The American Ideal
Jason Kuznicki on Apr 2nd 2008
If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions. — Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
I keep trying to tell myself that this isn’t how we do things in America. We have laws not because a few people are wise enough to break them, but because we trust in the efficacy of the laws as they are written. The executive branch’s authority to protect the nation is already expressed in the laws themselves. That authority is not a license to ignore whatever laws the executive doesn’t feel like obeying. The executive’s authority itself is bounded by law.
If we believe that the laws may not be effective as they stand, then we are morally obligated to write new ones. That’s how things work in a constitutional government. Our laws should be a simple declaration to ourselves and to the world: This is the way that American government operates. We don’t just disregard the law because we’re afraid, or because we want a tough executive to take care of the bad guys. We don’t declare that the ends justify the means.
The fact that John Yoo is a Professor of Law at Berkeley and is treated as a respectable, serious expert by our media institutions, reflects the complete destruction over the last eight years of whatever moral authority the United States possessed. Comporting with long-held stereotypes of two-bit tyrannies, we’re now a country that literally exempts our highest political officials from the rule of law, and have decided that there should be no consequences when they commit serious felonies.
John Yoo’s Memorandum, as intended, directly led to — caused — a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush’s White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney’s counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes.
If writing memoranda authorizing torture — actions which then directly lead to the systematic commission of torture — doesn’t make one a war criminal in the U.S., what does?
…While Yoo’s specific Torture Memos were ultimately rescinded by subsequent DOJ officials — primarily Jack Goldsmith — the underlying theories of omnipotent executive power remain largely in place. The administration continues to embrace precisely these same theories to assert that it has the power to violate a whole array of laws — from our nation’s spying and surveillance statutes to countless Congressional oversight requirements — and to detain even U.S. citizens, detained on American soil, as “enemy combatants.” So for all of the dramatic outrage that this Yoo memo will generate for a day or so, the general framework on which it rests, despite being weakened by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, is the one under which we continue to live, without much protest or objection.
…That John Yoo is a full professor at one of the country’s most prestigious law schools, and a welcomed expert on our newspaper’s Op-Ed pages and television news programs, speaks volumes about what our country has become. We sure did take care of that despicable Pvt. Lyndie England, though, because we don’t tolerate barbaric conduct of the type in which she engaged completely on her own.
…John Yoo is not some misguided conservative legal thinker with whom one should have civil, pleasant, intellectually stimulating debates at law schools and on PBS. Respectfully debating the legality and justification of torture regimes, and treating systematic torture perpetrators like John Yoo with respect, isn’t all that far off from what Yoo and his comrades did. It isn’t pleasant to think about high government officials in one’s own country as war criminals — that’s something that only bad, evil dictatorships have — but, pleasant or not, it rather indisputably happens to be what we have.
The scapegoat is punished. The higher-ups are rewarded. Life goes on.
There are little distractions, and there are beers to drink, and there are funny videos on the Internet. There are gardens to be cultivated. And behind all of this, our government has become something radically different from what it once was, and from what it claims to be.
I imagine that I will be told that I hate America, and that I want al Qaeda to win. I need to learn to stop caring about this kind of response. I want victory for the American ideal, and defeat for the hypocrites who are dragging it through the mud.
As Edward Rackley of 3 Quarks Daily writes,
As the election year approaches, I find myself fantasizing about a very different political consciousness in this country. A state of mind where the majority of voters are appalled, outraged and shamed by our military practices and outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Ashamed and outraged enough to mobilize in direct opposition to a geopolitical strategy that is digging our national grave by the day. To mobilize not just by voting for change next year, but acting now with concrete gestures of rejection and refusal powerful enough to bring the calculus driving this mad debacle to a shuddering, definitive halt.
In the name of what America has always meant to be, and against the recent madness, yes. But what is this consciousness? What are the gestures?
Filed in The Barracks
Jason, I’ve been struggling with this dilemma for quite a while. I’ve always considered myself a patriot, but patriotic to what? My answer, as it seems to be yours, is to the “American ideal” itself, not directly to the U.S. This revelation was jarring.
