Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush
As the Bush administration pass one of the most dangerous and iniquitous laws ever in American history, the Democrats say that they feel confident about facing the American public in November's mid terms and feel sure that the public are as appalled by torture as they are.
Democratic opponents of the legislation said their political position was driven by a substantive determination that the bill, which creates rules for interrogating and trying terrorism suspects, is fundamentally flawed and a dangerous departure from founding American principles.
“The only reason to worry about the politics of it is if you don’t understand it and don’t have the guts to stand up and defend your vote,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considering a presidential race.
It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues — that one to give the president the authority to launch an attack against Iraq. At the time, many Democrats felt they had little choice politically but to side with Mr. Bush, and a majority of Senate Democrats backed him.
The Iraq vote of October 2002 was a subtext to the Senate debate on Thursday. Democrats pointed to the situation in Iraq as an example of what can happen when the Bush administration, in the charged atmosphere of an approaching Congressional election, is handed new power by a compliant Congress.
“After four years, the price we are paying is clear for saying to a president and an administration that we would trust you,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, whose own vote on the war haunted his 2004 presidential campaign.
The Republicans are certain to attempt to portray the Democrats as fighting for terrorists rights, the Democrats now need to come out fighting to say loudly why this legislation is against everything that America stands for and will isolate the US more than ever.
Torture is not an American value, and the Republicans - and the few Democrats - who voted for this legislation deserve to be run out of office.
Party strategists have concluded, however, that Democrats can hold their own politically with Republicans on security issues and that voters no longer give Mr. Bush such wide latitude in the fight against terrorism. Democrats believe they can rebut the stinging attack to come by persuading Americans that the tribunal bill was rushed for political reasons and overturned basic rights like the ability to challenge one’s incarceration.
“I think most Americans would agree that if somebody is held they should at least be able to respond to the charges,” said Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. “The fact we don’t have that is something that, over time, Americans are going to be embarrassed about.”
I really hope that Obama is right and that most Americans see through this shameful bill and the disgrace it brings upon their nation.
If they don't, then the US will no longer be said to be leading the world, as the civilised world won't want to follow the path down which they are being led.
There are many who have expressed the view that Bush is doing this merely as a tactic. I agree with this up to a point, but I also think he is motivated by a desire to make previous actions he took before Hamdan - when he believed Geneva did not apply - legal. There is no question that Bush has acted in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions and that such behaviour is, in some cases, a war crime.
It is for this reason that I believe Bush seriously needed to pass this law. To cover his own ass, pure and simple.
Americans now need to state in November whether or not they find such despicable behaviour acceptable. If they decide they approve, the Statue of Liberty may as well hang her head in shame.
Click title for full article.
1 comment:
Talk of freedom is cheap. Especially when it comes from an administration that has done more than any other to curtail people's freedoms. From the Patriot Act to listening to phone calls without FISA warrants, to trawling people's bank records. The list is seemingly endless.
But then I have always found Bush more Orwellian than his predecessors.
Operation Iraqi Freedom? Which is in reality the illegal invasion of your country?
Insurgents? A polite way of criminalising any Iraqi who opposses the illegal occupation.
As always, Orwell sums it up best:
"The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. The decline in the desire for individual liberty has not been so sharp as I would have predicted six years ago, when the war was starting, but still there has been a decline. The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted."
Post a Comment