Tuesday, 18 May 2004

A "no-torture" zone? Gen. Ricardo Sanchez announces that (ahem) "certain prisoner interrogation techniques" will no longer be used in Iraq. From now on, prisoners that we intend to torture will be flown to Guantanamo Bay first.

It would have taken all of thirty seconds for Donald Rumsfeld to announce a military-wide ban on interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva Convention… but, once again, Rummy drops the ball. Bush should have accepted his resignation months ago (along with his neocon deputies) and put in a team that could win the peace; instead, domestic political concerns and the Abu Ghraib scandal have tied Dubya's hands.

If Bush fires Rummy (or "accepts his resignation"), he'll look weak and indecisive, which would fatally damage his election hopes. If he keeps Rummy, he's unable to distance himself from a disgraceful policy of torture — which would also damage his election hopes and wreak havoc on our ability to promote democracy in Iraq and elsewhere.

Either way, it's the end of the line for George W. Bush — and, if the GOP ties their fortunes too tightly to his, it'll be the last time we see a Republican in the White House for years and years to come.

If it is /not/ the end for Bush, if he is re-elected, then what the hell does this bespeak of America? Has Sept. 11 and the threat of terrorism truly shaken the spirit of liberty, democracy and human rights that used to found the nation's core?

America's current system of government has endured for 215 years. Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights have proven both strong and adaptable, and have sustained us through civil wars, economic collapses, societal changes, and constitutional crises far worse than the scandal now unfolding in Washington.

But for twelve years now, if not longer, right-wing extremists have been eating away at the glue that holds our society together. With one hand they've sought to make our Constitution rigid and inflexible, when it suits their goals; with the other they've worked to undermine the rule of law itself. One law for thee, another for me: Clinton deserves impeachment for lying under oath, but Rumsfeld deserves to stay in office after doing the same. (And Dubya is allowed to refuse to testify under oath, an option which the GOP warned Clinton would lead directly to his impeachment.)

Bush and the neocons would prefer that we focus on the external enemy, on the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists, and ignore the men behind the curtain who are desecrating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. If Bush succeeds and wins the election, he gets four more years to continue his work — and then we get to see whether the Bill of Rights can survive that much punishment.

If we had to, I think America could endure four more years of George W. Bush… though I suspect we'd no longer be a world power by the time he was done. Four more years of half-a-trillion deficits and China will be holding our purse strings; we'd still have (some of) our military strength, but our economic might would be fragile and our global leadership would be long gone.

But I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic that Bush will lose the 2004 election, for one: His coalition is splintering, and good people are fleeing it. If anything, I think the danger is not that Bush will be (re-)elected, but that we'll relax and lower our guard once he's out; the pillars of our society — the rule of law, the concept of limited government, the separation of church and state, and the duty of the government (and the "fourth estate") to keep the public well informed — will still be under attack, and we've only just begun to recognize that and to mount a defense.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 11:25 am. comments.