Responding to an article in the Washington Post which reported that Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Mike Huckabee would both like to close Guantanomo, the right wing blog, Cheat Seeking Missiles states this.....
You can't be for closing Guantanamo unless you have a decent answer to the question of what you would do with the lovely people who bow toward Mecca from there. Return them to countries that won't have them? Give them trials in the U.S., where their attorneys would exploit our freedoms for the benefit of those who have professed their intentions to kill us by the millions?
And I don't care how uncomfortable or terrifying waterboarding may be to the few who deserve it. It's non-lethal, doesn't bruise the skin, break the bones, starve the tummy, or stretch the skeleton -- yet it can open sealed lips.
I bring this up because it seems to capture the essence of the neo-conservative understanding of American law and the American Constitution.
What to do with the "lovely people who bow toward Mecca"? I would suggest we do the same as we do with dangerous American criminals who, perhaps, bow toward the Pope, or Jerusalem, or Christianity......incarcerate them. What? We don't have people locked up all over this nation more dangerous than the Guantanomo detainees?
"attorneys would exploit our freedoms" .... Couldn't this be said about all defense attorneys, in all criminal cases throughout America? If your attorney works within the rule of American law to defend you for something you've been accused of, is that same attorney "exploiting our freedoms"? Have neo-conservatives come to the point in their logic(?) where the practice and long history of American jurisprudence can so easily be dismissed as nothing other than "exploit(ing) our freedoms"?
"the few who deserve it"....How would you know who "deserve" to be tortured? And who decides? Wouldn't that require a presumption of guilt, or doesn't that matter either? And is it now a tenet of the neo-con faith that certain humans actually "deserve" to be tortured?
The American rule of law is not founded on savagery, torture, cruelty or any other of the more medieval forms of "justice" found being practiced throughout the Bush/Cheney international criminal regime. The American system is built on a trial system,.....a judge, a jury, a presentation of evidence, the right to know what the charges are against you,.....you know....fairness, justice....what used to be the American way.
Neo-conservatives dismiss all that and instead rally behind torture, cruelty, secret kidnapping, secret prisons, trashing habeas corpus, etc....because.....whoever "they" are....."deserve it". It's back to front thinking. America metes out justice according to a rule of law, or at least it used to. Neo-cons reject, at the very least, an integral part of that rule of law.
Why attempt to justify torture? According to neo-con cheerleaders, "it can open sealed lips". The ends justify the cruel and unusual means. This despite the numerous statements by actual interrogation officers to the contrary. John McCain, a former tortured POW himself, rejects waterboarding and torture. Why would this Republican do that?
Neo-cons reject the historic American committment to justice and want to replace it with a rule of men. Men who pick out, arbitrarily, who "deserves" to be tortured, who "deserves" to be denied any rights, who "deserves" to have an attorney (who will only "exploit our freedoms" anyway), who "deserves" to be treated as a human being.
Neo-conservatism is dangerous to America because it seeks to replace a rule of law with the rule of men.
Until the Junior Bush administration, our nation had successfully prosecuted and incarcerated Islamic extremist criminals. We did it by following the rule of law. There is no reason, whatsoever, to replace that system with some lawless wild west system founded on racism, intolerance and hate.
Our country "deserves" better.
About This Blog