First, there's a new blog in town on the crisis involving habeas corpus: Find Habeas. Check it out.
Second, here's an exchange in my local newspaper I had in September 2006 on the issue.
----
My initial letter (written 29 September; published 11
October)
I'm not writing today to protest the recent Congressional
bills allowing President Bush the power to "interpret" the Geneva
Convention's bans on torture. Let others describe what legalizing "waterboarding,"
"long time standing," "cold room," "stress
positions," and other practices means in terms of our self-understanding
as a people and our moral standing in the community of nations. Let others
explain how this means that the government will now openly treat people in the
21st century the way slave owners treated their slaves in the 19th
century. Let others explain how this bill fits with the decent respect to the
opinions of mankind we once prided ourselves on possessing. Let others explain
what use a free press is when it passes on without comment, let alone protest,
the Administration's use of Orwellian phrases like "interrogation
techniques." Let others explain how we could have defeated the Nazis and
the Soviets without such laws.
No, today I'd like to remind us that the Congress has just
given away the right to habeas corpus, which is the very heart of English
common law since the Magna Carta of 1215. What that means is the President can
simply label anyone, anywhere, American citizen or not, an "enemy
combatant," and lock them away indefinitely without the ability to have
their day in court. What this means is the end of the rule of law and the
beginning of the rule of men. What this means is the end of the American
experiment in individual rights. What this means is that we no longer live in
the country of our ancestors.
-----
First reply, from Oliver.
Letter: Lives, enemies, compassion and torture
Published: Oct 18, 2006
Yet another professor from LSU is heard from (Readers’ Views, Oct. 11). I
must respond to Professor John Protevi.
He airs his grievances against our government under the guise of “let others
explain…” and explains those grievances. He then complains that this means the
end of the rule of law, and that we no longer live in the country of our
ancestors.
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance that comes from our
flagship university. How many presidents in the past suspended habeas corpus in
times of war? We are dealing with the survival of our country. If we lose this
country to our enemies, just what will habeas corpus mean? When is the last
time we fought an enemy that observed the niceties of civilized combat such as
the Geneva Conventions? We owe our enemies no more compassion than they show
us.
I am puzzled that there is even a debate on torture etc. We live in a time
when individuals may have information on plans to kill thousands of Americans
at one time. How long before a terrorist possessing chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons will attack us in this country or abroad?
I am thankful that we still have young men who will seek and destroy these
terrorists in foreign lands, and have clandestine agencies that seek
information to thwart these evil people.
If I could save hundreds of people by driving bamboo under someone’s
fingernail, I would do it and sleep well. Heck, I’d do it to save John Protevi,
Irvin Peckham, et al.
I see a big moral problem if one is willing to sacrifice hundreds of
innocent lives because it would be wrong to cause some discomfort to an evil
person seeking to do us harm. Our enemies see our “compassion” as weakness. On
this, I tend to agree with them.
Ward H. Oliver
retired chemist
Baton Rouge
-----
My reply to Oliver (written 18 October 2006, but unpublished):
Ward H. Oliver (Reader's Views, Oct. 18) needs to take a few
deep breaths to combat his mounting hysteria. Evidently he really believes that
if President Bush says "war" and "survival of our country"
often enough that that makes it true. It seems he thinks it realistic to
compare the Civil War and WWII to the present situation, when he asks about
previous suspensions of habeas corpus. The ridiculous nature of that claim is
plainly evident, but just to ram home the point, I would ask Mr. Oliver to show
me the pitched battles on American soil or the conquest of Central and Northern Europe and the intensity of the Pacific theatre,
that makes these apt comparisons to him.
But speaking of comparisons, evidently Mr. Oliver thinks so
little of our republic that he would dare to compare us to al-Qaeda, saying
"We owe our enemies no more compassion than they show us." Not only
is this a terrible insult to us, proposing that we allow the al-Qaeda
barbarians to set our standards for us, but it is simply bad policy, as it
destroys one of our most effective weapons in the struggle against al-Qaeda
(for like everyone else, I believe we are in a struggle with them), namely, our
ability to demonstrate "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,"
a phrase whose origin and meaning I suggest Mr. Oliver research. He would find
that the cash value of that phrase is our ability to form alliances, which, as
the "coalition of the willing" shrinks ever more, is increasingly
endangered by the Bush administration's tactics.
