As Latter-day Saints, we as a Church believe The United States Constitution to be a Divinely inspired document, established by God Himself, and embodying just and holy principles. The Doctrine and Covenants section 101:77-80 confirms this belief:
77 According to the laws and aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be baccountable for his own sins in the day of cjudgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in abondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood.
Other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants further proclaim the Divine and Sacred purposes of the United States Constitution:
5 And that alaw of the land which is bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the aconstitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you afree, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the awicked brule the people mourn.
10 Wherefore, ahonest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the anations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the bConstitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.
Events of the last few days have tarnished and cheapened the image of that Great and Divinely Inspired Document. Our elected legislative representatives have passed, and the elected executive representative of the people has signed into law that which would abrogate what God suffered to be established according to just and holy principles.
I think it incumbent that every American, and particularly Latter-day Saints pause and ponder what has been done in our name.
Start here, viewing an extremely powerful video editorial last night on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The transcript is below if you don’t want to watch the actual video–but the video is powerful:
Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.
We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived… as people in fear.
And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.
Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.
We have lived as if in a trance.
We have lived… as people in fear.
And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.
Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.
For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.
We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.
American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.
We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.
American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America.
And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…
While his man-in-charge…
General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen — he is still a Japanese.”
American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America.
Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And each, was a betrayal of that for which the President who advocated them, claimed to be fighting.
Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.
Many of the very people Wilson silenced, survived him, and…
…one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900-thousand votes… though his Presidential campaign was conducted entirely… from his jail cell.
And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States, to the citizens of the United States, whose lives it ruined.
The most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.
In times of fright, we have been, only human.
We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.
We have listened to the little voice inside that has said “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”
We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.
Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets, was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.
Or substitute… the Japanese.
Or the Germans.
Or the Socialists.
Or the Anarchists.
Or the Immigrants.
Or the British.
Or the Aliens.
The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And, always, always… wrong.
“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”
Wise words.
And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.
Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.
You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.
Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you.
We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.
You, sir, have now befouled that spring.
You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.
You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.
For the most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.
And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done, to anything the terrorists have ever done.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “Unlawful Enemy Combatants” and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” and ship you somewhere – anywhere.
And if you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was President, or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was President, or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was President.
And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant” — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?
This President now has his blank check.
He lied to get it.
He lied as he received it.
Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?
“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. “In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.”
‘Presumed innocent,’ Mr. Bush?
The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.
‘Access to an attorney,’ Mr. Bush?
Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.
‘Hearing all the evidence,’ Mr. Bush?
The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.
Your words are lies, Sir.
They are lies, that imperil us all.
“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” …you told us yesterday… “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”
That terrorist, sir, could only hope.
Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.
Habeas Corpus? Gone.
The Geneva Conventions? Optional.
The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.
These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”
And did it even occur to you once sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 — that with only a little further shift in this world we now know — just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died —
Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?
For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And doubtless, sir, all of them — as always — wrong.
Joe Scarborough is next.
Good night, and good luck.
Finally, today’s New York Times runs a must read editorial on this abhorrent law:
A Dangerous New Order
Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.
Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step.
Not satisfied with having won the vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, quickly issued a statement accusing Democrats who opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of putting “their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America.” He said the Democrats “would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans’ lives” and create “new rights for terrorists.”
This nonsense is part of the Republicans’ scare-America-first strategy for the elections. No Democrat advocated pampering terrorists — gingerly or otherwise — or giving them new rights. Democratic amendments to the bill sought to protect everyone’s right to a fair trial while providing a legal way to convict terrorists.
Americans will hear more of this ahead of the election. They also will hear Mr. Bush say that he finally has the power to bring to justice a handful of men behind the 9/11 attacks. The truth is that Mr. Bush could have done that long ago, but chose to detain them illegally at hidden C.I.A. camps to extract information. He sent them to Guantánamo only to stampede Congress into passing the new law.
The 60 or so men at Guantánamo who are now facing tribunals — out of about 450 inmates — also could have been tried years ago if Mr. Bush had not rebuffed efforts by Congress to create suitable courts. He imposed a system of kangaroo courts that was more about expanding his power than about combating terrorism.
While the Republicans pretend that this bill will make America safer, let’s be clear about its real dangers. It sets up a separate system of justice for any foreigner whom Mr. Bush chooses to designate as an “illegal enemy combatant.” It raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. It does not require the government to release prisoners who are not being charged, or a prisoner who is exonerated by the tribunals.
The law does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening. It further damages the nation’s reputation and, by repudiating key protections of the Geneva Conventions, it needlessly increases the danger to any American soldier captured in battle.
In the short run, voters should see through the fog created by the Republican campaign machine. It will be up to the courts to repair the harm this law has done to the Constitution.
Pray that the Judicial Branch of our government, the last bastion between our God given cherished freedoms and tyranny, will do something to in fact repair our torn and tarnished Constitution.
(Hat Tips: The Moderate Voice and Crooks and Liars)
October 19, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Or that our electorate will not be driven by fear in this election and turns the tide back to sanity!
Republicans have already begun using Bin Laden in their ads. Vote for Republicans or die. That’s the campaign motto for this November. How reprehensible!
October 19, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Guy, thanks for getting the word about this horrible new law. I’ve posted about it here and here, and have found it quite surprising how few people have even heard of this law which has astoundingly far-reaching powers and implications…
October 19, 2006 at 1:28 pm
“Vote for Republicans or die. That’s the campaign motto for this November.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch already used this one back in August when he said (in a nutshell), “If you vote for Democrats, the terrorists win.”
