![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A long, angry post
Oct. 4th, 2006 01:57 pmSo we have arrived at the place that activists have been half-joking about, half-terrified of for five years.
The bill is upon us, the one that allows our country- the very same country whose leadership proclaims itself to be Better Christians Than You- to detain people without charge (oh, not like they haven't been doing that for years, but now they'll admit it) and to torture them. Torture them. George, have you been reading the same Bible as I have? Please, point out to me the place in any of the Gospels- Canonical or not- where Jesus says "oh yeah, if you perceive somebody to be your enemy, please, go ahead and fuck them over- in fact, I don't mind, really, torture them," because I can't seem to find it. Of course, since you're a Better Christian Than I Am, I'm sure I'm just missing the part where it says "Love your enemies- oh wait, just kidding!" I'll have to work on my interpretation.
This bill is inexcusable anywhere, but most of all in a country that is perceived by many to be the most powerful nation in the world. This bill is inexcusable in a country that calls itself "civilized", as it goes against many treaties and humanitarian policies, but most especially the Geneva Convention.
It is utmostly inexcusable when our own easily-derided Chief of Staff himself was quoted as saying ""The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit." (George W. Bush, July 2003.) And I and others will continue to speak out against this bill until it disappears.
But of course, speaking out against it could have some grave consequences. For contained within that bill are clauses that leave open all sorts of horrifying possibilies for the US domestically. Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism outlines them in detail for us. Here are some of the finer points:
and
There are loopholes here. Really enormous ones. Holes you could drive a circus train through. Many activists, many of those who have opposed the Bush Regime and his warmongering from the start, fear this is the beginning of something really frightening: the disappearance and detention of those who dare speak out. The definition of "enemy combatant" is very vague; who is to say what the criteria are for said "enemy combatant"? And how are the "enemy combatants" to defend themselves against the charge? Would I be considered an "enemy combatant" if I engage in civil disobedience at the Federal Building downtown Chicago? Am I considered an "enemy combatant" if I travel as an unarmed peacemaker to a country that contains those the US consideres terrorists? Will this post define me as an "enemy combatant"? Who is to say why or why not any of the above will apply?
Are we paranoid? Perhaps. But patterns are emerging that indicate perhaps we are not. And if we are not, and the leadership in this nation is tilting into something more and more sinister, what is to be done? Should those who feel strongly about speaking out against atrocities shut up and go to the ground? Do we learn how to work under the radar? Is there any such thing as coming in under the radar anymore? And how do we deal with those around us who discount the growing fear, who call us crazy or paranoid or, even, enemy?
Most importantly, who do we call to stand up with us? Are you a future detainee? Is your daughter, your father, your friend? If so, will you keep silent if they disappear, or will you talk to the media, write articles in papers and letters to your legislator? Will you say that this is unacceptable? Or will you stay complicit, giving tacit approval to the violation of international law, the directives of your own faith, and basic humanity?
One of the favorite arguments of those who disapprove of my stance on pacifism is that of the end of WWII. They cite the example of American forces liberating the concentration camps. "They would have killed millions more if we hadn't come along!" they cry. "We toppled Nazi Germany!" Oh certainly, I'm profoundly grateful that those in the concentration camps- mostly Jews, but also gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and anyone else they could find who didn't follow the norm and spoke out against The Third Reich's impending empire- were liberated. However, my counter-argument that still stands is to reply that if enough people had been able to stand up against the patterns that emerged in Germany in the 1930s, it is highly possible the concentration camps wouldn't have come about in the first place. A conjecture? To be sure. It is difficult, however, to fault the logic behind it. Do I equate Bush with Hitler? No. Or, I should add, not yet. But one cannot miss the comparisons of 1930s Germany to what is possible today. Opening up this bill to allow roundups of anyone labled an "enemy combatant" and torture them is like Pandora's Box; what else will jump out at us before we expect it?
I realize the two main ideas of this post don't cohere as well as I wish they did. I'm not writing an academic paper, nor am I writing an article for publication. This is a blog site, where I can express my views openly. If you have questions or concerns, please contatct me respectfully. Flames or rude comments are will not be accepted.
Of an unrelated but coincidental nature, a father of a high school girl has called for a ban on the book Fahrenheit 451 because it is "filthy". The greatest irony (I think that means there's a triple irony here)? It happened during The American Library Associations Banned Books Week. If you have no idea why this is ironic, ask me and I'll be happy to tell you. Even better, go get yourself a copy of Fahrenheit 451 and read it.
If I post this today, will I still be here in the morning?
If I post this in another two years, will I disappear?
Don't let it happen.
