by William Fisher |
| NEW YORK - Last March, the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring Justice Department officials to give them reports by certain dates on how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers. |
5.7.06
Signing Away the Constitution?
4.7.06
Spreading Cancer
Depleted uranium turns Bush's lies into high-tech horror |
| by Robert C. Koehler |
| The unending game of “pretend” that the U.S. media allow George Bush to play on the global stage, so often letting his lying utterances hang suspended, unchallenged, in the middle of the story, as though they were plausible — as though a class of third-graders couldn’t demolish them with a few innocent questions — feels like the journalistic equivalent of waterboarding. Gasp! Some truth, please! I suggest the prez has forfeited the right to command a headline, or half a story, or an uninterrupted quote: “. . . we’ll defend ourselves, but at the same time we’re actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy,” he said last week in Austria. Surely “spreading democracy” should no longer be allowed to appear in print, between now and 2008, unless accompanied by a parenthetical clarification (“not true,” stated as profanely as local standards allow). And that, of course, would only be the media’s first step back into integrity with the public. The occupation of Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, the entire war (to promote) terror . . . please, please, can these no longer be trotted out in consequence-free abstraction, but as the high-tech malevolence they are, actively continuing the incalculable devastation of countries and their populations? The bodies keep piling up, the toxic horrors spread. Hasn’t anyone in this place ever heard of depleted uranium? Is the health crisis in Iraq and, indeed, throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, not to mention Kosovo and among returning vets for the last four American wars, somehow irrelevant to “the course” we’re asked to stay? “Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient. For example, leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one patient with two cancers — one in his stomach and kidney. Months later, primary cancer was developing in his other kidney — he had three different cancer types. The second is the clustering of cancer in families. We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by cancer. . . . My wife has nine members of her family with cancer.” This is Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the oncology center at the largest hospital in Basra, speaking in 2003 at a peace conference in Japan. Why is it that only peace activists are able to hear people like this? Why hasn’t he been asked to testify before Congress as its members debate the future of this war and the next? “Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning,” he went on. “They have a much higher absorption rate as their blood is being used to build and nourish their bones and they have a lot of soft tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia used to be diseases affecting them the most. However, cancer of the lymph system, which can develop anywhere on the body and has rarely been seen before the age of 12, is now also common.” Depleted uranium — DU — is the Defense Establishment euphemism for U-238, a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and the ultimate dirty weapon material. It’s almost twice as dense as lead, catches fire when launched and explodes on impact into microscopically fine particles, or “nano-particles,” which are easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin; it’s also radioactive, with a half-life of 4.468 billion years. And we make bombs and bullets out of it — it’s the ultimate penetrating weapon. We dropped at least 300 tons of it on Iraq during Gulf War I (the first time it was used in combat) and created Gulf War Syndrome. This time around, the estimated DU use on defenseless Iraq is 1,700 tons, far more of it in major population centers. Remember shock and awe? We were pounding Baghdad, in those triumphant early days, with low-grade nuclear weapons, raining down cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects and much, much more on the people we claimed to be liberating. We weren’t spreading democracy, we were altering the human genome. As we “protected ourselves,” in the words of the president, from Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, we opened our own arsenal of WMD on them, contaminating the country’s soil and polluting its air — indeed, unleashing a nuclear dust into the troposphere and contaminating the whole world. “We used to think (DU) traveled up to a hundred miles,” Chris Busby told me. Busby, a chemical physicist and member of the British government’s radiation risk committee, as well as the founder of the European Committee of Radiation Risk, has monitored air quality in Great Britain. Based on these findings, “It looks like it goes quite around the planet,” he said. While Bush mouths ironic whoppers — “We will be standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes for freedom and liberty are fulfilled,” he told the U.N. General Assembly a while back — his actions pass, in the words of former Livermore Labs scientist Leuren Moret, “a death sentence on the Middle East and Central Asia.” A war crime of unprecedented dimension is unfolding as we avert our eyes. Perhaps it’s simply too big to see, or to grasp, so we lull ourselves into the half-belief that the powers that be know what they’re doing and it will all turn out for the best. Meanwhile, the contagion spreads, the children die, the planet becomes uninhabitable. |
Gaza Power Plant Hit by Israeli Airstrike is Insured by US Agency
by Farah Stockman | |
| WASHINGTON - The Palestinian power plant bombed by Israeli forces Tuesday is insured by a US government agency, and US officials say they expect American funds to be used to pay for the damage. The destruction of the 140-megawatt reactor, the only one in the Gaza Strip, threatens to create a humanitarian disaster because the plant supplies electricity to two-thirds of Gaza's 1.3 million residents and operates pumps that provide water supplies.