October 19, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Wow, fine upstanding impartial reporting of Keith Olberman and the New York Times. That’s who I go to for counsel in my life. Interesting that I had just read Bush Hater Olberman’s latest diatribe this morning and left disgusted. So our government is worse than terrorists that KILL women and children indiscriminately. Fine representation and comparison Keith. If this blog is to become another Bush hating, blame everything on Bush, Rove and Cheney place to vent, its adios for me and please tell me where to find a blog that will get me back to interesting gospel discussions. Thanks for the interesting exchange of opinions, I may not agree with them but I do find them enjoyable and educational, for the most part. My dad’s cousin wrote in a St. George paper, with blogs, you either come away loving them or hating them, as for me I will be spending my time reading a new book I bought at Costco today, Bankrupt, The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party by David Limbaugh. Cya.
October 19, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Brian,
You need not rely solely on the opinion of Olbermann to form your opinion on this new law. Read the actual law! Read opinions of it on both sides of the camp. Study it out. You will come to see that this isn’t a left/right, Democratic/Republican fight. This is a fight for basic liberties once afforded us by the founding documents of our nation.
Further, your excoriation of Olbermann for biased reporting is undermined by your admission at the end that you’re about to go read a book that does the same thing towards Democrats. I hope your intent on doing so is not to place the Republican party in a higher moral standing, because if you’ve read any of the news lately, you’d know that that’s not the case. Both parties have degenerated into power-grabbing corrupt entities that are severely disconnected from their constituents.
In summary, I hope you will read the key provisions of this new law to formulate your opinion rather than “leaving disgusted” and fostering a biased perspective on what is really going on.
October 19, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Brian,
I’ll say this, terrorists don’t frighten me because they really don’t have any power over me. They are pathetic wimps who hide in the shadows and are afraid to be out in the open. But the most important reason they don’t frighten me is that they don’t control my life; they don’t set the laws governing my country; they don’t tell me what to do, how to live, where I can go, etc. Who does that? Who has real power over me? My government. I fear my government, because they have actual power over me. The more power we give them, the more I fear we lose who we are.
October 19, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Guy,
Thanks for drawing attention to these scriptures. I’ve been thinking about them lately as well, but in a broader political context.
There is hyperbole coming from both parties, but I don’t think you need to be a Bush-hater to think that he is over-reaching on this and other issues.
Two things loom large in my mind on these issues:
1. The failure (by my reading of the news–perhaps I’m not reading the right outlets) of the administration to really explain why they should not have to have judicial oversight in the way they fight terrorism, other than to assert that whatever it is they are doing is necessary. This is really a subset of Bush’s apparent comtempt for anybody telling him how to do his job, even if it is a law that he signs.
2. The administration’s apparent contempt for expert opinion that does not comport with their political aims–even when that expert opinion comes from its own agencies. This undermines my confidence that the President is making decisions based on the best information.
Nobody knows Bush’s heart and inner thoughts; he may have the most angelic of motives and intents. But I don’t think the fact that these things worry me and that I believe that corrective balancing is needed means that I have become friends with either Ted Kennedy or Osama Bin Laden. (I am not implying any moral equivalence between Kennedy and Bin Laden.)
October 19, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Dan: Republicans have little else upon which to run in the fall.
Connor: Ignorance is bliss no?
Capt: Ah yes. . . Orin Hatch. That says it all!
Brian: How unfortunate you don’t find the Constitution’s inspired status, and the freedoms it contains as revealed in latter-day scripture a worthy “gospel discussion”
Jared*: You hit the nail on the head with those two observations–agree 100%
October 19, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Ignorance is bliss no?
Not when judgment day comes…
October 20, 2006 at 1:45 pm
One point that I don’t see people making.
Suppose for a minute that GWB is the most upright and righteous man. Since he is such a great man, this power he has given himself will help America with the “war against terror”. But what about when he is no longer President and the Americans elect one of those contemptable, corrupt and misguided *ghasp* Democrats.
Won’t those sewer dellers misuse those powers? It’s cool when the bastions of American values are in power, but what about when the scumbag Dems get into power? They might declare all right wingers as enemy combatants right?
October 20, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Ian,
Olberman hinted at your point when he said:
“Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?”
Frankly, I suspect many Republicans can’t even bear the thought of not having a Republican in the White House so they haven’t considered the possibility of what a Democratic President might do.
October 20, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Wait a sec, as a Democrat, I MUST speak out here. Why do you assume it is a Democratic president who would abuse this when it is a REPUBLICAN president who installed it in the first place!
October 21, 2006 at 12:47 am
Daniel, I was being sarcastic although that wasn’t obvious. I too am a Democrat. I honestly don’t trust ANY future politician with the kind of authority that this bill gives. I just thought an in your face kind of comment would get someone thinking.
Capt. Obsidian, you are right. I’m just suprised that the point isn’t being brought up more often. You are also probably right that the Republican party hasn’t considered the posibility that a Dem will be elected.
October 21, 2006 at 1:00 am
Maybe I was being facetious, not sarcastic. Maybe I was both. Not sure. Either way, I don’t beleive those things about Democrats.
October 23, 2006 at 10:43 am
Ian,
I actually caught your sarcastic comment, but then Captain Obsidian continued with it, as if a Democratic president would continue Bush’s torture policy. Maybe they will, and I’d be against them too. We’re cool though.