The bill is upon us, the one that allows our country- the very same country whose leadership proclaims itself to be Better Christians Than You- to detain people without charge (oh, not like they haven't been doing that for years, but now they'll admit it) and to torture them. Torture them. George, have you been reading the same Bible as I have? Please, point out to me the place in any of the Gospels- Canonical or not- where Jesus says "oh yeah, if you perceive somebody to be your enemy, please, go ahead and fuck them over- in fact, I don't mind, really, torture them," because I can't seem to find it. Of course, since you're a Better Christian Than I Am, I'm sure I'm just missing the part where it says "Love your enemies- oh wait, just kidding!" I'll have to work on my interpretation.
This bill is inexcusable anywhere, but most of all in a country that is perceived by many to be the most powerful nation in the world. This bill is inexcusable in a country that calls itself "civilized", as it goes against many treaties and humanitarian policies, but most especially the Geneva Convention.
Article 3:1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
It is utmostly inexcusable when our own easily-derided Chief of Staff himself was quoted as saying ""The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit." (George W. Bush, July 2003.) And I and others will continue to speak out against this bill until it disappears.
But of course, speaking out against it could have some grave consequences. For contained within that bill are clauses that leave open all sorts of horrifying possibilies for the US domestically. Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism outlines them in detail for us. Here are some of the finer points:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
and
Protection of Classified Information- (1) With respect to the discovery obligations of trial counsel under this section, the military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize, to the extent practicable--
`(A) the deletion of specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the accused;
`(B) the substitution of a portion or summary of the information for such classified documents; or
`(C) the substitution of a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.
There are loopholes here. Really enormous ones. Holes you could drive a circus train through. Many activists, many of those who have opposed the Bush Regime and his warmongering from the start, fear this is the beginning of something really frightening: the disappearance and detention of those who dare speak out. The definition of "enemy combatant" is very vague; who is to say what the criteria are for said "enemy combatant"? And how are the "enemy combatants" to defend themselves against the charge? Would I be considered an "enemy combatant" if I engage in civil disobedience at the Federal Building downtown Chicago? Am I considered an "enemy combatant" if I travel as an unarmed peacemaker to a country that contains those the US consideres terrorists? Will this post define me as an "enemy combatant"? Who is to say why or why not any of the above will apply?
Are we paranoid? Perhaps. But patterns are emerging that indicate perhaps we are not. And if we are not, and the leadership in this nation is tilting into something more and more sinister, what is to be done? Should those who feel strongly about speaking out against atrocities shut up and go to the ground? Do we learn how to work under the radar? Is there any such thing as coming in under the radar anymore? And how do we deal with those around us who discount the growing fear, who call us crazy or paranoid or, even, enemy?
Most importantly, who do we call to stand up with us? Are you a future detainee? Is your daughter, your father, your friend? If so, will you keep silent if they disappear, or will you talk to the media, write articles in papers and letters to your legislator? Will you say that this is unacceptable? Or will you stay complicit, giving tacit approval to the violation of international law, the directives of your own faith, and basic humanity?
One of the favorite arguments of those who disapprove of my stance on pacifism is that of the end of WWII. They cite the example of American forces liberating the concentration camps. "They would have killed millions more if we hadn't come along!" they cry. "We toppled Nazi Germany!" Oh certainly, I'm profoundly grateful that those in the concentration camps- mostly Jews, but also gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and anyone else they could find who didn't follow the norm and spoke out against The Third Reich's impending empire- were liberated. However, my counter-argument that still stands is to reply that if enough people had been able to stand up against the patterns that emerged in Germany in the 1930s, it is highly possible the concentration camps wouldn't have come about in the first place. A conjecture? To be sure. It is difficult, however, to fault the logic behind it. Do I equate Bush with Hitler? No. Or, I should add, not yet. But one cannot miss the comparisons of 1930s Germany to what is possible today. Opening up this bill to allow roundups of anyone labled an "enemy combatant" and torture them is like Pandora's Box; what else will jump out at us before we expect it?
I realize the two main ideas of this post don't cohere as well as I wish they did. I'm not writing an academic paper, nor am I writing an article for publication. This is a blog site, where I can express my views openly. If you have questions or concerns, please contatct me respectfully. Flames or rude comments are will not be accepted.
Of an unrelated but coincidental nature, a father of a high school girl has called for a ban on the book Fahrenheit 451 because it is "filthy". The greatest irony (I think that means there's a triple irony here)? It happened during The American Library Associations Banned Books Week. If you have no idea why this is ironic, ask me and I'll be happy to tell you. Even better, go get yourself a copy of Fahrenheit 451 and read it.
If I post this today, will I still be here in the morning?
If I post this in another two years, will I disappear?
Don't let it happen.