Administration officials said the restrictions on working with a Hamas-led government could further complicate the repair of the electric facility, which could take weeks, if not months, to fix because of the escalating violence in Gaza. The bombing of the plant could become a lasting problem for the Bush administration, which is appealing for an end to the showdown between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli warplanes hit the power plant two days after Palestinian militants attacked an Israeli Army unit, killing two soldiers and taking another one hostage. Israeli forces responded yesterday by entering the Gaza Strip for the first time since Israel's historic pullout from the territory nine months ago, bombing the plant and three bridges. The power plant cost about $150 million and took more than five years to build. Plans for it began in 1999, when two private investors -- the now-defunct The project faltered when violence broke out in Gaza in 2000 and when Enron collapsed into bankruptcy, but Khoury continued to push forward. His construction company's US subsidiary, Connecticut-based Morganti Group, bought out Enron's stake in the plant. In 2002, the plant began operating, becoming the first such facility regulated by the Palestinian Energy Authority. In 2004, it reached full commercial capacity and its owners were able to purchase $48 million in ``political risk" insurance from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation , an arm of the US government that provides American businesses with financing abroad and promotes US interests in emerging markets. The US Investment Corporation -- set up in 1971 with US taxpayer funds -- had been supportive of the project from the beginning, arranging the first meeting between investors for the plant, according to the Bloomberg news service. Few commercial insurance companies insure such projects against political violence, but the US Investment Corporation does so to encourage development in emerging markets, according to Lawrence Spinelli, a spokesman for the Investment Corporation. The insurance that Morganti purchased covers ``political violence," which includes ``wars, acts of terrorism, things like that," Spinelli said. To be paid for the damage, the company must file a claim, and the Investment Corporation must determine whether the claim is covered by the policy, Spinelli said. The corporation raises its reserve funds through insurance premiums and other charges to its clients, but its funds are kept in the US Treasury and are controlled by Congress. That could be a problem for those who want to see the power plant swiftly rebuilt. After the election of Hamas in January, a host of congressmen introduced bills designed to freeze US assistance to the Palestinian territories to prevent any financial benefit from reaching Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization. In April, the State Department announced it would cut off all planned funding for infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank. But advocates for Palestinians say that the plant must be repaired, even if the US government is forced to pay for it. ``If you take out two-thirds of the power in a place like Gaza, and if this is the source of electricity that powers pumps for water, you may have a major crisis on your hand in short order," said Ed Abington , a former consultant to the Palestinian Authority. |
Iraq War Ends Silently for One American Soldier
and many, many more.
by Dexter Filkins | |
| RAMADI, Iraq - A soldier was dead, and it was time for him to go home. The doors to the little morgue swung open, and six soldiers stepped outside carrying a long black bag zippered at the top.
