If I read the Supreme Court decision on the treatment of prisoners correctly, it says they can either be treated as prisoners of war (POWs) or else be accused as criminals. In either case we have long established methods and procedures for their treatment. The Court said there is no such category as enemy combatants. According to news reports, some within the Republican party think they can turn this into a "weak on terrorism" issue by forcing Democrats to vote against unthinkable legislation that would make the present illegal behavior legal. I think any time a party can say it is defending the law of the land, it is standing on safe and patriotic ground. Apparently, several influential Senators and Representatives in the Republican ranks have similar concerns. The term "strict constructionist" is still popular in parts of the GOP. We should remember that in the course of our great history thousands have died either to gain or retain the same rights that now hang in the balance.

It is often politically popular to deal with ugly realities in harsh and often illegal ways. John Wayne justice we call it. History shows, however, that the manner in which we treat the probably guilty determines, in the long run, how we treat the probably innocent. Demagoguery is often popular with the masses… until it comes full circle. Sooner or later the indiscretions of the mob come back to haunt them, especially those who applauded early on. The ACLU is roundly hated by many with limited vision. They take the side of unpopular causes with regularity. I've often hated them myself for sticking their noses into other people's business. Being right, it would seem, is seldom appreciated.

Rush Limbaugh, the epitome of hot air patriotism, had hardly recovered from his most recent brush with the law—trying to sneak medication for the Bob Dole disease into the country—before flaming Nancy Pelosi's response to the Supreme Court decision. In his youth, Limbaugh passed on an opportunity to serve in Vietnam. Now that we find ourselves in a similarly undeclared war, he's all for tough treatment of the enemy. Does middle age do this for everyone? Does it somehow bolster their courage and toughen their stance? From the examples of leadership in the White House, it would seem so. I don't really blame anyone for choosing to miss Vietnam, but I do prefer consistency among politicians… and others.

I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. This administration has pretended to defend us against terrorism by stomping on the rights and freedoms we are supposedly defending. If we do away with the rule of law, what exactly are we defending? If there's an acceptable answer to this question, I haven't heard it.

Posted by Wes Randolph   |   Saturday, July 01, 2006