Because the political class is treating today as some sort of melodramatic milestone in the Iraq War, there is a tidal wave of those self-defending claims crashing down around us.  The New York Times' John Burns -- who bravely covered that war for years -- presents a classic case of this mentality today in a solemn retrospective entitled "The Long-Awaited Day."  I realize we're all supposed to genuflect to Burns' skills as a war journalist -- I've personally found him far more overtly supportive of the war than most others covering it and certainly more than his claimed objectivity would permit, even when his reporting was illuminating -- but if he's right about what he says today, it's a rather enormous (albeit unintentional) indictment of himself and his colleagues covering the war:

Hindsight is a powerful thing, and there have been plenty of voices amid the tragedy that has unfolded since the invasion to say, in effect, "I told you so." But among that band of reporters --  men and women who thought we knew something about Iraq, and for the most part sympathized with the joy Iraqis felt at what many were unashamed then to call their "liberation" -- there were few, if any, who foresaw the extent of the violence that would follow or the political convulsion it would cause in Iraq, America and elsewhere.

We could not know then, though if we had been wiser we might have guessed, the scale of the toll the invasion would unleash: the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who would die; the nearly 4,500 American soldiers who would be killed; the nearly 35,000 soldiers who would return home wounded; the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would flee abroad as refugees; the $750 billion in direct war costs that would burden the United States; the bitterness that would seep into American politics; the anti-Americanism that would become a commonplace around the world.

If Burns wants to claim that he and his American media colleagues in Baghdad were unaware that any of this was likely, I can't and won't dispute that.  In fact, it's probably true that they were unaware of it -- blissfully so -- which is why media coverage in the lead-up to the war was so inexcusably one-sided in its war cheerleading, as even Howard Kurtz documented.  But Burns' claim that they "could not know then" that the invasion could unleash all of the tragedy, violence and anti-Americanism it spawned is absolutely ludicrous, a patent attempt to justify his severe errors in judgment as being unavoidable.

Aside from the obvious, intrinsic risks of invading a country smack in the middle of the Muslim world, with much of the world vehemently opposed, there were countless people warning of exactly these possibilities from invading.  If Burns and his friends were unaware of those risks, it was only because they decided to ignore those voices, not because they could not have known.  Here, as but one example, is Jim Webb in 2002, arguing against an attack on Iraq in The Washington Post:

Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? . . . .

With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. . . . .

The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . . .

The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.

In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. . . . It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts.

And here's Howard Dean, in one of the more prescient political speeches of the last decade, speaking at Drake University, roughly one month before the war began:

We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.

We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.

If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. . . .

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities -- on its turf, not ours -- where precision-guided missiles are of little use.

It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

There are other risks.

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.

There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq's oil fields.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

We should remember how our military presence in Saudi Arabia has been exploited by radicals to stir resentment and hatred against the United States, leading to the murder of American citizens and soldiers.

We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.  

I could literally spend the rest of the day quoting those who were issuing similar or even more strident warnings.  Anyone who claims they didn't realize that an attack on Iraq could spawn mammoth civilian casualties, pervasive displacement, endless occupation and intense anti-American hatred is indicting themselves more powerfully than it's possible for anyone else to do.  And anyone who claims, as Burns did, that they "could not know then" that these things might very well happen is simply not telling the truth.  They could have known.  And should have known.  They chose not to.

 

UPDATE:  Perhaps even worse than the strain of "nobody-could-have-known" excuse-making invoked by Burns is the claim that "nobody could have known" that Iraq did not really have WMDs.  Contrary to the pervasive self-justifying myth that "everyone" believed that Saddam possessed these weapons -- and thus nobody can be blamed for failing to realize the truth -- the evidence to the contrary was both public and overwhelming.  Consider the March 17, 2003, Der Spiegel Editorial warning that "for months now, Bush and Blair have been busy blowing up, exaggerating and deliberately over-interpreting intelligence information and rumours to justify war on Iraq," or a September 30, 2002 McClatchy article -- headlined: "War talk fogged by lingering questions; Threat Hussein poses is unclear to experts" -- which detailed the reasons for serious skepticism about the pro-war case.

