The Dark Night Descends
Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers
October 3, 2006
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does
oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything
remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must
be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become
unwitting victims of the darkness.
William O. Douglas
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well
explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood
what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little
measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing
from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. .
. . Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse.
You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking
occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join
you in resisting somehow.
They Thought They Were Free.
The Germans: 1938-1945.
Ordinary citizens see only the surface of the political landscape – if
that. Those who are astute enough to distrust the mainstream media (MSM)
and seek out news from foreign and “off-beat” sources have a better view
of that surface than those who get their “news” from the MSM. Worst of all, many “news consumers” only get a view of
fantasyland. For example,
the University of Maryland have discovered that the more one watches
FOX news, the less informed one is.
But even the most circumspect and persistent citizen sees first the
puppets on the stage, and only with a good memory and keen critical
skills can one begin to suspect who is pulling the strings and arranging
the sets on-stage.
Under such conditions, imagination runs freely and conspiracy theories
abound. While one should be skeptical of conspiracy theories, one should
never forget that conspiracies play an important part in human history.
The American Revolution was conceived in conspiracies, and Julius Caesar
and Abraham Lincoln, and countless leaders in between, were all done in
Is our republic succumbing to a grand conspiracy at the highest levels
of government? Rather than address that question directly at the outset,
I will set down immediately below, a few simple and undisputed facts.
Note the sequence and proximity of the dates. Then ask yourself if you see a
And so, as the Bard enjoins, “on your imaginary forces, work!”
First some hard facts:
May 24, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, announces that he is
leaving the Republican Party. The Democrats take control of the Senate.
September 11, 2001: We all know what happened then.
September 18, 2001: “The Anthrax attack” claims its first victims.
October 8, 2001: Anthrax contaminated letters arrive at the offices of
Democratic Senators Daschle (the majority leader) and Leahy (Chair of
the Judiciary Committee). The Senate Office buildings are closed for
several weeks, with the files of all Senators open and unguarded. Soon
after the letters are received by the Senators, more letters arrive at
the offices of the major television networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. (No one
has been arrested to date for the crime).
October 11, 2002: The Senate approves the Iraq War Resolution. 21
Democrats oppose, but not Senator Daschle.
October 25, 2002: Senator Paul Wellstone (Democrat, Minnesota), is
killed in a small plane crash, eleven days before his expected
re-election to the Senate. The winner of that election is Republican
October 26, 2002: The USA PATRIOT Act is signed by George Bush.
This massive legislation was rushed through Congress with little debate
and before any members had an opportunity to read it. One
Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, opposed.
November 4, 2002: Republican Saxby Chamblis defeats Democrat Max Cleland
in the Georgia Senatorial race, overcoming a two to five point lead by Cleland
and posting a final seven percent margin of victory. The probability of a nine to twelve
point polling error
than 2%. Due to the use of Diebold paperless electronic
voting machines, Chamblis’ victory can not be validated. (Two
former Diebold technicians
revealed that top Diebold officials ordered the installation of
unauthorized secret files into the voting machines shortly before the
February 25, 2003: Liberal Talk Show Host, Phil Donahue, is fired by
MSNBC despite having the highest ratings on that cable TV station. (CNN reports that
he was fired because of “poor ratings.”
internal NBC study concluded that Donahue presented "a difficult
public face for NBC in a time of war . . . He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the
March 20, 2003: The Iraq War begins.
November 2, 2004: Overcoming a six point exit-poll advantage by Senator
John Kerry, George Bush is re-elected President.
statisticians have calculated the probability of this anomaly as one
in a million -- in effect, impossible.
September 16, 2006: Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner and
Lindsay Graham unite in opposition to Bush’s toleration of torture
(i.e., “aggressive interrogation”).
Robert Kuttner writes in The Boston Globe: “Finally, on multiple
fronts, after nearly six years of blind loyalty, Republican moderates in
Congress are beginning to rebel against the sheer recklessness of their
president -- excuse me, of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who are the
architects of these policies. A higher loyalty is at last trumping
partisan fealty to a dangerously radical administration.”
September 22, 2006: Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner and
Lindsay Graham agree to a “compromise”
on permissible “interrogation techniques.” About this
“compromise” Brent Budowsdy writes: “The misnomered 'compromise' on
torture, which is a 90% ratification of the Bush and Cheney torture
policy, and a 100% abdication of the responsibility of Congress, is
barely worth an itemized breakdown of deficiencies. It is not a
It is a ratification.” What happened to those three
“dissident” GOP senators during that week? As I said at the outset, I
choose not to speculate here. These are the facts. I report, you decide.
September 28, 2006: Congress passes the “Military Commissions Act of
2006.” Of this legislation, the New York Times
in an editorial:
It would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much
anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to
unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what
normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men
captured in error... A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy
combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United
States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to
summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The
president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he
wanted... All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is
to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial."
Following these facts, some questions and some reflections:
the compelling questions: What strings are attached to the actors on the
public stage? What accounts for the passivity of the Democrats? The
abrupt turnabouts and capitulations by Bush’s presumed “opponents.” Some
horses’ heads in the bed? Some “offers that they could not refuse?”
