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.
How does one vote in the primary if you are registered an independent?. Sometimes the most important election is the primary. The last somewhat successful independent candidate for president was Ross Perot. Maybe Trump will run as an independent if he does not get the nod from the republican party.
Mike Spindell
1, May 3, 2011 at 8:21 pm
————————
Nice post Mike. My response to the current rabid farce known as party politics’ has been to register as an Independant. I wonder if we would have such crazed obnoxious playing to the crowds if the ‘people’ did not register with any party…and reserved the expectation for election day. What do you think THAT would do to the body politic?
OS,
Amen. Not voting brings more Scott Walkers, more Tea Party embarrassments and more Koch Brother’s candidates. Not voting allows the Senate to go to the Republicans and Paul Ryan’s disgusting budget passes and harms millions.
Former Fed,
I see the misstatement as an error based on incomplete information. I fail to see any damage. OBL was already dead and had admitted to his evil deeds years ago so how is OBL’s “reputation” anymore tarnished than admitting he masterminded the deaths of thousands of innocents?
mespo727272,
I previously misspelled your name in my question above–sorry.
Mike Spindell,
I like your platform.
Mike and others who may be undecided about voting in the next election, I have two words to chill you to the bone: Supreme Court.
“Accordingly, it would be greatly appreciated if you didn’t lump me in with the racist right.”
Bob,
That is a fair request, so perhaps you can stop lumping me in with the Jingoists who responded to this as if it were a holiday. Not quite my metier, nor my demeanor. I have in depth provided my reasons that I’m glad OBL is dead and they have little to do with my country right or wrong. By the same token you request for me to provide prima facie evidence against OBL is a stretch considering what I clearly stated:
“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.”
I would hope you would credit me enough to know that there is more nuance involved than just that statement. On another thread I clearly stated the reasons I feel that way. Now you may disagree, but if you did I would present my refutation, which wouldn’t be a characterization of you as a traitor.
As far as my being an Obamabot as some have charged. This was my response today to a questionnaire sent to Obama supporters:
“I write this as a registered Democrat for 46 years and one who has always voted Democratic and has contributed and worked for the party. If the tone of the Administration and its action don’t change from their current course I will not vote in 2012 and will urge others to do the same. Since I’ve always voted, except in times when I was hospitalized, this would represent a sea change for me but I do not see any alternative.
My wife and I cried when the President was elected, feeling that not only had the Country grown in its color-blind choice, but that we had elected an uncommonly erudite leader who had the best interests of all the people at heart. I will explain what has changed my viewpoint tersely, but please understand that beyond the brevity I have the education, knowledge-base and debate skills to back up everything I state.
1. Afghanistan must be ended now. The mission is impossible, has no rationale, end game, or possibility of success. To deny this is to deny history.
2. The Defense Budget must be drastically cut, coincided with evacuation of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. The monies derived from the above must be put into both infrastructure which will mean jobs and into developing “green” industry which will not only improve the environment, but will mark a rebuilding effort to again allow us to become a manufacturing power.
4. The tax breaks for the wealthy must be ended. Corporations that avoid taxes via dummy headquarters overseas must be forced to pay their fair share. US Corporations, like GE must also pay their fair share and its former CEO should be removed from this administration. All these actions will eliminate the purported budget crisis.
5. The creation of jobs must be a main priority, whether in the private and public sector. These jobs should be meaningful in that they improve our failing infrastructure and rebuild our manufacturing base.
6. Single payer health care is also a priority and the social services safety net must be restored.
7. Programs like HAMP and HARP must be bolstered by legislation to ensure greater compliance by the banking/mortgage industry.
8. Although as Democrats we must always support programs to aid those poorest of us, we must start arguing for the salvation of the middle class which is fast diminishing in this country and will lead to our ultimate reduction to third world status if the trend continues. It is because our rhetoric is pointed mainly to the poor that we have alienated many in the middle-class who believe wrongly that we do not act in their interests.
9. We must extract ourselves from the false “free trade” meme, which is not follwed by our economic competitors, to the detriment of American industry and American workers. No company that has a balance of its manufacturing abroad should receive government contracts. We must get our workers meaningful jobs.
10. Electoral reform is a primary issue, for without it our Democracy is lost.
11. The “War On Terror” meme must be ended and the unconstitutional excesses committed in its name must cease and the reasons for its end explained to the American people.
I could literally write a book as to what is wrong with Democrats today and with our President’s policy. This I know wouldn’t meet your needs. President Obama has failed to use the bully pulpit constructively. He has started from weakened bargaining positions. He has filled his administration with too many who are to blame for our financial crisis. His financial policies have not attacked the root causes of the financial mess, nor has it punished those financiers responsible for the fraud perpertrated upon us. His bi-partisanship meme has been a failure because the Republican Party has been taken over by extremists, who do not understand the meaning of compromise. By “compromising” with them he has only shown weakness and given away far too much.
