Definition of Terms
So the Democrats have won control of the Congress, and beginning in January the Republic is once again in safe hands, eh?
WRONG!
I have resisted categorizing the current crop of government officials by their party labels. The political parties have their differences, but on the most vital issue of our time -- the runaway totalitarianism that has our country by the throat -- the dividing line is not neatly separated by (R) and (D). It is more constructive, in this context, to divide the governing class between Royalists and Anti-Royalists.
The dictionary defines "royalist" as "an adherent of a king or of monarchical government". There is no question that the entirety of the Republican Party's ruling elite consists of Royalists. They are willing to do make any sacrifice -- especially any sacrifice of your inherent liberties -- to support the monarchical designs of our Boy King and his Regent, the Dark Lord of Wyoming. In the wake of their overwelming rejection by American voters on November 7th, the Republican Royalists continue carrying out their designs for enforcing their vision of ordered and orderly society on the rest of us. Don't believe me? Check out what they were doing six days after the election:
"Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees."
This argument is made in the case of a Qatari citizen, a legal U.S. resident, who was detained five years ago as a "material witness" in the 9/11 investigation. After some time in the custody of the FBI, The Empire charged him with lying to investigators. Then, just before he was about to go on trial for those charges (which he vigorously denies), he was designated an "enemy combatant" and locked up inside a military prison in South Carolina.
To be clear, this is not some Taliban grunt grabbed off a battlefield in Afghanistan, or pro-Saddamist insurgent who was setting roadside bombs in Iraq. This man was a student at a U.S. college, who was seized on American soil (specifically, Peoria, Illinois), where he had the legal right to be. Now, the Royalists insist, he has no rights at all. They can hold him forever, without bothering to explain to him -- or anyone else -- why he is being held. He is not permitted to ask a court to review his status, or the conditions of his imprisonment. Glenn Greenwald succinctly summarizes the outrage the Royalists are perpetrating:
"There is no greater betrayal of the core principles of American political life than to have the federal government sweep people off the streets, throw them into a black hole with no contact with the outside world and no charges asserted of any kind, and simply keep them there for as long as the President desires..."
Actually, the betrayal goes even deeper. The Imperial Inquistors claim as justification for their actions the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a particularly cynical manipulation of the laws of common sense (not to mention common decency), the government claims its treatment of this man is in full accordance with a law that wasn't even passed by Congress until nearly five years after his liberty was denied him. The Royalists would have us believe that they were complying with a law that hadn't even been written when the Clown-in-Chief designated the man an "enemy combatant."
Perhaps we should refer to him as the Kreskin-in-Chief. He apparently has the power to see into the future and know what laws will apply in the years to come.
So the Royalist position is clear -- the government has the untramelled right to grab someone from his or her home and lock that peron away forever, with no questions asked. That is not a twisted reading of the Military Commissions Act. It is, in fact, the express purpose of the statute -- to put any action by the executive against an individual beyond the reach of any oversight or review (legislative or judicial). It forbids courts from examining either the terms of a person's incarceration, or the conditions of imprisonment.
It, in short, legalizes the Star Chamber and empowers it to torture anyone it sees fit.
The Miliary Commissions Act is the most prized possession of the Imperial regime. It vests extraordinary, and uninhibited, power in the government to use against its citizens, and against legal residents of the United States, and against anyone in the world deemed an Enemy of the Crown. It is the ultimate expression (so far) of monarchical authority.
The legislation was enacted without any pretense. Every member of Congress who voted for it knew exactly what he or she was approving. As a result, I believe it can fairly be viewed as a litmus test to separate the Royalists from the Anti-Royalists. And, it should come as no surprise, not a single Republican member of the United States Senate voted against it.
More importantly, however, there were 12 Democratic Senators who also voted to enact this tyrannical measure*. They are:
Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO) and Stabenow (D-MI).
When Congress convenes its new session in January, all 12 will still be in office. They may be Democrats (with the exception of Lieberman, who returns as some sort of bastardized independent), but they are also Royalists.
Democrats won the majority in Congress, but do the math. There will be 49 Republican Senators who endorsed the omnipotent executive, and 12 Democratic Senators. That means the true majority in the Senate will be held by 61 Royalists.
Still feel like celebrating the Democratic Party's election "victory"?
