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.
Elaine and OS,
I agree completely. I see I as a mistake made before all of the facts are in.
Otteray,
“I just wish they did not feel compelled to release information before all the facts are in.”
I think it’s one of those situations where the Adminstration would be damned if they did…damned if they didn’t.
Guys, that was not my take on it. Keep in mind this was the middle of the night and everyone there saw things from a different angle and perspective. The initial word was that he was hiding behind a woman. Later versions were that his wife attempted to resist or intervene and in the process got between the assault team and Bin Laden. She was shot in the leg, but not a fatal injury. The phrase has been beaten to death, but I cannot think of a better one: “Fog of war.”
FFLEO, I suspect you have been in some very fast moving situations where different people saw the same thing differently. My best estimate is that this was not propaganda, as juicy as it might have been, but a mistake. Otherwise, they would not have retracted it. One has to wonder if the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crew would have made the correction.
More will become clearer as the debriefings of the assault team are concluded and the information gathered is collated. I fully expect some of the stories to change to some degree as they find out more. Right now, this is the military equivalent of an Internal Affairs investigation in its earliest stages. I just wish they did not feel compelled to release information before all the facts are in.
Former Fed and Buddha,
What is the evidence that the comment was an intentional attempt to embarrass OBL? Why would you unring the bell so quickly if you wanted to slur OBL?
Buddha wrote,
“Releasing that OBL hid behind women was released for only one reason: propaganda. It’s not a fact salient to the outcome of the operation.”
_____________
Yes, yours is a very good explanation for what I was attempting to express. That the ‘hiding’ event was very likely fabricated made it exceptionally distasteful.
Thanks
FFLEO,
Eh, I’m going to have to slightly disagree. A man hiding behind a woman to avoid harm is a major disgrace period, regardless of religious tradition. Otherwise I agree with you in principle. Releasing that OBL hid behind women was released for only one reason: propaganda. It’s not a fact salient to the outcome of the operation.
Former Fed,
No problem.
rafflaw,
I have one last comment on this specific subject and we can agree to disagree because this is clearly opinion. The ‘Chief’ could have tentatively withheld the information about bin Laden ‘hiding behind women’ even if he knew that as factual. He should understand the cultural/religious differences between ‘us and them’ and that an Islamic man hiding behind a Islamic woman’s skirt to avoid harm is very likely a major disgrace in Islam, especially when attributed to the actions of a lionized bin Laden.
rafflaw and Otteray Scribe,
We all must forgive misstatements because we have all been there. I admit that I commend the Obama Administration for releasing as much information as possible and I certainly will overlook the mistakes, especially when they are corrected promptly.
I would rather have some correctable human error in reporting than no news at all. Obviously, someone was concerned enough about the facts to correct Obama’s Chief of Counterterrorism and that is a positive sign toward transparency.
Mespo,
I think what our country did in the aftermath of 9/11 went beyond avenging a wrong or an overreaction when we started a preemptive war with Iraq, a country that was not responsible for the destruction of the twin towers and the deaths of approximately 3,000 people.
FFLEO: I am inclined to agree, but they are still in the process of debriefing the two dozen or so SEALS who were there. You will agree, I’m sure, that it is not good to dribble out the facts as they learn them. I know the people are clamoring for information, just as they do after things like plane crashes and other big events. However, dribbling things out is not good, especially when they have to dial it back as more information is learned.
The public needs to be more patient, but that is hard to accommodate with the 24-7 news cycle these days. It is not helpful that the President’s critics are part of the hue and cry, throwing out conspiracy theories right and left. Unfortunate but true, part of the problem is the necessity of slapping those down before all the facts are known.
Former Fed,
If it was an intentional attempt to slur the name of an admitted killer, I would agree. This seems to be a mistake that was clarified within 24-36 hours. How can that be bearing false witness?
“We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We’ll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god’s help,”
—————————————
great, just f–king great.
I remember when the litte airport near me was fingered as one of the places that was training the ‘one way’pilots….you know, the ones that didn’t need to learn how to land? I hd always enjoyed what many Americans have enjoyed…an unbreached sense of safety rooted in ‘knowing’ that I lived in a Country that upheld a very high standard being (for lack of better terminology…)…the highest in fact…in honoring and respecting the civil rights and liberties of others, the legal rights and protections of all citizens…a place where fair play and all was the bottom line. Well, it’s not like that here any more….feels like we have come full circle and we are about to start another cycle. I hope the spiral is upward this time.
FFLeo:
Great to hear from you! On your question, I would have preferred a capture and the attendant trial to get as much information as possible. I think OBL could have been fairly represented and his views, warped though they may be, been given the airing a trial affords. Since OBL eschewed that invitation and violently resisted capture using a new wife as a human shield, I think that natural justice was served.
rafflaw,
To expand on one of the great moral imperatives, one “shall not bear false witness,” especially against the deceased since they certainly cannot defend themselves. Whatever people think of what happened to bin Laden, he must not have fallacious attributes affixed to his death, particularly those which further inflame Islam–therein lies the damage. I think bin Laden’s death should have been a time for humbleness instead of gloating revelry.
Mike Spindell: “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.”
And another thing, how is it you can charge me with knowledge of your statements on other threads?
That’s just silly.
In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: “The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion.”
The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: “You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you’ll hang together with Bush Junior.”
“We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We’ll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god’s help,” he vowed.
Mike Spindell: “perhaps you can stop lumping me in with the Jingoists who responded to this as if it were a holiday.”
I made a general statement regarding the prevailing atmosphere in the wake of the killing of OBL. How is it you and only you took it personally?
Mike Spindell: “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.”
That’s great; but what does it have to do with my statement regarding the prevailing mindset in this country right now? Once again, you were not the direct object of my statement.
Mike Spindell: “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.”
It’s not a stretch Mike; you can’t provide a prima facie case against bin Laden because none has been made in the ten years since 9/11. Prima facie cases are not built upon special pleading, question begging, appeal to circumstances, appeal to emotion and fear.
Mike Spindell: “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.”
Mike, I’m sorry to break this to you, but when it comes to forming a prima facie case against a defendant, the law doesn’t care what you ‘feel.’ The video tape is far from a prima facie case and has a dubious pedigree at best considering who benefited most from its existence. Lest we forget that all it took was a well timed video from OBL to get G.W. Bush a second term.
Mike Spindell: “As far as my being an Obamabot as some have charged. This was my response today to a questionnaire sent to Obama supporters:”
What does this have to do with ANYTHING I said??
Once again Mike you’re picking a fight with the shadow you’re projecting on me.