“Support the Troops” – the signs are ubiquitous, from bumper stickers to store windows to demonstrations both for and against the war. So much lip service is paid to the phrase you’d think America would have run out of Chap Stick by now. Anti-war groups and the politicians that agree with them tried to usurp the sentiment by insisting, “We support the troops” and then tagging on “Bring them home.” I’ve taken the same position in my anti-war activism, and held the signs proclaiming that support meant getting them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible, but I’ve always felt twinges of hypocrisy in doing so.
It became clear to me why the anti-war proclamation of support for the military was an untenable and in my estimation contradictory position after hearing something Utah Phillips said. Phillips, long-time peace activist and workers’ rights advocate through his songs and stories performed over the decades across the country, died recently, and the radio program I heard was a recounting of his life as an activist and performer. He lived his life in the tradition of a Woody Guthrie, Paul Robeson, or Pete Seeger, using music and the power of performance to impart the true history – a people’s history – of the great social movements for justice and civil rights. They exposed the myths and told the truth about how governments create wars and then lie and manipulate the populace to support and go along with it. They showed us through song and story how this has been going on almost from the inception of our nation to present time, and down through the ages in other lands across the globe. It’s an old story, maybe the oldest in the tales of men and war.
What does “support” mean?
What Utah spoke about and pointed out in that replaying of his words was this: If we who oppose the war, in this case the war in Iraq, say that we “support the troops” (regardless of the tag line) then we’re also taking on responsibility for their actions. If we support the troops then we support the sending of armies to invade other countries that have not attacked us because that’s what these troops have been sent to do. If we make claim to supporting the troops then we are giving our tacit approval and acceptance for the killing of other people in a foreign nation. If we support the troops, we are agreeing with the principle that it’s all right to invade, kill, maim, and imprison other people and destroy their country’s infrastructure, economy and culture because some head of state or government administration has told us that it’s necessary. By pledging our support I believe we inadvertently legitimize the war.
Atrocities during wars are not abnormal, aberrational or occasional acts – they’re part and parcel of the whole bloody enterprise. If we support the troops are we willing to see that we have a responsibility when it comes to what they’ve done? It’s exceedingly difficult for those of us who have been opposed to the war from the start, and have marched, demonstrated and spoken out against it to see that we have any connection to what’s been done. After all we who opposed it, from the weeks of the devastation from the air force bombing to missiles from navy ships to the invasion and its aftermath, decried the indiscriminate murder and mayhem perpetrated by our military forces. Are the military personnel from the various branches of the armed forces, be they air force, navy or ground units not also included as the “troops”? Whether flying planes or launching missiles or engaging in combat on the ground these members of the U.S. military are our troops. Whether our military forces are dropping bombs from 50,000 feet, launching missiles from many miles away or shooting people on the ground the result is the same; people, often innocent ones, are being killed.
About the troops
As everyone knows our military is a volunteer force. Some argue it’s really a poor person’s draft providing wages, job training, education and opportunities to individuals from lower income families who have fewer choices after high school. However there are credible published data that refute that assumption. Were they lied to and duped by the Bush Administration into believing the war in Iraq was necessary, just as was the Congress and millions of Americans? Surely. Even if some of them saw through the lies and deception, as soldiers they had no choice but to go and fight or face imprisonment or self imposed exile. A soldier can always choose conscientious objection and face the very difficult consequences if he or she does not believe in the righteousness of the cause. For a soldier it’s no small matter to choose non-compliance, and pay the penalties such an option will extract. Very few choose that hard path, but the only alternative is to agree to harm others for a cause that’s not just. These are the conditions that have been placed on some in our armed forces that have come to understand the illegality, non-necessity and fundamental immorality of the war and occupation in Iraq.
But this is not the case for many if not most of the soldiers in our volunteer forces in Iraq. Many have gone without questioning the justification of the war, see it as their duty, legally, morally and patriotically, and to obey orders and do what they are told. Soldiers have only one purpose when they go to war, and that’s to kill the “enemy.” Occupying captured territory is a different matter, but invading armies don’t go in to win hearts and minds – they go in to blow people away. Killing the enemy is their job; it’s what they’re trained and paid to do. To see it differently is delusional. Occupying armies keep the lid on volatile situations and a highly agitated and disgruntled populace, by any means necessary, as they deem it. We know all too well what this has meant in the last five years.