Or simply recall the various pre-war statements by the ex-Marine and U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq, Scott Ritter ("The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction, either in terms of having retained prohibited capability from the past, or by seeking to re-acquire such capability today"), or Howard Dean in his Drake speech ("Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness").  All of that, too, was brushed aside by government officials and suppressed and even mocked by most of the  American media, all of whom were determined to allow nothing to impede the march to war.  Rather than take responsibility for their failings, they instead insist -- as Burns did today -- that they could not have known.

 

UPDATE II:  Every retrospective from supporters of the attack on Iraq, if they're to be honest and worthwhile, should read more or less like John Cole's, from 2008.

 

UPDATE III:  After Obama's Iraq speech last night, I was on CBC -- Canada's broadcasting network -- discussing that speech.  It can be seen here.  As you can see, Skype video technology is improving rapidly and enabling acceptance of more TV offers.

 

UPDATE IV:  For sheer factual inaccuracy in John Burns' observations, see here.

 

UPDATE V:  Speaking of accountability for those responsible for the Iraq War, Simon Owens has a very good article on the criticisms provoked by Jeffrey Goldberg's Iran article in The Atlantic -- featuring my criticisms of him -- and what that dynamic reflects about the new media landscape.

 

UPDATE VI:  Here's someone who, back in 1994, definitely understood what invading Iraq would unleash (and note the sociopathic, though quite typical, refusal to factor in "deaths of Iraqi civilians" as one of the "costs"):

With the license now issued, the ACLU and CCR this afternoon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Awlaki, with Awlaki's father as the named plaintiff, to prevent the Obama administration from proceeding with Awlaki's due-process-free assassination.  Awlaki is unable to file the lawsuit on his own because the U.S. government's threats to kill him, as well as its prior unsuccessful attempts, cause him to be in hiding and thus make it infeasible for him to assert his legal rights directly. 

The lawsuit -- captioned Al-Aulaqi v. Obama -- was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, and names Barack Obama, Leon Panetta and Robert Gates as defendants.  Among other relief, the Complaint asks the court to (a) "declare that the Constitution [along with 'treaty and customary international law'] prohibits Defendants from carrying out the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, except in circumstances in which they present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threats"; (b) "enjoin Defendants from intentionally killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi" unless they demonstrate the applicability of those narrow circumstances; and (c) "order Defendants to disclose the criteria that are used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen" (emphasis added).

Just how perverse is the Obama administration's assassination program is reflected in the rights Awlaki is forced to assert.  He alleges -- as the Complaint puts it -- that the Government is violating his "Fifth Amendment Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process."  Just re-read that and contemplate that in Barack Obama's America, that right even needs to be contested.  The Complaint also alleges that using lethal force against a U.S. citizen in these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure, and also violates the Alien Tort Statute, which bars "extrajudicial killings."  Reading Awlaki's Brief in support of his request for injunctive relief is almost surreal, as one witnesses an American citizen try to convince a federal court to stop the Government from trying -- far away from a battlefield and without any violence used to resist apprehension -- to murder him without due process:

The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights protected by the Constitution and by international law.  Outside the context of armed conflict, the intentional killing of a civilian without prior judicial process is unlawful except in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances.

The United States is not at war with Yemen, or within it. Nonetheless, U.S. government officials have disclosed the government’s intention to kill U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who is believed to be located there, without charge, trial, or conviction. . . .

Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians except as a last resort to prevent concrete, specific, and imminent threats that are likely to cause death or serious physical injury.  An extrajudicial killing policy under which individuals are added to "kill lists" after secret bureaucratic processes and remain on the lists even in the absence of any reason to believe that they pose a threat of imminent harm goes far beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.

That the government has kept secret the standards under which it targets U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.  

Periodically, I hear some people assert that American citizens have no Constitutional rights once they physically leave the country.  Just as is true for the ludicrous claim that the Constitution only applies to American citizens -- a proposition which has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court for more than a century, which has held that it applies equally to non-citizens on American soil -- this notion that the Constitution extends only to America's borders is rooted in pure ignorance of the law:

It is "well settled that the Bill of Rights has extraterritorial application to the conduct abroad of federal agents directed against United States citizens." In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (discussing the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to citizens abroad [emphasis added]); see also Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion) ("[W]e reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 (1990) ("[Reid v. Covert] decided that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments").

