When our country's fundamental laws were written based on the ideals of fairness and democracy, our founders could not have envisioned that there would one day be a president, the guarantor of these legal protections, who understood himself and his administration to be above and thus exempt from the very laws their elected and appointed positions require them to protect. Furthermore, our wigged predecessors could not have imagined that one day the executive branch would hold the same "legal philosophy" as a king, tailoring the laws of society to justify the actions of its leader. Yet here we are in 2006 with a president who holds this exact view -- or perhaps "contempt" is a better word -- of the law and is carrying out his philosophy in ways that are destructive to America's perception abroad.
A prime example is the complete absence of prisoner rights at Guantnamo Bay. We've all seen the images. We've all heard the stories. The place is an American-made hell-hole at best, torture chamber at worst. Hundreds of mostly Islamic men wait for a day in court that will most likely never come, or for "questioning" by CIA agents given carte blanche to interrogate as they see fit.
These detainees wait because principles that form the bedrock of the American justice system are being not only suspended, but also explicitly reversed against them. Instead of being detained as true suspects, many of these men are detained simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of following the writ of habeas corpus, those in charge of Guantnamo detain suspects indefinitely without trial. Instead of maintaining the presumption of innocence, detainees are assumed to be guilty. It is disturbing that these men are surrounded in the compound by the American flag, a symbol that should stand for the liberty that made its country famous, not the oppression that its legal protections were written to avoid.
At home, the president has used this regal legal philosophy to justify wiretaps on American phones and the ability to access tax-paying citizens' private information. When taken to task on the matter, the President responded that he was doing it all to keep Americans safer from the forces of terrorism. But in crafting this argument, the president and his team failed to account for the fact that many Americans on both sides of the political aisle hold legal philosophies that are sharply at odds with those of the administration. Many Americans thus rejected this defense on the grounds that this supposed "safety" came at too grave of a price: Liberties that the United States Government is supposed to guarantee.
Not surprisingly, legislators continue to press the administration on the legality of these matters. They do so not for the sole intention of unseating Bush from office, but more so to remind the President and his administration that laws cannot be subverted and altered to suit their own ends.
The Bush administration is now expanding this legal philosophy to further dismantle international law by attempting to unilaterally rewrite Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. The goal is to "clarify" a passage written with contract-like exactitude and specificity so that it justifies near, if not full-blown, torturous interrogation processes by American CIA agents and soldiers against suspected terrorists. If Congress approves this measure, it would be yet another signal to the world that America is no longer the promoter of freedom and liberty it once was -- rather, it is a country that supports the suppression of the same highly touted legal freedoms that constitute its hallmarks. It would also put American troops, those that President Bush has so acerbically derided his critics for not fully supporting, at grave risk of torture in this and all future conflicts.
American actions are currently being guided by a philosophy of the law that is entirely counter to the spirit of America. If lawmakers do not break ranks in the name of real justice, and without citizens fail to elect legislators that will check and balance this contemptible behavior, America will suffer -- not only as a just democracy but also as the symbol of hope and freedom that attracted the majority of its now-citizens here in the first place.
But don't take it on my word. Abu Bakker Qassim, a former detainee at Guantnamo who was released thanks to the courageous battling of American lawyers who respect the writ of habeas corpus, writes in Sunday's New York Times: "I would be sadder still to see the freedom-loving American people walk away from their respect for the rule of law. I want America to be a strong and respected nation in the world. Only then can it continue to be the source of hope for the hopeless -- like my people in East Turkistan."
As Americans, we should all want this as well.
