Mitra Ebadolahi Ebadolahi is a
fourth-year international development studies and history student
who believes that the forces of good will kiss evil on the lips.
She encourages comments at mightymousemitra@yahoo.com.
Click Here for more articles by Mitra Ebadolahi
In honor of all the amazing lessons our beloved Bush
administration has taught us this year, the University of Bush is
pleased to announce a new lineup of courses for 2002. In addition
to such popular classes as Hegemony 135 (How to terrorize the
poorest country in the world) and Propaganda 186 (How to enlist
Hollywood puppets in the “˜patriotic fight’), the
defense department has recently added Authoritarianism 101:
Military tribunals ““ how the president can have even more
power!
On Nov. 13, President Dubya signed a military order authorizing
the executive branch to try “suspected terrorists” in
secret tribunals run by military commissions. With one swoop of his
pen, our fearless leader usurped political power, dismantled an
entire legal system, and trampled on the Constitution, making an
absolute mockery of every right we associate with this “Land
of the Free.”
Military tribunals permit … evidence procured by torture to be
used.
But then again, American freedoms are not based on principle
““ they’re based on citizenship.
The president may now target any non-citizen as a
“suspected terrorist,” detain the individual
indefinitely, and request a trial by a military tribunal, bypassing
civil courts. From the moment the suspect’s case is turned
over to the tribunal, he is assumed to be guilty and must prove his
own innocence.
What makes these detainees unworthy of our cherished due
process? Apparently, even “suspected” terrorists are
too evil to merit the most rudimentary rights to justice. In
military tribunals, these suspects cannot select their own lawyers,
meet privately with their assigned attorneys, or have their cases
tried before a jury in public hearings.
Due process? ‘Tis but a ruse. Military tribunals permit
heresy and evidence procured by torture to be used against the
defendants. Detainees can be sentenced to life in prison or given
the death penalty, but there is absolutely no appeals process they
can turn to and no judicial review of the proceedings. After all,
these foreigners are enemies of mankind, just because Bush says
so.
Never mind that international tribunals should try international
criminals. This military order leaves Bush and his cronies to
unilaterally dictate a “solution” to world terrorism.
With less input from meddlesome pesks like the U.N. and Amnesty
International, Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft can
scapegoat innocent people, impose the death penalty more
frequently, and deny the public access to any information related
to tribunal proceedings. Hearings will take place behind closed
doors and records will be sealed; the only information released
could be the names and sentences of convicted individuals. Less
publicity absolves officials from any standards for fair trials, so
military tribunals are only accountable to one person: the
commander in chief himself.
You may be thinking, “This can’t be. Congress would
never allow it.” Bingo, my friends. Congress would never
allow such blatant violations of the balance of powers and
constitutional rights to occur. But Bush bypassed the legislative
branch entirely. As Republican senator Arlen Specter has argued,
“Even in war, Congress and the courts have critical roles in
establishing the appropriate balance between national security and
civil rights.” But dictatorships do not thrive on
consultation.
Supporters of America’s authoritarian regime argue that
military tribunals are a matter of national security; if terrorists
are tried in civilian courts, those involved in the trials may be
attacked. Furthermore, evidence made public in civilian hearings
may expose our government’s intelligence operations, tipping
off terrorists. Although these arguments may be valid, the obvious
solution would be to use international tribunals to try suspected
terrorists in more neutral settings. Such tribunals would bypass
security problems and eliminate blatant bias from the
proceedings.
Despite Washington’s rhetoric of racial tolerance, the
Bush order creates a system predisposed to racial profiling and
discrimination. Since Sept. 11, more than 1,100 people have been
detained in undisclosed locations without trial for being suspected
terrorists. Racial profiling has even extended to our universities.
Federal investigators have contacted administrators at more than
200 campuses nationwide in search of explicit background
information about students from Middle Eastern countries. In some
cases, investigators have directly approached students, dropping in
for surprise visits to chat with Middle Easterners about their
views on bin Laden, terrorism, and the U.S. government.
Ashcroft and government analysts have claimed that the targeting
of Middle Easterners is not an instance of racial profiling;
rather, the “focus on Arabs and Muslims simply reflects the
public’s perception of where the current dangers lie.”
Apparently, our attorney general took a poll of Americans and found
that everyone had racist views against Middle Easterners. No wonder
people of Middle Eastern descent have been targets of hate crimes,
job discrimination and harassment ““ after all, the bad guys
should suffer, right?
Why is there a total lack of critical public discourse about
such pervasive racism? And if universities are supposed to be
bastions of such critical discussions, why are we all so quiet here
at UCLA? America is truly facing a time of crisis: a crisis of
civil rights and government accountability. If we are serious about
protecting our beloved freedoms, we must recognize the fact that
the Bush regime is becoming less and less democratic every day. As
William Safire noted, Americans now face “an executive that
is investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or
executioner.” Totalitarianism, here we come.