What I've found most disturbing about this controversy from the start is how many Americans are willing to blindly believe the Government's accusations of Terrorism against their fellow citizens -- provided they're Muslims with foreign-sounding names -- without needing to see any evidence at all.  All government officials have to do is anonymously leak to the media extremely vague accusations against someone without any evidence presented (Awlaki is involved in multiple plots!!), and a substantial number of people will then immediately run around yelling:  Kill that Terrorist!!  

It's an authoritarian scene out of some near-future dystopian novel, yet it's exactly what is happening.  This is precisely the reaction of a substantial portion of the population which has been trained to believe every unproven government accusation of Terrorism.  The mere utterance of the accusation -- Terrorist -- sends them into mindless, fear-driven submission, so extreme that they're willing even to endorse a Presidential-imposed death penalty on American citizens with no due process:  about the most tyrannical power that can be imagined, literally.  The fact that this very same Government is continuously and repeatedly wrong when it makes those accusations does not seem to be even a cause for hesitation among this faction.  They just keep dutifully reciting the ultimate authoritarian anthem:  if my Government says it, it must be true, and I don't need to see any evidence or indulge any of this bothersome process stuff -- trials and courts or whatever -- before punishment is meted out, including the death penalty. 

So now Barack Obama is being sued by an American citizen who is forced to plead with a court to protect him from due-process-free, state-sanctioned murder.  There are multiple reasons why this lawsuit may not succeed, beginning with the demonstrated reluctance of federal judges to "interfere with" war-related decisions of the President, particularly when the specter of Terrorism is raised.  The power-revering factions on the Right have joined with some Democratic loyalists who are comfortable with any power now that their Party controls the White House.  But if the Obama administration succeeds in vesting itself with the power to order American citizens killed far from any battlefield, with no evidence of violent resistance to arrest and no due process whatsoever to contest the accusations, that is a power that will endure with future Presidents as well.

* * * * * 

The New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat last week for being Muslim, Ahmed Sharif, is unable to work due to his injuries and is struggling to be able to support his family.  Those interested in donating to help him can do so here.

 

UPDATE:  As always with this topic, it's worthwhile to recap the worldview of many Democrats (including Barack Obama) on such matters: 

It was an extreme outrage of the highest order -- a shredding of the Constitution -- when George Bush imprisoned or even just eavesdropped on American citizens without any due process.  But it's perfectly acceptable -- even noble -- for Barack Obama to kill them without any due process.

 

UPDATE II:  The ACLU has produced this excellent 4-minute video about Obama's assassination program and this lawsuit:

What makes this so amazing is that Kurtz himself does not merely sound like an employee of Time Warner; he is one.  Time Warner pays him a substantial salary -- and gives him a prominent television platform -- for hosting CNN's Sunday morning show, Reliable Sources.  In return, Kurtz then uses his Post column to glorify Time Warner's magazine and its executives.  The fact that The Washington Post employs as its media critic an employee of Time Warner, the largest media conglomerate in the world, has to be the most mammoth and inexcusable conflict of interest in American journalism, one that simply cannot be cured even with full disclosure.

And there isn't even full disclosure.  While an astute reader can piece together this conflict by connecting several clues from today's column -- in the course of trumpeting Time's recent hiring of CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Kurtz mentions that CNN is a "unit of Time Warner," and then a line appears at the end of the column stating that Kurtz "works for CNN" -- a conflict this huge requires, at the very least, direct, unambiguous, prominent disclosure:  Time Magazine is owned by Time Warner, Inc., which also employs Kurtz.  In the past, Kurtz has simply omitted any disclosure at all when writing for the Post about Time Warner properties.

This conflict is nothing new, as it has been noted many times by many people.   Even the Post's own Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, wrote last November:

[B]eing paid by CNN presents an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules. They state that a reporter or editor "cannot accept payment from any person, company or organization that he or she covers." There can be exceptions for some groups, such as broadcast organizations, "unless the reporter or editor is involved in coverage of them." . . . . .would The Post allow a reporter who covers energy to be paid on the side by a big oil company?

