The totalitarian streak in the US

During the Cold War, the economies and cultures of the two great protagonists were not that different. The US adopted a "totalitarian" mobilization of resources to win the struggle. The fragmentation of US society today, the departure from the healthy "semi-totalitarian" arrangements of the 1930s-1950s, makes the US increasingly unable to prevail in any new struggle.

Central Asia
Mar 1, 2007

COMMENT
By Dmitry Shlapentokh

Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy was among the very few of his speeches that have attracted world attention. Putin attacked the West, mostly the United States, and the strength of his speech led a number of Russian and Western observers to believe that Russia and the US have engaged in a new cold war. But a close analysis indicates that neither Russia nor the US actually has such plans.

The hedonistic and corrupt Russian elite who keep their capital in US dollars and euros - and who would gladly discard friendly Belarus because it demands cheaper oil - hardly are in a confrontational mood. But while this point is too apparent to be discussed, the possibility of the US engaging in a new cold war requires further scrutiny.

The Cold War has been studied for a long time, and quite a few pundits have promulgated it as a mortal struggle between "communists" and "capitalists", with ideology the key. This explanation does not account for the actual US-communist military alliance in China, starting with US president Richard Nixon's 1972 visit.

Another approach notes the small difference between the US and the USSR in geopolitical posture, suggesting that the Cold War was not so much an ideological conflict as a traditional power struggle between two empires. But the similarities, usually ignored, between the US and the USSR go much deeper and are related to socioeconomic and political practices. It is the US totalitarian streak that made it possible for the US to stand against the Soviet Union.

The Cold War evolved not just from World War II but from the entire socioeconomic culture of the 20th century. Modern war is a long exercise that puts pressure on all aspects of society and requires massive government engagement in both political and economic life. It requires emphasis on the "real" economy - production of goods, not profitability (mostly the interests of private shareholders), and even less what is called "service", the foundation of the economic "bubbles" of today.

It requires a socioeconomic discipline where the state's interests are paramount but there is a broad social-security net. The rudiments of this system emerged in various European states during World War I, with no Marxist or Bolshevik influence after 1917. The Great Depression reactivated the trend and led to the rise of states with many similarities with totalitarian regimes; Franklin D Roosevelt's USA was one of them.

Especially in the left and liberal American mind, there were two Roosevelts. One was the benign president who started a policy that would be developed by liberals and the left: regulation of financial institutions, subsidies for agriculture, the minimum wage, Social Security. The other was a madman who made "mistakes" such as sending hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans of Japanese descent to camps.

But this was one Roosevelt, and his policy was similar to that of other totalitarian rulers of the era. Indeed, the Nazis had a centralized economy, discarded profits for "real" production, and engaged in long-term planning for permanent war. They also combined repression, not just for outsiders but for insiders - ethnic Germans - with an increasing safety net for a majority of the people.

The vast majority of Western pundits would proclaim that the masses demonstrate special vigor fighting for regimes that guarantee "liberties". But the opposite is true. It is not regimes of Western liberal "liberties" - the policemen of property that have little or no interest in the well-being of the majority - but regimes that play the role of a tough but protective parent who, regardless of abuses, would never abandon its "children". This feeling pushed the army of the Reich to the suburbs of Moscow; the same feeling pushed Russian and American soldiers to Berlin.

The basic socioeconomic arrangements of World War II survived during the Cold War era. In the US, the state continued to be actively engaged in economic arrangements. Business emphasis was on the "real" economy and continuous, actually planned, improvement of quality of goods. This continued to be combined with continuous state control and harsh repression; in fact, McCarthyism was not much different from Stalinist policies. The same "totalitarian" streaks in US political/economic culture provided the state with the support and dedication of the majority. This made it possible to sustain the bloody Korean War and a range of crises and plans for generations ahead to stand against Soviet pressure.

The very similarities between socioeconomic elements of the United States and the Soviet Union provided the US the strength to confront its major Cold War adversary. But the collapse of the USSR was seen not as a great lottery win with the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev but as a legitimate reward for the differences between the US and the USSR, not the similarities.

So the aspects that made the US similar to the USSR and 1930s-1950s America were discarded or minimized. And this makes the repetition of the Cold War, the generation-old conflict that required the exertion of efforts of an entire nation, impossible.

Most clear is the virtual disappearance of long-term planning and often the ignoring of actual results. Energy self-sufficiency has been regarded as essential for geopolitical/economic viability. But practically nothing is done about it despite years of talk. Concern with "real" production has almost disappeared.

