|
Talkin'
About the F-Word (Redux)
June 25, 2002
By Bernard Weiner
Dear Readers: This article was first published in December
of 2001, in the wake of 9/11, when the grim outlines of police-state-like
tactics were first starting to appear on the American horizon.
It might be useful to compare and contrast - whoops, it turns
out there isn't much to contrast - between then and now. Doing
so may help us understand the forces we're facing and how
to respond as Bush&Co. continue their move toward a more militarist
society. At appropriate points, I've added [[ in italics inside
double brackets ]] some observations from our contemporary
situation. Reading the essay this way might serve as a reminder
that those of us warning then of the due-process dangers ahead
faced epithets like "paranoid" and "conspiracists" - much
like those today who are connecting the dots that take us
from Bush&Co.'s pre-9/11 knowledge and the Administration's
manipulation of a frightened Congress and citizenry that have
followed. -- BW
First, they came for the terrorists,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the foreigners,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they came for the Arab-Americans,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't Arab-American.
Then they came for the radical dissenters,
And I didn't speak up, because I was just an ordinary troubled
citizen.
Then they came for me,
And by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
(Adapted from Pastor Niemoller's 1945 quote about the Nazis)
I've been steering clear of the F-word, because too many
on the Left fling that term so carelessly that it soon loses
its truth-punch. But things are happening, so quickly, in
this country that are taking us closer to a brand of near-fascism
that is frightening in its seeming acceptance by the American
populace and in its implications for the future of American
democracy.
The non-domestic corollary: America, already resented and
hated for its arrogant attitudes and policies around the world,
is behaving more and more like a mad bull on a Pax Americana
rampage.
In short, we appear to be at one of those moments in American
history where the executive branch, using the genuine need
to respond to a terrorist attack of massive proportions, is
badly overreaching in both domestic and foreign areas. (The
first draft of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism law even recommended
suspension of the rule of habeus corpus, which would have
allowed for indefinite incarceration without charges or trials.)
[[ In effect, Bush&Co. have been able to do exactly that
to hundreds being interrogated for a connection to terrorism;
when people are "disappeared" in third-world countries, we
get all weepy-eyed and angry as mothers and wives bang pots
& pans in the public squares, trying to find out what happened
to their husbands and sons. Here, aside from civil liberties
organizations, we remain basically silent. ]]
The Administration figures it can get away with its current
actions, and assume even more power, because the Congress
and the American people are frightened and willing to bend
over backwards to make sure the President has the power he
needs during "wartime."
[[ Recent polls indicate that Americans are deeply troubled
by giving the government, any government, that kind of unbridled
power, but, given the current terrorist threat, seem willing
to trade off SOME of their Constitutional protections for
personal security. ]]
(Of course, there has been no official declaration of a State
of War by the Congress, and the Bush Administration is not
about to try to get one; doing so would give the legislative
branch its rightful place in the balance-of-power arrangement
the founders set up in order to prevent political mischief.)
[[ Now Bush&Co. are moving quickly toward attacking Iraq,
and not only has there been NO declaration of war by the Congress
against that nation, but there has been NO discussion, NO
debate, NO hearings by the appropriate committees in Congress.
After the body bags start coming back, prepare yourself to
listen to all the breast-beating in the Congress about how
they should have tried to do something to prevent this unauthorized
war. See below. ]]
Now, whether we're moving into the outskirts of fascism because
the Bush Administration is merely confused and incompetent
when dealing with issues of such moment is not clear. Equally
plausible, especially given their ruthless, take-no-prisoners
style as revealed in the Florida election chaos and beyond,
is that they know exactly what they're doing: attempting to
enforce a harsh interpretation of justice so as to more easily
cram their far-right cultural and economic agenda through
a complacent Congress and public, under the cover of "national
security" and "homeland protection." (I grant that it's possible
they sincerely believe they're doing so out of the best motives
protecting the American people from further terrorism
but, even if that were the case, the damage being done to
the American polity and Constitutional system of government
is incalculable.)
Foreign Policy
The hawks in the Administration seem to have convinced Bush
that with the successes in Afghanistan forgetting that perhaps
as many as 20,000 Al Queda troops are holed up for the winter,
in caves and in neighboring Pakistan it's time to widen
the war by going after Iraq, and maybe a few weaker states,
such as Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, maybe even North Korea. (This
plan may be put on temporary hold while the U.S. assays the
military/political fallout from the quick-building war between
Israel and the Palestinians.)
Why go to war against any of these countries? There is no
evidence that any of the states named above has engaged in
threatening activity no bombs exploded on US soil or US
assets abroad, no airplanes flying into tall buildings, no
biochemical attacks launched but, we are led to believe,
these rogue states threaten America's vital interests merely
by existing and, in some instances, by having weapons similar
to ours.
Iraq may be a special case. Saddam Hussein, who Bush Sr.
let stay in power, is a truly vicious, monomaniacal dictator
who has been known to dabble in biological weaponry and other
weapons of mass destruction. Since he kicked out the U.N.
inspectors, we don't know what mischief he's been up to. A
good candidate, so goes hawk-logic, for getting his ass whupped
by the US, provocation or not.
Were the US to bomb or invade Iraq to topple Saddam and install
an opposition government, the current war coalition would
collapse, and the worst stereotype of US foreign policy
of America as a giant bully not averse to arranging a Pax
Americana with massive violence would be verified in a good
share of the globe. There might well be uprisings widely in
the Muslim world, and probably the toppling of several key
governments in the process, Pakistan and Indonesia being the
top candidates either by popular revolts or, more likely,
by military coups. (Let us not forget that Pakistan has nuclear
weapons.)
[[ There is speculation that Saddam will resign and appoint
one of his sons in his stead; it is hard to imagine that this
ruse will stop the U.S. from attacking. ]]
But let us suppose that the US approach is successful, and
that it is able to navigate its way through the negative foreign
consequences flowing from that demonstration of high-tech
warfare carried out against low-tech resistance. How would
you feel living in a modern version of the Roman Empire, our
armies abroad enforcing a peace on several continents at bayonet
point?
Domestic Policy
Which brings us to what life would be like domestically in
such a neo-imperialist arrangement. Even some right-wingers
are reacting negatively to the alterations of our judicial
and Constitutional system a la Bush and Ashcroft. There have
been columns in the Wall Street Journal, William Safire's
blistering attack on Bush as a would-be "dictator," ex-FBI
officials willing to be quoted denouncing the Administration's
more extreme policies, politicians such as right-wing Republican
Bob Barr decrying Bush's policy excesses, editorials in the
mainstream press chorusing that Ashcroft has gone way over
the top.
[[ Off the record, many GOP senators and Congress members
-- especially conservatives anxious about giving too much
power to big-government, which regularly has abused that authority
-- express their revulsion at what the Bush Administration
is doing to Constitutional guarantees. But they tend to keep
silent in public, lest they be accused, in an election year,
of being insufficiently "anti-terrorist." However, lately,
a few GOP moderates have begun to speak out publicly, along
with more Democrats. But virtually all of them tend to backpedal
whenever Bush&Co. make growling noises. ]]
Unless you've been living in a cave - whoops! - wrong metaphor
these days you must have become acquainted with Ashcroft's
way-out-there approach to civil liberties mostly, it is claimed,
directed at non-citizens suspected of terrorism. That would
be bad enough. But the wording of some of Ashcroft's orders
and Bush's setting up of secret military tribunals is
so vague and (deliberately?) sloppy that it wouldn't take
much to blur the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
[[ Despite Ashcroft & Bush's protestations that such
a thing would NEVER be allowed to occur, this is already happening,
as several U.S. citizens have been whisked out of Constitutionally-guaranteed
due process, and secreted away in military installations,
and permitted no contact with lawyers or anyone else. They
can rot there for years with no contact with the outside world.
Did a judge or jury OK this? Nope, Bush signed a piece of
paper authorizing the transfer. Bush&Co. thus becomes prosecutor,
judge and jury. It's clear that this could happen to ANY citizen
now. ]]
Already shades of J. Edgar Hoover's COINTEL program of
the 1960s-70s! Ashcroft wants to begin more spying on US
citizens, especially religious and political organizations.
[[ Just recently, Ashcroft, by fiat, simply gave the FBI
this authority to spy on any organizations - just as under
COINTEL decades ago - including, in this new technological
era, fishing expeditions into anyone's personal e-mail.
]]
In short, the foundations for officially-sanctioned neo-fascist
policies are being contemplated and swiftly put into place.
And, since Bush and Ashcroft, from the beginning, have made
it clear that if you're not on the side of the war on terrorism,
you're probably a supporter of terrorists, the way is clear
for cracking down on dissent internally against US citizens.
It's not outside the realm of speculation that in the near-future
even writing analyses such as the one you're reading might
be adjudged detrimental to the war effort and thus liable
for prosecution or to being "disappeared" into the judicial
system, with all that suggests in the way of respect being
paid to citizens' constitutional rights.
Am I being overly paranoid? I hope to God I am, that I'm
misreading what's happening. After all, Bush and Ashcroft
and their spokesmen claim that their approach will NEVER overstep
Constitutional bounds and everything will be handled fairly.
Maybe you trust the government, especially this government,
that much; I don't. These guys are playing political hardball,
and they appear to be aiming at any institution and individuals
that dissent beyond certain boundaries.
Those boundaries are being laid out clearly for the usual
sources for dissent: the media and academia. Most of the big
papers and networks are now owned by huge corporate conglomerates;
Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a
well-financed conservative group devoted to curbing liberal
tendencies on campuses, already has issued its first blacklist
of professors it considers insufficiently "patriotic." Many
will be fired or eased out, many more will tone down their
criticism as many journalists already have and the message
will be quite clear: Do not dissent too vocally.
[[ Look what happened at the Ohio State graduation ceremonies
recently, when Bush came to speak. The authoritative voice
of the university's president announced that any students
who turned their backs on Bush as a protest would face expulsion
and arrest. Only a few continued their planned silent, turning-of-backs
protest, and were immediately hustled outside to the waiting
police. ]]
Two scary ramifications:
1. We're only in the first year of Bush's term; the damage
he can cause to the Constitution and the body politic during
the next three (or, God help us, seven) years is frightening
to imagine.
[[ Even more frightening, because Al-Qaeda elements inside
our borders are planning another massive attack inside the
U.S., frightening the population even more - which fear Bush&Co.
will attempt to manipulate once again, to give it even more
extra-Constitutional control over thought, activity, dissent.
]]
2. The American people, for the most part, still appear to
be lending strong support to Bush's interpretation of the
war on terrorism, although cracks are starting to show up.
[[ Nearly 4000 innocent Americans died on 9/11, and Bush&Co.
had been apprised months in advance that an attack like that
was coming and did nothing to prevent it. Many ordinary Americans
are disgusted and angered by that behavior. In addition, there
are the Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, Venezuela scandals, and
probably many more, that are starting to cause stirs and ripples
in the body politic. Dots are starting to be connected.
]]
So what is to be done? If there ever was a time for a rebirth
of the Movement, this is the time... The US Senate is probably
the place where most attention should go at the moment, given
that the House is pretty well dominated by the Bush/Armey/Delay-led
right-wing majority. The Democrats in the Senate, who rolled
over too easily on the so-called PATRIOT anti-terrorism act,
need backbone; hearing from their constituents, urging them
to stand up for the Constitution and the balance-of-powers
that rein in power-hungry executives, might actually work
in stopping some of the more extreme actions to date, and
to come, by the Bush Administration.
This struggle for peace and justice and respect for the Constitution
will not be an easy one, if only because of the politicized
nature of the Supreme Court majority. But it is one we must
join, and, for the sake of our representative democracy, we
must win.
[[ That's even more clear today. If we can't stop them
now -- or, at the very least, put sand in their total-control
wheels -- it may not get any easier in 2004. ]]
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government and international
politics at Western Washington University and San Diego State
University; he was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly
20 years, and has published in The Nation, Village Voice,
and widely on the internet.
|