[And, obviously, covering media issues for CNN while taking a paycheck from The Washington Post Company poses the same conflict].

In the scheme of media sins, this one is relatively small.  But on days when Kurtz uses his Post column to pen Time Warner Press Releases under the guise of media criticism, it's nonetheless worth noting.  It demonstrates just how captured the establishment media is by large corporate interests -- that's why they're the establishment-serving media, after all -- and, above all else, demonstrates the Post's utter contempt for its own readers and its alleged "ethical standards" and claim to independence.  The very idea that it employs a "journalist" to write about Time Warner properties -- while being paid a salary directly and substantially by Time Warner -- says all you need to know about that newspaper.

 

UPDATE:  From commenter db1978:

Washington Post Chat

Howard Kurtz just finished an hour long chat on the Washington Post website.

http://live.washingtonpost.com/media-backtalk-08-30-10.html

Although he routinely uses this forum to discuss his latest column, he declined to address Glenn's criticism at all. At the beginning of the chat, I submitted a polite question about whether he felt he had adequately disclosed this corporate relationship. Needless to say, he didn't take my question.

As brave as he is ethical.

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.

Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson. . . .

The chair of the center's planning committee, Essim Fathy, said he drove to the site at around 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning after he was contacted by the sheriff's department.

"Our people and community are so worried of what else can happen," said Fathy. "They are so scared" . . .

Opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer; they are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

"They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group," Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area, told The Associated Press.

Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators who recently wore "Vote for Jesus" T-shirts and carried signs that said "No Sharia law for USA!," referring to the Islamic code of law.

Others took their opposition further, spray painting a sign announcing the "Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro" and tearing it up.

Earlier this summer opponents criticized the planned mosque at hearings held by the Rutherford County Commission, as supporters held prayer vigils.

At one such prayer vigil, WTVF reported opponents speaking out against construction.

"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers said to WTVF. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."

The arsonists undoubtedly will be happy to tell you how much they hate Terrorism.  And how there's a War on Christianity underway in the U.S.  The harm from these actions are not merely the physical damage they cause, but also the well-grounded fear it imposes on a minority of the American population.  If you launch a nationwide, anti-Islamic campaign in Lower Manhattan based on the toxic premise that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11 -- and spend a decade expanding American wars on one Muslim country after the next -- this is the inevitable, and obviously dangerous, outcome.

* * * * * 

Three other items worth noting:

(1) Kudos to The New York Times for publishing this Op-Ed by Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah, with views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- and the role played by the U.S. -- which are typically excluded from the American debate on those issues.

(2) Reflecting the fact that primitive fundamentalism is found in all religions and is by no means unique to Islam, this Jerusalem Post article details how an Israel singer was sentenced by a rabbinical panel to receive 39 lashes for the crime of singing in front of an audience mixed with men and women.  That article rather substantially exaggerates the punishment -- the video reflects that the "lashes" were essentially symbolic and undertaken voluntarily, fundamentally distinguishing it from involuntary, genuine punishment for moral "sins" -- but the notion that such an act merits punishment is nonetheless instructive.

(3) This short though important post documents how children are being trained to give up all privacy, and to be good, dutiful Surveillance State citizens, through constant, pervasive surveillance in schools.   As I wrote recently here, what is lost from the societal elimination of privacy is difficult to describe but of incomparable value:

Many people are indifferent to the disappearance of privacy -- even with regard to government officials -- because they don't perceive any real value to it. The ways in which the loss of privacy destroys a society are somewhat abstract and difficult to articulate, though very real. A society in which people know they are constantly being monitored is one that breeds conformism and submission, and which squashes innovation, deviation, and real dissent.

The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there's no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it's in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That's accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that's what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

Training children from an early age to have no expectation of privacy -- to live on the assumption that their every move and even thought (which is what Internet activity is) will be monitored and recorded by authority figures -- exacerbates these harms quite substantially.