The struggling automobile industry, a cornerstone of America's "real" economy, tries design, promotion campaigns, reduction of workforce and, of course, pressure on the government to protect it from "unfair competition". No real effort is made toward mass production of cars whose "real" characteristics would make them competitive.

Nor has there been planning to improve the quality or quantity of goods in most other segments of the economy. The emphasis is not on production but on profit, which could rise even if production declined. The stress is not on long-term planning but on immediate gratification, a stockbroker mentality, and rewards or punishment for playing with stock "bubbles". In fact, the rise and fall of stock "bubbles" are often unrelated to actual production.

This emphasis has also produced a US society with group but not national interests, where concern for the majority of the poor is ignored not just by the Republican right but by the liberal left. In fact, the attempt to change "affirmative action" preferential treatment based on race and gender to a policy based on low income is constantly rejected by the left as well as the right. The reason is simple: "affirmative action" benefits mostly middle-to-upper-class blacks and females; a change would benefit the poor and lower-middle classes regardless of race.

The fragmentation of US society, the departure from the healthy "semi-totalitarian" arrangements of the 1930s-1950s, makes the country increasingly unable to withstand a prolonged "cold war" struggle, either in the economy - consider the precipitous decline of competitiveness of US industrial goods despite the decline of the dollar vis-a-vis major currencies or even the "wooden ruble" - or in military affairs.

National stamina for a long conflict continues to decline, from the World War II victory with 300,000 combat deaths; the Korean War, a stalemate with about 38,000 losses; the Vietnam War defeat, with about 50,000 losses; to the present Iraq war, clearly moving to defeat, with only 3,000 losses and a mercenary army increasingly absorbing in its ranks anyone it can attract, including ex-criminals.

Carl von Clausewitz rightly noted a strong correlation between internal and foreign policy. Indeed, US survival in the Cold War was possible only because it accepted the enemy's socioeconomic arrangements - state involvement in economic activity; concern with real production more than profit; combining toughness and repressiveness with a broad security net not for "minorities" but for the majority of the poor; and, above all, planning for a generations-long economic and military struggle. None of these elements can be found in the present US, which is based on social fragmentation and a "bubble" economy of financial speculation and stock-market games.

This does not mean that the enemies of the US should be pleased. The "bubble economy" has produced a "stock-market war" - a war of quick and reckless adventures in which all available "cash" can be used for the mirage of a quick geopolitical profit, even if this "cash" is nuclear weapons. In fact, in sharp contrast with the calculating foreign policy of the Cold War era, the present elite - like many on Wall Street - preach the motto "shoot first, think later".

Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles, 2005.

Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.

When cowboys don't shoot straight

RUSSIA AND THE NEW COLD WAR When cowboys don't shoot straight Forget about "rogue states" such as North Korea or Iran. America's building of a missile defense system and deploying it in places like Poland (!) is aimed at achieving just one thing - nuclear primacy over the one other nuclear power in the world that still has the capability of destroying the US. - F William Engdahl (Feb 28, '07)

Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban

Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban

Pakistan has made a deal to give logistical support to the Taliban in southwest Afghanistan. Islamabad desperately wants a foothold in the country and the Taliban need more muscle for their resistance. Veteran Taliban commander and diplomatic facilitator Mullah Dadullah is making it all happen, even as US Vice President Dick Cheney urges Islamabad to "get tough on the Taliban".
---

Cheney meets a general in his labyrinth
The congruence of interests between the Bush administration and the regime of President General Pervez Musharraf has no parallel in previous US-Pakistan relations. To belittle the general, to chastise him like an errant schoolboy over the Taliban and al-Qaeda - this was the last thing US Vice President Dick Cheney had in mind. In the big picture, which includes Iran, the US has a vital role for Islamabad. - M K Bhadrakumar (Feb 28, '07)