We know that to date over four thousand U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands have been grievously wounded, and estimates of Iraqi civilians killed range from hundreds of thousands to over a million. Whatever the exact figures are regarding innocent civilians killed or maimed there’s no question that the Bush Administration, many members of Congress, and the U.S. military are responsible, directly and indirectly, for death on a massive scale in Iraq, a country that did not attack us.
I do not oppose all wars. There are times when war is necessary. But it is abundantly clear that the war in Iraq was no such case. And it is our military personnel that have carried out this war, albeit fomented by the President and his administration. I certainly want the troops in all the military branches in Iraq out of harm’s way and brought safely home as quickly and at the same time as responsibly – for the safeguarding of the Iraqi people – as possible. But I can no longer say I support the troops any more than I can say I support the war or those who are responsible for it.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Where is the Outrage?
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat "covered" the Congressional impeachment hearing of July 25 with a short and snotty Associated Press reprint on page 8 of its paper the following day. Featured articles about trans fat, achieving one's dreams, erectile supplements, Schwarzenegger greeting Olympic athletes, and the endless rehash of Obama in Europe took precedence.
I wrote to the paper's publisher, Bruce Kyse, and the editorial director, Paul Gullixson, asking them if they consider this to be responsible reporting? I asked, "Do you or your parent company feel any responsibility for the mess we're in today - the illegal, unnecessary and immoral war/occupation in Iraq responsible for the deaths of over four thousand U.S. service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, along with a price tag that may amount to a trillion dollars or more, the acceptance of torture, the dissolution of the Fourth Amendment and admitted illegal spying on Americans, the disastrous state of the economy, and on and on? Is there any sense on your part that you have participated in this miserable state of affairs by your dereliction of duty in covering and reporting the news?" I concluded with, "You have no business writing editorials that take others to task for their actions or lack of principles when you bury real news stories about significant issues and print a lot of crap in its place."
There's no question in my mind that this kind of "reporting" by the NY Times and other mainstream media is directly attributable to the ignorance, apathy, and sheep-like mentality that defines our culture. It's no wonder people like Bush & Cheney and their ilk have been able to desecrate our Constitution, murder (yes, murder) hundreds of thousands, and to a large extent destroy the nation's economy in their wake, and GET AWAY WITH IT.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Pacifica Radio's KPFA covered the hearings from gavel to gavel, as usual. I didn't hear the whole of the coverage, but some of what I heard was absolutely brilliant testimony. KPFA archived their full coverage of the hearing, which can be streamed on KPFA's Web site.
Please see reprint of The Nation's John Nichols article on the hearing below.
.....
Impeachment Hearings Are the Appropriate and Necessary Next Step
Friday 25 July 2008
by: John Nichols, The Nation
As the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was the ranking Republican in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee.
"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."
King was not happy about the circumstance.
A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.
As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.
King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."
Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.
But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."
Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session - with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach - caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."
Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."
Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.
Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.
It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration - and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable - will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."
"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing - examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law - is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ëWe the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."
There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake - and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.
Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.
"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ëÖ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ëhigh crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."
It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.
With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"
(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:
We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.
We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.
We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" - ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.
We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.
We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.
We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.
As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain - only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high-ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step.
I wrote to the paper's publisher, Bruce Kyse, and the editorial director, Paul Gullixson, asking them if they consider this to be responsible reporting? I asked, "Do you or your parent company feel any responsibility for the mess we're in today - the illegal, unnecessary and immoral war/occupation in Iraq responsible for the deaths of over four thousand U.S. service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, along with a price tag that may amount to a trillion dollars or more, the acceptance of torture, the dissolution of the Fourth Amendment and admitted illegal spying on Americans, the disastrous state of the economy, and on and on? Is there any sense on your part that you have participated in this miserable state of affairs by your dereliction of duty in covering and reporting the news?" I concluded with, "You have no business writing editorials that take others to task for their actions or lack of principles when you bury real news stories about significant issues and print a lot of crap in its place."