_____
* 32 Democratic members of the House also voted for this abomination.
WRONG!
I have resisted categorizing the current crop of government officials by their party labels. The political parties have their differences, but on the most vital issue of our time -- the runaway totalitarianism that has our country by the throat -- the dividing line is not neatly separated by (R) and (D). It is more constructive, in this context, to divide the governing class between Royalists and Anti-Royalists.
The dictionary defines "royalist" as "an adherent of a king or of monarchical government". There is no question that the entirety of the Republican Party's ruling elite consists of Royalists. They are willing to do make any sacrifice -- especially any sacrifice of your inherent liberties -- to support the monarchical designs of our Boy King and his Regent, the Dark Lord of Wyoming. In the wake of their overwelming rejection by American voters on November 7th, the Republican Royalists continue carrying out their designs for enforcing their vision of ordered and orderly society on the rest of us. Don't believe me? Check out what they were doing six days after the election:
"Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees."
This argument is made in the case of a Qatari citizen, a legal U.S. resident, who was detained five years ago as a "material witness" in the 9/11 investigation. After some time in the custody of the FBI, The Empire charged him with lying to investigators. Then, just before he was about to go on trial for those charges (which he vigorously denies), he was designated an "enemy combatant" and locked up inside a military prison in South Carolina.
To be clear, this is not some Taliban grunt grabbed off a battlefield in Afghanistan, or pro-Saddamist insurgent who was setting roadside bombs in Iraq. This man was a student at a U.S. college, who was seized on American soil (specifically, Peoria, Illinois), where he had the legal right to be. Now, the Royalists insist, he has no rights at all. They can hold him forever, without bothering to explain to him -- or anyone else -- why he is being held. He is not permitted to ask a court to review his status, or the conditions of his imprisonment. Glenn Greenwald succinctly summarizes the outrage the Royalists are perpetrating:
"There is no greater betrayal of the core principles of American political life than to have the federal government sweep people off the streets, throw them into a black hole with no contact with the outside world and no charges asserted of any kind, and simply keep them there for as long as the President desires..."
Actually, the betrayal goes even deeper. The Imperial Inquistors claim as justification for their actions the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a particularly cynical manipulation of the laws of common sense (not to mention common decency), the government claims its treatment of this man is in full accordance with a law that wasn't even passed by Congress until nearly five years after his liberty was denied him. The Royalists would have us believe that they were complying with a law that hadn't even been written when the Clown-in-Chief designated the man an "enemy combatant."
Perhaps we should refer to him as the Kreskin-in-Chief. He apparently has the power to see into the future and know what laws will apply in the years to come.
So the Royalist position is clear -- the government has the untramelled right to grab someone from his or her home and lock that peron away forever, with no questions asked. That is not a twisted reading of the Military Commissions Act. It is, in fact, the express purpose of the statute -- to put any action by the executive against an individual beyond the reach of any oversight or review (legislative or judicial). It forbids courts from examining either the terms of a person's incarceration, or the conditions of imprisonment.
It, in short, legalizes the Star Chamber and empowers it to torture anyone it sees fit.
The Miliary Commissions Act is the most prized possession of the Imperial regime. It vests extraordinary, and uninhibited, power in the government to use against its citizens, and against legal residents of the United States, and against anyone in the world deemed an Enemy of the Crown. It is the ultimate expression (so far) of monarchical authority.
The legislation was enacted without any pretense. Every member of Congress who voted for it knew exactly what he or she was approving. As a result, I believe it can fairly be viewed as a litmus test to separate the Royalists from the Anti-Royalists. And, it should come as no surprise, not a single Republican member of the United States Senate voted against it.
More importantly, however, there were 12 Democratic Senators who also voted to enact this tyrannical measure*. They are:
Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO) and Stabenow (D-MI).
When Congress convenes its new session in January, all 12 will still be in office. They may be Democrats (with the exception of Lieberman, who returns as some sort of bastardized independent), but they are also Royalists.
Democrats won the majority in Congress, but do the math. There will be 49 Republican Senators who endorsed the omnipotent executive, and 12 Democratic Senators. That means the true majority in the Senate will be held by 61 Royalists.
Still feel like celebrating the Democratic Party's election "victory"?
_____
* 32 Democratic members of the House also voted for this abomination.
posted by wally at 4:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home