What Congressman saw among troops: Frustration

Posted on Wed, Feb. 28, 2007
What Murphy saw among troops: Frustration By Steve Goldstein Inquirer Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - When a suicide bomber struck yesterday morning outside the U.S. base at Bagram, Afghanistan, it came as no shock to Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D., Pa.), who had just returned from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Military commanders in Afghanistan told the Iraq war veteran from Bucks County that they desperately needed more troops to deal with a resurgent Taliban. In Iraq, frustrated troops and senior officers said that the situation recalled the movie Groundhog Day - "the same thing happening over and over again as the Iraqi government provides little help," Murphy said. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq overseeing a 21,500-troop buildup in American forces, "is going to have an impossible mission unless the Iraqis come off the sidelines and stand up for their own country," Murphy said in an interview yesterday. Murphy and other House Democrats were scheduled to have an initial meeting last night to work out differences over using a war-spending bill to limit deployments to Iraq. After proposing restrictions on the $93.4 billion Iraq-spending request tied to readiness standards, Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) was harshly criticized by Republicans and some Democrats who worry that Congress could be perceived as undermining U.S. troops. Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who represents Delaware County, has proposed a timetable for the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq, and has said Murtha's approach may cause "unintended, unknown ramifications, when you get on the operational level." Murphy, a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of Democrats, also opposes using the supplemental Iraq budget to restrict administration war options and has offered his own legislation on the redeployment of U.S. troops within 12 months. "I want to make sure you can't get money from a different pot, shift it over," Murphy said. "Strategically, I want to make sure we don't get an end around by the White House." In the Senate, Democrats yesterday continued to work on drafting a resolution that would repeal the 2002 authorization that paved the way for military action in Iraq. A joint resolution being drafted by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, who chair the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, respectively, would require the administration to begin a transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a reduced mission focusing on border security and terrorism and not sectarian violence. At the same time, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, called for more hearings on the constitutional authority of Congress to place restrictions on President Bush's war powers. "I don't think we've had much sensible debate on the Iraq issue," Specter said in an interview. "It's been vacuous." The competing proposals and the different approaches being taken in the House and the Senate reflect divisions among Democrats about how far to go in attempting to impose an end game on the conflict in Iraq. Murphy returned Monday from a seven-day trip that included a one-day stop in Afghanistan and two days in Iraq with a six-member congressional delegation that included Democratic Rep. Christopher P. Carney of the 10th District in northeastern Pennsylvania. After meeting with senior commanders in Afghanistan, Murphy said, "they feel like the redheaded stepchild" - forgotten and ignored - as the original battleground in the war against terrorism. U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, commander of the 35,000-member NATO force in Afghanistan, told Murphy that he needed at least 1,500 more U.S. troops. "We're not taking a thoughtful approach to Afghanistan," Murphy said. "We're taking our eye off the ball. We need to refocus our efforts there." Military officials told Murphy that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was increasingly porous and that the Taliban was preparing for a spring offensive. "I was shocked by their candor," Murphy said. He said the four-year campaign was diverting important resources from the overall antiterrorism effort and had left U.S. troops and commanders frustrated that they were being asked to do too much. The Iraqis have failed to stop sabotage of fuel lines that could double oil exports, Murphy was told. Electrical service could be dramatically increased if Iraqi police stopped insurgents from pulling down power poles using chains and pickup trucks, he said. Murphy said that everywhere he went, officials told him the United States should be engaged in talks with Iran about a political solution in Iraq. He said he heard "nothing at all" to support the notion that troop morale was adversely affected by attempts in Congress to wind down the war. "They are focused on the mission," he said. "American troops on the ground want to win. The question is the best way to do it." Contact staff writer Steve Goldstein at 202-408-2758 or slgoldstein@phillynews.com.

