-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

America's Point of No Return

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Consortiumnews - Nov 2, 2006
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/110206.html

America's Point of No Return

By Robert Parry

Now that George W. Bush has reframed Election 2006 around John Kerrys
botched joke and the notion that a Democratic victory means the terrorists
win, Americans must begin looking seriously at what the continuation of
Republican majorities in Congress would mean for the country.

In many ways, Election 2006 not only marks the last chance to exact some
accountability from those responsible for the disastrous Iraq War and other
failures, but it also represents a point of no return for a nation hurtling
toward a future of endless warfare abroad and a new-age totalitarianism at
home.

Indeed, one could argue that the trivialization of this important U.S.
election with major U.S. news outlets devoting two days of breathless
coverage to Senator Kerrys clunky joke is confirmation of Americas rapid
descent into a dark fantasy world incapable of separating meaningful fact
from silly irrelevancies.

More than 2,800 American soldiers are dead along with possibly hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis in what is likely just a small down-payment in blood
for President Bushs Iraq War yet the U.S. press corps is obsessed with
Kerrys supposed affront to the troops, though the joke seemed actually to
be aimed at Bush and the former Democratic presidential nominee isnt even
on the ballot.

All thats left now is for the Washington pundits many of the same people
who climbed aboard the Iraq War bandwagon in 2002-03 to explain to the
nation on Election Night how Bush and his political team brilliantly
engineered a dramatic come-from-behind win or how the Kerry gaffe and the
overconfident Democrats blew it.

But the recent goofiness aside, the stakes for the Nov. 7 congressional
elections remain extremely high and are likely to get even higher.

The elections have become a referendum on whether the United States will
wage a virtually endless World War III against Muslim radicals a kind of
global version of Iraq and whether the U.S. Constitution will be
effectively repealed, replaced by a new system without unalienable rights
for citizens and with an all-powerful President.

If Bush follows the pattern of 2002 and 2004, he will interpret a
Republican victory on Nov. 7 as a mandate for pursuing and expanding his
policies.

Plenary Powers

Continued Republican majorities in the House and Senate will amount to an
endorsement of Bushs assertion of plenary or unlimited powers as Commander
in Chief for the duration of the war on terror.

The founding notion of the United States that power rests in the hands of
the citizens who possess unshakeable rights spelled out in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights will have effectively come to an end.

Rather than citizens possessing unalienable rights, Bush will get to decide
which rights are allotted to which Americans. After all, if Bush possesses
unlimited plenary powers, that means other Americans only get to have the
rights that he is willing to share, much like a Medieval monarch granting
favors to his subjects.

That is the tradeoff of liberty for safety at the heart of Bushs argument
for a Republican victory. As Bush has stated repeatedly, he views the
fundamental duty of the government as protecting Americans, rather than the
traditionalist view that the primary responsibility of the President and
other officials is to defend the Constitution.

During a typical stump speech on Oct. 28 in Sellersburg, Indiana, Bush
explained his view of his historical legacy:

When people look back at this period of time, the question will be, did we
do everything in our power to protect the American people and win the war
on terror? And we are in a war. It came to our shores on September the
11^th, 2001, and on that day, I vowed to use every element of national
power to defend the American people and to defeat the terrorists.

Bushs words were greeted with cheers and chants of USA! USA! USA!

Yet, Bushs goal of doing everything in our power to make Americans safe and
to eliminate something as vague as terror is a recipe for totalitarianism.

Bush began asserting his claim to unlimited power shortly after the 9/11
attacks, though often in secret or in patchwork ways that left the larger
meaning unclear.

For instance, in spring 2002, Bush ordered the indefinite military
detention of American citizen Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant.
Administration officials deemed Padilla a bad guy who was contemplating a
radioactive dirty bomb attack, though no such charges were ever filed and
no evidence ever presented in court.

The point of the Padilla case was that Bush could override habeas corpus
rights of a fair trial and detain anyone he wanted indefinitely. Only 3 ½
years later facing likely reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court did Bush turn
Padilla over to the civilian courts to face unrelated charges of supporting
a terrorist group.

But Bush now knows he has four solid Supreme Court votes for his
reinterpretation of the U.S. system of government John Roberts, Samuel
Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. All Bush needs is one more
vacancy among the five other justices to secure the courts blessing for his
all-powerful executive.

Tribunal Law

Bush also has relied on the Republican majority in Congress to save the
kangaroo courts he devised for trying alleged unlawful enemy combatants.
After a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court struck down Bushs tribunal plan
in June, Bush and GOP leaders pushed through a legislative version.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 explicitly stripped non-U.S. citizens
of habeas corpus rights, but also included vague wording that would seem to
cast American citizens who allegedly aid terrorists into the same draconian
system.

Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an
offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or
procures its commission, according to the law, passed by the
Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.

Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty
to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the
United States ... shall be punished as a military commission may direct.
[Emphases added]

The references to any person and specifically to those with an allegiance
or duty to the United States would seem to apply to American citizens,
placing them inside the military commissions and outside the reach of
regular civilian courts.

Another provision of the law states that once a person is detained, no
court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any
claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or
judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges
to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.

That court-stripping provision barring any claim or cause of action
whatsoever would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just
as it does for non-citizens. If a person cant file a motion with a court,
he cant assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights such as a speedy
trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on cruel and unusual
punishment appear to be beyond an American detainees reach as well.

Padilla asserted in court papers that he was not only held in a small
isolation cell but tortured, including threats of execution and long
periods in stress positions actions allegedly taken even before the
Military Commissions Act was passed, solely on Bushs authority. [NYT, Nov.
2, 2006]

The new tribunal law also applies to alleged spies, defined as any person
who collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or
while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such
information to an enemy of the United States.