 

UPDATE:  As The Nashville Scene reported, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey -- during his Tea-Party-endorsed, unsuccessful bid to become the GOP nominee for Governor -- had this exchange with a citizen last month who was attending one of his campaign events (begins at 3:10 of the video below; h/t Gawker):

Q.  A point of national concern -- and it is in my mind and my heart -- and that's more of a national threat coming to the State of Tennessee -- we have a threat invading our country from Muslims.

RAMSEY: OK, absolutely, up in Rutherford County . . . . They're trying to put a mosque into Rutherford County.

Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on.  But you cross the line when they starting trying to start bringing Sharia Law here to the State of Tennessee -- to the United States.  We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution.  But it's scary . . . . nobody asked me about this on the Governor's race until this mosque started coming up there.  I've been trying to learn about Sharia Law, and it is not good if that's what's going on.

You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it. . . . That's become an issue, but I've read enough about Sharia Law to know it's crazy.

The gentleman who asked the question then went on to assert that 22 communities in the U.S. now live under Sharia Law, and -- he warned -- "it's expanding rapidly."

Until this investigation is completed, it will be uncertain who started this fire or why, but one thing is perfectly clear:  the attitudes in this video are as pervasive as they are pernicious, and if anything is "spreading rapidly," it's this.

Yahoo! News, August 12, 2010:

A new CNN poll has found that most Americans think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married. . . . As polling-statistics blogger Nate Silver points out, the margin of error [as well as the poll's status as the first to find majority approval] means we can't assume that a majority of Americans support gay marriage, but it is "no longer safe to say that opposition to same-sex marriage is the majority position . . . . "

That particular factual inaccuracy, which I am 100% certain will never be corrected by the Post, is the least of the problems with Krauthammer's column today.  Above all else, he seeks to delegitimize concerns over the Right's intensifying use of racially and ethnically divisive tactics as nothing more than the last refuge of a Democratic Party which, he argues, espouses unpopular policies and thus has no means of winning an election other than by falsely accusing its opponents of bigotry. 

It requires extreme blindness or extreme dishonesty to deny that our politics is more racially and ethnically polarized than it has been in a long time.  Virtually every Fox News/right-wing-talk-radio controversy relies on scaring economically anxious white Americans into ignoring the prime cause of their economic insecurity -- plundering by Wall Street bankers, abetted by the government they own -- and focusing instead on some manufactured menace from powerless racial and ethnic minorities:  black people preventing them from voting (New Black Panthers), stealing their elections (ACORN), and treating them unequally (Shirley Sherrod and Eric Holder's Justice Department); Muslims who want to conquer their country and celebrate over their Christian corpses (the Triumphalist Ground Zero Mosque); invading, marauding Latino armies coming to steal their property and rape their women while their Marxist allies in Government (led by a black Muslim President) disarm the white victims.  Matt Taibbi, in lamenting the takeover of the GOP by the most riled-up of these factions -- the Tea Partiers -- recounts just some of the lowlights here.

Cowardly and opportunistic Democratic politicians have only added to this inflammatory brew.  When the execrable, desperate Harry Reid isn't feeding this majoritarian paranoia by demanding that the Park51 community center move, he's seeking to capitalize on it through explicit advocacy of ethnic-based voting in order to salvage his worthless political career.  The American Right has no hope of recovering from its Bush-era implosion except by aggressively exploiting ethnic and racial resentments -- the most telling statement of the last year was probably Glenn Beck's pronouncement on Fox that Obama is a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" -- but many career Democratic politicians, such as Reid, are so disliked that their only hope for staying in power is to milk those same divisions to their own advantage, often by conflating justifiable, substantive opposition to Democratic rule with the ugly bigotry fueled by the Beck/Palin/Limbaugh circus.  An incumbent Party which has presided over extreme economic suffering has little to offer other than dredging up fear -- much of it well-grounded -- in the alternative (you may despise what we're doing in power, but look at those hateful, bigoted freaks over there). 

