SEN. JOHN McCain has let me down once again. In recent months, the renegade Republican senator's presidential aspirations have led him to court voters on the far right, often in ways that lack his usual rationality. Most recently, he and a coalition that included Sen. John Warner, R-Va., acquiesced to the Bush administration's will after only a few minor changes to a bill on terror detainees' rights. The bill's passage in the Senate marks a sad moment in American history because it could legitimize abuses of both the Geneva Conventions and our own constitution. Perhaps the most depressing element of the bill's passage is not the bill itself, but that it has been called a victory by nearly all sides.
Make no mistake -- the bill is bad in and of itself. It allows coerced testimony to be used in trying detained suspects, as long as that testimony was obtained before 2005. This provision essentially legitimizes past torturing of detainees. The bill also denies detainees labeled as "enemy combatants" the right of habeas corpus. This right -- which is guaranteed in both civilian and military courts -- allows detained persons to question their own imprisonment. The Supreme Court also ruled in June that terror suspects must be allowed this right. To deny this right to the detainees at Guantanamo and at the CIA's secret prisons abroad means that only those prisoners on whom the Department of Homeland Security has enough evidence to bring them to trial will ever see a courtroom at all. The rest will be held indefinitely, with no ability to question the legality of their detainment.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the bill is not any of its explicit clauses, but an implied consensus within the government that terror suspects are different from both prisoners of war and civilian criminals. The term that the Bush administration uses for this unique category of individuals is "enemy combatants."
Prior to the passage of this bill, that phrase was a meaningless invention of the Bush White House. By establishing new rules for these individuals that neither provide the protections enjoyed by U.S. citizens nor those demanded for prisoners of war, Congress has now granted legitimacy to the administration's inflated view of its powers. The administration has always had a penchant for disregarding civil liberties and constitutional rights. With the passage of this bill, those policies are now legal.
In a depressing show of moral ambiguity, some of the senators who opposed the bill supported it after the Bush administration agreed to a mostly symbolic removal of a statement declaring that existing bans on torture fulfilled the United States' obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The change in opinion had nothing to do with the changes to the bill, but was a response to political pressure from the right. With mid-term elections only a few weeks away, Republicans wanted to tout a major legislative victory and pressured the bill's Republican opponents to fall in line with the administration.
Unfortunately, many Democrats also voted for the bill and also claimed it as a victory, probably for the same reasons as the Republicans. Those senators who refer to themselves as liberals or progressives and still voted for this bill have betrayed their constituencies. Liberal blogs are now debating whether these senators should be called out for their inconsistency or if they should be supported in order to avoid losing seats to Republicans in November.
The answer is it does not matter whether a Democrat who voted for this bill or a Republican is elected to any given seat. Anyone who voted for the bill does not represent liberal values and should not be considered a real alternative to a conservative.
Do not mistake me. Liberal voters should still vote for the candidate who seems most likely to oppose the Bush administration's agenda. The vote on the detainee bill, however, highlights that even those senators, like McCain, who seem to present an alternative, do not. Liberal voters have no good options in our current political climate, and they will not until politicians decide to take a real stand against the Bush administration.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
