How to Make a Power Grab 'Mundane'
The Washington Post's story today -
"Bush Signs Terrorism Measure" - looks like just another routine
report on the approval of a piece of legislation, accompanied by the usual
"he said/ she said" quotes. A typical reader might shrug at this
point and shift to the sports section to read the latest autopsy on the
Redskins.
By James Bovard, in Editor & Publisher, Oct. 18, 2006
How
will we know when a dictatorship has arrived? Not from reading the Washington Post. The Post’s story today
- “Bush Signs Terrorism Measure” - looks like just another routine report on
the approval of a piece of legislation, accompanied by the usual “he said/ she
said” balancing quotes.
The Military Commissions Act is widely seen as legalizing torture, but the
article avoids any such mention of the T-word. Though the act revolutionizes American jurisprudence by permitting the use of tortured
confessions in judicial proceedings, the Post discretely notes only that defendants will face
“restrictions on their ability to ... exclude evidence gained through witness
coercion.”
The lead of the Post article
declares that the new law will “set the rules for the trials of key al-Qaeda
members.” A typical subway strap hanger reader might shrug at this point and
shift to the Sports section to read the latest autopsy on the Washington
Redskins. The Post neglects to mention that the bill codifies the president’s
power to label anyone on Earth an “enemy combatant” -- based on secret evidence which the
government need not disclose.
The Post mentions new “restrictions” on detainees’ ability “to challenge their
incarceration.” The article neglects to add “until hell freezes over.” Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) characterized the bill’s suspension of habeas corpus as
akin to turning “back the clock 800 years.” But, according to the Post, this
reform is simply another provision in just another bill - and, anyhow, so many
bills get signed this time of year.
The Post says
nothing about how the new law makes the president legislator, prosecutor,
judge, and bailiff.
As Yale law professor Jack Balkin notes, “The President has created a new
regime in which he is a law unto himself on issues of prisoner interrogations.
He decides whether he has violated the laws, and he decides whether to
prosecute the people he in turn urges to break the law.”
The tone of the Post article is akin to a bored broadcaster’s reading from the
Teleprompter:
Ø
“In other news today, the government announced that the price of
gasoline would be reduced by seven cents a gallon and also suspended the Bill
of Rights.”
Ø
The Military Commissions Act is a stark power grab - but one would never
know it from the Post’s account. At some point, it is conceivable that the U.S.
government’s repression could become more overt. And how would the Washington
Post likely cover that?
Ø
“As U.S. army tanks rolled through the streets of Washington, the DC
police chief reported that the robbery rate fell 27%.”
Ø
“National Guard units fired on demonstrators on Pennsylvania Avenue
yesterday, damaging two Starbucks restaurants and seven newspaper vending
machines.”
Ø
“The president announced that he has the right to wiretap anyone’s
phones. ...” WAIT. This example doesn’t work. The president already did that
earlier this year so it is no longer news. Most of the media swallowed
dutifully and deferred when the president relabeled the spying as “The
Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Amusingly, on the
same page A4, just below the article on the military commissions act, the Post
has a “Washington in Brief” snippet entitled “Bush signs Defense Bill with Some
Reservations.” The Post’s account notes that, when Bush signed the $532.8
billion military appropriations bill, he included a “long list of caveats.”
Bush’s signing statement “singled out about a dozen provisions that would
require the White House to provide Congress with information on various
subjects. Bush reminded lawmakers of ‘the president’s constitutional authority
to withhold information. ...’”
The
president proclaims his right to violate laws by denying Congress information
on what the U.S. military is doing - and the Post draws no inference on how the
powers conveyed by the Military Commissions Act could be used.
Bush has added more than 800 “signing statements” to new laws since he took
office. He is the first to use signing statements routinely to nullify key
provisions of new laws. The American Bar Association recently declared that
Bush’s signing statements are "contrary to the rule of law and our
constitutional separation of powers." But the Washington Post portrays the signing
statements as simply a gentlemanly difference of opinion between the president
and congressmen. It neglects to mention that the president now claims boundless
prerogative to what is the law.
And this is how the Washington Post and much of the Establishment media portray
almost every government seizure of power. It is never a question of looming
tyranny: instead, it is only a question of different perspectives on how best
to serve the American public. Waiting for the Washington press corps to sound
the alarm on Leviathan is like waiting for Bush to renounce his love of power.