There's no question in my mind that this kind of "reporting" by the NY Times and other mainstream media is directly attributable to the ignorance, apathy, and sheep-like mentality that defines our culture. It's no wonder people like Bush & Cheney and their ilk have been able to desecrate our Constitution, murder (yes, murder) hundreds of thousands, and to a large extent destroy the nation's economy in their wake, and GET AWAY WITH IT.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Pacifica Radio's KPFA covered the hearings from gavel to gavel, as usual. I didn't hear the whole of the coverage, but some of what I heard was absolutely brilliant testimony. KPFA archived their full coverage of the hearing, which can be streamed on KPFA's Web site.
Please see reprint of The Nation's John Nichols article on the hearing below.
.....
Impeachment Hearings Are the Appropriate and Necessary Next Step
Friday 25 July 2008
by: John Nichols, The Nation
As the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was the ranking Republican in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee.
"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."
King was not happy about the circumstance.
A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.
As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.
King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."
Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.
But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."
Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session - with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach - caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."
Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."
Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.
Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.
It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration - and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable - will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."
"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing - examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law - is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ëWe the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."
There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake - and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.
Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.
"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ëÖ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ëhigh crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."
It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.
With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"
(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:
We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.
We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.
We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" - ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.
We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.
We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.
We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.
As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain - only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high-ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Can the Damage Be Undone?
Under the Bush administration and under the guise of national security, American’s 4th Amendment Constitutional right not to be spied upon without probable cause and the issuing of a judicial warrant for that purpose has been eroded, and in some cases effectively discarded.
Beginning with the jingoistically named USA Patriot Act in October of 2001, American’s library records, book and periodical purchases, and medical records were deemed subject to secret scrutiny by the government. With a Kafkaesque or Orwellian twist, depending on your brand of totalitarian state paranoia, the subject of investigation was not to be informed by those agencies whose records were to be explored by pain of fine and/or incarceration. A nice touch in coercion by the same band of “patriots” that lobbied for closed, extra-legal military tribunals for prisoners in Guantanamo, and who also conducted kidnappings for torture AKA extraordinary renditions. Fortunately the Supreme Court did not bend to the Chief Executive’s Spanish Inquisitional type of legal justice, though for all we know the abductions for torture may still be going on.
Next came the shocking revelation and years-late admission that American’s phone calls and emails had been illegally tapped and spied on in violation of FISA, which requires government agencies to get judicial warrants for such surveillance activities. In collecting this illicit data the Bush administration was aided and abetted by some of the major telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon being among them. To what extent this has been done – the number of Americans spied on, and the type and amount of data procured – is still not known, and probably never will be what with the recent passage of a revised FISA bill that lets the telecoms, and by extension Bush & Company off the legal hook.
And let us not forget that medieval master stroke to do away with habeas corpus for those seized as suspected terrorists, which has been the moral cornerstone of our judicial system, and a bedrock safeguard for the rights of mankind for a thousand years – the right to be charged with an offense in a court of law in an expedient manner. Once again the Supreme Court narrowly voted against this unprecedented legal dismemberment, passing it off to Congress to deal with in the final analysis.
“The U.S. doesn’t torture,” lied Mr. bush having all the while constructed a “legal” framework for the systematic torturing and horrendous abuse of subjects in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo for the erstwhile purpose of gathering critical information. Apparently some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon, and former Secretary of State Powell thought this (again) unprecedented and dangerously libel-to-backfire dismantling of the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners a terrible idea. If it’s okay for America to torture and abuse prisoners of war then what’s to stop American prisoners from the same fate in the hands of an enemy, huh Mr. Bush?
So the question is: Can these egregious Constitutional breakdowns, the underpinnings of our legal system, along with a dissolution of moral and ethical bounds in devising systems of torture be changed back, reformed or undone? Can we go back as a nation, and as the individuals that comprise that nation, to what used to be; before those that have perpetrated this marked veering off course? Can we undo what’s been done?
I’d answer, yes and no.
Laws can be reinstated, or new ones written to correct a course. If there is the political will to do so. This remains to be seen when a new administration comes to power. My guess –perhaps hope- is that a Democratic president will encourage changes of the provisions of the Patriot Act that all but do away with the Fourth Amendment. I also think that this same Democratic Chief Executive will encourage a revising of the compromised FISA to temper some of its overreach and better safeguard civil liberties. However I don’t think the newly granted immunity can be overturned, and more’s the pity.
