I took some time to focus on other projects besides thinking about politics for a few weeks, so I was delayed in coming across the Pelosi Statement on Signing of Military Commissions Bill. 

One of the reasons why I can't focus too much on politics is because it tends to be rather discouraging.  So I'm quite impressed these days when there's evidence of some solid thinking at the national level.  I've had to wonder sometimes if there's something in the air in the capital that slows down the electrical impulses between brain cells.

Pelosi could have said considerably more, but she stated concisely the minimum assessment of the recent tragedy of the Military Commissions Bill.  While it seems obvious that too many legislators are voting for bills for reasons other than clear thinking - is is pressure of some sort? - it is certainly not tolerable.  If we can't count on our elected officials to safeguard our civil liberty, I'm not sure who we think we're going to get to do it. 

So thank goodness there are people like Pelosi who can take the time to very publicly summarize the opinions of those of us who think it's important to carefully consider porposed legislation, beyond the "sounds good on the surface cursory glance" that is often given these days.

Perhaps Pelosi will be elected Speaker of the House very soon, and we'll all be a little safer for it.  I, for one, have chosen to be optimistic today that there will be an increase in wisdom at the polls today, something that has been lacking for many years.

Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill

Rules are far different than in American criminal justice system

Jeffrey Smith with the Washington Post has written further in the last hour or so.  He states that "the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects."

The President may be arguing the need for extraordinary powers, but even in "extraordinary times" it remains crucial that we maintain a system of checks and balances.  The point is not that we do not have a battle to fight, it is who is going to suffer along the way?  If crime has been committed....if it known, then we should have the ability to prosecute the crime within the rule of law, not outside of it.  The point, again, is not that we do not have a battle to right, it is that we need to main our civil liberty.  We need to be safe against those who intend to do our nation harm while staying safe from abuse of civil liberty. 

Before we can help bring civil liberty to citizens of nations around the world, we need to safeguard our own civil liberty.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26948prs20060928.html

Some Thoughts on "The Smart Politics of the Detainee Vote" (article by MSNC National Affairs write, 09/28/06 19:56PST - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251/)  as well as "Senate passes bill on terror detainee trials" from the Associated Press around the same time - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/)

Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation (on Wed. and today, respectively) supporting our current President's continued infringement on the civil liberty of Americans.  And it wasn't just loyal, if too lazy to think, Republican legislators who voted yes.  Among them was Sherrod Brown of Ohio who is reported as stating that detainees "are not soldiers, not combatants representing a government, these are terrorists." 

Oh that's convenient.  That's sounds a dangerously close to saying "I'll decide who is a person and who is something else." (This actually reminds me of a somewhat recent measure passed by the voters in Utah usurping the right of criminals to vote, but that's a different issue for now).  The beauty of the rule of law is it ensures, among other things, a consistency of thought and process that safeguards against the danger of political expediency.  When one starts recreating basic definitions (such as those about people) "on the fly" to meet a particular agenda or situation, it becomes contradictory to assert one's self as a defender of the rule of law.  And when a group of people get to start defining who gets to keep their civil liberties and who doesn't.......well, watch out!!  And you'd better hope you make it into the "right" group.

Many would probably hear or read Brown's statement and not bat an eyelash because no one wants to sound like they support terrorists.  And that's exactly the rhetoric that we reportedly hear from the Republican camp.  Not everyone is fooled, though.  Some of us know that we can disagree with political actions in the last few years without supporting terrorism. 

Americans, let's at least be honest in our political discussions.  The point isn't what liberal minds think about terrorism.  The point is what we think about civil liberty.  At least a few Democrats, including the honorable Senator Feinstein from California, have pointed out that the issue with the President's bill regarding detainees relates to the rule of law.  And a little thing called the Bill of Rights, perhaps you've heard of it?  We all want to see terrorism end.  But we don't want to see grave mistakes made along the way. 

Brown's comment is also rather odd in regards to detainees not being soldiers.  I'm sorry.  I could have sworn I've heard things about a war in Iraq and a War on Terror.  Aren't the people fighting in a war typically called soldiers?  Perhaps a grade school level vocabulary is a luxury these days for legislators. 

And that is all really just an ironic side note, given that the definition of whether a terrorist is a soldier has nothing to do with how the severe mistake being made with this recent legislation.  Oh, its really easy to talk about all of this when detainees really are terrorists.  But what are you going to think when your next door neighbour is the next one rounded up?  Should they really be detaineed without the basics liberties granted in the Bill of Rights?

The powers given to the President to exercise judgement are far too great (we should not be comfortable even when the leader in question has a reputation for good judgement) and the powers to those accused far too little.  The legislation also redefines what can be considered evidence - "hearsay" being one of them. 

Finally, one should be questioning the timing of the legislation.  So this is the way that past violations of law will be condoned?  By conveniently altering the law?  Perhaps we should do away with the rule of law entirely, after all, it takes so much time to be consistent.

This is yet another say day for all of us. 

Now I can honestly say "I'm a card carrying member", and I can't believe how happy I am about that.

There's nothing like having personal and civil liberty assaulted to spur one to action.  Why it took me so many years, I really don't know.

I blame it on having studied too much political theory, and a few other things.  The more I learned of political theory, the less I seemed to be interested in actual politics.  Then again, they may not be related at all - it could just be the place where I live. 

But a recent conversation with a colleague, in which I was having decribed to me the rather "oxmymoronic" free speech zones (there is nothing free about them), was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I finally wanted to say that I care about losing my civil liberty (oops, too late, we've already lost a great deal), and joining the ACLU was my way of saying it. 

So I did a little skip when the card arrived in the mail.  I don't know why I was so excited, but I did a little skip anyway.