Monday, June 28, 2004
Oh, that rule of law!
The "handover" of "sovereignty" to Iraq took place today, two days early. Juan Cole thinks the primary reason for moving it up was to throw off insurgents and/or terrorists who wanted to attack the official ceremony that was to have taken place Wednesday. A sad statement on our failure to secure---and provide security too---Iraq.
The significance of the handover seems to me not the "sovereignty", seeing as the new government will have such limited powers it can hardly be called sovereign. That's just replacing one puppet government with another. Instead, the most significant thing is that we replace the DoD, Bremer, and a bunch of Heritage Foundation rejects with the State Department. Maybe they'll do a better job. The best that can be said for the disastrous reign of Bremer is that it was better than the hilariously inept reign of Garner.
It will be interesting to see if the dance among the US, its puppets, Iraqi politicos looking to score points by attacking the US, and the insurgents changes. But I'm not holding my breath.
Really, I think the more significant news of the day is the announcement, in three decisions, that we still live under the rule of law. The Supreme Court found that Guantanamo detainees have recourse to the courts, as do citizens labelled enemy combatants by the president. Thank God; if we'd lost this one, we would have lost the Republic.
Which makes it all the more spooky that Clarence Thomas dissented from the Hamdi opinion, and was joined in dissent by Scalia and Rehnquist on the Gitmo case. Would these guys really be more comfortable in a right-wing dictatorship? Or is Thomas's loyalty to the Bush family so great he'd give up basic civil rights to please them?
The significance of the handover seems to me not the "sovereignty", seeing as the new government will have such limited powers it can hardly be called sovereign. That's just replacing one puppet government with another. Instead, the most significant thing is that we replace the DoD, Bremer, and a bunch of Heritage Foundation rejects with the State Department. Maybe they'll do a better job. The best that can be said for the disastrous reign of Bremer is that it was better than the hilariously inept reign of Garner.
It will be interesting to see if the dance among the US, its puppets, Iraqi politicos looking to score points by attacking the US, and the insurgents changes. But I'm not holding my breath.
Really, I think the more significant news of the day is the announcement, in three decisions, that we still live under the rule of law. The Supreme Court found that Guantanamo detainees have recourse to the courts, as do citizens labelled enemy combatants by the president. Thank God; if we'd lost this one, we would have lost the Republic.
Which makes it all the more spooky that Clarence Thomas dissented from the Hamdi opinion, and was joined in dissent by Scalia and Rehnquist on the Gitmo case. Would these guys really be more comfortable in a right-wing dictatorship? Or is Thomas's loyalty to the Bush family so great he'd give up basic civil rights to please them?
