Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A senior intelligence officer is informed that the CIA has established secret prisons abroad that are holding suspected terrorists. He is further informed that the CIA (with the indirect blessing of the Bush administration) has decided to use waterboarding and other methods commonly deemed to be torture in the process of
interrogation. That same senior intelligence officer is then called on to testify to Congress in closed hearings. Under oath, that officer then reveals this information. The senior intelligence officer also intimates that he cannot reveal such knowledge publicly because it would violate federal law (as in publishing state secrets). Those congressmen and senators had themselves signed a secrecy pledge thus binding themselves not to reveal sensitive information. Should a senator or congressman in possession of such information blow the whistle anyway? Would they risk jail time for doing so?
It would certainly raise an interesting constitutional question. Article I, section 6 grants freedom of speech for national legislators, and this ought to be protection enough
from political or legal threats (hat tip to Marty Lederman on Balkinization for bringing this discourse.net post to our attention). Precisely what sanctions would a member of Congress face for raising these practices in debate?
The constitutional conundrum, though, is not the real issue. As we lead into the 2008 presidential election, the question of the United States' commitment to human rights will be a central matter, particularly where the rest of the world is concerned. Our candidates (repubs and dems) have erred on the side of jingoistic hysteria and like to rehearse "get tough" speeches and soundbites during the debates. Witness, for instance, the immediate negative reaction to Barack Obama when, in debate, he was asked by Brian Williams what the first thing he would do as president if a terrorist organization attacked the United States. Obama's response--that he would have an emergency response ready so we don't get caught in another Katrina--was deemed weak and offensive.
Outright offensive, however, is the shameless behavior of Mitt Romney. He has suggested in debates that we "double" Guantanamo. Shockingly, he refused to denounce waterboarding as torture. Which brings us right back to where we stand in the presidential election of 2008. Although the corporate American media refuses to address the issue of international human rights, we must as a nation force our presidential candidates to account. It is time, for instance, for the Democrats to state plainly where they stand on these important issues. Hillary Clinton has ducked and dodged the question for too long, as has John Edwards.
We should not forget that elections are themselves constitutional procedures. And that it is elections when the people can speak the most forcefully on particular issues. The elections of 1800, 1828, 1860 and 1936 were all such moments when the people gave voice to a particular constitutional vision. Precisely how we treat 2008 has yet to be determined. Perhaps we need more input and voice from the most important, but most oft forgotten, constitutional actors there are: the People.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the contingency of the senator or congressman in possession of such information lies in just how deep his or her conviction on how the information would be received by the public (the people of the united states). If we, as a country (and government) denounce such practices, promulgate such "norms" onto the rest of the world, but participate in them, it would seem that whether or not to reveal such information on behalf of a senator or congress person lies within personal conviction and his/her belief that it will be received in good faith and not just as a violation of federal law.
In this case, and perhaps many others like it, it seems that how people receive the divulgence of information rests on the fact that the government stipulated that they don't engage in such activities. I'm sure people wouldn't assent to a hypocritical government (moreso than they already do) let alone not accept the opinions of a person who brings such practice to light.
Romney, the Harvard-trained lawyer, said he'd double Guantanamo, in order to keep the suspected terrorists away from lawyers. In another debate, in answering the question of whether as president he would need Congressional approval to attack a nuclear facility in Iran, Romney said he'd first check with his lawyers. Is it always the team with the most lawyers who wins?
There was no serious public outcry about the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act, probably because they were primarily aimed at non-citizens, so who cares. But neither has there been much said about the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act" passed in the House and now in the Senate (I think.) It sounds to me more extreme than the Alien and Sedition Acts and would give the government more potential for political abuse and repression than anything since the Seventeenth Century, WWI a possible exception. I'd be glad to be shown where I'm wrong-- here's the Act (H.R. 1955, or S. 1959): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
There has been little to no outcry from the public, yet this law targets US citizens.
In Cato's letters, Trenchard warned of people turning to private affairs to the exclusion of a duty of being aware of public affairs (not including Entertainment Tonight). Otherwise state power would again encroach on personal liberties. If our citizenry is unconcerned with civil rights in Asia, or civil rights in the United States, it's unlikely they will care much whether Obama supports S.1959 (he's waffled but apparently is leaning in favor), or whether Hillary really meant it when she voted for the authorization to invade Iraq. Cato was widely read by Colonial Americans. He stressed the need for independent journals (Fox? CNN? ABC? NY Times? Wall Street Journal?), and for interest in public affairs (ever watch Jaywalking on Leno?) A conspiricy theorist might say Eisenhower got it right and the Military-Industrial Complex would like to keep the status quo, including an apathetic public. A cynical pessimist might say the sheep are fat and happy and would probably approve of being sheared if they ever looked around and noticed the shears. But the optimist I'm trying to be would say that revolutions ("peaceful", in case S. 1959 has already passed and someone is listening) often come when they are least expected. Independent journals-- possibly the internet. Knowledge of public affairs-- maybe Jon Stewart's not a bad start.
Question for Bill: how does the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act" (H.R. 1955) endanger civil liberties? I scanned the bill, and all it appears to do is create a commission to make recommendations to Congress, and provide for a university-housed center that will do social research into how best to avoid the spread of radical ideology. I didn't see any sections that created new crimes or provided for punishments for particular kinds of ideological statements or the like. Can you direct me to an offending section? (And this, perhaps, ought to be its own thread rather than running commentary. Perhaps someone should post about the bill.)
I could have worded it better. The act “would give the government power…” should have been something like, “the commission’s recommendations based on its charge could well lead to legislation that would make much easier the government's suppression of dissent ”
As you wrote, the act itself does not create new crimes or punishment. However I have a number of concerns about the act, starting with the fact that it seems totally unnecessary (meaning to me it should automatically be looked at with skepticism.) I would be glad to start a new thread and try to articulate those concerns if I knew how to start a thread and what the rules are.
Post a Comment