From the Editor's Desk

Constitutional liberties have been put through a paper shredder by the Bush administration for the past six years. This editorial focuses on one idea for reversing the damage.

A few Congresspeople have penned bills to outlaw President Bush's usurpations. The bills constitute worthy efforts, but each suffers from the same flaw. There is nowhere near a veto-proof two-thirds majority of Congresspeople who take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. So, if civil liberties are to be restored, these provisions will have to be attached to legislation that President Bush is loath to veto (e.g. the Iraq War Supplemental, or later in the Congressional session, the "Defense" Authorization Bill and Appropriations Bill).

Certainly, I support refusing to fund the war in Iraq. As Phyllis Bennis argues in this issue of Peacework, the Iraq War Supplemental funding bill provides over $100 billion to continue prosecuting the war while imposing only paper-thin restraints on presidential power. But, as David Sirota points out, passing the legislation might turn into a victory for the peace movement if it represents the beginning of more assertive Congressional action to end the war. If President Bush carries out his threat to veto the legislation, the process will start anew, and new provisions can be attached to the Iraq War Supplemental the next time through.

I will be surprised if the Democrats don't again cave in and give the President most of what he wants regarding the war in Iraq. We have a responsibility to continue organizing and resisting to try to prevent this in order to end the war as soon as possible.

Yet President Bush's drive to continue to fund the war provides the peace and civil liberties movements with a potential new strategy. Congress could attach amendments to the Iraq War Supplemental (or similar bills) to defund wiretapping without warrants, extraordinary rendition, the Guantánamo prison, torture, all secret CIA prisons, national security letters, encroachments on habeas corpus, and spying on domestic opponents of war. If Bush vetoed a bill that was amended in this way, he'd be nixing the funding for the war.

In the House, the Rules Committee can add amendments to the Supplemental. The House Rules require "that all amendments be germane, or related to, the matter they seek to amend." (Senate amendments don't generally have to be germane, but amendments to appropriations bills do.) In this case, however, the Bush administration insists that the Iraq Supplemental's purpose is to "fight the war on terror," and that Bush's various violations of the Constitution are part of this same fight. Voilà. Instant germaneness, courtesy of Bush's lies. These amendments would be directly relevant to what Bush calls the war on terror. Peacework has made calls to potential Congressional supporters of this idea, but none so far has been willing to answer whether they would support it.

As Winston Churchill and Jon Stewart point out above: 1) the US can't successfully defend democracy by destroying it at home, and 2) these amendments would prevent terrorists from destroying fundamental freedoms in the US. Defending freedom starts at home, here, now.

Meanwhile, repressive regimes around the world justify their own depredations by pointing to the US government's use of torture. Our efforts, though they start at home, can't end there. Much of this issue of Peacework focuses on nonviolent struggles for freedom across the continent of Africa. The brave voices of people risking their lives for freedom echo forth across the globe, calling out for solidarity. Are we listening?

Sam Diener, Co-Editor