We don’t know. We can’t know. But, in view of the above sequences, we
might be justified if we wonder a bit.
Don’t know about you, but I detect a whiff of blackmail, extortion and
the air. Impossible? They wouldn’t dare, you say? Get real! These
villains willingly go to war on a lie, they sacrifice the lives of thousands
of our soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, they incarcerate
without charge, they condone torture, and finally they violate their oaths of
office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If
they believed that they could get away with it, do you really doubt that
they would resort to blackmail, extortion and intimidation?
But if they have, the list of coerced victims is long and is growing: wealthy
political contributors, journalists, the military, retired ambassadors,
covert CIA operatives and other civil servants, politicians both in office and
defeated. Individuals of substance.
In The Prince (Chapter 17), Machiavelli wrote that “it is safer [for the
ruler] to be feared than loved.” While this may have been true in
sixteenth century Florence, I doubt that it is true in twenty-first
century America. When blackmail and intimidation are the instruments of
power, the victims have basically two choices before them: first,
continue to yield to the demands of those who threaten; but second, when
the burden of fear becomes unbearable, to remove the source of the
threats – namely, to overthrow the oppressors.
There are no guarantees. But when the oppressor weakens, and is seen to
be weakening, the victims may turn on him. It has happened time and
again in history.
And suddenly, this past month, the beast has been wounded: a sex scandal
in the GOP Congress, revelations of more White House dealings with the
convicted criminal Jack Abramoff, the National Intelligence Estimate
report that the Iraq war has increased the danger of terrorism,
outrage over the Military Commissions Act (license to torture, abolition
of habeas corpus, retroactive amnesty for the Busheviks), and rumors of
an impending attack on Iran. All this is more than the compliant
mainstream media can hide.
Is this the tipping point at last? We cannot know, but we can hope.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Many commentators, primarily in the “free” progressive blogs, of course,
have remarked that September 28, 2006 and the passage of the “Military
Commissions Act” (MCA) might mark the effective end of American Democracy and
the beginning of a new American dictatorship.
I have tried desperately to find good reason not to believe this, but
without success. The best scrap of hope that I have encountered comes
from Tom Oliphant in his conversation with Al Franken on Air America
Radio. The twelve Democrats in the Senate who voted for this act, said
Oliphant, did so to “kick the can down the road,” confident that the
Supreme Court would overturn it.
Even though the MCA directly violates four of the ten articles of the
Bill of Rights and the right of habeas corpus (explicitly established in
the Constitution) I can not share Oliphant’s confidence that the
Supremes will find the act unconstitutional. This is, after all, the
Supreme Court (with two new Bush appointees) that gave us George Bush in
2000, despite the will of the American people.
Since December 12, 2000 (Bush v. Gore) I have been outraged, and
concerned. Now I will admit that I am genuinely frightened. All that
protects me now from the newly enacted power of the dictator is my
insignificance and obscurity. I have no delusions of self-importance. I
am merely a retired philosophy professor whose opinions are published in
scholarly journals and on the web and read by a few thousand. However,
the law and the courts no longer protect me, for as of September 28,
they have been rendered irrelevant. But were I a conspicuous and
outspoken dissenter of some significance, such as Keith Olbermann, Jon
Stewart, Randi Rhodes, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, and now, believe it or not, Bob Woodward, I would
be properly worried about my own personal safety, and the safety of my
Dan Rather and Phil Donahue expressed their dissent on the public
airwaves and lost their jobs. Today, if George Bush so chose, they could
be designated “supporters of terrorism,” seized, and incarcerated
without charge, without counsel, without trial, without appeal, without
Impossible, you say? Yale Law Professor
Bruce Ackerman writes that the
legislation: “authorizes the president to seize American citizens as
enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And
once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their
peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.”
And it’s already happened. Ask Jose Padilla, not to mention hundreds of
innocents in Gitmo. But Rather? Donahue? Olbermann? Bush wouldn’t dare!
Today, he wouldn’t. But for how long? And what is to stop him? Public
opinion? Perhaps, but as we have learned, public opinion can be putty in
the hands of a skillful and monolithic media. But most significantly, as
of last Thursday, the law can no longer restrain Bush’s brutal
retaliation against his critics.
All that stands between the dissenting citizen and arbitrary and
indefinite detention is George Bush’s discretion, good judgment, and sense of
fair play. And as we all know, none of these virtues are, to say
the least, conspicuous in Bush’s behavior.
Are we now to believe that the Busheviks will go this far, and no
further, and that this is, at last, the end of the slippery slope –
that, to paraphrase Neville Chamberlain's assessment of Hitler after
Munich, 1938, these are the last of their demands?
We believe so at our extreme peril, and in the face of compelling
evidence that this “Military Commissions Act” is just one further step,
a huge step, on the road to despotism.
Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge
Ernest Partridge's Internet Publications
Conscience of a Progressive:
Partridge's Scholarly Publications. (The Online Gadfly)
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field
of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at
the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He
publishes the website, "The Online
Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website,
"The Crisis Papers".
His e-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org .