« One of These Things Is Not Like the Other... | Main | Is This Where SkyNet Got The Idea? »

October 1, 2006

What the Hell Is Going On Here?

I was going to post something here about an election mailing I received yesterday.

This is its back cover:

Now, if you're not from Vermont, and/or you don't follow Vermont politics closely, you may not know these candidates. You may not know their political party affiliation.

But you'll probably notice that they're "Vermont's Reform Team."

What does that mean? Does it imply that they're heading to Washington (and to Montpelier, Vermont's state capital) to "clean up" corruption or rout failed leadership?

No, not really. They're the Republican slate for the mid-term elections. Jim Douglas has been governor of Vermont for the past four years. If he's intent on reforming the governorship... why doesn't he just retire?

Martha Rainville and Rich Tarrant want to go to Washington to increase the Republican majority in Congress. Rainville has the advertising firm behind the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry creating ads for her (Seven Days). Rich Tarrant "has spent more money than any other office-seeker in Vermont history, [and] has created more television ads this year than any other U.S. Senate candidate in the nation" (Rutland Herald). His ads have been, for the most part, smear attacks on the front-runner, Bernie Sanders.

I teach rhetoric. I like teaching rhetoric. I'm fascinated by finding the most persuasive and affective (and, hence, effective) means of expressing something. Rhetoric has a long and illustrious history.

Rhetoric has also come to mean empty, manipulative speech designed to mislead. This flyer is one such example of rhetoric in its pejorative sense. There is no possible scenario in which sending more Republicans to this Republican-controlled Congress could or would lead to reform. Indeed, the Republican agenda seems to be agressively "more of the same," or, as it is so often put these days, "staying the course." That's a far cry from "re-forming."

I am, of course, reminded of the exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Apparently, some people can.

- * - * - * - * -

I've become quite disturbed today, reading about the "torture bill" that was just passed by the Senate. Besides "giving" the President the "authority" to "interpret" the provisions of the Geneva Conventions regarding torture (and this is a huge, gargantuan, unimaginably enormous "besides"), it also suspends Americans' right to habeas corpus.

If you know what habeas corpus is, feel free to skip this paragraph. If not, read on -- it's important. Habeas corpus is the legal concept that a government has certain responsibilities once it seizes a person and incarcerates that person. That's where the term comes from: it's Latin for "you have the body." Because the state has someone's body in one of its jails, habeas corpus compels the state to bring the prisoner "to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment" (LectLaw).

As Americans, we assume that if we're ever arrested (unjustly, of course... we're all good people) we'll get our day in court so that we can exonerate ourselves.

Except that if you're determined to be an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, you can now be subject to indefinite detainment, with no guarantee of a trial, hearing, or of the right to even hear the evidence and charges against you.

But wait a minute! That's only for Unlawful Enemy Combatants. I'm not one of those!

Here's Georgetown law professor Martin Lederman's take on the new law:

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

Oh. Yeah. Well, there's that.

- * - * - * - * -

The Spouse and I went to Vermont's first Senatorial Debate last night at nearby Champlain College. The debate featured the two leading candidates, Socialist/Independent/Democratic (take your pick, apparently) Bernie Sanders and Republican Richard Tarrant (part of the "reform team, natch), and four "other party" candidates. (They are: Peter Moss: Anti-Bushist Party, Craig Hill: Green Party, Cris Ericson: Independent, and Peter Diamondstone: Liberty Union.) The evening was profoundly depressing.

First, the debate was focused solely on foreign affairs, a field I have come to see as completely immaterial to Congress. The ruling parties in the ruling party determine foreign policy, "inform" the ruling party Senators and Congresspeople, and it becomes law.

Second, as The Spouse pointed out, it is screamingly obvious that there are only two reasonable choices in this race: Sanders and Tarrant. Despite some interesting ideas and approaches from each of the others, every single one of them crossed the line from lovable, rebellious kook into raving loon at least once last night. So, we're back with our dichotomous republican/democrat "choice" (which is also why Sanders is on the Democratic ticket this November), and I'm no Naderite, but there's got to be a better way.

- * - * - * - * -

So, I'm in a funk. Things don't look so good, and they don't seem likely to improve anytime soon.

I'm not afraid of the government, not even with its (not really) new torture powers, or its destruction of habeas corpus. I'm just profoundly ashamed of what they've made my country do, say, and stand for. And no one seems to care.

In fact, if you look at the polling numbers, it's the hard-core Christians that are most likely to support the use of torture! I think I must have misread the Sermon on the Mount: "But I tell you, do not hesitate to torment an evil person. Strike him on the right cheek, and turn to strike the other also. And forgetteth not the use of biting hounds and drowning nigh unto the very point of death, but do these things in my memory." I could have sworn it was different the last time I read it...

- * - * - * - * -

Could someone tell me, please: What the hell is going on here?

Posted by reparent at October 1, 2006 3:17 PM

Comments

Posted by: coeurlion at October 1, 2006 8:04 PM