Inside the bag was Sgt. Terry Michael Lisk, 26, of Zion, Ill., killed a few hours before. In the darkness, the bag was barely visible. A line of blue chemical lights marked the way to the landing strip not far away. Everyone saluted, even the wounded man on a stretcher. No one said a word. Sergeant Lisk had been standing near an intersection in downtown Ramadi on Monday morning when a 120-millimeter mortar shell, fired by guerrillas, landed about 30 paces away. The exploding shell flung a chunk of steel into the right side of his chest just beneath his arm. He stopped breathing and died a few minutes later. The pallbearers lifted Sergeant Lisk into the back of an ambulance, a truck marked by a large red cross, and fell in with the others walking silently behind it as it crept through the sand toward the landing zone. The blue lights showed the way. From a distance came the sound of a helicopter. Death comes often to the soldiers and marines who are fighting in Anbar Province, which is roughly the size of Louisiana and is the most intractable region in Iraq. Almost every day, an American soldier is killed somewhere in Anbar — in Ramadi, in Haditha, in Falluja, by a sniper, by a roadside bomb, or as with Sergeant Lisk, by a mortar shell. In the first 27 days of June, 27 soldiers and marines were killed here. In small ways, the military tries to ensure that individual soldiers like Sergeant Lisk are not forgotten in the plenitude of death. One way is to say goodbye to the body of a fallen comrade as it leaves for the United States. Here in Anbar, American bodies are taken first by helicopter to Camp Anaconda, the big logistical base north of Baghdad, and then on to the United States. Most helicopter traffic in Anbar, for security reasons, takes place at night. Hence the darkness. In the minutes after the mortar shell exploded, everyone hoped that Sergeant Lisk would live. Although he was not breathing, the medics got to him right away, and the hospital was not far. "What's his name?" asked Col. Sean MacFarland, the commander of the 4,000-soldier First Brigade. "Lisk, sir," someone replied. "If he can be saved, they'll save him," said Colonel MacFarland, who had been only a few yards away in an armored personnel carrier when the mortar shell landed. About 10 minutes later, the word came. "He's dead," Colonel MacFarland said. Whenever a soldier dies, in Iraq or anywhere else, a wave of uneasiness — fear, revulsion, guilt, sadness — ripples through the survivors. It could be felt on Monday, even when the fighting was still going on. "He was my best friend," Specialist Allan Sammons said, his lower lip shaking. "That's all I can say. I'm kind of shaken up." Another soldier asked, "You want to take a break?" Specialist Sammons said, "I'll be fine," his lip still shaking. Sergeant Lisk's friends and superiors recalled a man who had risen from a hard childhood to become someone whom they counted on for cheer in a grim and uncertain place. "He was a special kid," Specialist Sammons said. "He came from a broken home. I think he was divorced. I'm worried that it might be hard to find someone." He said he would write a letter to the family — to whom it was not clear just yet. Hours later, at the landing zone at Camp Ramadi, the helicopter descended. Without lights, in the darkness, it was just a grayish glow. With its engines still whirring, it lowered its back door. The six soldiers walked out to the chopper and lifted Sergeant Lisk's body into it. The door went back up. The helicopter flew away. The soldiers saluted a final time. In the darkness, as the sound of the helicopter faded, Colonel MacFarland addressed his soldiers. "I don't know if this war is worth the life of Terry Lisk, or 10 soldiers, or 2,500 soldiers like him," Colonel MacFarland told his forces. "What I do know is that he did not die alone. He was surrounded by friends. "A Greek philosopher said that only the dead have seen the end of war," the colonel said. "Only Terry Lisk has seen the end of this war." The soldiers turned and walked back to their barracks in the darkness. No one said a word. |
Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
News From Inside Iraq
Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself.
His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, the Guardian and the Independent to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On radio as well as television, Dahr reports for Democracy Now!, the BBC, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr is also special correspondent for Flashpoints.
Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country. Dahr uses the DahrJamailIraq.com website and his popular mailing list to disseminate his dispatches.
Most of Dahr Jamail's dispatches are published in my blog:
Orwell in Iraq: Snow Jobs, Zarqawi and Bogus Peace Plans
By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Monday 03 July 2006
"My personal opinion is that the only way we will lose this war is if we
pull out prematurely," said Colonel Jeffrey Snow, who commands a brigade
of soldiers in Iraq. Snow, as reported by AFP on June 30th, fears losing
public support in the US for the ongoing occupation of Iraq because of
"negative perceptions" at home due to news that is "always bad."
