While we have to see the end result, the rush to tyranny seems well on its way.

The Senate, siding with President Bush shortly after he personally lobbied lawmakers at the Capitol, rejected a move Thursday by a leading Republican to allow terrorism suspects to challenge their imprisonment in court.

Of course, being able to challenge one's detention is the hallmark of habeas corpus.  I already have given the story of Meher Arar - a Canadian siezed wrongly, and then taken to Syria and tortured.

There is also the story of a United States citizen, Cyrus Kar, who was also held illegally.  Funny enough, Cyrus Kar is a former Navy Seal. 

If you look at the Wikipedia page for Cyrus Kar, you will note that:

On July 6, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf. On July 10, he was released from military custody.

So - having the ability to file Habeas Corpus is - guess what? useful and effective when wrongly imprisoned.   And yet, Bush wants to gut the possibility of a Cyrus Kar, or a Meher Arar - innocent men - to be able to challenge their detentions. 


Some other, much more knowledgeable legal opinions:

Tyranny:  Our Generation's Version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.  This quotes the NY Times editorial, which accounts the flaws of the piece:

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: 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.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Andrew Sullivan - no liberal he - also has a post titled, appropriately enough - Legalizing Tyranny.  Make sure to read the links from that story.


So there you have it. 

Of course, ANY version of integral would be against this.  Any version, and any ethical system - whether religious, or pragmatic, or stemming from any classical philosophies - would be against this.

And so should you be against this.

To shift the focus a bit - does anyone know how Wilber's philosophy locates the pursuit of power for power's sake?  I am assuming this is the old blue, now amber?  

One claim for Spiral Dyamics values, is that there is no "regression" in values.  That may be true individually - I'm still not positive - but at a society level, I'm not sure that holds.