uncomfortable and accountable. If the administration continues to refuse the court’s orders, President Bush should be impeached. There is no room to tolerate these kind of abuses. Regardless of what Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld intends to do with the powers that they are claiming they have, it should be obvious that it would establish a terrifying and intolerable precedent.

Write a letter to the President demanding that the administration comply with the court orders. Write a letter to your Representative and Senators urging them to call the Bush administration to task. Write a letter or Op-Ed to your local newspaper asking how dare the Bush administration ignore basic civil liberties and the separation of powers. They think they can slip this one by while we aren’t looking, but we have to let them know that we’re not going to take it.

A question has been rolling around in my mind for the past day or so. Why in the hell does anyone take Ann Coulter seriously? For a while I had hoped that Rightists generally recognized that she is absolutely bonkers, but kept her around for the PR purpose of having a token female to point to when criticized for their overwhelmingly rich, white, and male (Ann Coulter is only two of the three) cadre of talking heads. However, I have seen one too many online comment raving to preach on after her sociopathic gibberish and I simply must accept that some people other than Ann Coulter actually believe this shit.

Perhaps I should not be too surprised; after all, Ann’s writings are currently carried by FrontPage Magazine, the house organ of the equally insane David Horowitz. But still…

A couple of months ago, National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen managed to make it into the runoff for France’s Presidential race before he was crushed by a popular front vote for the incumbent President Jacques Chirac. 19.5% voted for Chirac and 17.5% for Le Pen in the first round; in the runoff, Le Pen received the same 17.5% and the 2/3 of voters who had voted for neither all swung behind Chirac. Despite Le Pen’s crushing defeat and the failure of the National Front to gain any parliamentary seats in the June elections, the fact that Le Pen pulled such a large minority of French voters to his side troubled many Leftists.

Three days before his imminent defeat, Ms. Coulter set out on a quixotic mission to defend his candidacy and ruminate on why the cabal of liberals was directing such blind rage against him. However, somehow, in the process of her delirious, racist ravings (In addition to mutilating girls and burning synagogues, another popular Muslim pastime in France is to steal cars, set them on fire and push them off cliffs), she somehow neglected to mention–either because she doesn’t know or doesn’t care–the fact that Jean-Marie Le Pen is an unreconstructed fascist, who founded his National Front party with Vichy collaborators. In her musings on the murky issue of why Le Pen is described as an anti-Semite, his notorious description of the Holocaust as a mere detail in the history of World War II also slips her mind.

But enough on past foibles. Her most recent column, entitled Liberalism and Terrorism, was brought to my attention by Tom Tomorrow, who noted that Coulter attacked him for not being a real American… because of his satirical cartoon against Right-wing rhetoric that dissenters are not real Americans (Irony’s obituary will be featured in today’s New York Times).

Not that that is all that is ludicrous about her column, of course:

• No matter what defeatist tack liberals take, real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent, behind John Ashcroft 100 percent, behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent, behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent. (Apparently Arab-Americans who object to being singled out for legal harassment and intimidation aren’t real Americans; neither is anyone who is the least bit queasy about mounting assaults on basic Constitutional guarantees. Anyone who fights for the full protection of constitutional due process against arbitrary seizure of power and tyranny by the Executive, is clearly a terrorist-lover who hates our freedom.)

• These people simply do not have an implacable desire to kill those who cheered the slaughter of thousands of American citizens. (Let us simply meditate in silence on Ann Coulter’s apparent endorsement of having an implacable desire to murder people on the basis of cheering an evil event–that is to say, slaughtering people for having bad thoughts.)

Coulter goes on to cite George Orwell in an attempt to support massive centralization of power in the hands of the Executive branch, disregard for civil liberties, perpetual war against vaguely-defined enemies, and extensive State surveillance.

I mean, seriously.

Hello, I’m here to defend your freedoms!

It vill not be difficult, mein Führer… excuse me… Mr. President.

Today, Mr. Padilla was being held in a high security jail at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina. Bush administration officials said Mr. Padilla had been declared an enemy combatant, a status that makes it easier for the government to detain him without having to bring a criminal charge that would force it disclose sensitive intelligence sources.

There was also some question as to whether there was enough evidence, absent information gathered from intelligence sources, to bring a traditional criminal prosecution that could be won in court. That meant, officials said, that the best and perhaps only realistic alternative was to turn him over to military custody in which he could be held indefinitely.

