|It is hard to imagine any more ways in which Victoria Toensing ("A
National Need for Preventive Justice", 2002 Sep 23) could completely
misunderstand American priorities, American justice, or American liberty.
The proper response to an act of barbarism is not more barbarism. It
is a rededication to the cause of freedom -- to the Constitutional guarantees
that make the United States of America the most free and open society
in the history of the planet.
|I would feel more assured that her proposed "prism for dealing
with the issues of detainees and the collection of evidence would not
abandon our constitutional precepts" if she did not then go on
to spell exactly how, in fact, it does jettison those precepts.
Due process? Presumption of innocence? Separation of powers? Judicial
review? Although these terms have long been identified with American
liberty, Ms. Toensing sees fit to cast them on the dustbin of history.
|And please do not repeat the tired -- and wrong! -- assertion that
World War II justifies the secret tribunals, indefinite uncharged detentions,
and highhanded assumption of unbridled exectuive power. In case Ms.
Toensing has missed it, there is a crucial difference between 1942 and
2002: Today, Congress has not seen fit to grant -- nor the President
to even seek! -- a declaration of war. The elected leaders of this great
democracy have not said, in the voice of the people, that we are at
war. Therefore, no "wartime emergency" measures are legal
or justified. The President has had twelve months to make his
case and to ask for a writ of war. He has not troubled to do this, making
the overheated calls for rampaging executive authority ring somewhat
|I mention only in passing that almost every one of the decisions so
happily offered as precedent now, has been long considered a travesty
of American justice, that every act of judicial deference has been long
considered a regrettable mistake, and that every executive trampling
of individual liberties has been long regarded as a Constitutional debacle.
|Ms. Toensing finds it "bizarre" that the government was
required to disclose its charges and evidence to the counsel to John
Walker Lindh. What she finds bizarre, true lovers of liberty will find
heartening: The Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment,
and all the attendant legal structure, exist to protect the individual
from the unrestrained fury of the State. Not merely as a citizen but
as a human being, Mr. Lindh was entitled to those full protections and
was afforded all of them. Amazingly, the walls of civilization somehow
did not come tumbling down -- because America is strong enough to offer
those protections even to those who wish to destroy us -- and
America is strong enough to triumph nonetheless.
|In the case of Messr. Hamdi and Padilla, it is so comforting to know
that "they are being held as prisoners of war until the end of
the conflict, as has been done ever since rules of war were written."
Apparently, in this example, since the rules of war happen to be convenient,
they are to be sacrosanct. But when the rules of war do not favor the
administration view -- such as when the Geneva Convention demands full
and impartial hearings into the status of prisoners of war -- then suddenly
we are in a "new age" when the old rules do not apply. By
the way, Ms. Toensing is somewhat untruthful. Messrs. Padilla and Hamdi
are not being held as "prisoners of war". The President's
men claim only that the two are "unlawful combatants" -- a
designation with no recognized meaning and thus, ironically, itself
unlawful. "Prisoners of war" have rights as guaranteed by
the Geneva Convention and other treaties. "Unlawful combatants"
apparently remain or go free at the whim of the President.
|Several times Ms. Toensing asserts that prisoners should be detained
"until the end of the conflict". Yet we are engaged in a drawn-out
conflict, the very embodiment of a "long twilight struggle".
When, exactly, will the war end? How are we to know? Had President Bush
deigned to obtain a writ of war, our objectives and victory conditions
would be clear. But instead we are offered war without end, an ill-defined
and unceasing conflict worthy of Orwell's 1984. Normalcy will
never return because this so-called "war", unencumbered by
anything so quaint as a Congressional writ, has no discernible endpoint.
Terrorism is not a war to be fought. It is a disease to be contained,
a virus on the body politic. It will remain for as long as regions exist
in which it can incubate.
|Ms. Toensing askes, "Why would we want to reveal any information
about who is in custody or the basis for their detention when it could
expose sources and methods?" The answer is simple: Because democracy
and the fundamental libery of Americans absolutely require an open and
communicative government. If the people are to remain the government's
masters, must they not know what the government does in their name?
Ms. Toensing also worries that opening deportation hearings aids the
enemy, for example by "giving them pieces to complete an intelligence
mosaic by which they can learn, for example, which detainee is cooperating
or which cell has lost members and needs replacements". If Al Qaeda
needs to read the court docket to know which of its cells has gone missing,
then this "terrorist network" poses no more threat than the
keystone cops. The only ones who lose in an atmosphere of absolute,
unchallenged secrey is the American people.
|Ms. Toensing bravely decries her own ability to judge terrorist trials.
(By the way, the government can still close a deportation hearing
-- it need only show cause to the judge.) Why? Because, "Quite
simply, I do not have access to the relevant investigative and classified
information. Neither will the advocates of public disclosure. Nor will
the press." That is to say, the sovereign people of the United
States of America cannot be trusted with the power to decide
for themselves the propriety and validity of their government's actions.
If we remove the public entirely and without appeal from this, the most
basic of actions, then what role is available? Or should we simply let
our "betters" rule, perhaps in perpetuity?
|Through her tone and her words, Ms. Toensing betrays the ultimate
problem that any freedom-loving citizen has with the actions she defends:
She and her ilk simply do not believe in democracy. They do not
have any faith in the country they claim to defend and to cherish. They
do not believe in the fundamental solidity and awe-inspiring strength
of the American republic. They -- more than the barbarians who felled
the Towers -- have wrought unneeded, unprecedented, and unwarranted
changes in the political fabric of our nation. They -- more than al
Qaeda, more than Iraq -- threaten the freedom of American citizens.
|Ms. Toensing gets one thing right: "What is important for all
these cases is that the courts are functioning." They are indeed
-- and happily they have so far issued rebuke after sharp rebuke to
the groping grasping grip of the executive. Thank Providence that the
courts are open and functioning -- for they alone are protecting
the American people and American democracy itself against this President
who purportedly swore to uphold the Constituion and now cynically strives
to topple it.
|We are stronger than this. We are smarter than this. We are
better than this.
-=-Bernard HP Gilroy