Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, International, Military, Politics, Society

Bin Laden: A Time To Reflect

Below is today’s column in USA Today on the death of Osama Bin Laden.

The death of Osama bin Laden has left the United States with a type of morning-after effect. For 10 years, an ever-expanding war on terror has been defined by one central dark figure: Osama bin Laden. It is perhaps not surprising that in a celebrity-driven society, even our wars seemed personality driven. For many, Iraq was about Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan was about Osama bin Laden. With both of these defining figures gone, however, it is time to take account of what has been lost, and what has been gained.

For civil libertarians, the legacy of bin Laden is most troubling because it shows how the greatest injuries from terror are often self-inflicted. Bin Laden’s twisted notion of success was not the bringing down of two buildings in New York or the partial destruction of the Pentagon. It was how the response to those attacks by the United States resulted in our abandonment of core principles and values in the “war on terror.” Many of the most lasting impacts of this ill-defined war were felt domestically, not internationally.

Starting with George W. Bush, the 9/11 attacks were used to justify the creation of a massive counterterrorism system with growing personnel and budgets designed to find terrorists in the heartland. Laws were rewritten to prevent citizens from challenging searches and expanding surveillance of citizens. Leaders from both parties acquiesced as the Bush administration launched programs of warrantless surveillance, sweeping arrests of Muslim citizens and the creation of a torture program.

What has been most chilling is that the elimination of Saddam and now bin Laden has little impact on this system, which seems to continue like a perpetual motion machine of surveillance and searches. While President Dwight D. Eisenhower once warned Americans of the power of the military-industrial complex, we now have a counterterrorism system that employs tens of thousands, spends tens of billions of dollars each year and is increasingly unchecked in its operations.

Just as leaders are unwilling to take responsibility to end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, we face the same vacuum of leadership on civil liberties. Whether it is groping at airports or warrantless surveillance or the denial of rights to accused terrorists, our security laws will continue to be justified under a “war on terror” that by definition can never end. There will always be terrorism, and thus we will remain a nation at war — with all of the expanded powers given to government agencies and officials.

If bin Laden wanted to change America, he succeeded. Bush officials were quick to claim that our laws and even our Constitution made us vulnerable to attack — even though later investigations showed that the attacks could have been prevented under existing laws. Despite the negligence of agencies such as the FBI and CIA in allowing the attacks, those same agencies were given unprecedented power and budgets in the aftermath of 9/11.

President Obama has continued, and even expanded, many of the controversial Bush programs. His administration moved to quash dozens of public interest lawsuits fighting warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, officials for torture under the “water-boarding” program — despite clear obligations under treaties for such action. The Obama administration has continued military tribunals and the Caesar-like authority of the president to send some defendants to real courts and some to makeshift tribunals. The administration recently instructed investigators that they can ignore constitutional protections such as Miranda rights to combat terror. Once the power of the FBI and other agencies were expanded, no one had the courage to order the resumption of lost civil liberties or the return of prior limits on government power or surveillance. It is not the lack of security but the lack of courage in our leaders that continues the expansion of this security state.

The death of bin Laden is not the marker of an end of a period but a reminder that there is no end to this period. For those who have long wanted expansion of presidential powers and the limitation of constitutional rights, bin Laden gave them an irresistible opportunity to reshape this country — and the expectations of our citizens. We now accept thousands of security cameras in public places, intrusive physical searches and expanding police powers as the new reality of American life. The privacy that once defined this nation is now viewed as a quaint, if not naive, concept. Police power works like the release of gas in a closed space: expand the space and the gas fills it. It is rare in history to see ground lost in civil liberties be regained through concessions of power by the government. Our terrorism laws have transcended bin Laden and even 9/11. They have become the status quo. That is the greatest tragedy of bin Laden’s legacy — not what he did to us, but whatwe have done to ourselves.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

215 thoughts on “Bin Laden: A Time To Reflect”

  1. I have never been a jingoist. Maybe, you think all those that admit they will vote for Obama are jingoists. The real goal seems to be to bring down Obama, and his success is driving his opponents crazy.