Then, as if suggesting that we allow al-Qaeda to set our
standards for us is not enough, he indulges in his own little torture fantasy:
"If I could save hundreds of people by driving bamboo under someone's
fingernail, I would do it and sleep well." Known as the "ticking-bomb
scenario," this imaginary situation might allow people like Mr. Oliver to
fantasize about finally being in a position to indulge their torture desires in
good conscience, but it has nothing to do with the real world, and even less to
do with making torture a routine "interrogation technique" where it
is effected without any pretext of ticking bombs.
Finally, with regard to my profession. The Advocate requires
that one submit an entry in the "profession" box on their online
form. But of course I do not write letters to the editor as a representative of
LSU or of the philosophy profession, any more than Mr. Oliver writes as a
representative of the chemistry profession. I write solely as a private
citizen, out of concern for the present and future of our republic.
------
Second reply to me: Letter from Macdonald
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862
Published 23 October 2006
Recently Professor John Protevi wrote a letter to the editor lamenting the recent powers given to President
Bush to fight the war on terror. He commented that Congress has given away the right of habeas corpus, which
if looked at closely is nowhere near the truth. And in his opinion, “What this means is that we no longer live in the land of
our ancestors.”
The learned professor should have gone on Google to see that on Sept. 24,
1862, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the
Civil War.That decision FAR exceeds the temporary loosening of some rights,
clarification of certain laws etc. we recently went through. The professor would
have been really upset with President Lincoln, had he lived in those days. Lincoln did
that because the country was at war.
The German POWs who lived in the USA during World War II had NONE of
the “rights” the Guantanamo prisoners are given. Those folks
are FAR more dangerous than those German POWs. Until some Americans
realize that the USA and the Western world are in a
World War III battle against a very radical form of Islam, we will see
such
letters.
These are dangerous times, and to protect ourselves we need to relax some of
our rights, just as our “ancestors” did in the past during dangerous times.
Historically, those exceptions were lifted after the danger passed.
Rudy MacDonald
retired engineer
Baton Rouge
-----
My reply to Oliver and Macdonald: 23 October 2006 (published a week or two later)
Both Ward H. Oliver and Rudy Macdonald have recently written
to remind us that habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War. Indeed it
was, in accordance with the Constitution's Article 1, section 9, "
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it." May I ask Messrs. Oliver and Macdonald to point to the
long series of pitched battles on American soil that validate this comparison
of 1862 and 2006?
That they are gullible enough, or so enamored of
authoritarian government enough, to swallow whole the current administration's
PR line about a self-defined and open-ended "Global War on Terror" is
their business, but it is our business when the Congress of the United States
does so and in the process overturns or at best marginalizes one of the very
cornerstones of western law. This is not the place to debate the fine points of
the relevant court decisions, but I might refer them to Justice Scalia's
dissent in
Hamdi if they wish to read
a rigorous defense of the Constitution and of habeas corpus written by a true
conservative.
The high point of their hysterical overreaction comes when Mr. Macdonald repeats the
"World War III" meme. At odds with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's 2005
rebranding of the GWOT as the "Global Struggle Against Violent
Extremism," the WWIII figure of speech would be even more laughable than
the Civil War analogy, if it were not so demeaning to the brave men and women
who fought in the real World Wars of the 20th century, and so obscene to
compare the 3000 dead of 9/11 (may God rest their souls, and may no one think I
am demeaning the loss felt by their families) to the millions and millions of
civilians killed in those wars.
Finally, both Mr. Oliver and Mr. Macdonald think it great
sport to paint me as an ivory tower intellectual, a "learned
professor," and so attempt to attack my credibility. Although I have never
understood why having the privilege to spend my life reading, thinking,
teaching, and writing is grounds for others to question my political judgment,
may I remind them and the readers that the Advocate requires that you enter
something under the "Profession" box in their online form. Hence I do
not write as a representative of LSU or the philosophy profession, any more
than Mr. Oliver or Mr. Macdonald write as representatives of the chemistry and
engineering professions. I write solely as a private citizen, out of concern
for the present and future of our republic, and with, perhaps, a better understanding
of its past than theirs.
Comments