Looking past the Hillary and McCain wins last night… the voters in a little known town in Vermont (two of them, I think) resolved to arrest George W Bush and Dick Cheney if they ever come to their town. They believe (as I do) that the Bush administration has violated the constitution, broken domestic privacy laws, flouted Habeas Corpus and more… and deserves to be impeached or arrested.
Here’s the text of the bill:
“Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?” The people of Brattleboro answered, “yes!”
The indictment means that Bush and Cheney can be arrested for criminal acts should they ever enter Brattleboro. The indictment would go into effect after Bush and Cheney leave office.
I think this is great. It means nothing, of course, but it’s a great symbolic gesture against a regime that has somehow gotten away with the worst assault on the constitution and the rule of law, perhaps, in the history of the Presidency of the United States. I mean, it’s one thing to lie about a blowjob, it’s quite another to lie about torture.
If you want to check out the full article, here’s the link.
9 comments ↓
I am assuming by domestic privacy laws you are referring to the patriot act, correct me if I’m wrong. But no specifics were given regarding these alleged wrongdoings, so I am commenting based off this assumption.
This is a portion of an English essay I wrote freshman year relating a book called Time out of Joint, to concerns regarding the patriot act. You may find it interesting…
*Note: written in February 2006*
Although the Patriot Act was passed 455 to 67 in Congress, over the past several years, opposition to the Act has steadily increased. The ACLU is one of the Patriot Act’s most fervent adversaries, using several myths, perhaps to spread paranoia against what could be argued is a vital tool for law enforcement.
According to the ACLU the Patriot Act “expands terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.” The ACLU also claims that the Patriot Act includes a “provision that might allow the actions of peaceful
groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.’” (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in “UnPATRIOTic,” National Journal, August 4, 2003). However the Patriot Act specifically defines “domestic terrorism” as conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life” (#1). Hence this claim pushed by the ACLU is unfounded under the Patriot Act’s construct.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) reports that even after specifically asking the American Civil Liberties Union to seek abuses of the Patriot Act, not once has she ever heard of a single abuse (#2). The Patriot Act is designed to protect the liberties provided by the constitution while giving law enforcement the tools necessary to catch terrorists who have been trained to avoid detection.
Since 9/11: “Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Northern Virginia have been broken up; 401 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism-related investigations; Already, 212 individuals have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh.” And this is largely indebted to the Patriot Act, which is still helping to catch terrorists (#1).
1. “Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act.” Preserving Life & Liberty. Department of Justice. 16 Feb. 2006 .
2. Holland, Jesse J. “Senators, prosecutors say most people confused about what Patriot Act does.” SFGate.com. 21 Oct. 2003. 16 Feb. 2006 .
I think is it extremely important to question things like the patriot act to make sure the power they carry is not abused. But I am sick of people pinning all blame on Bush for things like the patriot act when it was passed by a massive majority.
Considering the boldness of your accusations, you provide no proof or citation.
In regards to dishonesty amongst our presidents- it widely known that Clinton lied UNDER OATH, making him guilty of perjury (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton , under ‘controversies subsection’), where as I haven’t seen any citation or direct proof showing that Bush has lied about torture.
Justin- I like how you posted this so soon after we discussed it last night. I have to admit that these two comments make a lot of sense and were spot on in making their points. I, for one, view this action on the part of the people of Battleboro as laughable. The link to the article provides no specific charges except to say the catchy “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Since you say in your post that you agree with their (the townsfolk’s) conclusions, I would like to ask you directly. In what way did the president and VP violate the constitution? Which article and section? What domestic privacy laws has he broken? What specific part of habeas corpus laws has he violated? Shall we also impeach the 455 members of congress who voted for the Patriot Act? I have yet to hear a rational argument on this issue that isn’t emotionally charged with hatred for the administration. Credibility = 0.
