How extremism is normalized
Publication Date: 2012-06-05
Ohanian Comment: I contribute to Salon.com because they publish Glenn Greenwald. Yes, I could read it for free but I believe we should contribute to those who work at informing us. There are so few of them.
Please just re-read that bolded part. This is something that we already knew. The New York Times' Charlie Savage had previously reported that Obama OLC lawyers David Barron and Marty Lederman had authored a Ă˘€śsecret documentĂ˘€ť that "provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war" ("The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminalĂ˘€ť). Attorney General Eric Holder then publicly claimed: "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." Both of those episodes sparked controversy, because of how radical of a claim it is (Stephen Colbert brutally mocked Holder's speech: "Due Process just means: there's a process that you do").
But that's the point: once something is repeated enough by government officials, we become numb to its extremism. Even in the immediate wake of 9/11 -- when national fear and hysteria were intense -- things like the Patriot Act, military commissions, and indefinite detention were viewed as radical departures from American political tradition; now, they just endure and are constantly renewed without notice, because theyĂ˘€™ve just become normalized fixtures of American political life. Here we have the Obama administration asserting what I genuinely believe, without hyperbole, is the most extremist government interpretation of the Bill of Rights IĂ˘€™ve heard in my lifetime --that the Fifth AmendmentĂ˘€™s guarantee that the State cannot deprive you of your life without "due process of law" is fulfilled by completely secret, oversight-free "internal deliberations by the executive branch" -- and it's now barely something anyone (including me) even notices when The New York Times reports it (as the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer asked yesterday [on Twitter]: "These Dems who think executive process is due process: Where were they when BushĂ˘€Â¬ needed help with warrantless wiretapping?" -- or his indefinite detention scheme?)
A couple of months ago, I spoke at Purdue University in Indiana about civil liberties in the post-9/11 era, and several high school students drove from Kentucky to attend. They were aspiring journalists who worked on their high school newspaper and were battling their county School Board officials who were attempting to censor some of their articles on gay equality; they interviewed me after my speech in the hope that I would provide critical quotes about those officials (which I happily supplied). One of the student-journalists, a girl in the 11th grade, said something to me that was striking, something I knew rationally but had not quite internalized viscerally: she pointed out that much of my speech was grounded in post-9/11 erosions of civil liberties, but that for people her age -- she was 6 years old at the time of the 9/11 attack -- the post-9/11 era is basically all they know.
The post-9/11 era comprises the entirety of their political experience. They have no different American political culture to which they can compare it, at least from personal experience. The post-9/11 U.S. Government is the only one they know. The rights that have been abridged in the name of Terrorism are ones they never experienced, never exercised, and thus do not expect.
Every year that these assaults on core liberties are entrenched and expanded further -- the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process "can be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch" -- the more normalized they become, the more invulnerable to challenge they are, the more unlikely it is that they will ever be reversed. In 2006, Al Gore gave a speech on the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution and asked: "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?" What prompted Gore's denunciation was mere eavesdropping and detention without judicial review. That's no longer controversial. Now we have this question: if the U.S. President can openly declare the power to order even the nation's own citizens executed by the CIA in total secrecy, without charges or a whiff of transparency or oversight, what can't he do?
President Obama's Kill List
By Andrew Rosenthal
New York Times, May 29, 2012
Whenever I raise questions about President Obama's "targeted killing" policy, and the cavalier way his aides dismiss criticism of it, administration officials tell me that I wouldn't worry so much if I understood the program's inner workings. But the more that comes to light, the more worried I feel.
Take today's lengthy article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, which describes how Mr. Obama has placed himself "at the helm of a top-secret 'nominations' process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, for which the capture part has become largely theoretical." He "signs off on every [drone] strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan -- about a third of the total."
The White House spin on Mr. Obama's personal involvement with the drones program is that he's shouldering the moral responsibility. In the words of Thomas Donilon, his national security adviser, "he's determined to keep the tether pretty short."
That's precisely the problem: The tether is too short. If Mr. Obama wants to authorize every drone strike, fine--but even the president requires oversight (remember checks and balances?) which he won't allow. The administration refuses to accept judicial review (from a FISA-style court, say) prior to a strike directed at an American citizen, and won't deign to release the legal documents written to justify the targeted killing program. The Times and the ACLU have both sued to force disclosure of these documents. No luck yet.
Apologists for the president's "just trust me" approach to targeted killings emphasize that the program is highly successful and claim that the drone strikes are extraordinarily precise. John Brennan, the president's counter-terrorism adviser, said in a recent speech that not a single non-combatant had been killed in a year of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And today's Times article quoted a senior administration official who said that civilian deaths were in the "single digits."
But it turns out that even this hey-it's-better-than-carpet-bombing justification is rather flimsy. The Times article says "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties. . . It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
The logic, such as it is, is that people who hang around places where Qaeda operatives hang around must be up to no good. That's the sort of approach that led to the false imprisonment of thousands of Iraqis, including the ones tortured at Abu Ghraib. Mr. Obama used to denounce that kind of thinking.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.