The ‘White Paper’ issued by the Justice Department [Administration Paper Defends Spy Program: Detailed Argument Cites War Powers] is classic Bush. "I can do what I want to do! Now go find me a way to do it."
There is no question about the intent of the Constitution. There’s no question about the intent of the F.I.S.A. There is no question about the intent of the Congress in granting him war powers in Iraq. He asked for the surveillance powers, and was turned down.
But the thing about the exposure of the N.S.A. domestic spying that is most telling is that there’s no sign that Mr. Bush, nor his Attorney General, has given one second’s thought to the outrage over this particular power grab. The ‘White Paper’ is just a bunch of words that say "I can too! Because I’m the President." The man and those around him have no faith in the wisdom of the people or the other people we’ve elected. He has no faith in the wisdom of the judiciary. He doesn’t even rely on the wisdom of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It’s all up to him.
I’m neither a politician nor a political expert, but I did learn something about this particular kind of thing in a career as a psychiatrist, psychotherapist, and psychoanalyst. This kind of rigid narcissism and will to power sits in front of a deep fear – fear of personal inadequacy, fear of being over-powered, just plain fear. The window into our current problem was the look on Bush’s face when he was told about 911. We were all scared too, and being the person that was in charge of doing something about what we all saw that day would have struck terror into most of our hearts too. That’s exactly what Bin Laden intended, in 2001, and yesterday.
Bush’s arrogance and grandiosity is defensive. Such behavior always is. But the fate of the country is not the way to deal with his and his paranoid friends’ fears. Al Gore said an amazingly insightful thing this week in his MLK speech:
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: "Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment’s notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when the last generation had to fight and win two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it’s up to us to do the very same thing!
While Gore was focusing on Bush’s use of fear to gain power, he could have equally addressed the fear that’s driven our Administration’s behavior. Like F.D.R. said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." I’d add, and what it has done to our leaders.
I fail to understand the “We’re at War!” justification for torture, eavesdropping, and detention without due process among other infringements on civil rights and notions of morality.
Are we justifying these acts because of the war against Iraq or the “War on Terror”?
If we are justifying these acts because of the war against Iraq then I don’t think that the President has the authority to go to extremes such as eavesdropping because the major combat is apparently over (remember that whole “Mission Accomplished” thing). Iraq still poses little threat to the United States that would justify eavesdropping.
If we are justifying these acts because of the “War on Terror” (and I believe that is the administration’s justification) then we need to look at the definition of “war.” The “war on terror” could go on forever. As long as there are individuals and groups that hate the United States and are willing to commit acts of violence against the U.S., then there will be terrorism.
So, are we supposed to sacrifice our rights and grant the President these broad powers until the end of the “war on terror”? If that’s the case, then we are basically saying that we are giving up these liberties forever more.
Similarly, are we going to give up rights for the “war on poverty” or the “war on drugs”? Can a President be considered a “war time president” if he presides during the “war on homelessness?” And if so, are we going to give up our civil rights, our liberties, and our morality as a country because “we are at war”?
Maybe I’ve missed some importatnt piece of information. I don’t know.
Hull,
No, you’ve gotten the point exactly. Unbeknownst to us, this was the plan – a unitary executive – before Bush got elected. We thought he was a religious nut, but at least we got the ‘nut’ part right. The part about ‘giving up rights’ seems to have come before the reasons. The N.S.A. was into surveillance before 911. The war with Iraq was planned before 911.
You got to give them credit, they pulled the wool way over our eyes. Here’s the part that you may be hung up on – this “rights” business is just a “liberal” thing.