Reuters reported, also on June 30th, Snow admitting that resistance
attacks in Baghdad have risen despite the recent security crackdown that
brought tens of thousands of American and Iraqi soldiers, new
checkpoints and curfews in the capital city.
The same Col. Snow, unable (or more likely, unwilling) to provide
statistics on the increased number of attacks, instead used the excuse
that the steps the US military took to tell the Iraqi people about the
new security measures kept resistance fighters informed of the
military's plans. On that note, it couldn't be more obvious that someone
in his position is there for his ability to follow orders, rather than
his aptitude toward the application of logic.
In another dazzling flash of brain activity, Snow, who obviously thinks
"war" is a suitable term for the illegal occupation of Iraq, commented,
"We expected there would be an increase in attacks, and that is
precisely what's happened." He also added, "I believe that these attacks
are going to go down over time. So I remain optimistic."
Snow is obviously annoyed with the fact that select media outlets
continue to report the increasing violence, ongoing deaths of Iraqi
civilians and US soldiers, and that the country is, at this point,
essentially as devastated as it was when Hulagu Khan's Mongols sacked
Baghdad 748 years ago.
Just three days before the flash of brilliant analysis by Snow, the
Iraqi health ministry announced it had received 262 corpses within the
previous four days as the result of armed operations all over the
country. It also reported that 580 people were injured in the same time
period, and did not count people known to have been abducted and
murdered but whose bodies have not yet been found.
But Snow seems to be less concerned with the reality on the ground than
he is with public perception of the hell that Iraq has become. While he
admits that his own troops have come under a greater number of
resistance attacks, he preferred to offer his professional critique of
media coverage on the failed state of Iraq.
"Our soldiers may be in the crosshairs every day, but it is the American
voter who is a real target, and it is the media that carries the message
back each day across the airwaves. So when the news is not balanced and
it's always bad, that clearly leads to negative perceptions back home,"
said the leader of the 1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which
has been in Iraq nearly one year.
Determined to leave reporters with a warm, fuzzy feeling inside about
the situation in Iraq, as well as to explain his obvious contradictions,
Snow added, "The way I would answer that is that attacks here recently
are up in our area. However, the overall effectiveness is down. So you
may perceive that as double-speak."
While Snow was busy contemplating his gifts of double-speak the next
day, July 1st, a car bomb attacked a police patrol in Sadr City,
Baghdad, killing at least 62 people and wounding over 100.
With the plan to secure Baghdad, "Operation Forward Together," now three
weeks old, and the so-called terror leader in Iraq, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, killed, the security situation has only continued to
deteriorate.
"Killing Zarqawi has not improved the situation in Iraq one bit," said
Loretta Napoleoni, Fullbright Scholar at Johns Hopkins University,
author of the books Terror Inc. and Insurgent Iraq. While speaking to an
audience in Seville, Spain, where we both gave lectures about the
situation in Iraq this past weekend, the expert about Zarqawi and terror
groups now operating in Iraq added, "In fact, it might well have made
things worse. There is evidence to back the claim that al-Qaeda gave
information to the Multi-National Forces about Zarqawi to have him
killed, since they had been having problems with him for quite some
time. Thus, killing him may well have strengthened the link between
al-Qaeda and Sunni resistance groups in Iraq."
When I interviewed Napoleoni, she told me that the image of Zarqawi
portrayed by Western media outlets was basically the antithesis of
reality. "He [Zarqawi] was not in control of the Sunni resistance. He
was in control of a very small group of jihadists, predominantly foreign
fighters. He was extremely unpopular among the other factions of Sunni
resistance fighters. Some of the members of the resistance even tried
two times to remove him because he was a negative political influence."
While talking with Napoleoni I wondered if Col. Snow truly believed his
own rhetoric. I asked her what she thought of the constant assertions in
Western corporate media outlets that Zarqawi was the "leader of the
Iraqi resistance."
