THINKING FOR OURSELVES “A decent respect” By Shea Howell Michigan Citizen, July 9-15, 2006 The Fourth of July has become a celebration of summer. Amidst the family reunions, paper plates and fireworks, its meaning has faded. This year, more than ever, we need to remind ourselves that it is a celebration of revolution. It is a day to take stock of the state of our democracy, its hopes and its promises, still to be kept. In that long ago time when men pledged lives, fortunes and honor to establish a new nation, they gave voice to certain principles that are worth revisiting. First among these is the recognition that the actions of nations require justification to the world at large. In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence we find the phrase “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them.” This phrase acknowledges that nations have an obligation to explain their actions, to justify decisions, and to be concerned with what the world thinks of them. Such a principle has been violated time and again by the current administration. From the refusal to honor international agreements to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush has shown no respect at all for the opinions of others. The Supreme Court decision to reject the administration’s plan to use military commissions to try the people held in Guantanamo Bay prison was a re-affirmation of this responsibility. Basing the opinion on both federal statute and international law, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5-3 majority, said clearly, “The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction.” The court went on to affirm the responsibility of the U.S. government to acknowledge and enforce the Geneva Conventions, especially Article 3, which requires humane treatment of captured combatants and prohibits trials except by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.” This decision, bitterly opposed by the Bush Administration and by the three most conservative members of the court, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, echoes the fundamental principle that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and that governments cannot deprive them of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the linguistic trick of labeling them “enemy combatants.” Further, this decision is the first serious effort to check the administration’s contention that the war on terror gives the president, as commander in chief, unlimited powers to act both nationally and internationally without respect for the rule of law. Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote a concurring opinion, said simply, “The court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a blank check.” Since the attack of September 11, 2001 Bush strategists have argued that we are in what Vice President Cheney likes to call “a different kind of war.” In this war the President has claimed nearly unlimited powers. These include the right to determine how people he suspects of terrorist connections are tried, to set new rules for wiretapping, for interrogating prisoners, and for using the military to fight an ill-defined global battle that, he says, may last generations. With the decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court did more than limit the powers of the president to set up military tribunals. This court, among the most conservative in more than 50 years, made clear that the executive has gone too far in his claim to power and authority without regard to law, tradition, opinion or basic decency. This decision opens a new political space for us to engage in the ongoing struggle to bring democracy to life. Email Shea Boggs Center, |