A Further End to Democracy

The recent Supreme Court ruling stating that President Bush does not have the authority to have military trials for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is cause for the world to further focus its gaze on the United States. This combined with the fact that Guantanamo Bay holds prisoners not only form the countries of enemies of the U.S., such as Iran and Iraq, but also from the countries of allies, such as Britain and Canada, makes this decision more than just a case of human rights violation, it makes it personal. The saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer," doesn't seem to apply when they are all mixed together at the same camp.

This brings into sharp relief the whispered worries of the citizens of the allied nations which have been going on ever since the war in Iraq began, "What's to keep the United States from attacking us?" Is such a scenario likely? No. There has been no sign that these countries' relationship with the U.S. is in jeopardy, Bush's refusal to shake Prime Minister Harper's hand aside. Furthermore, it is likely not possible for the U.S. military to launch an attack as over budget and thinly spread as it is in Iraq; a war which, when compared to fighting another first world nation, should be a cake walk. However, whether or not these whispers of war are founded, or even truly believed, it is telling that a country which was once the envy of almost every country on earth has under the Bush administration been turned into, or revealed as, a monster.

So, why does the monster get to continue to do monstrous things? What does the decision of the Supreme Court really mean? Will the prisoners at Guantanamo be given civilian trials or none at all? The answer is a resounding, "Um."

The issue of the prisoners at Guantanamo being given due process isn't a new one; it was made by the Supreme Court two year ago, and lead to the prisoners being offered military trial. At the time, that decision was supposed to remedy the poor treatment and lack of legal action against prisoners. While a few more prisoners were charged, there is little sign that the 2004 Supreme Court hearing resulted in any real changes being made. The recent suicides of two detainees and the attempted suicides of others certainly suggest that life has not improved.

Finding a light at the end of the dark tunnel that is Guantanamo Bay is a difficult task given recent history, but there are a lot of people searching for it. To them this decision is the beginning of the end of these prisoners unlawful suffering. While I hope that they are correct in the belief that justice has and will ultimately prevail, I'd prefer to leave celebrating the return to moral high ground until the Supreme Court makes a ruling with a little less room for interpretation.

BBC News - Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling (2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

USA Today - Bush: Guantanamo's future up to Supreme Court
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-14-bush-gitmo_x.htm

ABC News - After the Ruling, Impact on Guantanamo Prisoners
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2136471&page=1

Don't Tattle

I'm a Canadian, and as such am sometimes disturbed by the actions of Prime Minister Harper. His decision to limit freedom of the press in the House seems to me to be a limitation on the rights of Canadians. However, every time Harper does something I find hard to stomach all I have to do is look south and be glad he's not George W. Bush.

On Thursday, June 22nd the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration is not only tapping peoples phones and going through their phone records without a warrant, they are also examining their financial transactions. This doesn't surprise me; once a man or an administration proves itself to be willing to break the document on which his country was founded that document ceases to be sacred. What does surprise me is that in reaction to this Bush is continuing his assertion that by telling the American people that he is trampling on their rights to privacy and therefore hurting the American people, they are in fact inviting the terrorists to come back and hurt the American people.

I'm not certain what effect telling the terrorists that the American Government knows that an American tourist needed to wire money to a sex shop in Japan so he could buy... something embarrassing, will have on the war on terror. Although I imagine it won't make anyone who has family or has been abroad since 9-11 very happy. It is doubtful that the terrorists will be using banks or stores or credit cards to buy weapons of mass distruction; although I did see a good deal on weapons grade plutonium on eBay.

I have family in the U.S. so I visit there a lot, and think I would know if the country ceased to exist. Last I checked, and I admit this was before June 22nd, the United States was still there, and had not suffered from any further terrorist attacks. Can I be certain of this without going next door and checking on the neighbours? No. But I'm at least as certain of the existence of the United States as I am that the article printed by the New York Times does not contain an open invitation to terrorist groups to attack the land of stars and stripes.

To read the New York Times article click below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5065&en=8b8acbe63f34dad9&ex=1151640000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print