The real problem is that much of the anxiety and anger being cynically exploited by the Right are very real and justifiable.  The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, one of the more partisan Democratic boosters in the pundit class, commendably acknowledged that today.  After accurately condemning Glenn Beck's despicable wrapping of himself in the legacy of Martin Luther King -- as though the angry whites he leads of today are the oppressed blacks of yesterday -- Robinson explained:

But many will attend for other reasons, and they're the ones I feel sorry for. As the growth of the Tea Party movement clearly demonstrates, millions of Americans feel alienated from their government, distressed about the economy and frightened of the future. Their concerns deserve to be heard. Instead, their anxieties are exploited by hucksters who see fear and anger as marketing tools.

There's no doubt that this genuine anxiety is being exploited by the ugliest elements on the Right, but that has happened because the Democratic Party has ceded the field to those right-wing "hucksters."  As much as anything else, this is the great failing of the Obama presidency.  Although Obama and his Party are being blamed for the intensifying economic crisis, it is just historical fact that the unraveling took place under the Bush administration.  It seems as though it was decades ago, but it was only in October, 2008 -- when Bush was still President -- that John McCain argued that the economic crisis was so severe that the presidential campaign should be suspended in order to attend to it.  That is the same crisis -- which exploded during the Bush presidency -- from which we still have not recovered, which has progressively worsened.

That crisis presented a huge opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to bring about real change in Washington -- the central promise of his campaign -- by capitalizing on (and becoming the voice of) populist anger and using it to wrestle away control from Wall Street and other financial and corporate elites who control Washington.  Had they done so, they would have been champions of populist rage rather than its prime targets.  But, as John Judis argues in his excellent New Republic piece, they completely squandered that opportunity.  Rather than emphatically stand up to the bankers and other oligarchical thieves, they coddled and served them, and thus became the face of the elite interests oppressing ordinary Americans rather than their foes.  How can an administration represented by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers -- and which specializes in an endless stream of secret deals with corporate lobbyists and sustains itself with Wall Street funding  -- possibly maintain any pretense of populist support or changing how Washington works?  It can't. 

There are few more bitter ironies than watching the Republican Party -- controlled at its core by the very business interests responsible for the country's vast and growing inequality; responsible for massive transfers of wealth to the richest; and which presided over and enabled the economic collapse -- now become the beneficiaries of middle-class and lower-middle-class economic insecurity.  But the Democratic Party's failure/refusal/inability to be anything other than the Party of Tim Geithner -- continuing America's endless, draining Wars while plotting to cut Social Security, one of the few remaining guarantors of a humane standard of living -- renders them unable to offer answers to angry, anxious, resentful Americans.  As has happened countless times in countless places, those answers are now being provided instead by a group of self-serving, hateful extremist leaders eager to exploit that anger for their own twisted financial and political ends.  And it seems to be working. 

It is indeed difficult to believe that the country will so quickly return to power the same Republican Party -- in an even more warped and primitive form -- that virtually destroyed the U.S. over the last decade through a mix of extreme corruption, recklessness and lawlessness.  But nothing is more foolish than underestimating the dangers that come from this potent mix of economic oppression and the aggressive fanning of racial and ethnic resentments.

My reply to them is now posted.  As I noted, those two responses "perfectly illustrate the continuous stream of manipulative fear-mongering over the last decade which has reduced much of the American citizenry into a meek and submissive faction for whom no asserted government power is too extreme, provided the scary menace of 'Terrorism' is uttered to justify it."  For that reason, I think the discussion is quite instructive.

* * * * *

I linked to my reply both from Twitter and here, and the traffic seems to have overloaded the Cato site for the moment.  To read my reply, wait a bit and try clicking on the link again (it now appears to be loading, but slowly).

 

UPDATE:  With Cato's consent, I'm re-posting the reply here due to server issues over there:

_________________

THE SURVEILLANCE STATE THRIVES ON FEAR

I’m particularly appreciative of the responses to my initial essay by John Eastman and Paul Rosenzweig. Those two replies -- especially the former -- perfectly illustrate the continuous stream of manipulative fear-mongering over the last decade which has reduced much of the American citizenry into a meek and submissive faction for whom no asserted government power is too extreme, provided the scary menace of “Terrorism” is uttered to justify it.

