(PNEWS) Until Dubya Showed Up..

Submitted by Editor on Mon, 25/10/2004 - 00:37

As Molly Ivins says in "Shrub", "Of Bush's credentials as an economic conservative, there is no question at all -- he owes his political life to big corporate money; he's a CEO's wet dream. He carries their water, he's stumpbroke--however you put it, George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America."


October 23, 2004

"Bush likes to tell us he's a man of his word. And that's what scares me. He certainly kept his word to his rich supporters in Texas, handing them a tax cut that was skewed to the rich and squandered nearly all of the largest surplus in Texas history. And he certainly kept his word to the big corporations, the tobacco companies, and the insurance conglomerates in Texas...."
--Paul Begala- ("Is Our Children Learning")

Shrub's approval rating is still too high. Many think he is stong on terrorism. He has scammed them.

On civil rights he doesn't rate very high with Americans but they're willing to give up their rights for security. Congress is paralyzed. They tolerate this blatant abrogation of civil liberties. They cower behind the approval polls and there is no consultation between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

By executive order Dubya signed a decree subjecting any non-citizen the president suspects of terrorism, or of harboring or abetting terrorists, to a secret process to be judged in a military tribunal without due process standards which normally govern all civilian courts.

"Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States in my judgment are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the United States Constitution" --Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft

Dubya must not be aware of the U.S.'s criticism of other countries, i.e. Turkey and Peru, and others, who try terrorists in secret courts. Will that criticism now also be extended to ourselves? We once again going to hold ourselves up to different double standards?

Dubya must not be aware of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the witch hunts for Communists during the Cold War and the proclaim by civil libertarians of "never again" since Dubya has ordered the internment of "terrorist-looking" people.

Perhaps Dubya doesn't know that when we prosecute terrorists, like when we prosecute Nazis, we need to uphold values that distinguish us from our enemies.

Perhaps Dubya doesn't know we pride ourselves in having an OPEN society, which has become a CLOSED society, with his declaration of secret trials, while those countries which he now declares are terrorist supporters and our enemies do not?

It is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution for the president to use his executive power to create military tribunals during war and that option was also used during WWII, when German saboteurs entered this country. The difference then and now is that was a declared war and this one is not. That order was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Our standards of justice require a unanimous decision before imposing the death penalty in a court of law. Those standards are not required in a military tribunal. There is no requirement that the tribunal is unanimous in their guilty decision. All that is required in a military tribunal is a 2/3rds decision for someone to be executed under military law.

A much better option if the United States believes those detained are guilty of terrorism is to a trial in an international court, just as was done with Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and with Slobadan Milosevic in the Hague. That however is not the smart thing to do for crooked politicians. An open trial in a world arena would expose DUBYA and his pals to too much scrutiny. It would disclose all their shady deals with the Carlyle Group and with the bin Ladens. It would disclose the close relationship the U.S. had with the Taliban and it would disclose the arrangement with the Talliban to pump oil across Afghanistan that fell through. It would expose the Bush family connections to drugs and other things they would prefer to keep semi-quiet.

We may be in a "war on terrorism," but we are not actually engaged in war because the Congress has not declared war. Establishing military tribunals by executive declaration may not under those circumstances even be legal as to executive privilege.

The intent of the Founding Fathers, who founded the constitution for the protection of property, never the less, established a balance of power to prevent an imperial president and it worked for over 200 years - until Dubya showed up.

George W. Bush is a totalitarian tyrant. And there is a greater populist appeal to totalitarianism. Hannah Arandt reminded us of that and her advice has become reality.

Hank Roth

/ o o \
4 Portals - 2 News Wikis - 2 Conferences -- No More BuSHIT!
It all starts here: - http://pnews.org/ (On Internet since 1982)
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (West Coast News Wiki)
http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (East Coast News Wiki)



Advertise here!

All content and comments posted are owned and © by the Author and/or Poster.
Web site Copyright © 1995 - 2007 Clemens Vermeulen, Cairns - All Rights Reserved
Drupal design and maintenance by Clemens Vermeulen Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.
Buy now