That being said, of all the countries in the world, the U.S. still comes closest to the ideal. The wrongs this administration has caused (and even wrongs from previous presidents) are not irreversible, and I still hope we can turn things around. Maybe that’s hopelessly naive.
Obama seems like a man of integrity; while I abhor his socialist tendencies, if he becomes president, I do hope that he lives up to the expectation and corrects these wrongs.
Oh, and why do you hate America? I know you just want the terrorists to win.
That being said, of all the countries in the world, the U.S. still comes closest to the ideal.
I hear that sentiment a lot, but lately I’ve realized that little evidence is ever given in its support. Do countries like Australia and New Zealand and Canada and Britain really fall much further from the mark than the U.S.?
All of those countries have universal healthcare, which I consider a violation of rights and an all-around bad idea. And they all probably have some extra economic regulation (again, violating rights and usually bad ideas). But lately, when I consider which country comes closest to the ideal, I have to ask myself, how much regulation and nanny-statism and universal health coverage equals one Abu Ghraib, one Bagram, one Gitmo? I don’t have a complete answer to that, but my guess is, I’d be willing to accept quite a lot of regulation to prevent any one of them.
AMW:
Yes, it’s not like the countries you mentioned are bad countries. But, they also have significantly less freedom of speech as well as the other bad things you mention.
I don’t have an easy answer for what the tradeoff is. I know there is significantly less outrage in other Western countries about their restrictions than the outrage here in the U.S. about our wrongs. Which gives me hope that ours can be fixed sooner than theirs.
In regards to lesser freedoms of speech in other western democracies:
To what extent is that actually true? I know that, for example, the UK has no constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech.
But does that actually mean that folks in the UK have fewer de facto freedoms? Or is just that we’re technically violating our constitution when we tell Fred Phelps to shut up, and they’re not?
I hear about more pernicious violations of free expression principles in the US than in the UK. I’m a citizen and resident of the former, though, so that might just be a result of location bias in my sources of information.
I’ve seen things on (evil, state run) British television that would be illegal for a private TV network to broadcast across US airwaves. That makes me feel that even if British laws don’t actually provide for the same freedoms ours hypothetically do, that Britain doesn’t suffer from the censor-happy culture that’s so prominent in the US.
From my understanding, Britain’s main weakness in freedom of speech is its more liberal libel laws, which have a tendency to stifle some reporting and can make selling books with controversial views more difficult.
But still think that Americans systematically underestimate the liberties granted in (some) other countries, which tends to make us more forgiving of our own lost liberties. After all, things may be bad, but at least they’re not Europe Bad!
MLK had the right idea–General Strike. Nice and simple.
The only gesture I would add to it, perhaps, is my middle finger.
But hell, I use the Interwebs and read blogs like this one, so I guess that makes me part Eternally Shrill and Unserious America Hater crowd :)
Eh, frankly, I support stronger libel laws. Freedom of speech is supposed to protect your right to speak, not your right to ignore the consequences of your actions.
If a cook or a plumber or a doctor performed their jobs poorly and people got harmed, then they can get sued for it. But if journalists don’t do their job properly, they’re protected by libel laws.
In the US, you can say or print something you know to be a lie, and that you know will be damaging to another party. In order for you to be found guilty of libel, the accuser must prove that non only did you knowingly lie, but that you specifically lied in order to harm them.
There are other restrictions on free speech in Britain such as ‘incitement to hatred’, a broad term that could be interpreted as anything from direct threats to insulting comments. The offence originally applied only to racial hatred but has been expanded in the past few years to cover religion and sexual orientation.
Frankly I’m uneasy about this, I despise the kind of views that it is illegal to express but I also hate giving bigots the chance to paint themselves as defenders of free expression.
There are also restrictions related to obscenity, official secrets and ‘glorifying terrorism’. Although in all these areas the British press tends to self censor so the laws are rarely used at least in widely publicised cases.
More generally we do have have quite a lot of effective freedom of speech but the government retains the privellige of introducing censorship whenever it feels like it.
So what exactly is the American ideals and do you guys think that the underclass is holding America back from the American ideals?