That more-surveillance-is-always-better mentality is what allows Eastman and Rosenzweig to dismiss concerns over surveillance excesses a mere four weeks after the establishment-supporting Washington Post documented that our Surveillance State is “so large, so unwieldy and so secretive” that not even top intelligence and defense officials know what it does. For those who are so fearful of Terrorism and/or so authoritarian in their desire to exploit and exaggerate that threat for greater government power, not even the construction of a “Top Secret America” -- “an alternative geography of the United States” that operates in the dark and with virtually no oversight -- is cause for concern.

Eastman’s essay centers around one three-word slogan: We‘re at war! For almost a full decade, this has been the all-justifying cliché for everything the U.S. Government does -- from torture, renditions and due-process-free imprisonments to wars of aggression, occupations, assassination programs aimed at U.S. citizens and illegal domestic eavesdropping. Thus does Eastman thunder, with the melodrama and hysteria typical of this scare tactic: “Not once in his article does Greenwald even acknowledge that we are at war with a global enemy bent on destroying us.” A global enemy bent on destroying us! Scary: be very afraid.

By invoking The War Justification for America’s Surveillance State, Eastman wants to trigger images of America’s past glorious wars. He’s not particularly subtle about that, as he begins with a charming story of how his grandfather’s letters were censored during World War I (how censorship of a soldier deployed in a foreign war justifies surveillance of American civilians on U.S. soil is anyone’s guess). But, for several reasons, this war justification is as misleading as it is dangerous:

First, unlike for past wars (such as World War I), the current “war” has no possibility of any finite duration or definitive end. Even its most enthusiastic proponents -- as well as the U.S. Government -- acknowledge that it is more akin to an ideological conflict (like the Cold War) than a traditional combat war. Islamic extremism is highly unlikely to end in the foreseeable future, to put it mildly. Thus, this “war” will drag on not for years but for decades, probably even generations. When President Obama unveiled his proposal for “preventive detention” last June, he said that "unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end" and that we'll still be fighting this “war” "a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now."

Thus, people like Eastman who want to radically expand government power in the name of this “war” are not defending temporary alterations to the American political system. Rather, they are urging its permanent transformation. We are, as the military historian Andrew Bacevich has repeatedly documented, a nation in a state of “perpetual war.” War-justified powers will be vested in the government not -- as people like Eastman imply -- temporarily, but rather forever.

Second, Eastman’s fear-inducing, glorifying description of a handful of Muslim extremists -- “a global enemy bent on destroying us” -- is so hyperbolic as to be laughable. Earlier this month, the State Department published its annual Report on Terrorism. Among its findings, as highlighted by McClatchy’s Warren Strobel, was this: “There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don't have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.”

Eastman wants to drastically expand the power of the American Government and subject U.S. citizens to sprawling, unaccountable surveillance, all because he’s petrified of a handful of extremists hiding in caves who cause fewer deaths to Americans than stomach diseases (or, at least he wants Americans to be that petrified). That’s how America has become a nation racked with fear.  Compare that mentality to what the U.S. did in the face of an actually threatening “global enemy”: the Soviet Union, which possessed a huge army and hundreds of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at U.S. cities.

Even at the height of the Cold War, the U.S. enacted the FISA statute, which criminalized government eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants. Every President until George W. Bush -- including Ronald Reagan -- was able to keep the country safe while adhering to that surveillance safeguard. But while even the most hawkish Americans in the 1980s -- facing the Soviet threat -- understood that domestic eavesdropping should be conducted only with judicial warrants, the war cheerleaders of the current decade insist that the far less formidable threat from Muslim extremists means we must vest the Government with the power of warrantless surveillance -- even on American citizens, on U.S. soil. That’s how far we’ve descended into the pit of fear-mongering and submission, thanks to the toxic mix of fear-mongers and the authoritarian cowards they exploit.