Israel is guilty of occupation, apartheid and colonialism, top UN lawyer reports

Israel is guilty of occupation, apartheid and colonialism, top UN lawyer reports

Date: 26 / 02 / 2007 Time: 21:33

Israeli soldiers fire at Palestinian youths, demonstrating at Qalandiya checkpoint, 9 Feb 2007 (MaanImages) Bethlehem - Ma'an - The UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, has issued a harshly critical report on Israel's human rights record in regards to its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. "The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation," Dugard says. In his 24-page report, which will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly for debate on 15 March 2006, the South African lawyer accuses Israel of all three. Occupation Israel is clearly guilty of occupying another nation. Dugard also refutes Israel's claim that, since its 'disengagement' in 2005, it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel controls all the borders, air space and sea space surrounding the Strip, in addition to carrying out numerous military incursions and air strikes into the Strip, thereby continuing to be the occupying power. Apartheid Furthermore, Dugard says Israel's discriminatory practises towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. He says in his report: "Discrimination against Palestinians occurs in many fields. Moreover, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid appears to be violated by many practices, particularly those denying freedom of movement to Palestinians." Dugard harshly criticises Israel's system of checkpoints and barriers across the occupied West Bank, which makes freedom of movement and trade impossible. In particular, he criticises the arbitrary nature of the restrictions. "There is a secret list with some 180,000 names of security risks who may not pass through a checkpoint," Dugard says, "But no notice is served on such a person on this list until he arrives at a checkpoint"; this means "it is left to Palestinians to find out by trial and error whether they will be allowed to pass through a checkpoint on a particular day". As a result, "An arbitrary and capricious regime prevails." Dugard warns Israel that, "In apartheid South Africa, a similar system designed to restrict the free movement of blacks - the notorious “pass laws” - created more anger and hostility to the apartheid regime than any other measure. Israel would do well to learn from this experience." Dugard singles out Israel's illegal separation wall as one of Israel's most apartheid-like tools. He says, "It has become abundantly clear that the Wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers." In regard to Jerusalem and the wall, Dugard says: "The 75 km Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem by reducing the number of Palestinians in the city. The Wall is being built through Palestinian neighbourhoods, separating Palestinians from Palestinians, in a manner that cannot conceivably be justified on security grounds." Dugard depicts in particular the absurd plight of the inhabitants of Ar-Ram neighbourhood of northeast Jerusalem: "Some 60,000 people live in the suburb of Ar-Ram just outside the municipal boundary of Jerusalem. About half of the residents are Jerusalemites who left Jerusalem because of the restrictions placed on Palestinians’ building houses in the city. They are completely dependent on Jerusalem for work, education and hospitals. Yet now they are surrounded by the Wall and cut off from Jerusalem. To get to work, school or hospital they must travel a circuitous route of several kilometres and pass through the international terminal-like checkpoint at Qalandiya, and they may only do this if they have the correct permit. A journey that previously took them minutes is now extended into hours." Colonialism He also accuses Israel of carrying out illegal, colonial practises, saying, "The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State." He singles out the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a new form of colonialism. Furthermore, noting that Israel has appropriated agricultural land and water resources in the West Bank for its own use, Dugard says that, "This aspect of Israel’s exploitation of the West Bank appears to be a form of colonialism of the kind declared to be a denial of fundamental human rights and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations as recalled in the General Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 (Resolution 1514 XV)." He suggests the case be referred to the International Court of Justice. War crimes Dugard accuses both Israeli military personnel and Palestinian militants of war crimes, pointing out that the state of Israel has the greater responsibility: "Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked." While condemning the Palestinian launching of homemade Qassam rockets into Israel, Dugard says, "Israel’s response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes." As for Israel's policy of demolishing residential buildings in the Gaza Strip suspected of housing weapons, preceded by a warning issued over the telephone shortly before the air strike, Dugard describes this act as a "policy of terrorism by telephone." In regards to the Palestinians' collective act of gathering on the roof of a targeted building in a form of 'human shield', Dugard says, "Voluntary, collective action of this kind can at most be categorized as an act of civil disobedience against the occupying Power." Dugard describes the imprisonment of the Gaza Strip's 1.4 million inhabitants behind Israeli-controlled borders as "a controlled strangulation that apparently falls within the generous limits of international toleration." The UN rapporteur also describes the racist attacks carried out by some Israeli settlers against Palestinians. "Undoubtedly the most aggravated settler behaviour occurs in Hebron," Dugard says, "where Palestinian schoolchildren are assaulted and humiliated on their way to schools, shopkeepers are beaten and residents live in fear of settler terror." Dugard adds that, despite rulings by Israel's High Court of Justice that it is the duty of the Israeli military to protect Palestinian farmers from settlers, "there is still evidence that the IDF turns a blind eye to settler violence and, on occasion, collaborates with the settlers in harassing and humiliating Palestinians." In regards to Israel's policy of extrajudicial killing, or targeted assassinations, of 'terrorists' wanted by the state of Israel, Dugard describes this practise as "the death penalty on a wide scale through the back door ". Palestine, a test for the West Dugard concludes that the case of human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory has come to resemble a 'test' for the West, by which its commitment to human rights is to be judged. He recognises that numerous other nations in the developing world suppress human rights, but Israel is the only "Western-affiliated regime" allowed to get away with it. Dugard warns, "If the West fails this test, it can hardly expect the developing world to address human rights violations seriously in its own countries, and the West appears to be failing this test."

Miller Center Announces National War Powers Commission

Press Releases (Adobe Acrobat Reader is required):

February 28, 2007 - Miller Center Announces National War Powers Commission - PDF

National War Powers Commission

In keeping with its tradition of assembling national commissions of major stature, the Miller Center has convened the National War Powers Commission, a private bipartisan panel led by former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher. The Commission will examine how the Constitution allocates the powers of beginning, conducting, and ending war.

