When the Founding Fathers looked for a model that reflected the abuses they objected to—in short what they intended to forbid by their new Constitution and Bill of Rights—they turned to an English institution, the Court of Star Chamber. It was a state security court with ancient roots which flourished under the Tudor and Stuart monarchs. The Star Chamber court operated in secrecy, was not bothered by the picky evidentiary rules that emerged in other courts, and did not believe that those appearing before it on state security charges had many rights—certainly not the right to counsel, nor even the right to conduct a defense. It relied very heavily on torture to extract the evidence it sought to convict, usually a confession—though rarely, of course, a confession with any validity, since the application of the rack would quickly get the subject to say whatever was desired, truthful or not.
Sound familiar?
Horton has a little tidbit in his article that is scary as all hell.
Reports have begun to circulate that the Administration has put together a group of scholars headed by a right-wing activist judge to craft legislation to introduce a new court of Star Chamber, perhaps to be floated in the coming year.
It's not that far of a stretch using Horton's logic.
As we see in the public pronouncements of the Bush Administration, accusations leveled at detainees in the war on terror are leveled for political effect, and often to parallel partisan political campaigns. If those accusations are rejected by a court, it therefore undermines confidence in the Administration and the Party. Which is why, in the Bush view of justice, a failure to convict is unacceptable. And which is why the Bush view of justice is no justice at all.
The Tsar and his Rasputin have seriously derailed the Constitution and railroaded the Courts by stacking it with partisanship and influenced it with politics. There is less and less transparency left in our Government.
If you haven't yet read John Dean's book Broken Government, I highly recommend it. Dean follows the history and outlines the steps that the neocons, christianists, and wingnuts have taken to not just take over the game but used deliberate strategies to change the rules of the game as set out by the Founding Fathers.
I don't know if we're going to come out of this or not. It took twenty years after Watergate to return to a semblance of normal Constitutional equilibrium, and some people strongly believe that Cheney has orchestrated all of this as revenge. Cheney shows that he strongly believes Nixon's logic of extra-legality for the presidency:
Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal....
Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
Yes, but the Constitution is not under attack from outside the government. Bush/Cheney are the government and they are the ones doing their best at squandering the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment