American Idiot
Unfortunately, the masses don't seem to get nuanced arguments when it comes to politics. Thus, there will still be people who fall for Orwellian double speak everytime. You can try to explain to them that eavesdropping without a warrant is diametrically and fundamentally the opposite to the concept of civil liberties, but they'll just bluster about "War on Terrorism." (Which in and of itself doesn't make sense--when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't declare a "War on Surprise Aerial Bombardments.") But I digress. Now, one way to get the masses to understand logic and how a statement is totally illogical and bugfuck is to keep the structure of the statement, but replace the proposition with two extremes.Now, here's part of the AP article on Bush's defense on his authorization of warrantless wiretaps:
WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2005 -- President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.
. . . "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.
OK, me again. Now as I said, "secret eavesdropping program" is wholly contradictory to "civil liberties." But Bush is saying the U.S. needs to engage in a "secret eavesdropping program" to protect civil liberties. I guess the supposed rational is to eavesdrop on the supposed bad guys to protect the rest of our civil liberties (though that rationale is the subject for another entry). And a lot of people don't see anything wrong with this rationale (though Senator Arlen Spector gives me hope that Republicans are getting pissed off at King George).
OK, so let's replace "secret eavesdropping program" with something extreme, like "knifing someone in the kidneys." Now, "secret eavesdropping" is totally contradictory to "civil liberties". So what is totally contradictory to "knifing someone in the kidneys"? Well, that would be "not getting knifed in the kidneys." OK, let's see how Bush's justification reads now:
WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2005 -- President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized knifing someone in the kidneys in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.
. . . "Knifing someone in the kidneys is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their not getting knifed in the kidneys and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.
So to paraphrase in his argument using my replacement terms, Bush is saying that knifing someone in the kidneys is necessary to protect people from not getting knifed in the kidneys.
(And before you start going on to say, well maybe knifing "terrorists" will save everyone else from a knifing, the next question you have to ask yourself is whether you trust the government to decide who a terrorist is. Because this government, more specifically, the Pentagon, had listed an anti-war meeting by Quakers--who are all pacifists--as a threat to American security. So that kidney that may get knifed is yours, fucko.)
3 comments:
Marty,
As someone teetering back and forth between a Republican and a libertarian (granted, the divide is growing by the day), I struggle with the notion of this eavesdropping program, although I ultimately am willing to cede some civil liberties for the sake of national security. In any event, even aside from my position on the issue, I disagree with the suggestion that Bush's explanation doesn't make sense. Isn't his logic the same logic that justifies actions in any war?
Substituting "kill" for "knife in the kidneys," didn't we "kill" the Nazis and the Japanese so they wouldn't "kill" us? As the implication that FDR did a better job respecting civil liberties, have you forgotten the massive internment of Japanese-Americans that is still giving rise to legal challenges today?
My point is to say that you can very validly argue against the merits of the program. You might argue that the intrusion on civil liberties in this case is just too substantial to be justified by the potential benefits. We could have a serious debate on that issue, and I submit we would both have colorable arguments. However, unlike a lot of things President Bush says, the rationale he stated in this case is perfectly logical.
Will J.
Columbia, SC
First of all Will, you get kudos for engaging in a polite discourse, which is refreshing for all the dissent = treason that I see these days from so called conservative pundits like Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
OK, I'll deal with your assertion that Bush's rationale makes perfect sense before going on to your WWII analogy.
If Bush said, "We must sacrifice some of our civil liberties for the sake of national security," then that would not be inherently contradictory. (I still would have problems with that statement since this President has shown he believes that national security will always trump civil liberties, and he views the Presidency as a monarchy.) And if you believe the eavesdropping program is a justified sacrifice of civil liberties, then I will politely disagree and what we would have is mainly a discussion of cost benefit analysis.
But the problem is that Bush didn't speak in terms of balancing civil liberties and national security. Instead, what he said was that he was protecting each and every citizen's civil liberties by getting rid of certain citizen's civil liberties. Therein lies the contradiction.
Civil liberties apply to each and every American citizen (except to those who are incarcerated, and even then, they have certain basic inalienable rights). So how can you say you are protecting each citizen's right to due process by saying you will violate certain citizen's rights. Or to use your "kill" substitution, Bush is saying we will "kill" certain citizens to protect the right of all citizens not be killed. Well obviously, you haven't protected each citizen's right to be free from getting killed if you kill some citizens. It's this type of Orwellian doublespeak that infuriates me.
As for your reference to the Nazis and the Japanese, the problem with that analogy is that it isn't apt. We aren't at war with our own citizens. Or to put it another way, the Nazis and the Japanese that we "killed" were, for the most part, nationals of a foreign power with which we were at war, and thus not subject to the protections of the United States Constitution. The debate with eavesdropping, and why even folks like Arlen Spector are disturbed if not downright pissed off, is how we treat our own citizens. I doubt you can seriously be saying we must treat American citizens like the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII.
As for "the implication that FDR did a better job respecting civil liberties," I don't see any implication of such in my entry. In fact, I don't mention FDR, nor do I make any comparisons between Bush and any other president.
Furthermore, it's precisely because of the potential slippery slide into something akin to Manzanar that I have a problem with the eavesdropping program. Both arise out of presumption of the supremacy of the executive branch and arose under the justification of national security. (The problem I have with the definition of "national security" is the subject of a future entry. Without civil liberties, then the reason for national security becomes pointless--we become no different from Singapore or China who put national security over civil liberties. What is the point of living in the United States if we become a nation in which national security is placed above civil liberty? Or put is another way, do you think the Chinese government worries about a warrant before eavesdropping on folks? As a libertarian, shouldn't you be worried that if you replace "national security" with "the state", then the typical "national security" spin begins to sound a lot like communism?)
So thanks for your comments Will. As I said, it's nice to have a political discourse without the rancor and immaturity that can be found on both parties. But I'm afraid I will have to politely disagree with you in this matter, and still say that Bush's logic--the logic he propounded and not the justification that you have propounded, which are not the same--is contradictory, and is yet another pernicious example of doublespeak.
Whoops. I actually did mention FDR in the entry. My bad. But it wasn't to pay props to the man, but just to point out that "The War On Terrorism" is essentially a meaningless term. Now, if you want to call it "The War on Al-Queda," that makes sense. You can't declare war on a concept.
Post a Comment