Elephants vs. Donkeys

Disclaimer:
I am not a supporter of the George W. Bush presidency. I did not vote for the man. I’m also not a supporter of the war in Iraq, which was not justly waged.

Democrats like to assure me that they are indeed quite different than Republicans. They do this by pointing out all of the terrible things that the current administration does and letting me know, “This would never happen if Gore/Kerry were in office!”

It is my belief, however, that Democrats and Republicans are quite similar in that they are both decidedly pro-government. And while both parties claim to believe in keeping Government’s power in check neither has much of a track record of doing so.

For the past year we’ve heard the Left heralding the horrible methods used by the Bush administration in detaining enemy combatants in Guantanamo. They’ve told us that the Bush administration has over stepped it’s power in the unlawful detainment of these prisoners without the right to due process. And while President Bush has defended these actions as being legal due to the fact that the detainees were not American citizens, Democrats have been quick to point out that human rights are inalienable to all men, American’s or not.

One would think that their valiant defense of human rights was based on their own beliefs and not on their political allegiance, and for many of the rank-and-file I’m sure this is the case. However, it’s also maybe assumed that the unspoken assertion is that a Democrat would not dare to commit such a grievous act of human rights abuse and that if Gore/Kerry were in office things would most certainly be different!

There is one man though, who seems to believe different. Brandt Goldstein is a lawyer and the author of Storming the Court, a non-fiction examination of a 1992 court ruling that is eerily similar to our present situation. Late last year Goldstein wrote an article showing the parallels between past and present. You can read it here. An excerpt:

A smidgen of history: Our first Guantanamo detention camp was established in the late stages of the George H.W. Bush presidency. The detainees there weren't terror suspects, but 300 innocent Haitian refugees seeking safe haven from the military regime that ousted Haiti's democratically elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in September 1991. These refugees—brought to Guantanamo after the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted their vessels on the high seas between Haiti and Cuba—faced a terrible predicament. In interviews with U.S. immigration officials, they'd all proved a legitimate fear of political persecution were they to be returned to Haiti. Under U.S. policy, they should have been promptly flown to the American mainland (as were a number of other Haitians). But then this small group of men, women, and children also tested positive for HIV. Fear of AIDS was still extreme at that time, and the Bush administration refused to let these hapless refugees into the country. So, instead they were detained in a remote corner of Guantanamo with no prospect of release.

As we all remember Clinton took office shortly after, but he also refused to release the detainees. The case was finally brought before a judge by a group of law students.

The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased. (There was some plagiarism here. The Clinton folks took this argument from the Bush administration lawyers who'd first defended the camp.)

Now I am a fan of perspective and I understand the methods currently being used by the President in Guantanamo are not on the same level as what Clinton used and defended. However, using the principles of perspective we can also say that Clinton was not facing the same choices as Bush. Therefore we can look at the decision Clinton was faced with, whether or not to allow unwanted refugees in the United States. In addition, we can look at the reason he detained the refugees: Fear. Which is the same rational Bush used to defend his own unlawful detainment of prisoners.

And we can ask ourselves this; if a democrat were in office (presumably Gore, Clinton’s own VP) would things have played out differently in Guantanamo?

History answers a resounding, “No.”