When I heard the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense cooperated effectively to place an American citizen under indefinite detention without charges in complete violation of the Constitution, I felt much safer from those who hate our freedom. God Bless America.

For further reading:

• Ex parte Merryman decision (1861), under which Executive suspension of habeas corpus during wartime is unconstitutional
• Tom Tomorrow on the convenient timing of the announcement of this month-old arrest
• GT 2001/10/01: Biff’s Back, for a commentary on civil liberties in this time of crisis
• GT 2001/09/17: Fears of Domestic Fascism

Lakshmi Chaudhry has written a column examining chances for a left-libertarian alliance [AlterNet]. The column focuses on the recent direction of articles from the Cato Institute, which have made bold stands for civil liberties, against corporate welfare, and against the ever-expanding military-security Leviathan of the "War on Terrorism."

This shouldn’t come as that much a surprise. Cato has always held a good line on issues such as foreign policy towards the Mideast (1991) and corporate welfare (1995). The supposed animosity between Cato and the Left is based on fights that emerged from Cato’s role in fueling the economic policies of the 1994 Republican Reaction. But of course, the Republicans never seriously followed Cato; they merely altered the nature of tax-and-manage bureaucratic coercion. They turned welfare into a government-sponsored temp agency for shitty dead-end labor. And they never saw a massive corporate welfare boondoggle they didn’t like. Meanwhile, Cato kept calling for a society based on free association and mutual aid—not State privilege for corporations and a hawkish military.

The move towards a more robust and self-conscious Left-Libertarian alliance is emerging as the natural consequence of the growth of the "War on Terrorism," which like all global warfare, naturally brings the nexus of economic, military, and governmental power into the starkest relief. When the military-industrial Leviathan rises from the sea, it naturally draws together those who are fighting government power and those who are fighting boss power. The last time this happened on a wide scale, the radical libertarian Murray Rothbard allied with the radical left in the Peace and Freedom Party against the Vietnam War and imperialist "anti-Communism" worldwide, and the repression of dissent at home. And the "War on Terrorism" is now playing the same role. Former Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne has written a column condemning United States foreign policy as "terrorism" and urging against a second war on Iraq. Cato itself has published a lengthy report addressing the need to understand the "root causes" of terrorism against the United States and urging an end to military interventionism overseas. Leftist and Libertarians are being brought together as government policy increasingly seems designed with the explicit purpose of proving the dictum, "War is the health of the State."

This is all for the best. I’ve been urging the Left to look to Libertarianism for a while, and I don’t think this should come as much of a surprise. The struggle for social justice is a struggle for equity and against power and privilege. And Libertarianism, properly conceived, is a struggle against the power and privilege of the government over the governed. Now, a lot of members of the Libertarian Party are little more than Young Republican rejects who don’t think that the Republicans go far enough on social welfare or public education. But at their best, the Libertarians have a lot to teach those of us on the Left who have remained too complacent about the bureaucratic State as a solution to societal ills. And the Left has a lot to teach Libertarians about the ways in which the systematic power of "private" hierarchies and exploitations undermine the necessary psychological and cultural conditions for maintaining a free and open society, even if they do not directly involve the use of physical violence. Statism in the polity is deeply linked with authoritarianism in the society, and we need to fight them together.

For further reading:

• GT 5/19/2002 Government and the Pink-Collar Ghetto
• GT 8/18/2001 The Dirt on Corporate Welfare, courtesy of Libertarians
• GT 7/10/2001 Why Libertarians Need Feminism
• GT 3/7/2001 Freepers Debate Libertarianism and Conservatism

Sssh, they might hear the pandering… – Our Fearless Leader George W. Bush

While the mainstream newsmedia was occupied with the United States’ war on Afghanistan, President Bush took the opportunity to pass under the media radar while launching another insult to abortion rights and overt pandering to the far Right.

Last year, as his first act in office and on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President George W. Bush decided to destroy international family planning and freedom of speech by re-imposing the Mexico City policy or global gag rule. This year, G.W. decided another celebration was in order. For the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush declared January 20, 2002, National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

What an ass.

Here’s the best part of all. George W. Bush takes the opportunity to compare abortion supporters to the terrorists responsible for the September 11 massacre:

… we should peacefully commit ourselves to seeking a society that values life — from its very beginnings to its natural end. Unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.

On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life. …

Excuse me while I repeat myself. What an ass.