History and the Neoconservatives
I'm reasonably sure that a statute, somewhere, can be interpreted in such a way as to make a plausible argument that the President's actions regarding domestic spying are legal. Yet the debate continues to be framed as if the question were a simple yes or no, legal or illegal. As long as there can be argued, even speciously, that the domestic spying program is legal, the Left cannot but lose this debate, because it cannot be settled decisively one way or the other. The question is, why did the President ignore the FISA? FISA provides a legal framework under which citizens can be spied upon without over view by a court, at least intially. A court's permission can be obtained after the fact. Appeals of these decisions are to a court whose decisions are secret, although it is known that only one decision was made against the government, and that decision was reversed upon being presented again in a slightly altered version before the same court. FISA provides nearly no rein on government spying. Yet Bush chose to ignore even these paltry safeguards.
Safeguards, legal or moral, mean little to an administration which is looking at the big picture. They understand that the judgment of History cannot be made during events, only at an historical distance. They have a vision of a democratic and diverse Middle East, a secure supply of oil to the U.S., and peace in the region. They correctly saw that at this point in history, the U.S. is the only remaining superpower, and the opportunity presented itself to shape the course of history. It proved irresistable.
We learn from the Downing Street Memos and public writings of the principles that Iraq was targeted by the neo-cons early on. Any excuse, or none, would serve to justify the invasion and take a step toward their vision of a future. The "weapons of mass destruction" provided enough of a cover to launch the invasion, which came at a time when Hussien was subject to the most strict scrutiny ever, his movements were monitored with more precision than ever, and his actions were more restricted than ever. Nevertheless, the weapons of mass destruction campaign swept all before it. And remember, this wasn't vague assertions of weapons, it was specifics about how much, where, and their purpose.
When the weapons turned up to be nonexistent, it was too late; we were at war. Then the justifications for going to war, the "yellowcake" story and other documents, were examined and found likely to be untrue, and they claimed it was a mistake, but a prudent and understandable one. Then it was found that the report was viewed with suspicion when it was produced. The administration still claimed it was a reasonable mistake. This was followed by another post hoc justification (characteristic of this adminsitration), that we removed a murderous tyrant from power, and that was a good thing. Who can argue with that?
Ths issue is that the adminstration's actions have nothing to do with the democratic process. The neo-cons, whose agenda this all follows, have a vision of a peaceful, stable Middle East sympathetic to the interests of the U.S. Their belief is that this vision is important enough to ignore contemporary critics. There have been at least two public statements by members of the administration that they aren't concerned with contemporary judgement. They know that history can only be judged from the long view, and they believe history will forgive them as it did Roosevelt for imprisoning Japanese during WWII and Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus.
This kind of thinking is the hallmark of dictators and tyrants throughout history, and is exactly the kind of thing our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. They knew that the judgment of the many is usually more sound than the judgment of the few. But they required government of, by and for the people, regardless of the soundness of their judgment.
What if the neo-cons are right? Suppose that, when the dust settles, the Middle East is stable and sympathetic to the interests of the U.S.? Some may regard the neo-cons are heroes. I would hope that most would regard them as having turned their backs on founding principles of our democracy, that of knowledge and participation of the people, accountability to the people, and truth and openness on the part of their leaders.
But it looks like we might not get a chance to address that question. The neo-conservatives are learning that history can't be governed, even by force. They've ignited a smouldering global religious war and created new generations of enemies of the U.S. The region is more destabilized, and the instability is spreading. A peaceful and stable Middle East seems more remote than ever, and a Middle East sympathetic to the interests of the U.S. seems an impossibility. It appears that their decisions are likely not to be disastrous, but catastrophic. But we'll let history be the judge.
Safeguards, legal or moral, mean little to an administration which is looking at the big picture. They understand that the judgment of History cannot be made during events, only at an historical distance. They have a vision of a democratic and diverse Middle East, a secure supply of oil to the U.S., and peace in the region. They correctly saw that at this point in history, the U.S. is the only remaining superpower, and the opportunity presented itself to shape the course of history. It proved irresistable.
We learn from the Downing Street Memos and public writings of the principles that Iraq was targeted by the neo-cons early on. Any excuse, or none, would serve to justify the invasion and take a step toward their vision of a future. The "weapons of mass destruction" provided enough of a cover to launch the invasion, which came at a time when Hussien was subject to the most strict scrutiny ever, his movements were monitored with more precision than ever, and his actions were more restricted than ever. Nevertheless, the weapons of mass destruction campaign swept all before it. And remember, this wasn't vague assertions of weapons, it was specifics about how much, where, and their purpose.
When the weapons turned up to be nonexistent, it was too late; we were at war. Then the justifications for going to war, the "yellowcake" story and other documents, were examined and found likely to be untrue, and they claimed it was a mistake, but a prudent and understandable one. Then it was found that the report was viewed with suspicion when it was produced. The administration still claimed it was a reasonable mistake. This was followed by another post hoc justification (characteristic of this adminsitration), that we removed a murderous tyrant from power, and that was a good thing. Who can argue with that?
Ths issue is that the adminstration's actions have nothing to do with the democratic process. The neo-cons, whose agenda this all follows, have a vision of a peaceful, stable Middle East sympathetic to the interests of the U.S. Their belief is that this vision is important enough to ignore contemporary critics. There have been at least two public statements by members of the administration that they aren't concerned with contemporary judgement. They know that history can only be judged from the long view, and they believe history will forgive them as it did Roosevelt for imprisoning Japanese during WWII and Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus.
This kind of thinking is the hallmark of dictators and tyrants throughout history, and is exactly the kind of thing our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. They knew that the judgment of the many is usually more sound than the judgment of the few. But they required government of, by and for the people, regardless of the soundness of their judgment.
What if the neo-cons are right? Suppose that, when the dust settles, the Middle East is stable and sympathetic to the interests of the U.S.? Some may regard the neo-cons are heroes. I would hope that most would regard them as having turned their backs on founding principles of our democracy, that of knowledge and participation of the people, accountability to the people, and truth and openness on the part of their leaders.
But it looks like we might not get a chance to address that question. The neo-conservatives are learning that history can't be governed, even by force. They've ignited a smouldering global religious war and created new generations of enemies of the U.S. The region is more destabilized, and the instability is spreading. A peaceful and stable Middle East seems more remote than ever, and a Middle East sympathetic to the interests of the U.S. seems an impossibility. It appears that their decisions are likely not to be disastrous, but catastrophic. But we'll let history be the judge.
posted by an atheist | 12:39 PM
|
0 comments