  2. FFLEO,

    While we obviously didn’t spend a trillion dollars to find Bin Laden, he was a major rally cry for all the budget requests and legislation curtailing civil liberties.

    Obviously the video had an affect on you; what’s your take?

    I’m sure Mike Appleton would like to know as well.

  4. Mike Appleton,

    Having seen the elephant in the living room, do you see it takes you back from a government-church forced geo-centric view back to the rational helio-centric view of the world?

    Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur? (The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived?)

  5. “On the issue of popular opinion and the majority replacing the rule of law, where was the case against bin Laden?”

    The case was that by his own admission and on videotape he took credit for the deed and used that admission as a tool for recruitment. While in an American court of law a confession can be challenged and in many cases is due to coercion, this was purely voluntary on his part and aimed at the “court of world opinion.” Lumping in all who don’t share your point of view Bob, with the term jingoism is to deny that anyone but you has a valid point of view.

    If you’d like to engage me further on this, as is your wont at all perceived disagreement with your hallowed opinions, be my guest. For the record though the term “Jingoist” in these parts is confrontation, rather than argument, so please if we do get into this, don’t pretend your innocence, or that you were unfairly attacked. A tactic you have used frequently in the past.

  7. Bob, Esq.

    To your points, ‘Roam’ posted the following concise video yesterday on the other Bin Laden thread. Disregarding any of the philosophical statements also contained therein, do you think—not just believe—that the facts stated in the video are accurate?

  11. Bob, Esq.:

    You are absolutely correct. What’s worse is that I had completely forgotten that.

  12. If there was anyone who should be waterboarded, it should be Pete King (NY). I swear, he must whack his winkie every time he even thinks the word, “torture.”

    Pete King puts the “douche” in “douchebag.”

  16. rafflaw,

    I’m of the opinion that the end doesn’t justify the means. I’m anti-torture. I believe there are better ways of attempting to extract information from detainees.
    If we don’t live up to our own ideals how can we expect people in other countries to respect us and look up to us as that “shining city upon a hill?”

  17. Elaine M and rafflaw,

    I figured it wouldn’t take the Right too long to start patting themselves on their backs and “rah, rah-ing” for torture …

  18. While we’re waxing poetic about the importance of law, order and principle, here are a few things that those of you lost in the jingoism of killing bin Laden don’t want to hear:

    On the issue of popular opinion and the majority replacing the rule of law, where was the case against bin Laden?

    There have been only two people that have ever promised to bring forth a prima facie case against him, Tony Blair and Colon Powell, and they never did so. Sure Bin Laden was evil and deserved to die; if only for the U.S.S. Cole; but why no case against him? Might that have had anything to do with the FBI never formerly accused him of being involved with 9/11; probably something to do with the “integrity” portion of their motto?

    And speaking of jingoism making people lose track of their principles, considering there’s never been a prima facie case offered against bin Laden, what happened to the categorical imperative when we demanded that the laws regarding bare accusation apply to Bradley Manning but not Bin Laden? Since when does majority rule replace the rule of law?

    Like I said, you don’t want to hear this. But then again, since when does the law care about what you want to hear?

  19. “It was how the response to those attacks by the United States resulted in our abandonment of core principles and values in the “war on terror.” Many of the most lasting impacts of this ill-defined war were felt domestically, not internationally.”
    ————————————

    yes….there is (and has been for a long while…) a giant elephant in the iving room. Can we all see it now?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZ7HaE5KWU

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZ7HaE5KWU&w=425&h=349%5D

  20. Elaine,
    Great links. Congressman King of NY was on O’Reily and blunted stated that the information came from KSM because of Torture. These guys will lie about anything, even when lying about it produces additional evidence that the law was broken!

Comments are closed.