"Well it's not true. It's absolutely not true," she told me, "I don't
know what they base these kinds of statements on. The resistance in Iraq
is quite complex, including the Shia factions, and of course al-Zarqawi
was not in control of that. Finally, al-Zarqawi was a foreigner. This is
the key element. The Iraqi resistance would never follow a foreigner as
a leader."
Hoping to shed some light on how people like Col. Snow, along with so
many US citizens, remain so ignorant about the reality on the ground in
Iraq, I asked Napoleoni, who lectures regularly on the financing of
terrorism as well as being an economist, another question.
Who is actually conducting the terrorism in Iraq? "The majority of the
suicide missions are carried out by non-Iraqis. There are lots of people
coming from the Gulf. There is a jihadist web site that lists the names
of the martyrs, and you can see that they come from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and even from the Emirates. This is the majority of the suicide
missions. Some people come from Syria and Jordan, but the vast majority
of people come from the Gulf."
So much for ongoing attempts by the Cheney administration to implicate
Syria and Iran in collaborating with the Iraqi resistance. All Cheney
needs to do is have his puppet, Mr. Bush, ask his pal, the King of Saudi
Arabia, why they are allowing so many martyrs into Iraq.
Col. Snow take note, because if you really want to know what you are
attempting to hide from people in the US, you should ask Napoleoni.
According to her, the reason why Zarqawi and the few terrorist groups
operating in Iraq are given so much media attention is because the
Cheney administration "needs to personalize the enemy and needs to have
a dichotomy between good and evil. This has been, very much, the Bush
[Cheney] administration's policy right from the beginning. His [Bush's]
first speech after 9/11 was "You are either with us or you are against
us." So he clearly stated there is nothing in between. So al-Zarqawi had
to be an evil individual the same way that Saddam Hussein was portrayed
as an evil individual because, you know, there is a moral battle here."
Col. Snow and other gullible US citizens should heed her conclusion
about why the myth of Zarqawi was blown so large and wide. "Of course
this [moral battle] is the umbrella under which the economic battle and
the hegemonic battles are taking place," she said.
While we were discussing the US-propagated myth of Zarqawi, I decided to
ask Napoleoni to comment on the absurd statements made by Western
corporate media outlets claiming that Zarqawi was in control of Fallujah
during the November 2004 massacre in the city.
"Al-Zarqawi was never in control of Fallujah," she told me, "In fact, he
was never in Fallujah." As we discussed the second US assault on
Fallujah in depth, she mentioned that negotiations between resistance
groups, tribal leaders and the US military were happening right up to
the launching of Operation Phantom Fury against Fallujah.
"The reason why that negotiation failed was because after it was agreed,
the Americans basically demanded to have al-Zarqawi, and of course the
people of Fallujah couldn't give him to the Americans because he was not
in Fallujah," she said, confirming what I'd been told by my sources in
the city.
Another recent clue as to why resistance attacks against US and Iraqi
forces have been on the rise as of late is the "failed" reconciliation
plan put forth by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
The vague plan offered by the Shia-dominated puppet government was
flawed from the beginning, and when I asked Napoleoni what she thought
of the "plan" she said, "I don't think it is going to work at all. I
think it is a window dressing for the West. I think it is one of these
political decisions in order to sell an image to the West saying, "Oh,
the new government in Iraq is actually offering peace. But this peace is
going to be rejected; therefore the new government has no other choice
but to continue repressing the people."
She continued, "I don't think there was anything in that proposal that
was written in order to bring a deal. Because if you look at this, it is
impossible for any of those groups to accept it. It's too vague, for a
start. Also, it basically prohibits amnesty for anybody who has done any
activity motivated by political violence. So of course this was rejected
because there was no way an amnesty is going to be accepted by the Sunni
when we are in a situation where the government is in the hands of the
Shia."
There is one thing that Col. Snow said about the US corporate media that
he and I agree on. Napoleoni, who worked for several banks and
international organizations in Europe and the US as well as having
brought heads of state from around the world together to create a new
strategy for combating the financing of terror networks, agreed as well.
And that is when Col. Snow told reporters, "It is the American voter who
is a real target."