We lost the election of 2010 not because we were too far left, but because we lacked the courage of our own Democratic convictions. Get out of the DC bubble and ignore the Press Corp pundits and see and understand that in 2006 and 2008 the public showed it hungered for change, but found that after the election Democrats were not willing to follow through with real change. While it is true that the Republican House will resist anything smacking of sanity, the way around them is not to give in to them but battle them on the field of rhetoric.
You professionals” will be surprised to discover that despite your common wisdom this country is further to the “left” than you might imagine. I write this not as some far out “leftist” but as a mainstream Democrat of 66, who loves his country and its people. I have been disappointed once to many times and unless I see substantive changes on the part of the Administration and the Party, I will be forced to conclude that my vote is meaningless and will cease to exercise it.”
msspo,
Legally, was justice served in this case as President Obama stated?
Aye, that was a good one, mespo.
rafflaw,
Even if retractions are issued a day or so after a spurious comment, those initial statements remain in one’s mind; therefore, the damage has been done. To me it is very similar to accusing an innocent person of a heinous crime and although he is acquitted, his reputation is still often tarnished and the innocent verdict is published—if at all—deep within a paper somewhere near the classified ads. Unjustified doubts often remain. One has to wonder why Obama’s *Chief *of counterterrorism made such counterfeit claims.
Mespo,
Well said!
The Professor’s words have that ominous and prescient ring to them. He is, in the main, correct that much of our trouble was perpetrated on us by us. From an erratic and oftentimes immoral foreign policy to hypocritical positions on human rights, torture, and UN approval of military force, we shoulder much of the blame. However, what shouldn’t be lost in all of this wringing of hands is that we were the victim here. We were savagely attacked as a nation and as a population. No superpower in the history of the world would have exercised the restraint –there I said it — that we showed in dealing with a foreign attacker with both an all-emcompassing suicidal and homicidal bent as Bin Laden et als demonstrated.
A few episodes from history attest to this fact. In 782 Charlemagne ordered the massacre of 4500 Saxon prisoners in response to the killing of two of his envoys and twenty four of his nobles in battle. In 1002 at the famous St. Brice’ Day massacre, King Ethelred II ordered the death of all Danes in England in response to a charge they were merely aiding the invading Viking raiders. In 1914, Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination sparked WW1. The list is endless.
Revenge is at least as natural a human emotion as love and honor, and much more in abundance. When in service to our interests we call it avenging a wrong. When inflicted against us, it is an overreaction. The point is quite simply that we are the product of our genetics and our evolution and self-defense remains the most basic of human motivations. We have certainly failed to live up to our principles, and we continue to grapple with the conflict between safety and freedom. This is nothing new. How we respond to the challenge is the question, and for that we have room for hope. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus but the courts pulled back from that calamitous path. FDR imposed unthought-of of requirements on industry and the economy only to see much of that repealed by judicial fiat or legislative adjustment. The good remained but the excess subsided.
For me the jury is still out on our pull back from the excesses of the so-called “war on terror.” We may well right the ship and continue sailing toward a future with expanding rights and greater opportunity. Of course, we may move toward a more restricted sort of society. I think the likely outcome is that we will shift from our obsession of avenging and protecting ourselves to realize that what we were protecting is valuable but that its value lies in remaining true to ourselves even as we defend that which we cherish. That we didn’t learn this lesson the first go ‘round should dissuade or discourage us.
Former Fed,
What damage has been done? I don’t understand.
rafflaw,
As you know, the damage has been done…
Bob, Esq.
Perhaps people equate jingoism with one of its potential synonyms—xenophobic, which I certainly do not think that you are implying. I am patriotic but not to the extent that I would stand behind Mr. Obama’s government at all cost to display my nationalistic pride. I simply do not understand—rather than cannot stand—the jingoistic exhibitions that cause you angst.
I am glad that the Obama administration has corrected the misstatements by Mr. Brennan in order to correct the record.
{Quote
“In the room with bin Laden, a woman — bin Laden’s wife — rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed,” Carney said. Separately, another woman on the first floor was killed in crossfire, which may have led to Brennan’s misstatement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/white-house-revises-bin-laden-final-moments_n_857073.html
FFLEO,
While I agree with everything you said, I wasn’t so much repulsed by the executive decision or the reaction; I was more bewildered by the utter lack of coherency of thought and outright jingoistic mob mentality surpassing a “Lord Of The Flies” chaotic state. All the laws and principles completely ignored for the sake of a movie like ending to the story of 9/11; made the celebratory reactions feel incredibly ‘inappropriate.’ So, it wasn’t just the objections you raised that I found disturbing, but the whole gamut of sheer idiocy leading up to and resulting from the death of bin Laden.
Further, I take it you too can’t stand, what I keep calling, that jingoistic mob-mentality atmosphere that almost makes you feel you can’t speak your mind. No rational/critical thought allowed while celebrations are in progress; we’ll pay attention to the law and legal process later.
As a former federal law enforcement officer, tell me this quote from High Noon doesn’t aptly describe your thoughts and feelings at this moment:
Martin: “People gotta talk themselves into law and order before they do anything about it. Maybe because down deep they don’t care. They just don’t care.”
osama bin ladin
hide and seek world champion
9/11/2001-4/30/2011