The New McCarthyism
in US spreads abroad



ONE of the unfortunate aftereffects of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon has been the rollback of civil liberties in the United States following the passage of legislation, like the Patriot Act, to supposedly fight terrorism.

Under this new law, foreigners in the United States can be held incognito for months on end if they are suspected of being terrorists; access to lawyers can be restricted, and notification of family members about their loved one's arrest can be delayed for weeks, and even then the US government may not specify where the suspect is being held.

All of the rights guaranteed American citizens by the US Constitution, such as a right to legal representation, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to contact family members, and the right to bail are all suspended for foreigners under the new Patriot Act. US Attorney General John Ashcroft has used the al-Qaida attacks of 9/11 to justify the rollback of rights normally afforded anyone living in the US. Now the US has an apartheid law system: There's one law for Americans and another for foreigners.

Another unfortunate side effect of this is that foreign governments supportive of the Bush administration's approach to fighting terror are also holding foreign suspects indefinitely. One case in particular that I'm referring to is that of the Saudi businessman Mohammed Bukhari, who has been prevented from leaving the Philippines because of an anonymous letter sent to the US embassy in Manila claiming that he is a supporter of Muslim extremists.

A former Saudi Arabian Airlines captain, Bukhari has never before been linked to extremism. One acquaintance of his that I spoke to said that: "He used to constantly read landscaping books while flying. He wanted to import plants from the Philippines. I don't believe he's a terrorist at all."

Bukhari now won't be able to attend his daughter's upcoming wedding in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, because of the Bureau of Immigration hold order. The weird thing is that he hasn't been arrested or charged with any crime. Instead, he's been left in legal limbo, neither here nor there. If the Philippines is suspicious of Bukhari, but doesn't have enough hard evidence against him, they could just deport him back to Saudi Arabia and bar his re-entry. If on the other hand, the Philippine government is basing its suspicions just on an anonymous poison letter sent to the US embassy, which Bukhari claims has been written by former business partners whom he has fallen out with, then the Philippine government should lift the order.

* * *

Where's Macapagal-Arroyo's transparency?

HAVE you noticed that the more that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo denies she's going to run for election in 2004, the more people come forward to vouch that indeed she is in fact planning to run?

The latest of such announcements was made on Wednesday by her adviser on special concerns, Norberto Gonzales.He claims that Malacañang is putting Ms Macapagal-Arroyo forward as the transition president in 2004, as someone who can lead the country into a parliamentary form of government by 2007.

According to Gonzales' reasoning, President Macapagal-Arroyo is the only candidate who if re-elected in 2004 would be willing to cut short her term as president in 2007 to allow the shift to a parliamentary system to take place.

The problem here is that everyone involved in the jockeying for power has been less than truthful and forthcoming about their true intentions and motives in pushing for Charter change. Former University of the Philippines president Jose Abueva, who heads a group called Citizens Movement for a Federal Philippines, has criticized the president and her supporters for allegedly only wanting Charter change as a means to extend her term as president. He said this was because under the current administration's plan for Charter change, a nationally elected president would remain in the new parliamentary system, alongside a prime minister selected by the party that received the most votes.

This would be a strange hybrid of presidential and parliamentary systems of government, and is a surefire way of achieving a power deadlock if the president and prime minister don't see eye to eye on most issues.

Abueva claims that the Philippines must rid itself of its colonial setup where all power is concentrated at the top and in Manila. He wants to devolve powers back to the regions. I think that is a good idea. The current governmental setup, modeled on the United States, was a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, it was never carried all the way through. In the US, every state has its own governor and legislature elected by the residents of each state. In the Philippines we have provincial governors, also directly elected by the electorate, and provincial assemblies. But the provincial assemblies are virtually overlooked, with most of the power still concentrated in Congress in Manila.

The Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) is formulating a selection guide of presidential candidates, to make it easier for the electorate to make an educated choice in the 2004 elections.

According to the MAP, four essential qualities that the future president of the Philippines should have are: competence, credibility, transparency (in motives and goals), and leadership. Sad to say, but none of the current politicians meet the transparency test when it comes to why they want Charter change.

The Philippine electorate is not stupid or naive. They can smell deception from miles away. All this obfuscation and mumbo-jumbo about Charter change is doing no one any good. A lust for power is what motives most politicians, and when they start speaking in glowing terms about Charter change and the good it will bring the country, Filipinos smell a rat!

Comments or questions? E-mail the author at manilamoods@hotmail.com. Visit the author's website at www.manilamoods.com to read past columns.