Bush's Latest Assault on the Constitution
 

January 10 2005
Counterbias.com
Marc Krug
 

Admittedly, terrorists represent a perilous threat: they can destroy human life. But members of the Bush administration represent a similarly perilous threat: they can destroy human liberty.

And they are planning to do precisely that in the prisons of Guantánamo.

Guantánamo recently served as the site for a new Pentagon-ordered 100-cell prison, known as Camp 5. Sometime in early 2005, the Department of Defense will be asking Congress for an additional $25 million to build a new 200-bed prison there, to be known as Camp 6. Both facilities will hold suspected members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist groups.

All those to be imprisoned in either facility share two characteristics. First, the United States government lacks sufficient evidence to bring any of them before a military tribunal. Secondly, despite this lack of evidence, our government plans to imprison all of them for life.

It would be difficult to imagine any greater injustice, any more profound offense against the Constitution, than what these plans represent. Imprisoning individuals for their entire natural lives on the basis of what they might have done, or might yet do, is diametrically opposed to the principles on which this country was founded.

Furthermore, for a nation that Abraham Lincoln considered “conceived in liberty,” it would be similarly difficult to imagine  any greater obscenity than forever depriving someone of their freedom without first charging them or ever granting them a trial to prove their innocence.

Unfortunately, since even the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not believe that terrorism will end in his lifetime, Guantánamo can expect a constant and continuous flow of new prisoners. And since many will have to be imprisoned for life, the building of new prisons there should continue unabated.

An alternative plan has also been brought forward:  the United States will build prisons in the home countries of these suspected terrorists — where they will be permanently confined. The problem with this plan is that these countries’ governments, who will oversee the new prisons, permit torture of the sort that’s no longer officially tolerated by the U.S. government — at least, according to the Department of Justice’s new website.

Regarding torture, the policies these countries have is well known. In a practice known as “rendering,” the CIA has throughout the war on terror transported uncooperative prisoners from Guantánamo to these very same countries. Once there, prisoners found themselves in an environment where sophisticated torture could be more intensively inflicted so that desired intelligence could be more expeditiously elicited.

What none of these plans answer is a very basic question. If, as Bush frequently claims, terrorists are attacking us because they despise our basic freedoms, why is he so eager to sacrifice those freedoms so that he can punish terrorists who may not deserve any punishment at all?

Or is it more likely that we are so badly losing the war on terror that Bush favors permanently imprisoning those who might do us harm — regardless of whether he or the Pentagon has the legal authority for doing so? More importantly, have we reached such a state of moral decline where violations of the Constitution and transgressions against the rules of common human decency have now become standard operating procedure?

Also, aren’t we supposed to be better than they are? If we are capable of torturing prisoners, as at Abu Ghraib, and imprisoning others for an entire lifetime without trial or even presenting the charges, as in Guantánamo, is there any wonder that even non-militant Islamists consider us their enemy?

Thankfully, some objection to these plans, however tepid, has been voiced. Two United States Congressmen have expressed doubts as to the legitimacy of what the Bush administration plans to do in Guantánamo.

On the January 2^nd edition of Fox News Sunday, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made these observations: "It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this."

Most assuredly, Senator Lugar’s objection to Bush’s latest assault on the Constitution  ought to have been more ardent and substantially less vague. Furthermore, his misgivings would have sounded more sincere had they been accompanied by at least a smattering of moral outrage.

Also appearing on Fox that day was Carl Levin (D-Mich.), senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. He cited earlier Supreme Court decisions, stating that “There must be some modicum, some semblance of due process . . . if you're going to detain people, whether it's for life or whether it's for years.”

By making this statement, Senator Levin focused on the legal foundation, or lack thereof, for what the Pentagon is planning to do in Guantánamo. Yet, like Lugar,  Levin seemed in no way outraged that the 5^th and the 14^th Amendments were being eviscerated so that Bush might have his way. 

Perhaps Bush feels unstoppable. Almost sure to be confirmed as Attorney General is Bush’s former personal attorney, Alberto Gonzalez. Most remember Gonzalez as the  author of the infamous 2002 memo arguing that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

With Gonzalez as his Attorney General and a compliant Congress acceding to Bush’s wishes, our President may yet accomplish what most would have thought impossible a few years ago: imprisoning individuals for a lifetime despite their never having been charged with a crime much less convicted of one.

So if not stopped, Bush will establish the validity not only of illegal pre-emptive war but also of unlawful lifetime imprisonment.

Additionally, he will prove the validity of one of Benjamin Franklin’s better known maxims: “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”

---