One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

I try not to be one of those Canadians who mistake anti-Americanism for nationalism. You know the type -- the ones who act as if the only benchmark for being Canadian is how much we are not like our neighbours to the south. Recent legislation, however, makes me wonder if perhaps some of the hyperbole might actually be warranted.

On September 28, 2006, the Military Commissions Act passed in the United States, giving the president unprecedented powers. According to www.bushwatch.net, the legislation violates 4 out of 10 articles of the Bill of Rights. Given the near religious reverence most Americans feel for their Constitution, I am amazed by the lack of vociferous response.

More surprisingly, the MCA suspends the right of habeas corpus which has been a hallmark of our justice system since the signing of the Magna Carta. There is something so patently un-American and so totalitarian about permanent detention without a trial that it staggers the mind to see both parties voting for the Act. (And yes, I am aware that Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War, but I am also aware that the Supreme Court ruled against him.)

If you listen to the most pessimistic critics, the Act pretty well authorizes torture, since the US President is now the judge of what constitutes torture, rather than international agreements like the Geneva Conventions. Torture may yield information, but you don't necessarily get the truth. As emotionally satisfying as torture may be to certain types of people, the fact is that results gained from torture are not worth the blood spilled to obtain them.

Even if the results are good, I think there is a bigger issue at stake -- the nature of what America (and Canada, for that matter) stand for. I, for one, do not believe that you can protect democracy with secret police and hidden gulags. If we really value concepts like justice and equality and democracy, we have to fight according rules that reflect our beliefs.

If the terrorists don't honour the rules, screw them! We can still beat them, like we beat the Nazis in World War II. (I know, our conduct was marred by things like strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, nuclear strikes against Japan, and the like, but the western Allied chose to pass fight according to rules that hampered them and cost the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.) It may be more difficult and more costly, but winning the so-called War on Terror honourably is more likely to result in a lasting peace than winning by any means possible is.


Unfortunately, this is a return to the Fortress America isolation that rears its face periodically when the US feels insecure. This was a deplorable response to world events in the 1920s and it is even more deplorable today, when the US is actively flexing its hyperpower muscles and putting hundreds of military lives at risk. What the US government seems to forget is that once one party decides they can set the rules aside, there is no incentive for other parties to stick to the rules.