The Daily Grasshopper

It’s the headline we’ve all been waiting for: “Court says military may hold citizens” (Boston Globe, Jan. 9, p. A1). And if you think the headline is scary, just wait ‘til you read the lead-in for the article:

“A federal appeals court yesterday upheld nearly unlimited power for President Bush to order the capture of US citizens, and any others found among enemy forces overseas, and to detain them indefinitely while the war on terrorism continues.”

The whole article is here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/009/nation/Court_says_military_may_hold_citizens+.shtml

Now, I don’t know about you, but whenever I see the words “unlimited power” and “President Bush” in the same sentence, I’m already scouring the ‘Net for a one-way ticket to a small island in the Pacific (provided it doesn’t have any untapped oil reserves). Add to that the bit about the “capture of US citizens,” and we are definitely not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I know what some of you are thinking, or yelling into your computer screen right now: “C’mon, PK, you $&%# sap! These are U.S. citizens who have joined enemy ranks and are fighting our troops in a foreign country. They don’t get constitutional protections!” And, I’ll concede, it’s pretty hard to argue with that. The article points out that the decision on Padilla is pending, and is being reviewed by a federal judge in New York City. Padilla was grabbed in Chicago, you'll recall.

But there’s a reason why the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org) defends the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and the North American Man Boy Love Association. And that reason is this: no matter how odious you find the way some exercise their right to freedom of speech (1st amendment to the Constitution), we as a society still have to protect that right. When we stop protecting that with utmost vigilance, we stop valuing the principles our country was allegedly* founded upon. And from that point on, we are heading down the proverbial slippery slope.

The same logic applies (or ought to) with other constitutional rights – US citizens like John Walker Lindh, Yaser Esam Hamdi, and Jose Padilla are the KKK and NAMBLA of the 5th and 6th amendments. We have to guarantee their rights to due process and a fair and impartial trial, or spend long nights worrying about when those rights are going to be deemed unnecessary for the rest of us. I wrote in an earlier essay about “The Pianist,” the movie about the Nazi invasion of Poland. The SS didn’t go whole hog and try to wipe out all the Jews right on the first day in Warsaw – they went nice and easy: a Star of David on your sleeve one day, an order to relocate to a different part of town the next day, and, next thing, before you know it, everyone and their brother is crammed into cattle cars headed for Treblinka.

Here’s a line that's as big a no-brainer as yesterday’s “Wall Street Finds It Likes Much of Bush Proposal." Referring to the Appeals Court decision to give Bush such broad powers: “Attorney General John D. Ashcroft applauded the ruling.” No shit. Actually, I bet Aschroft just pretended to be surprised when he heard about the ruling. With his new freedom to wiretap the whole country, he probably listened to the judges deliberate. Normally, you’d figure this ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court, and there it might get overturned. Then you realize that THOSE GUYS ARE THE REASON THAT BUSH IS OUR PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Go ahead and accuse me of fear-mongering – I hope that’s all I’m doing. But you’ll notice that the powers belong to Bush “while the war on terrorism continues.” Does anyone remember Bush saying that this war could go on for the rest of our lives? Does anyone remember the “War on Drugs”? I really hope I’m at a cookout with some of you this summer, or maybe the next one, taking some serious ribbing about this little e-mail. “Ha, ha, PK, you Chicken Little,” somebody might say. “Now that President Bush has won that ‘War on Terror,’ everything is back to normal. No more indefinite detentions, no more secret military tribunals! I’ll bet you feel silly now!” I will be only too happy to put a big “Dunce” cap on and go sit in the corner.

But until then, I’m going to fret a little bit about news like yesterday's. And the provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act. What’s that? You haven’t read up on the USA-PATRIOT Act? Well, don’t feel bad – neither did your congressional representative, and he/she had to vote on it. But the massive document has finally been analyzed since being rammed through a terror-crazed Congress, and here are some things you should know about it:

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/ENews/2002e89?opendocument
http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patriot_act.asp
http://www.aclu-mass.org/general/civlibtalkingpts.html

It's been said that the best way to prevent a police state is to stand up for its first victims. If we allow immigrants to have their rights trampled, then we shouldn't expect anyone to be looking out for us when/if our turn comes. Don't say you weren't warned...

* I say “allegedly” because the Declaration of Independence said “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” Of course, there was a whole bunch of black people around at the time that apparently didn’t qualify, to say nothing of the white women. We are a work in progress, and don’t let anyone tell you different.