Right Wing - It's on the Other Side
Having watched the debate on the Senate floor yesterday -- Sen. Lindsay Graham persisted at great lengths against Sen. Arlen Specter -- to present arguments against habeas corpus, I'm more than usually aghast. Where did this right to obvious false claims, that the right wing authoritarians seem totally to buy and own, ever become respectable, even to the most reprehensible?
The issue of habeas corpus remains that of allowing an accused person to defend themselves, or refusing to allow it. An instance was given in the Guantanamo proceedings of a detainee being accused of association with a known member of al Quaeda. The accused asked who that was. That information was denied him. The people in the courtroom were noted to have been laughing. Asking what activities had been associated with the presumed support, the defendant was denied that information as well.
There is absolutely no relationship between the above proceedings and a justice system. Yet there are people who have perfectly good standing in their right wing community who unashamedly stand up and support this. Arguing that a military tribunal was the only body with the training to discern whether or not a detainee was dangerous to this country, Sen. Graham again and again went into voluminous defense of 'keeping America safe' from the accused. I had to admire Sen. Specter, who doesn't always evoke this reaction from me. He stuck to the principle, that denial of justice is a wrong, and our safety lies in maintaining an admirable society worth defending. When he ended the dialogue with Sen. Graham by stating that "bombast, rhetoric and repetition" weren't adequate for overturning the right to habeas corpus, I was proud for him.
With this background, I read an editorial in WaPo, "Mr. Bush At Bay", this morning that regretted what might have been achieved if pressures of morality had been applied to the cretin in chief earlier.
With each blow , it seems less likely that he might accomplish anything in his remaining time in office.
(snip)
Imagine what a favor Republican leaders of Congress would have done by similarly pressing him, in a timely way, on Abu Ghraib or the Iraqi occupation.
Insane adherence to desperately wrong and evil measures are accepted -- because they are part of a mindset that doesn't discriminate on moral, right or wrong issues. That is where the right wing has established itself. Below the law, not above it.
I guess we see good and evil as absolutes, while there's an opposite mindset, that will let "bombast, rhetoric and repetition" substitute for principle. So sad that people had to die and more live out their lives disabled, to prove there is no substitute for doing the right thing, but only absolute wrong.
The issue of habeas corpus remains that of allowing an accused person to defend themselves, or refusing to allow it. An instance was given in the Guantanamo proceedings of a detainee being accused of association with a known member of al Quaeda. The accused asked who that was. That information was denied him. The people in the courtroom were noted to have been laughing. Asking what activities had been associated with the presumed support, the defendant was denied that information as well.
There is absolutely no relationship between the above proceedings and a justice system. Yet there are people who have perfectly good standing in their right wing community who unashamedly stand up and support this. Arguing that a military tribunal was the only body with the training to discern whether or not a detainee was dangerous to this country, Sen. Graham again and again went into voluminous defense of 'keeping America safe' from the accused. I had to admire Sen. Specter, who doesn't always evoke this reaction from me. He stuck to the principle, that denial of justice is a wrong, and our safety lies in maintaining an admirable society worth defending. When he ended the dialogue with Sen. Graham by stating that "bombast, rhetoric and repetition" weren't adequate for overturning the right to habeas corpus, I was proud for him.
With this background, I read an editorial in WaPo, "Mr. Bush At Bay", this morning that regretted what might have been achieved if pressures of morality had been applied to the cretin in chief earlier.
With each blow , it seems less likely that he might accomplish anything in his remaining time in office.
(snip)
Imagine what a favor Republican leaders of Congress would have done by similarly pressing him, in a timely way, on Abu Ghraib or the Iraqi occupation.
Insane adherence to desperately wrong and evil measures are accepted -- because they are part of a mindset that doesn't discriminate on moral, right or wrong issues. That is where the right wing has established itself. Below the law, not above it.
I guess we see good and evil as absolutes, while there's an opposite mindset, that will let "bombast, rhetoric and repetition" substitute for principle. So sad that people had to die and more live out their lives disabled, to prove there is no substitute for doing the right thing, but only absolute wrong.
Labels: Ethics, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, Homeland Security
posted by Ruth at 12:48 AM
4 Comments:
Perhaps we sould consider electing a president next time, instead of a tribal chieftain.
Well said, Ruth.
Great post Ruth. Keep it up.
Nice one - agreed.
That said, oddly there is some legal foundation for the "enemy combatants" concept (see railroad sabateurs in the civil war, and the submarine delivered germans in WW2) that they push now - but they seem to have gone way beyond any reasonable standard of justice.
That's not paying attention to the international torture we support, another doozy. Legal is one thing, but...well I liked your "below the law" term. Adherence is not always admirable.
Post a Comment
<< Home