SILENCE + TORTURE = COMPLICITY

Here are today's protest locations in Massachusetts (more info here).
Don't be silent.

Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy was in Bridgeport on Wednesday to stump for Lamont and Democrat Diane Farrell, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Chris Shays in Connecticut's 4th District. They appeared at a health care forum.

"We have two winners right here today in Diane and Ned," Kennedy said, adding that both would fight for universal health care. "I've worked with Sen. Lieberman in the past, but the people here in Connecticut have spoken. The Democrats have spoken."

Sen. John Kerry is ready to join an exclusive club: prominent Democrats shunning three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman to campaign in Connecticut for his anti-war rival Ned Lamont.

The Massachusetts senator, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, plans to travel to the state Oct. 25 for Lamont. Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, appeared at a Lamont rally last month.

Other top Democrats, however, have tacitly backed Lamont, who seized the Democratic nomination from Lieberman in last month's primary, but have avoided public displays of support. The rationale is simple: Lieberman is running as an independent and has a good shot of winning another term; a statewide poll released Thursday showed him up by 10 percentage points.

Democrats want to stay in Lieberman's good graces to ensure that he remains on their side.

The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by a group of feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede.

Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free or else give him a trial - you may not hold him forever with charging him with a crime"). The concept of habeas corpus in the Magna Carta led directly to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution, and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:

"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

The administration is obviously aware of the transparent, and really quite pitiful, election-based fear that is consuming Democrats and rendering them unwilling to impede (or even object to) the administration's seizure of more and more unchecked power in the name of fighting terrorism. As a result of this abdication by the Democrats, the Washington Post reports, the administration spent the weekend expanding even further the already-extraordinary torture and detention powers vested in it by the McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise."

...The tyrannical nature of these powers is not merely theoretical. The Bush administration has already imprisoned two American citizens -- Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi -- and held them in solitary confinement in a military prison while claiming the power to do so indefinitely and without ever having to bring charges. And now, it is about to obtain (with the acquiescence, if not outright support, of Senate Democrats) the express statutory power to detain people permanently (while subjecting them, for good measure, to torture) without providing any venue to contest the validity of their detention. And as Democrats sit meekly by, the detention authority the administration is about to obtain continues -- literally each day -- to expand, and now includes some of the most dangerous and unchecked powers a government can have.

Unlike others here, many of whom lost friends/acquaintences/family on 9/11, my reaction was a sense that we were about to lose our ability to think clearly without hatred. My first reaction was, “we’re about to become Israel and Palestine, and we will become lost in an endless cycle of revenge and counter-revenge, with no way out, and it doesn’t matter which side we think we’re on, because we will not be able to see that our first, most powerful instinct will be our worst.”

In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the side you think most justified in its actions depends on which event you think is the start of history. For Americans, too much of our thinking begins on 9/11 or some similar event in which we were attacked. And in this we’re not different from others; it is always hard for any people to view their own sense of justification and history in any other way, but almost impossible for the other side to see it the way we do. 9/11 rememberances are inevitable, but I’m afraid they’re only helpful if we try to view it from another’s perspective.

If we as “outsiders” can see that the Israelis and Palestinians must speak with each other to escape the cycle of violence, why cannot we see that we also have to speak with those we perceive as nothing but evil (and who see us exactly the same way). And if someone has a better plan for how humanity gets out this endless cycle, I’d like to hear it, cause so far, the conventional wisdom is not working.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

"Oh, 'effectiveness,'" I said. That I heard from my friend the teacher. For the sake of being effective he did everything required of him, and of course he wasn't effective. He knows that now. But then he had hopes of being able to oppose the excesses..."
"Yes, it was always the excesses that we wished to oppose, rather than the whole program, the whole spirit that produced the first steps, A, B, C, and D, out of which the excesses were bound to come. It is so much easier to 'oppose the excesses,' about which one can, of course, do nothing, than it is to oppose the whole spirit, about which one can do something every day."

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Pirncipiis obsta and Finem respice- 'Resist the beginnings' and 'Consider the end.' But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn't, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might."

In the words of George Orwell: “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded. Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration’s eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers. Tragically, he apparently still doesn’t know that the Administration did in fact have thenames of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.

It is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.

Dear Friends, We read with growing alarm the reports of Lebanese and Israeli casualties. These deaths are a reminder that violence is too costly a response to conflict. Please join us we mourn those who have been displaced, injured or killed in the most recent attacks. Please join us as we pray for an end to the killing and a just peace in the Middle East.