Martin Luther King, Dred Scott, And The Democratic Hopefuls

While Barack and Hillary go at it over who should get credit for the civil rights advances of 40 years ago, they both waffle about the key civil rights issue of today: the treatment of defenseless prisoners by agents of the United States government.

In a ruling worthy of Justice Taney's 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case that reaffirmed the chattel status of 'persons descended from black Africans,' the Bushite-pere judge Karen Lecraft Henderson has celebrated King's birthday in a peculiar way. She declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to detainees at the Guantánamo prison camp because they do not belong to the category of 'persons.'

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruling also restated approvingly a phrase from the district court decision that should be chiseled into the Washington Monument as a testament to the Bush years: "Torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants."

Moral outrage bubbles forth over things tucked away safely in the past. We get endless parsing of whether Clinton's statement was an attempt to downgrade King's role or whether Obama supporters are appealing to the civil rights-era hero to get an edge in the South Carolina primary.

But neither camp shoulders the tougher chore of confronting those who today are turning people into animals, starting with the armed forces of the United States and their intellectual abettors like Judge Henderson--of South Carolina.

Obama criticizes the handling of detainees at Guantánamo but mostly because the system is 'sloppy' and ineffective. He supported the renewed Patriot Act because it made 'important revisions that reflected our experience about what worked and what didn't work'--whether or not those affected by it managed to became 'persons.'

Clinton wouldn't be caught dead defending the human rights of unpopular foreigners, especially on a sensitive defense issue. For example, at the Las Vegas debate she was asked, 'What is more important: human rights or national security?'

Not one to dither in the face of a chance to put on the tough-guy act, Clinton dove headfirst for the latter: 'The first obligation of the president of the U.S. is to protect and defend the U.S.'

She quickly covered herself by a nod to 'other interests'--which she significantly did not name, then dashed after the Anti-terrorist of the Year award in the rest of her reply.

These aren't folks who deserve to be telling us about what Martin Luther King did on the margins of our society, pilloried by racists and harassed by the FBI, or about who deserves to inherit his mantle.

Tim Frasca also maintains a personal blog at Biped Twilight.

Comments

[antirepublocrat]

It's not possible to defend the national security of the United States while violating the human rights of ANYONE.

[Sciguy]

Good column. My 2 cent's worth: human rights are more important than national security, because if there were no human rights in this country, it wouldn't be a country worth defending.

While I'm at it - it seems to be fairly well-known that torture doesn't work. If we still had the ability to have reasoned debates in this country, and were capable of using basic logic, we would come to the conclusion that there's really no point for torturing anyone. If I claimed that waving a chicken feather in front of someone would cause that person to spit out information vital to the nation, we would all be in favour of chickening people. However, since that doesn't work, there's no reason to do it.

The only reason that I can see for torturing our enemies is to get a vicarious sense of revenge. If we torture our enemies, they might torture our soldiers, But ya know what? If we DON'T torture our enemies... they still might to torture our soldiers. The argument that "They do it, too!" reminds me of a childhood Mommy moment. "If your cousin Jody jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" Of course, the answer to that was a reluctant "no." So... if "They do it, too!" is the claim, then the answer is STILL "no" for us doing the same thing.

[wrabbitt]

We need change! but, making things worse is not the change we need! Hillary, every American has the right to equal and affordable health care, every Americans health care needs to be the same! are you willing to take a cut to assure everyone has the same coverage? Oh,yea the detainees at Git.Mo ? they have no rights under the constitution. Mohammed didn't sign the Constitution. so let the lawyers go back to chasing ambulances and,make a name for themselves with upholding the law for a change instead of bending it. Justice is blind,not stupid!

[wrabbitt]

Maybe we should be head the prisoners, HELLO is any one listening? Do you think they treat our prisoners fairly and with dignity? Would all you bleeding heart liberals please catch the next bus for Iran? See how wonderful the treatment is of those who even offer up a different opinion let alone speak out. Remember these prisoners would like nothing better than a chance to kill more innocent people in the name of Allah. Would you still think the same way if they killed your children because they were not the right religion? And you want to make sure we don't violate their rights! Oh wait they don't have rights, they Are not Americans. unless some of you think that rights are granted by Mohammed,and the Constitution is just paper.

[drspaceman]

Both Clinton and Obama tout themselves as 'agents of change'. But that change would only be superficial. One being the first woman president and the other the first African-American president. Other than that it would just be 'business as usual'. Neither candidate seems prepared to undo the damage done by Bush/Cheney to the Constitution or the soul of the American people. The judge's ruling effectively calling the detainees 'non-persons' sounds straight out of '1984'. The 'Terror' being waged against us now is mostly home grown.

[Nommo]

You become what you hate. I grew up in that generation that feared and hated the Russians and we have become that which we feared.
It is astonishing in this day an age that an officer of the court could say something so far out...
Soon, we will be less than human.

[OSUMercutio]

Clinton was the one who brought up the topic of Dr. Martin Luther King for political gain. Obama has tried to stay above the fray.

[outnow]

Hillary and Obama have both taken 200 million from lobbyists. neither is talking about poverty in America. 47 million have no health insurance. Their trade and tax policies encourage outsourcing of jobs. How can either take the money from the greedy corporations and then fight back?

John Edwards wants fundamental and systemic change. Edwards is feared and hated by Rupert Murdock while Hillary accepts his funding for her campaign. Edwards challenges the consolidation of the media that Bill Clinton signed into law, allowing media consolidation.

Justice is about ending poverty according to MKL. He didn't died when he opposed racism. He didn't die when he demanded an end to the war. MLK died because he led a protest for workers rights and threatened to march on Washington. That was too much for the establishment.

It is the system that needs to be changed. The economic exploitation of workers by organized capital is a science in economics and politics. If you think that the Republicans in office like Dick Cheney care about gays or abortion.