2.7.06
Failure to Deliver on G8 Pledges Has Left Millions to Die, Says Charity Report
by Maxine Frith and Nigel Morris Faith with out works is dead. |
The huge pledges of aid, debt relief and trade reforms that were promised at last year's G8 conference at Gleneagles have not been delivered, according to a report by Action Aid. Next week sees the first anniversary of the summit, which coincided with the Make Poverty History campaign and Live8 concerts. Tony Blair claimed a moral and political victory in the negotiations, which led to the cancelling of debt for the 18 poorest countries in the world, as well as a doubling of the aid budget, better access to HIV drugs and fundamental reform of the US and EU subsidy systems. Writing in The Independent today, the Prime Minister insists there has been a "great deal of progress in many areas" over the past 12 months, but acknowledges there have been "disappointments", particularly the failure to reach a global trade deal. And in a speech tonight, he will hail the agreement reached at Gleneagles. But detailed analysis by the charity Action Aid strikes a more pessimistic note, concluding that many of the much-lauded commitments from the world's most powerful leaders have not been met. Its report, entitled Mission Unaccomplished and seen by The Independent, says millions of lives are still being lost in Africa and the rest of the developing world by the failure of Western countries to live up to the favourable headlines generated by the summit. The charity is calling for the millions of people who supported the Make Poverty History campaign to use the first anniversary to increase pressure on the Government over the failed pledges. The report says: "At present, a mixture of backsliding, buck-passing and half measures by rich countries risk undoing much of the progress. One year on, the world's richest countries are moving too slowly, or not moving at all, on most of their key commitments to tackle poverty. "Unless they take urgent action now to meet their pledges on aid, trade and HIV and Aids, the prospect of progress towards ending poverty will be jeopardised." More than one billion people still live on less than a dollar a day. Seven million children die every year from poverty-related diseases and Africa is not yet on track to meet any of the eight Millennium Development Goals for 2015. The G8 countries promised to double aid to Africa by 2010 as part of a $50bn (£27.5bn) increase in funding. But, despite increases promised by Gordon Brown, aid from the UK has fallen in the past year once debt relief and funding to Iraq is excluded. Britain is still not on track to meet the target of giving 0.56 per cent of national income in aid, excluding debt relief. And the countries that need to increase their contributions the most - the US, Germany and Italy - are "dragging their heels". World leaders agreed to cut subsidies and open their markets to the poorest countries, who cannot compete in world markets. But the report found that the US and the EU are still spending more than $100bn a year on subsidy payments to their own farmers, while continuing to dump cheap exports in developing countries so local producers cannot sell their goods in their own markets. Forthcoming talks at the World Trade Organisation look set to end in deadlock, with France refusing to accept any outcome that implies reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. While the world's 18 poorest countries have had their debts cancelled, campaigners say another 40 nations need a similar deal. There are also concerns that, despite promises, conditions are being attached to debt cancellation, such as forcing developing countries to open their markets to richer nations. A promise of universal access to HIV treatments is also not on track to be met, because donors such as the US have failed to contribute sufficient money. The funding gap is currently more than $10bn a year. In a speech tonight, Mr Blair will insist more was achieved at Gleneagles than "all but those with the most rose-tinted spectacles thought was possible". He will say: "These issues were not high up the political agenda in the UK, let alone internationally. Now they are." But he will warn: "Just because these issues are at the top of the agenda now, it doesn't mean they couldn't easily slip down again." Mr Blair will signal his irritation over the slow pace of reform on climate change. He will say: "We need to begin to agree a framework that the major players - the US, China, India and Europe - buy into and has at its heart a goal to stabilise temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations. And we need to accelerate discussions - we can't take the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto." Mr Blair will also announce the creation of the Africa Progress Panel, to be chaired by UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, to produce an annual report for the G8, the UN and the Africa Partnership Forum to "maintain the international political profile of Africa". |
Benjamin Franklin On the Federal Constitution
Speaking before the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787
I CONFESS that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it, for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment of others. Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, tho many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: "But I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right."