When armed conflict is looming, debates about separation of powers and the uncertainty they often generate can impair relations among the branches of government, cast doubt on the legitimacy of government action, and prevent focused attention on policy. Armed conflicts with non-state actors and other non-traditional “wars,” as well as the courts' involvement in war powers questions, make the Commission’s work relevant.

The Commission intends to produce a report making recommendations to assist Presidents, Congresses, Courts, and other policymakers in addressing war powers issues. When they are issued, the Commission’s recommendations will be entirely prospective in nature and not applicable to the present presidential Administration or present Congress.

The Commission’s work and deliberations will entail an analysis of various legal issues, as well as historical and practical considerations. The Commission intends to rely on existing scholarship, the wide experience among its members, and the counsel of other experts. Commission members hope their report will make a positive contribution to the public debate on the proper exercise of war powers; educate the public about these crucially important issues; and promote greater agreement and more productive working relationships among the branches of government. The Commission intends to make its report and recommendations available to members of government, scholars, and the media.

Press Release | Commission at a Glance | Commissioner Biographies | United States Constitution

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who is on the Commission?

The Commission will be led by its Co-Chairs, former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher.

Its members are:

• Slade Gorton, former U.S. Senator from Washington;
• Lee H. Hamilton, former Member of Congress from Indiana;
• Carla A. Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative;
• John O. Marsh, Jr., former Secretary of the Army;
• Edwin Meese, III, former U.S. Attorney General;
• Abner J. Mikva, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit;
• J. Paul Reason, former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet;
• Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor;
• Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and
• Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution.

2. Why convene a National Commission on War Powers?

Deciding how and when to commit troops to combat is one of our government’s most important decisions. Members of Congress, Presidents, and proponents of each branch’s respective powers often disagree about who has the authority to begin, conduct, and end a war.

Such disagreements can hurt our government’s credibility, hinder relations between the President and Congress, and engender lengthy debates about separation of powers. Such disputes can also undermine confidence in government.

3. What are the goals of the Commission?

The Commission’s principal goal is to produce a bipartisan report that makes recommendations about how Presidents and Congresses could best exercise their respective war powers. When they are issued, the Commission’s recommendations will be entirely prospective in nature and not applicable to the present presidential Administration or present Congress. Any such report will require an analysis of various legal issues, as well as historical and practical considerations. The Commission intends to rely on existing scholarship, the wide experience among its members, and the counsel of other experts. Commission members hope the report makes a positive contribution to the public debate on the proper exercise of war powers; educates the public about these crucially important issues; and promotes greater agreement and more productive working relationships among the branches of government. The Commission intends to make its report and recommendations available to members of government, scholars, and the media.

4. Who will serve the Commission?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin will serve as the Commission’s historical advisor.

John T. Casteen, III, President of the University of Virginia, and David W. Leebron, President of Rice University, will serve as ex officio members of the Commission.

John C. Jeffries, Jr., Dean and the Emerson Spies and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and W. Taylor Reveley, III, Dean and the holder of the John Stewart Bryan Professorship of Jurisprudence at the William & Mary School of Law, are Co-Directors.

5. Didn’t the War Powers Resolution of 1973 address these issues?

The War Powers Resolution did address many of these issues, but both Congresses and Presidents often have ignored its substance and questioned its constitutionality for the past three decades.

6. Will the Commission publish a report?

The Commission anticipates publishing a report of its conclusions in a format to be determined.

7. What is the Commission’s web address?

For more information, visit www.millercenter.org/warpowers.

8. Is this Commission affiliated with the federal government or has it been chartered by Congress?

No. The Commission receives no taxpayer money and is not dependent on federal appropriations. It is being organized and sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice University, the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, Stanford Law School, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the William & Mary School of Law serve as partnering institutions.

9. What is the Miller Center?

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs is a leading public policy institution that serves as a national meeting place where engaged citizens, scholars, students, media representatives and government officials gather in a spirit of nonpartisan consensus to research, reflect, and report on issues of national importance to the governance of the United States, with special attention to the central role and history of the presidency.

The Miller Center has more than fifty scholars and staff, including two Bancroft Prize winners. Former Virginia Governor and PBS Chairman Gerald Baliles became the Director of the Miller Center in April 2006.