Third, there's no "war exception" in the Constitution. Even with real wars -- i.e., those involving combat between opposing armies -- the Constitution actually continues to constrain what government officials can do, most stringently as it concerns U.S. citizens. But strictly speaking, we're not really "at war," as Congress has merely authorized the use of military force but has not formally or Constitutionally declared war. Even the Bush administration conceded that this is a vital difference when it comes to legal rights. In 2006, the Bush DOJ insisted that the wartime provision of FISA -- allowing the Government to eavesdrop for up to 15 days without a warrant -- didn't apply because Congress only enacted an AUMF, not a declaration of war (emphasis added):

The contrary interpretation of section 111 also ignores the important differences between a formal declaration of war and a resolution such as the AUMF. As a historical matter, a formal declaration of war was no longer than a sentence, and thus Congress would not expect a declaration of war to outline the extent to which Congress authorized the President to engage in various incidents of waging war. Authorizations for the use of military force, by contrast, are typically more detailed and are made for the specific purpose of reciting the manner in which Congress has authorized the President to act.

The Bush DOJ went on to explain that declarations of war trigger a whole variety of legal effects (such as terminating diplomatic relations and abrogating or suspending treaty obligations) which AUMFs do not trigger (see p. 27). To authorize military force is not to declare war.

Indeed, the U.S. is fighting numerous undeclared wars, including ones involving military action -- such as the “War on Drugs.” Given that our "War on Drugs" continues to rage, should the U.S. Government be able to eavesdrop on accused "drug kingpins" or associates without warrants? After all, Terrorists blow up airplanes but Drug Kingpins kill our kids!!! The mindset that cheers for unlimited Presidential powers in the name of "war" invariably leads to exactly these sorts of expansions.

The U.S., from its Founding, has been grounded in the need to balance security with freedom; that means sometimes sacrificing the former for the latter (which is why, for instance, the Constitution limits the State’s power to conduct searches or imprison people even though those limits will sometimes enable violent criminals to escape). People like Eastman evince no appreciation for that balance. Security is the only recognized value, and thus, like a frightened child calling out for a parent, they insist that the Government must have unrestrained power to do what it wants to Keep Us Safe. A country wallowing in that level of blinding fear will not be great for very long.

Rosenzweig’s reply is much more substantive and reasonable, and I’ll leave it to readers to compare on their own our competing claims about the nature of the surveillance abuses and the lack of oversight and safeguards. I do, however, want to flag one component of his response as illustrative of the erosion of liberty which the U.S. continues to suffer and the way in which it has been normalized.

It was quite common during the “debate” over America’s torture regime for Bush defenders to resort to the defense that even if we engaged in harsh or even illegal tactics, they paled in comparison to, say, the torture techniques employed by Saddam Hussein. It’s not like we have rape rooms and mass graves, they’d argue (leave aside the fact that mass graves, at least figuratively, are exactly what we’re leaving behind in Iraq, among other places). Our descent into brutality and lawlessness was epitomized by the fact that this became our new standard: as long as we’re not as bad as history‘s most despicable monsters, there’s nothing to complain about.

Rosenzweig’s dismissals of America’s Surveillance State abuses is redolent of that severe bar-lowering. He pronounces, as though it’s comforting: “Whatever one may say about the United States, our system is far more protective of civil liberties and privacy than, say, China or Russia or any of a dozen other readily-named nations.” The U.S. once proclaimed itself “the Land of the Free” and our President “Leader of the Free World.” We’re now reduced to this sloganeering boast: Not as Tyrannical as Communist Regimes!

Is it really a comfort to anyone that the American Surveillance State is not as invasive or out-of-control as Russia’s and “a dozen other nations”? Moreover, that premise is highly debatable. As I noted in my initial essay, quoting The Washington Post: “Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.”

And consider this 2007 chart from Privacy International, a group that monitors the surveillance policies of nations around the world. Each color represents the level of the nation’s privacy and surveillance policies, with black being the most invasive and abusive (“Endemic Surveillance Societies”) and blue being the least (“Consistently upholds human rights standards”) - click on image to enlarge:

 

Note that this chart is consistent with Rosenzweig’s “defense” of the American Surveillance State that “our system is far more protective of civil liberties and privacy than, say, China or Russia or any of a dozen other readily-named nations.” For a society claiming to be devoted to principles of individual liberty and restrained government power, is that supposed to be some sort of comfort that we do not, in fact, now live under an out-of-control, increasingly entrenched and inherently abusive Surveillance State?