|
|
How to Make a Power Grab 'Mundane'
By James Bovard
The
Washington Post's story today -- "Bush Signs Terrorism Measure" --
looks like just another routine report on the approval of a piece of
legislation, accompanied by the usual "he said/ she said" quotes. A
typical reader might shrug at this point and shift to the sports
section to read the latest autopsy on the Redskins.
How will we know when a dictatorship has arrived? Not from reading the
Washington Post. The Post’s story today -- “Bush Signs Terrorism
Measure” -- looks like just another routine report on the approval of a
piece of legislation, accompanied by the usual “he said/ she said”
balancing quotes.
The Military Commissions Act is widely seen as legalizing torture, but
the article avoids any such mention of the T-word. Though the act
revolutionizes American jurisprudence by permitting the use of tortured
confessions in judicial proceedings, the Post discretely notes only
that defendants will face “restrictions on their ability to ... exclude
evidence gained through witness coercion.”
The lead of the Post article declares that the new law will “set the
rules for the trials of key al-Qaeda members.” A typical subway strap
hanger reader might shrug at this point and shift to the Sports section
to read the latest autopsy on the Washington Redskins. The Post
neglects to mention that the bill codifies the president’s power to
label anyone on Earth an “enemy combatant” -- based on secret evidence
which the government need not disclose.
The Post mentions new “restrictions” on detainees’ ability “to
challenge their incarceration.” The article neglects to add “until hell
freezes over.” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) characterized the bill’s
suspension of habeas corpus as akin to turning “back the clock 800
years.” But, according to the Post, this reform is simply another
provision in just another bill - and, anyhow, so many bills get signed
this time of year.
The Post says nothing about how the new law makes the president
legislator, prosecutor, judge, and bailiff. As Yale law professor Jack
Balkin notes, “The President has created a new regime in which he is a
law unto himself on issues of prisoner interrogations. He decides
whether he has violated the laws, and he decides whether to prosecute
the people he in turn urges to break the law.”
The tone of the Post article is akin to a bored broadcaster’s reading
from the Teleprompter: “In other news today, the government announced
that the price of gasoline would be reduced by seven cents a gallon and
also suspended the Bill of Rights.”
The Military Commissions Act is a stark power grab - but one would never know it from the Post’s account.
At some point, it is conceivable that the U.S. government’s repression
could become more overt. And how would the Washington Post likely cover
that?
* “As U.S. army tanks rolled through the streets of Washington, the DC police chief reported that the robbery rate fell 27%.”
* “National Guard units fired on demonstrators on Pennsylvania Avenue
yesterday, damaging two Starbucks restaurants and seven newspaper
vending machines.”
* “The president announced that he has the right to wiretap
anyone’s phones. ...” WAIT. This example doesn’t work. The president
already did that earlier this year so it is no longer news. Most of the
media swallowed dutifully and deferred when the president relabeled the
spying as “The Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Amusingly, on the same page A4, just below the article on the military
commissions act, the Post has a “Washington in Brief” snippet entitled
“Bush signs Defense Bill with Some Reservations.” The Post’s account
notes that, when Bush signed the $532.8 billion military appropriations
bill, he included a “long list of caveats.” Bush’s signing statement
“singled out about a dozen provisions that would require the White
House to provide Congress with information on various subjects. Bush
reminded lawmakers of ‘the president’s constitutional authority to
withhold information. ...’”
The president proclaims his right to violate laws by denying Congress
information on what the U.S. military is doing - and the Post draws no
inference on how the powers conveyed by the Military Commissions Act
could be used.
Bush has added more than 800 “signing statements” to new laws since he
took office. He is the first to use signing statements routinely to
nullify key provisions of new laws. The American Bar Association
recently declared that Bush’s signing statements are "contrary to the
rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." But the
Washington Post portrays the signing statements as simply a gentlemanly
difference of opinion between the president and congressmen. It
neglects to mention that the president now claims boundless prerogative
to what is the law.
And this is how the Washington Post and much of the Establishment media
portray almost every government seizure of power. It is never a
question of looming tyranny: instead, it is only a question of
different perspectives on how best to serve the American public.
Waiting for the Washington press corps to sound the alarm on Leviathan
is like waiting for Bush to renounce his love of power.
James Bovard (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
is the author of "Attention Deficit Democracy" (Palgrave, 2006) and
other books. He has written for the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times,
The American Conservative and many other publications.
|
Spread the word
 Digg it!
-  Netscape
-  reddit
|
|
|