Alright, gentlemen, calm down. I realize that this measure in Vermont is symbolic and mostly meaningless. But it represents an underground movement that deserves to be heard. It’s also not only the Patriot Act that cause these feelings to swell… it lies in the administration’s Executive Branch power grabs over and over again… incredible secrecy, overly classifying documents, defending torture in public, outing an undercover CIA agent and then commuting the sentence of the fall guy, excessive signing statements which represent a lack of respect for the system of law we have… I mean I could go on and on… and with more research I could give you sources… but it’s 2:39am and I need to get up and workout in the morning… so I must simply leave you with this video.
You may have seen this video floating around the internet and email inboxes. I’m sure you will find holes in it’s accuracy and neutrality and perhaps attempt to discredit the author… there will certainly be legitimate rebuttals for some of these points. But keep your mind in the “open receptacle” mode, consider all of the charges as one unit… and you might find it interesting.
I warn you…this is long.
An apt and applicable quote from George Orwell (found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
George Orwell wrote in 1944:
…the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else… almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.[22]
Point by point:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
I guess Old Navy, The Gap and multiple other companies are guilty. They certainly had to be told to do that by the administration…not because people were buying those products to express their patriotism after a terrorist attack that surpassed the devastation of Pearl Harbor.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
No evidence exists for summary executions or assassinations in our country. The primary factor used to support this point in our current US situation is the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo. Enemy combatants have always been tried differently than US citizens. To my knowledge, we as a nation, have never applied the rights guaranteed to US citizens in the constitution and bill of rights to enemy combatants. They have never been given lawyers. If they had lawyers, it would be too easy to get those who are guilty exonerated after a successful defense from the ACLU. It’s just not practical to try every combatant via our legal channels. Thus we have the more efficient military tribunals, which have existed in times of war since George Washington. Lincoln even used tribunals to try political figures during the Civil War. Consider this recent history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006:
“On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization (my emphasis), because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).[4]”
This case, Hamden v Rumsfield lead to the passage of this:
“The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the United States Code (as well as amending section 2241 of title 28), is an Act of Congress (Senate Bill 3930[1]) signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2], the Act’s stated purpose is “To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.”[3] The bill limits captives’ access to habeas corpus and has been suggested to be unconstitutional.”
Notice how congress passed this legislation and the president signed it in conforming to the Supreme Court’s decision. I trust that the Supreme Court will again judge this issue’s constitutionality in the future, but until then, the Military Commissions Act remains a valid law passed by the branches of government in alignment with the constitution.
On the issue of torture: the actions at Abu Ghuraib are more consistent with the hazing in a fraternity than the torture of a prisoner. This is not to say that hazing is not wrong. But to call it torture, and thereby compare it to the rack or the ropes in Vietnam is a stretch. Should threatening to splash pig’s blood on a Muslim terrorist to solicit information be considered torture? In what way would this physically harm him? In the case of water-boarding…while congress has made it illegal for the military to use the technique on foreign combatants, they did not make it illegal for the CIA. Why is this? If the government wants to make it illegal for the CIA, then Congress should pass a law specifically stating that. Until then…
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
This is almost ridiculous. Let’s talk about identifying enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. WWII- Japan, Germany, Italy. Korea- North Koreans, China. Vietnam- North Vietnamese, China. Cold War- those pesky Russian communists. This is the theme of practically every government in the history of the world. Dr. Britt conveniently makes no judgment on the validity of identifying these enemies/scapegoats. It’s funny, liberals and progressives identify enemies/scapegoats as unifying causes all the time: big business, conservative Christians, capitalists, global warming, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
In 1945, the US spent 37.8% of its GDP on the military. Today it hovers around 3.7%. In 1962, the military as a percentage of discretionary spending was 72.9%. Today, depending on who you ask, it is between 50 and 60%. Source: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
These stats do not favor Dr. Britts premise as it relates to the US military.
5. Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
So pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions are examples of sexism? That’s a BIG stretch!
6. Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
Cite one example of censorship. Because a network (FNC) happens to generally agree with the policies of the administration, this in no way proves any control. This is a favorite tactic for weak arguments- disguising correlation for causation.
7. Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
This is strangely similar to the fear tactics of the environmental movement to impose government regulations on businesses and individuals. So exactly how much focus on national security is appropriate? I really like the word obsession in this point with conveniently no qualification for the term.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
I propose to change the word religion in this point with the word world-view. If we make this change, we see that most world-views can take on a religious fanaticism. This includes the world-views of secularism, humanism, pluralism and environmentalism. How are these world-views different than the monotheistic religions in telling others how to live their lives? The reality is that ANY government on earth will promote a particular world-view.
9. Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Is this an anti-capitalist statement in disguise? It’s not always true…fascists historically have taken control of industry in violation of capitalist philosophy. Funny, I thought voters put government leaders into power in this country.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Is this a socialist statement in disguise? When labor gets too much power, economic growth under the capitalist model is minimized or decreases. See this excellent editorial on the labor power of Mexico and how it has hurt their economy. http://online.wsj.com/article/the_americas.html
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Who’s been censored and/or arrested in the US? Does this disdain mean open disagreements? Is it the role of government to fund the arts? If some believe that it is not the role of government to fund the arts, do they qualify as disdainful of the arts? As this point applies to the US, it is weak.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
He gets me here. I agree that criminals should not be in jail for long terms and instead should be rehabilitated in order to be released and commit more crimes. So what exactly should the power of the police be to enforce laws?
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
This is really true of all politicians and does not remain a characteristic of just the current administration. Whitewater? Congress is guilty of this ALL THE TIME. So are governors like Democrat Blagojevich in Illinois. Guess what. Power corrupts.
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
How else should close elections be decided if not by the laws of the legislature? Would Dr. Britt favor breaking laws that seem unfair? So the rule of law doesn’t apply when it comes to elections? I’m confused.
I read a blogger comment that really exposed this list for what it is. It’s found at http://greekchat.com/gcforums/printthread.php?s=8d7a781bf2be5a9a6be8a238422a8135&threadid=59685
“OK Watch this and see if you can tell what I’m doing:
Fascist regimes are led by people who breathe air, drink liquids, eat food, and were born from another human being.
-Rudey”
One more response because I believe this issue is so important. Since my last post was so long, I’ll leave you with this video clip from the movie Obsession. You can decide which ideology is the true fascist ideology. To me it’s not even a question.
They are crazy religious extremists! Yes, they want to take over the world, so why are we helping them with unilateral action that leaves the rest of the world in some ways more skeptical of us than of them? Why do we allow them ANY traction with their recruits by living up to their stereotypes of us?
I’m talking about Guantanimo Bay and Abu Gharib. I’m talking about flouting the entire UN and going it virtually alone into a cesspool of hate.
To sum up my point… if we’re going to fight a global battle, we should be doing it with the rest of the world, not by ourselves. Exposing ourselves to charges of imperialism and conquest is EXACTLY what they want us to do. We’re playing into their hands!
Torture: The point isn’t what is and is not torture. I happen to agree with you that *most* of the tactics mentioned at Abu Gharib are frat-boy in nature.
However that nuanced perception that we share doesn’t get passed on to about (I would guess) 98% of the world’s population and when, we’re fighting a war which, more than any other in history, is about perception and hearts and minds, we should not be jeopardizing it this way.
Oh, and I’ve read lots of mixed things on the effectiveness of torture. I’m not convinced that it’s effective enough to make it worth the price we pay in credibility.
I agree with you Justin that the torture at Abu Gharib and Guantanimo Bay is not something that is acceptable for individuals in our military to partake in. I do not advocate torture because, like you, I am not at all convinced that it is an effective method of attaining reliable information. Those who were involved were punished. But I think there is a stigma that some have tried to create about these two cases. I think some would have you believe that this is widespread practice for our armed forces. I think drawing that type of conclusion based on a few isolated incidents is a very misguided and disgraceful thing to do. I’m not saying you believe it is widespread practice, but I do think you and many others have blown it out of proportion in the grand scheme of things.
Leave a Comment