Robert Steinback weighs in on War on Terror

AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
[email]rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com[/email]



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 Marie 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. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

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?

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - George Orwell

I love all of this whining about wiretaps. "Oh my god, the government listened in on conversations between known terrorists outside the US and people inside the US, citizens or not. This is a disaster!" Are you even listening to yourselves?

Have you noticed that the hippies all declare that what Bush did was illegal, even though they have no understanding of what they're talking about? Have you noticed that they do that every time anything Bush ever does anything?

If the Democrats are trying to get votes in 06, whining about the Republicans wanting to listen to conversations between known terrorists and people in the US is only going to lose them votes. Lots of votes.

So you guys are really worried about the rights of people that receive phone calls from terrorists? Do you receive a lot of phone calls from known terrorists?

What Bush did is illegal. Every reason he has brought up as a defense so far is covered by the existing law. No one is above the law.

Haha, another person declaring that it's illegal when they don't know what they're talking about. The lefty religion is getting weirder and weirder.

It is not illegal for the NSA to listen to conversations between people in foreign countries and people in the US without a warrant. Do you really believe that the NSA shouldn't be listening to conversations between known terrorists outside the US and the people they call inside the US? I can't believe that there are people that think that shouldn't be happening. So weird.

I'm a moderate. You sound like a zealot. I don't care if you're far right or far left.

Even the conservatives admit it's illegal. There are some very pissed off Republican Congress members atm. Rightly so.

To get a warrent you have to show that there is a valid reason to get a wiretap, not just that some random guy in the NSA thinks it's a good idea, or want to go on a fishing expedition. The law even provides for emergency wiretaps with the warrent acquired after the fact.

The Congress passed the law. The President signed it. The Judiciary oversees it's implementation... hmmm.... yup, that would be seperation of powers, what America was founded on.

You can argue about the facts and try to spin them until the cows come home, but the fact remains that President Bush broke the law. He will be lucky to not be impeached.

-----
addendum...
You're trying to argue that it's a bad law and that makes it ok to break. It doesn't work that way. We are a nation of law. You don't get to keep the laws you like and break those you don't. You can break a law as a matter of conscience, but then you get to pay the price for breaking the law.

Here's how things work in the real world, where the adults live. The US government finds out the phone number of a terrorist in a foreign country. They start to listen to the phone calls that the terrorist makes. When the terrorist calls people in countries other than the US, everything is fine. But when the terrorist calls someone in the US, you think the NSA is suddenly supposed to stop listening to go get a warrant? Even if they can get a warrant in 10 minutes, which isn't possible, the phone call is over by then.

It's pretty simple. A lot of people just like to have fantasies about impeaching Bush for protecting the US. I am no zealot, you are just further to the left than you realize.

So keep saying, "Bush broke the law" even though you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe if you say it enough, it will come true. But, just like everything else that the hippies have whined about, lying over and over again doesn't make the lie true. It just makes more people recoginze that the left is really really stupid.

*yawns and goes back to reading the interesting posts*

Haha, yup. People that constantly dismiss the truth so they can continue to believe the lies they want to believe eventually lose their minds.

The Clinton years did you in, huh?

For the non trolls, here are a couple of links. I tried to stay with in-depth discussions and not op-ed pieces.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20051228.html

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/beyond_his_powe.html

After rerading that I am compelled to ask... Robert who???

I find Surreal's reasoned response more palatable than the patronizing, condescending (sp?) nature of this other person. If you have a good arguement, in the real world, you don't need to cloak it in insults. It stands on its own.

The fact that stankleberry chooses to be so inflammatory only serves to undermine whatever points he's trying to make.

But the rest of you are probably nodding along with me, I'd think.

And, as a corollary, Surreal is awesome.