Since the Bush administration and its political allies often have accused
American journalists of conveying information to terrorists via stories
citing confidential sources, its conceivable that this provision could
apply to such articles, either for journalists or their sources.

Its also likely that Bush would execute these powers during a serious
terrorist incident inside the United States. Amid public anger and fear,
Bush or some future President could begin rounding up citizens and
non-citizens alike with little thought about a limited interpretation of
the law.

It could take years before the U.S. Supreme Court even addresses these
detentions and given the increasingly right-wing make-up of the Court there
would be no assurance that the justices wouldnt endorse the Presidents
extraordinary powers.

All-Powerful President

Since 9/11, Bush also has asserted his right to ignore the Fourth
Amendments requirement of a court warrant for searches and seizures. Bush
took that action in secret when he approved the wiretapping of Americans
making or receiving overseas phone calls. Bush bypassed a special court
created to handle such matters under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

When the secret wiretapping was revealed by the New York Times in December
2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the program, citing
inherent presidential powers during wartime.

Through extensive use of so-called signing statements, Bush also has
claimed the right to ignore or reinterpret laws as he sees fit.

Bushs rationale for his unlimited power is being sold to his excited
supporters as he stumps for Republican candidates in the days before
Election 2006. In the Indiana speech, Bush portrayed the choice in stark
terms, between his sensible approach to the war on terror and the
recklessness of the Democrats.

When al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call from outside
the United States to inside the United States, we want to know why, Bush
said. In this new kind of war, we must be willing to question the enemy
when we pick them up on the battlefield.

Referring to the capture of alleged 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, Bush said, when we captured him, I said to the Central
Intelligence Agency, why dont we find out what he knows in order to be able
to protect America from another attack.

Bush then contrasted his eminently reasonable positions with those held by
the nutty Democrats.

When it came time on whether to allow the Central Intelligence Agency to
continue to detain and question terrorists, almost 80 percent of the House
Democrats voted against it, Bush said, as the crowd booed the Democrats.

When it came time to vote on whether the NSA [National Security Agency]
should continue to monitor terrorist communications through the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, almost 90 percent of House Democrats voted against
it.

In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the Democrats
in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to
listening in on the terrorists, whats the Democratic answer? Just say no.
When it comes to detaining terrorists, whats the Democrat answer?

Crowd: Just say no!

Bush: When it comes to questioning terrorists, whats the Democrat answer?

Crowd: Just say no!

Bush: When it comes to trying terrorists, whats the Democrats answer?

Crowd: Just say no!

Yet, Bush realizes that the Democrats are not opposed to eavesdropping on
terrorists, or detaining terrorists, or questioning terrorists, or bringing
terrorists to trial.

What Democrats and many conservatives object to are Bushs methods: his
tolerance of abusive interrogation techniques; his assertion of unlimited
presidential authority; his abrogation of habeas corpus rights to a fair
trial; and his violation of existing laws, such as FISA which already gives
the President broad powers to engage in electronic spying inside the United
States, albeit with the approval of a special court.

Bushs critics argue that all his war on terror objectives can be achieved
without throwing out more than two centuries of American constitutional
traditions or violating human rights, such as prohibitions against torture.

In Bushs exaggerated attacks on his enemies and the frenzy of his
followers, Bushs rallies sometimes have the look and feel of proto-fascism.

Endless War

Another crucial issue before the voters on Nov. 7 is whether Bush will
continue getting a blank check to wage the global war on terror, which
might well mean extending the conflict to Iran in the months ahead,
especially if it resists demands for curtailing its nuclear ambitions.

Bush and his military advisers also have cited both Iran and Syria as
allegedly supporting insurgents inside Iraq and aiding Hezbollah militants
in Lebanon. If the Republicans hold both houses on Congress, Bush might
well see that outcome as a carte blanche to double up on his Iraq wager by
escalating and expanding the conflict.

That would presumably please neoconservative activists and prominent
Republicans, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who have spoken
eagerly about waging World War III against Islamic militants around the
globe.

Since much of the World War III talk is tossed about in a cavalier fashion,
it is not clear if its promoters have weighed the likely consequences of
fighting a global conflict with many of the worlds one billion Muslims. How
the United States would muster the vast numbers of troops needed for such
an endeavor has never been explained.

In his stump speeches, Bush agrees that Election 2006 represents a crucial
turning point for the nation, although his warning is of the dire
consequences from a Democratic victory.

Bush urged the crowd in Sellersburg, Indiana, to contact their friends and
remind them the outcome of this election will determine whether this
government does its most fundamental job, and that is to protect the
American people.

On Oct. 30 in a speech in Statesboro, Georgia, Bush added, However they put
it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win
and America loses.

Despite the sometimes over-heated rhetoric, Election 2006 does come down to
these fundamental questions:

Does the publics desire for more safety from terrorists trump the nations
historic commitment to constitutional liberties? Should the United States
abandon its founding principles as a Republic where citizens possess
unalienable rights and trade that in for a system where one man decides
where to wage war and whom to imprison?

Is World War III between the United States and Islamic militants inevitable
or should other alternatives be tried first aimed at reducing tensions and
isolating the hard-core extremists?

Granted, these are difficult and complex issues for the U.S. press corps to
explain. Its a lot easier to frame a story around John Kerrys joke.

But no American should go to the polls on Nov. 7 whether voting Republican
or Democratic without recognizing what that vote will mean. The United
States is at a dangerous crossroads. Indeed, it may be at a point of no
return.

[Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise
of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999
book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.']

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFS8WOiz2i76ou9wQRApZOAJ4l7gQDsM62VktjgJCm4dutBgVGWACeJAGQ
FGqQUmNggPhxdGBYBx2wsrU=
=3xTd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----