I think any program to justify the use of torture, and the twisted legal logic that underwrote it, will be done away with and denounced. The people must make it clear to their leaders what they will accept and what they will not. If we as a nation haven’t lost all our moral footing, and are still a people of conscience with a strong sense of justice, which I believe we are, then we will make sure our leaders correct the disastrous course the Bush administration has taken.
But there’s a nagging doubt that because the pendulum of cultural shifts has swung so far to the right, the center is no longer where we once were, and our cultural consciousness has shifted with it. For example: The concept of a pre-emptive war being justifiable. Have we as a nation become more acceptant of that idea? And what about the question of torture: Is it ever acceptable and under what circumstances? How much spying can or should we do on our citizens in the name of national security?
The fact that we’re even entertaining some of these ideas indicates to me that the center has shifted from where it was. The center of our sense of what is right or wrong, just or moral, has been, I think, brought to a different place; a less tolerant, more suspicious and more fearful place. Because we have moved so far afield from what we once held to be the norm of behavior, and because the actions of our leaders have degraded us in the eyes of many other nations, we can’t just erase these deeds by the stroke of a pen and go on as if all is well again. It’s too late for that.
Of course we must get our legal footing back to where it was before being usurped by a small band of ideological miscreants. But can we get our moral sense back? It’s a very disturbing question, but I think it’s one we (all) need to wrestle with, and then come up with a way of restoring our moral compass. I think there are ways of doing that – first and foremost being Congressional hearings examining criminal or illicit acts. In addition we could embark on national projects that benefit our society as a whole, beginning with an affordable universal health care system. Government sponsored public works projects could go a long way toward providing jobs for people, repairing the nation’s infrastructure and at the same time shoring up the failing economy. We need to reinstate and enforce regulations that oversee commerce and trade, and that protect the public’s interest, not just wall street and investors. These are just some of the things that can restore our civic sense of responsibility and participation in a democracy sullied and perverted by the current ruling claque.
Perhaps some version of a truth and reconciliation process will be needed to regain our moral footing. It is important that we know the degree to which we’ve been lied to and misled. It’s essential that we become aware of what’s been done in our name to those we’ve imprisoned and stripped of all legal rights. It’s imperative that we be told the extent of the clandestine warrantless surveillance that has been ongoing for the last seven years, and not let it be sweep under the rug by enacting a “new” FISA and saying the job is done.
If we do not proceed with Congressional hearings and investigations to discover the extent of the damage done, and hold legally accountable those who transgressed and are responsible for these actions then the body politic cannot heal and will remain infected. If we try to dismiss or ignore the illicit actions of those in government responsible for taking the nation on an illegal and immoral direction, for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, then the damage to our legal system, and the degradation of our moral code of behavior and standards of decency will not be undone. There are some small signs of hope on the horizon, but we are still far from shore.
Beginning with the jingoistically named USA Patriot Act in October of 2001, American’s library records, book and periodical purchases, and medical records were deemed subject to secret scrutiny by the government. With a Kafkaesque or Orwellian twist, depending on your brand of totalitarian state paranoia, the subject of investigation was not to be informed by those agencies whose records were to be explored by pain of fine and/or incarceration. A nice touch in coercion by the same band of “patriots” that lobbied for closed, extra-legal military tribunals for prisoners in Guantanamo, and who also conducted kidnappings for torture AKA extraordinary renditions. Fortunately the Supreme Court did not bend to the Chief Executive’s Spanish Inquisitional type of legal justice, though for all we know the abductions for torture may still be going on.
Next came the shocking revelation and years-late admission that American’s phone calls and emails had been illegally tapped and spied on in violation of FISA, which requires government agencies to get judicial warrants for such surveillance activities. In collecting this illicit data the Bush administration was aided and abetted by some of the major telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon being among them. To what extent this has been done – the number of Americans spied on, and the type and amount of data procured – is still not known, and probably never will be what with the recent passage of a revised FISA bill that lets the telecoms, and by extension Bush & Company off the legal hook.
And let us not forget that medieval master stroke to do away with habeas corpus for those seized as suspected terrorists, which has been the moral cornerstone of our judicial system, and a bedrock safeguard for the rights of mankind for a thousand years – the right to be charged with an offense in a court of law in an expedient manner. Once again the Supreme Court narrowly voted against this unprecedented legal dismemberment, passing it off to Congress to deal with in the final analysis.
