Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Maybe Osama won after all

December 28, 2005

Advertisement

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9-11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution - and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it - I would have presumed the girders of our very republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - and expect America to be pleased by this - I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas - and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security - I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marine Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy - and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy - I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying "Happy Holidays" could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke - speaking metaphorically now - mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate.

Never would I have expected this nation - which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty - would cower behind anyone just for promising to "protect us."

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president - or is that king? - has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal - preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?"

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the "war on terror" - a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection - even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack - any attack, of any sort - is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

Robert Steinback is a columnist for The Miami Herald. His e-mail address is rsteinback@herald.com.

Comments

JohnBrown 8 years, 12 months ago

Mr. Steinback must look all the way back to the Goldwater campaign, when he said "moderation in the pursuit of liberity is no virtue, extremism in the defense of liberity is no vice". Tho Goldwater lost, his 27 million followers vowed to win some day...and they did.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 12 months ago

I suspect Goldwater would be horrified by the self-coronation of BushCo, too.

Time for impeachment-- a double impeachment, that is.

nonsmoker 8 years, 12 months ago

Why isn't Bush following the route of Nixon? He felt he could authorize wiretaps too. What do we need to do to start impeachment procedings upon Bush? I suppose the only thing stopping everyone is Cheney. I can't imagine what would happen with him as president, and while he has verbally supported Bush, he hasn't actually done enough to allow us a double impeachment!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 12 months ago

Impeachment is unlikely at the moment. It would have to be brought by a Republican majority, and they are more interested in their political future than they are doing the right thing-- bringing down a Republican prez and vice-prez doesn't do that for them just yet. But if the revelations of corruption and illegal activity continue at the same rate-- a very good possibility-- the political equation changes, and the rats will begin abandoning this already listing ship.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.