let's hope they never disappear skippy

we were sailing along with the uss clueless reading his post that refutes a discussion on metafilter about the upcoming war with iraq.

the value of metafilter or the points made therein aside, mr. de beste did say something that we felt obligated to respond to:

" i'm afraid our metafilterian friends wouldn't know a police state if it fell on their heads, or repression if it was shoved up their asses." [ed. note: we have no knowledge if this is a true statement or not, nor do we ever wish to personally find out, especially in regards to the later half of the sentence.] "but they might try looking across the pacific, at one of those marvelous socialist people's paradises where there aren't any corporate devils running things, to get some idea what real repression is like. here's a clue: it doesn't mean that people call you names or are contemptuous because of your silly opinions. it doesn't mean that they disagree with you vehemently. it even doesn't mean that you can lose your job because you're a writer who is moonlighting.

it means that you get arrested. it means you get charged with subversion. it means that you get given a brief trial, in secret, with the outcome predetermined. it means that you can go away and never come back."

he then goes on to detail an example of a man in china being arresting for posting subversive text on the internet; which a terrible, truly terrible reprehensible event that no right thinking person would ever condone.

now, for the moment, let's not even bother to point out to mr. de beste that for most rational people on the left (you there, over on the right, stop laughing, there are such people), that for most of us, communism has long since been in disfavor; we all know totalitarianism is not good.

we hate to break this to you, but that's exactly why we are arguing so loudly about mr. bush's current tinkering with the constitution now. and we wonder why mr. de beste has to look all the way across the pacific for an example of someone getting "arrested," "charged with subversion," a trial in "secret," and going "away without ever coming back."

for instance, take mr. bush and mr. ashcroft's liberal (sorry, didn't mean to touch a nerve, there) application of the term "enemy combatant" to various individuals that they have stuck away in little tiny cells somewhere without access to lawyers or charges being levied. we wonder if those people can be called "repressed."

and we aren't the only ones wondering. sens. levin and feingold have written a letter to the justice department asking for specific definitions as to the term "enemy combatant" (among the questions: time limits of detention, recourse available to challenge such designations, what process is involved for designating someone as such, etc etc). to our knowledge, mr. ashcroft has not responded (please, anyone with facts confirming or denying this, let us know).

now, in case mr. de beste doesn't feel that carl levin or russell feingold's questioning of mr. bush and mr. ashcroft's actions holds any water in this discussion, how about the cato institute?

"in the year since the september 11 attacks, civil liberties for some people have fallen into a surreal legal limbo," wrote robert a. levy last august 30. "yaser esam hamdi is an example." hamdi, a u.s. citizen, is "being detained indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. jose padilla, who allegedly plotted to build a radiological 'dirty bomb,' is also a u.s. citizen. he, too, is being detained by the military - indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. meanwhile, zacarias moussaoui, purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a u.s. citizen. neither is richard reid, the accused shoe bomber. both have attorneys. both are being tried before federal civilian courts."

how about the case of mohammed azmath, who was arrested on a train in texas on 9/12 right after the attacks. he was luckier than the two men mentioned above, because he was eventually charged after three months. the crime the government accused this man of? credit card fraud.

"azmath was in solitary confinement from september 14, 2001, when he arrived at the metropolitan detention center in brooklyn, until he was transferred to the jail's general population sometime this august. he was assigned a lawyer only after he was charged with the credit-card crime, in december."

at least the buffalo six are getting bond hearings. slow as it may be, they are getting their constitutional rights.

there are many many other instances of people "disappearing" in the post 9/11 atmosphere, and many attempts by the judicial system to do what it can to correct this situation.

"secret arrests are 'a concept odious to a democratic society,' and profoundly antithetical to the bedrock values that characterize a free and open one such as ours," wrote us district judge gladys kessler, in a ruling ordering that the government release all names of all detainees being held in post 9/11 investigations (she later stayed that order pending appeal). judge damon j. keith, in a sixth district court of appeals hearing on the case of muslim clergyman rabih haddad, who had overstayed his tourist visa, wrote "democracies die behind closed doors."

so, is there a point to our ranting? maybe, we're not sure, we never are. we do not under any circumstance contend that living in communist china is better than living in mr. bush's america. we also do not maintain that america is anywhere near as repressed as china, or several hundred other governments in the world.

but we do think that the constitution is being slowly, and, we must admit, artfully, dissassembled before our very eyes. and we don't have to go too far afield to find repression. at least, more repression than there was just one administration ago.



(many thanks to talkleft for providing many links to stories to bolster our case.)