10. What other National Commissions has the Miller Center convened?

The Miller Center has convened nine national commissions over the past quarter century, including the Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2001, co-chaired by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. President George W. Bush commended the Commission’s report in a Rose Garden ceremony, and its recommendations in large measure have been adopted into law. The Miller Center’s prior national commissions include: Presidential Press Conferences (1981); the Presidential Nominating Process (1982); Presidential Transitions and Foreign Policy (1986); Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1988); the Presidency and Science Advising (1989); Choosing and Using Vice Presidents (1992); the Selection of Federal Judges (1996); and the Separation of Powers (1998).

URL

Contacts
Taylor Reveley Miller Center Assistant Director for Policy Programs and Planning (434) 924-6051 treveley@virginia.edu	Andrew Dubill Staff Director National War Powers Commission (202) 955-1935 ajdubill@virginia.edu	Lisa Todorovich Miller Center Assistant Director for Communications (434) 243-4096 ltodorovich@virginia.edu

Erosion of civil liberties continues

EDITORIAL

Issue Date: March 3, 2007 Secret prisons and prisoners held without charge or due process are certain signs that a country lives under lawless authoritarianism and not the rule of law. Such behavior was a hallmark of the old Soviet empire, one of the fundamental differences, if you will, between us and them. It was one of the distinctives in places like Argentina and Brazil during their decades of civil war, of Pinochet’s Chile, of Sukarno’s Indonesia, of Syngman Rhee’s South Korea. It was part of the vicious right -- wing rule in El Salvador and Guatemala before the 1990s peace accords in those countries. That basic respect for an individual’s liberty -- the right to a day in court as protection against illegal imprisonment -- is enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, Section Nine of that document states: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Granted, the United States and its legal system, imperfect as it may sometimes be, are a far cry from the countries listed above. Yet a slow drip has been falling at the foundation of our treasured liberties, even as we mouth words such as liberty and freedom as justification for war. The erosion of the foundation accelerated Feb. 20 when, in a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, dismissed legal claims brought on behalf of hundreds of prisoners incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without charge. They seek their day in U.S. court to ask why they are being held and to hear the evidence against them. The Bush administration, whose first try at suspending habeas corpus, (Latin for “bring forth the body”) was overturned by the Supreme Court three years ago, declared the latest ruling a victory. We hope it is a short-lived victory on the way to another setback in the Supreme Court. In the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, the justices, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that the right of habeas corpus applied to all people, regardless of location. The Bush administration then went back to the Republican-controlled Congress and was successful in getting the Military Commissions Act passed, a law that states explicitly that enemy combatants held outside the United States do not have a right to seek redress in U.S. courts. Lawyers for the detainees have promised to challenge the most recent ruling. In an online commentary following the recent federal court decision, John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute wrote: “The right of habeas corpus was so important to the fathers of our Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is ‘in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny,’ the founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.” The question now is: Can America be perceived as a model of justice and the rule of law if such a fundamental right is denied to those who are in our custody simply because they are outside the actual bounds of the United States? If the federal court’s view is allowed to stand, the United States could conceivably hold anyone, in any of its detention centers (and we’ve learned that secret prisons around the globe are used) for years, indefinitely, if the military deems someone a threat to national security. No charges and no appearance before a judge required. The contortions necessary to sustain such reasoning had Judge Raymond Randolph writing, in the decision: “Cuba -- not the United States -- has sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay.” The Bush administration’s position might be easier to understand, while still being unacceptable, if there were greater reason to believe that humans rights are not being grossly violated at Guantánamo and elsewhere, especially in those instances where the administration has approved unspecified “harsh” interrogation measures. Whitehead noted, for instance, that only 8 percent of the detainees at Guantánamo are characterized as al-Qaeda fighters. “Many of the prisoners insist they have no link to al-Qaeda or other extreme Islamist groups,” a claim he said is supported by documents provided by the U.S. military. Further, he writes, “only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by American forces; according to the BBC, 86 percent of them were actually captured by bounty hunters and handed over in exchange for sizable financial rewards.” Approximately 395 prisoners are now held at Guantánamo. According to the Pentagon, about 80 will be put on trial before military tribunals and another 85 are scheduled to be released. The rest, some 230, apparently will await the outcome of any appeals. Two approaches exist to restore civil liberties and to show the world that terrorists have not yet forced us to compromise the rule of law. The first is for Congress, now controlled by Democrats, to undo portions of the Military Commissions Act so that anyone in American custody will be assured a day in court. While Bush might veto the bill, it will send a signal that the people and their representatives have regained their balance. Barring speedy action by the Congress, the Supreme Court should agree to hear the cases as soon as possible rather require the normal process. The foundation is in need of some quick repair. National Catholic Reporter, March 3, 2007