In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults—if they are such—because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?
It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our counsels are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us, in returning to our constituents, were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength and efficiency of any government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of that government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, therefore, for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of our posterity, that we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the convention who may still have objections to it, would, with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed
Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01
For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.
Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.
For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.At a political level, the decision carries immediate ramifications. It provides fodder to critics who turned Guantanamo Bay into a metaphor for an administration run amok. Now lawmakers may have to figure out how much due process is enough for suspected terrorists, hardly the sort of issue many would be eager to engage in during the months before an election.
That sort of back-and-forth process is just what Bush has usually tried to avoid as he set about to prosecute an unconventional war against an elusive enemy after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He asserted that in this new era, a president's inherent constitutional authority was all that was needed. Lawmakers and judges largely deferred to him, with occasional exceptions, such as the Supreme Court two years ago when it limited the administration's ability to detain suspects indefinitely.
"There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration's philosophy, said in an interview. "It's sincere, it's heartfelt, but after today, it's wrong."
Bruce Fein, an official in the Reagan administration, said the ruling restores balance in government. "What this decision says is, 'No, Mr. President, you can be bound by treaties and statutes,' " he said. " 'If you need to have these changed, you can go to Congress.' This idea of a coronated president instead of an inaugurated president has been dealt a sharp rebuke."
The administration's allies, however, were disturbed that Bush's hands now may be tied by the ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens. "Stevens's opinion was quite shocking in its lack of discussion of the president's independent authority," said Andrew McBride, a former Justice Department official who wrote a brief supporting the administration on behalf of former attorneys general and military lawyers.
Bush made no such protest himself yesterday, caught by surprise at the decision. He was meeting with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in the Oval Office and was about to head out for a news conference when counselor Dan Bartlett and press secretary Tony Snow informed him of the ruling. White House counsel Harriet Miers then arrived and gave Bush what he called a "drive-by briefing," but he gave little reaction when he met with reporters.
Snow later disagreed that the ruling undercut Bush's authority. "I don't think it weakens the president's hand, and it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible to try to cut off terrorists before they can strike again," he said.
Bush came to office intent on expanding executive power even before Sept. 11, 2001, encouraged in particular by Vice President Cheney, who has long been convinced that presidential authority was improperly diminished after Watergate.
The decision to create military commissions to try terrorism suspects, instead of using civilian courts or courts-martial, represented one of the first steps by the administration after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington to create a new legal architecture for handling terrorism cases.
As described by the New Yorker this week, the executive order establishing military commissions was issued without consultations with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice after a concerted push by Cheney's legal adviser, David S. Addington, now his chief of staff.
"Rather than push so many extreme arguments about the president's commander-in-chief powers, the Bush administration would have been better served to work something out with Congress sooner rather than later -- I mean 2002, rather than 2006," said A. John Radsan, a former CIA lawyer who now teaches at William Mitchell College of Law.
The administration relied on the same expansive view of its power in detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in some instances, employing harsh interrogation techniques and establishing secret CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. Only its telephone and e-mail surveillance program, which is operated by the National Security Agency, stirred much protest in Congress.
The administration often fended off criticism by arguing that the commander in chief should not be second-guessed. "The Bush administration has been very successful in defining the debate as one of patriotism or cowardice," said Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency" and a Dickinson College professor. "And this is not about that. This is about whether in fighting the war we're true to our constitutional values."
In some ways, the ruling replicates a pattern in American history where presidents have acted aggressively in wartime, only to be reined in by courts or Congress. Even some Bush supporters said yesterday that it may be appropriate now to revisit decisions made ad hoc in a crisis atmosphere, when a president's natural instinct is to do whatever he thinks necessary to guard the nation against attack.
"That's what presidents do, and I say thank goodness for that," said George J. Terwilliger III, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. "But once you get past that point . . . both as a matter of law and a matter of culture, a more systemic approach to the use of authority is appropriate."