“The U.S. doesn’t torture,” lied Mr. bush having all the while constructed a “legal” framework for the systematic torturing and horrendous abuse of subjects in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo for the erstwhile purpose of gathering critical information. Apparently some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon, and former Secretary of State Powell thought this (again) unprecedented and dangerously libel-to-backfire dismantling of the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners a terrible idea. If it’s okay for America to torture and abuse prisoners of war then what’s to stop American prisoners from the same fate in the hands of an enemy, huh Mr. Bush?
So the question is: Can these egregious Constitutional breakdowns, the underpinnings of our legal system, along with a dissolution of moral and ethical bounds in devising systems of torture be changed back, reformed or undone? Can we go back as a nation, and as the individuals that comprise that nation, to what used to be; before those that have perpetrated this marked veering off course? Can we undo what’s been done?
I’d answer, yes and no.
Laws can be reinstated, or new ones written to correct a course. If there is the political will to do so. This remains to be seen when a new administration comes to power. My guess –perhaps hope- is that a Democratic president will encourage changes of the provisions of the Patriot Act that all but do away with the Fourth Amendment. I also think that this same Democratic Chief Executive will encourage a revising of the compromised FISA to temper some of its overreach and better safeguard civil liberties. However I don’t think the newly granted immunity can be overturned, and more’s the pity.
I think any program to justify the use of torture, and the twisted legal logic that underwrote it, will be done away with and denounced. The people must make it clear to their leaders what they will accept and what they will not. If we as a nation haven’t lost all our moral footing, and are still a people of conscience with a strong sense of justice, which I believe we are, then we will make sure our leaders correct the disastrous course the Bush administration has taken.
But there’s a nagging doubt that because the pendulum of cultural shifts has swung so far to the right, the center is no longer where we once were, and our cultural consciousness has shifted with it. For example: The concept of a pre-emptive war being justifiable. Have we as a nation become more acceptant of that idea? And what about the question of torture: Is it ever acceptable and under what circumstances? How much spying can or should we do on our citizens in the name of national security?
The fact that we’re even entertaining some of these ideas indicates to me that the center has shifted from where it was. The center of our sense of what is right or wrong, just or moral, has been, I think, brought to a different place; a less tolerant, more suspicious and more fearful place. Because we have moved so far afield from what we once held to be the norm of behavior, and because the actions of our leaders have degraded us in the eyes of many other nations, we can’t just erase these deeds by the stroke of a pen and go on as if all is well again. It’s too late for that.
Of course we must get our legal footing back to where it was before being usurped by a small band of ideological miscreants. But can we get our moral sense back? It’s a very disturbing question, but I think it’s one we (all) need to wrestle with, and then come up with a way of restoring our moral compass. I think there are ways of doing that – first and foremost being Congressional hearings examining criminal or illicit acts. In addition we could embark on national projects that benefit our society as a whole, beginning with an affordable universal health care system. Government sponsored public works projects could go a long way toward providing jobs for people, repairing the nation’s infrastructure and at the same time shoring up the failing economy. We need to reinstate and enforce regulations that oversee commerce and trade, and that protect the public’s interest, not just wall street and investors. These are just some of the things that can restore our civic sense of responsibility and participation in a democracy sullied and perverted by the current ruling claque.
Perhaps some version of a truth and reconciliation process will be needed to regain our moral footing. It is important that we know the degree to which we’ve been lied to and misled. It’s essential that we become aware of what’s been done in our name to those we’ve imprisoned and stripped of all legal rights. It’s imperative that we be told the extent of the clandestine warrantless surveillance that has been ongoing for the last seven years, and not let it be sweep under the rug by enacting a “new” FISA and saying the job is done.
If we do not proceed with Congressional hearings and investigations to discover the extent of the damage done, and hold legally accountable those who transgressed and are responsible for these actions then the body politic cannot heal and will remain infected. If we try to dismiss or ignore the illicit actions of those in government responsible for taking the nation on an illegal and immoral direction, for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, then the damage to our legal system, and the degradation of our moral code of behavior and standards of decency will not be undone. There are some small signs of hope on the horizon, but we are still far from shore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
