WorldView: The mid-term congressional elections in the US are less than six weeks away. Analysts predict that Democrats have a good chance of retaking the House of Representatives. There are even suggestions that Republican control of the Senate is increasingly vulnerable to a Democratic swing.
However, as recent congressional debates on the Military Tribunal Bill demonstrate, Republicans will play their perceived ace of national security for all it is politically worth.
In a sometimes bitter debate, Democrats were portrayed as soft on terrorism. The Bill - passed in the final days of the 109th Congress - has provided Republicans with a much-needed boost.
As polling day nears, Democrats, recognising that Iraq has become a quagmire par excellence, will haunt President Bush with past promises. Liberals in particular hope that by November 7th, Bush and his fellow Republicans will have suffered a severe rebuke at the polls. After all few, with the exception of blinkered right-wing ideologues, would dispute the assertion that the Bush presidency is totally discredited.
Even for seasoned observers of politics, the scale of Bush's contempt for the rule of law, due process and constitutional norms is breathtaking. Looking at his recent record, one has to remind oneself that these abuses are occurring in a liberal constitutional democracy.
Consider the following: the Military Tribunal Bill has in effect nullified article three of the Geneva Convention, which forbids "cruel", "degrading" and "humiliating" treatment of suspects under interrogation. It has now been confirmed that the CIA has been operating secret detention centres.
Prisoners in these centres have been subjected to so-called "alternative interrogation methods", a euphemism for torture. Under the bill, interrogators are provided with retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.
Under the same legislation, terrorist suspects will be tried by military tribunals. Conviction could in certain circumstances result in the death penalty. Alien suspects will be precluded from invoking habeas corpus proceedings. Alien suspects are therefore deprived of an ancient and vital constitutional safeguard. Federal courts are excluded from testing the lawfulness of alien detentions.
The legislation also allows coerced testimony and hearsay to be accepted in evidence. Most disturbing of all, Bush is afforded significant discretion for determining what interrogation methods are deemed legitimate. Given his record, it can be assumed this amounts to a charter for detainee torture.
As the Los Angeles Times stated in a recent editorial, Bush's efforts to legalise so-called "alternative methods" is intimately connected to the existence of detention centres: "What he clearly wants to do is gut the treaty's humanitarian protection for wartime detainees with an eye towards retroactively legitimizing abusive CIA interrogation tactics used on terrorism suspects."
Forty-three retired military officers of general and admiral rank have led the opposition to Bush's pro-torture stance. They have reminded their commander-in-chief that the legislation has significant implications for American military personnel.
What signal is the legislation sending to would-be captors of US military personnel? It is a strange but welcome turn of events that retired admirals and generals have become vocal custodians of due process. It is hardly surprising that those committed to liberty and constitutionalism are frustrated and alienated.
Is this not the same republic that was founded with a deep fear of the corrosive effects of concentrated executive power? Was not a system of constitutional checks and balances designed to prevent figures such as Bush from abusing power? Do we not teach students that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to counteract "tyrannies of the majority"?
One can speculate ad infinitum on why Bush enjoys such a strong grip on US politics. Two reasons are worth highlighting.
First, the war on terror has given him vast scope to adopt an à la carte approach to the rule of law. It is a cruel irony, though, that as Bush sends young working-class Americans abroad to die ostensibly for the cause of liberty and democracy, his domestic actions are illiberal and anti-democratic.
Second, classical liberal constitutional theory holds that in circumstances where power is concentrated, abuses are virtually inevitable. A Republican-dominated and quiescent congress has failed to discharge its obligations to check the executive branch. When a strong opposition has been required, the Democrats have been found wanting. As such, the present circumstances appear to be a classic manifestation of the fears highlighted by liberal constitutionalism.
The Democrats may indeed enjoy a great victory in the forthcoming mid-term elections. If ever congress needed to be controlled by the opposition, the time is surely now. Commentators and citizens concerned about the norms of good constitutional and democratic governance ought to move beyond a purely electoral and Bush-centric analysis.
That Bush has abused power can be taken as axiomatic, that he has damaged the US is surely beyond dispute. That he has grossly manipulated genuinely held fears about national security is to his eternal disgrace. Perhaps by 2009, a thoughtful and moderate president will occupy the White House. Perhaps civil dialogue will replace fundamentalist discourse, but this is to miss the core point.
Future debate needs to rise above Bush. This is not easy in a deeply polarised political system. Politicians and society need to confront tough and soul-searching questions. In particular, the question on whether the political system is systemically dysfunctional should be considered.
The fundamental question is: can the political system as currently constituted act as a check on a future Bush-like presidency? The evidence to date suggests the answer is No. If this is the case, the constitutional architecture of the US may need to be revisited. Perhaps another constitutional sojourn in Philadelphia is merited.
Anthony O'Halloran was recently a visiting professor of political science at California State University in San Marcos