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. In the real world, a true commitment to the rule of law under Kantian principles demands a large dose of existentialist stubbornness.

  3. “If we adopted your comments as a maxim to be a universal law, there would be NO LEGAL SYSTEM WHATSOEVER.”

    Bob,

    Really? How much of a legal system do we have with Scalia on SCOTUS? How much of a legal system do we have when SCOTUS made GW Bush President? How much do we have when torture goes unpunished? How much do we have when innocent people are executed; when the country can be brought to financial ruin due to fraud and it goes unpunished; when we have Guantanamo Bay; when the vast majority of people in prison are of color; when judges are elected by party line; where prosecutors see their positions as stepping stones politically and act accordingly; etc., etc., etc.

    I do believe in the rule of law and in the Constitution, but i’m honest and realistic enough to know that both stopped being vital forces in our Country years ago. That unconstitutional behavior has no party line. You know this too because you’re a perceptive man. Perhaps the difference between us is that think
    that defending the rule of law and the Constitution requires making judgments as if it existed and I believe that trying to re-institute it requires open acknowledgment of its absence. That is why I admire lawyers like JT, etc. (perhaps even yourself) because they fight the fight knowing the odds are stacked against them and yet continue to do battle.

    Do I feel queasy that this was probably a “hit” ordered by our
    President, yes I do. However, in my opinion this was a minor
    transgression compared to the evil it destroyed and compared to the overwhelming evil that oppresses the live of the majority of humanity. It’s all about nuance to me Bob and also why I never
    wanted any part of politics after my first taste. I could never do what JT, you and other lawyers do, in the face of their certain knowledge of how much the system is rigged. To me this incident is the distinction of bringing a knife to a gunfight. To
    have tried OBL would have been a disaster, whether or not he was convicted. It’s shitty, but that the way it and reality works.

  5. Mike,

    Just because you said something on an another thread doesn’t mean I remember it or didn’t miss it completely; accordingly, if you reference yourself from other threads you should either provide a link or copy and paste the portion you’re referring to.

    MS: “SwM also felt personally affronted by your statement, which admittedly you fleshed out in response to her.”

    SwM accused me of simply ‘hating Obama.’ That she said she didn’t consider herself a jingoist does not mean I accused her (or you) of being one. It means there is air of jingoism and she doesn’t consider herself amongst the crowd creating said air.

    Again, you are the only one (chasing his shadow) taking personal offense.

    MS: “I don’t care whether or not there was a “prima facie”
    case against Osama since it was never possible to try him.”

    Pragmatism and law don’t always mix. Are you aware that the above argument is just as valid as attempting to legitimize torture if anything usable is derived from it?

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/04/through-a-glass-darkly-obama-officials-attempt-to-justify-torture-in-claiming-false-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/

    MS: “To try him specifically would have given him the martyr’s exit he seemed to so desire, if of course he could not have lived to an old age. I’m sorry if that offends anyone’s sensibilities, or notions of justice, but it is nevertheless true. Would I prefer a world that lives regulated by a fair and impartial judicial system, of course I would. It doesn’t exist and since you are a lawyer you know it better that I.”

    If we adopted your comments as a maxim to be a universal law, there would be NO LEGAL SYSTEM WHATSOEVER. Where is the integrity of a legal system where members could invoke your exception any time they felt a trial would be inconvenient?

    This is why we have laws in the first place.

    MS: “I do feel though that in certain specified instances, OBL particularly, the Rule of Law doesn’t work.”

    I rest my case.

  6. Note to all terrorists when confronted by ‘Merican black helicopters and jackbooted Ninjas…Don’t Look Ethel!

  7. “And another thing, how is it you can charge me with knowledge of your statements on other threads? That’s just silly.”

    Bob forgive me for thinking that before you comment on a thread, you read all the prior comments. While that seems logical to me, I admit that others possibly with far more faith in their infallible
    opinions don’t have the need. My comments were made on the Osama is Dead thread on which you also posted.

    “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?”

    SwM also felt personally affronted by your statement, which admittedly you fleshed out in response to her.

    “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.”

    Me:
    “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.”

    Now of course someone with your perspicacity and precision of language might not understand the obvious inference to be made from my statement, so as a courtesy to your needs let me further explain. I don’t care whether or not there was a “prima facie”
    case against Osama since it was never possible to try him. To try him specifically would have given him the martyr’s exit he
    seemed to so desire, if of course he could not have lived to an old age. I’m sorry if that offends anyone’s sensibilities, or notions of justice, but it is nevertheless true. Would I prefer a world that lives regulated by a fair and impartial judicial system, of course I would. It doesn’t exist and since you are a lawyer you know it better that I.

    Hitler was tried and sent to prison in Germany for sedition. He used that time to write “Mein Kampf” and shortly after release he took power. OBL was dangerous in a different way. Mespo’s quotation of Eric Hoffer touched on this. Terrorism in movements is not easily prosecuted in any manner that will counter it, save at times ensuring the downfall of its figurehead.

    Do I feel that the “War on Terror,””the Patriot Act,” torture, etc. are effective tools against terrorism, the proof is in the failure of these programs and in the loss of lives of many innocents and the jailing of others. I do feel though that in certain specified instances, OBL particularly, the Rule of Law doesn’t work. OBL brought this on himself by taking credit for it and in doing so ensured that this would result. I take little satisfaction in the cheering and I more than most am quite cognizant of the finality of death, sometimes we cannot tie things together with truth and justice. I hate that fact with every fiber of my being, but I’m too aware of the predatory
    sub-brain that lies within us.

  8. Bob, Esq.

    Thanks. We sure know how to do justice–American frontier style, that is.

  9. Bob, Esq. (to your point regarding jingoism),

    From Glenn Greenwald 2 days ago (I should receive a thousand lashes (preferably those of the fluttering/batted ocular variety) for not reading Greenwald over the past few days).

    ___________

    {Quote:

    “It’s already a Litmus Test event: all Decent People — by definition — express unadulterated ecstacy at his death, and all Good Americans chant “USA! USA!” in a celebration of this proof of our national greatness and Goodness (and that of our President). Nothing that deviates from that emotional script will be heard, other than by those on the lookout for heretics to hold up and punish. Prematurely interrupting a national emotional consensus with unwanted rational truths accomplishes nothing but harming the heretic…”

    End Quote}

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/02/bin_laden/index.html

  11. Anon Nurse,

    My granddaughter is doing well and is up to 10+ lbs–a real roly poly. Thanks.

    Regarding posting, I think everyone should take an occasional break (respite) from posting. I know that you did a while ago. I have many other tasks I must do besides posting here but the topics and insight are sometimes too good to miss. I did not take my respite because of anyone posting here and occasionally I will take more because of reasons unrelated to any discussions.

  12. Former Federal LEO ,

    Thanks for posting that snippet. “Frat boy” mentality indeed…

    (…and it’s good to see you posting again. I hope that your granddaughter is doing well and you’re enjoying time with her.)

  13. Mr. Greenwald always states my views much better than I can or ever could. Here is just one excerpt from a good article. I should have read this yesterday when it was published.
    ____________

    {Quote:

    “In bin Laden killing, media — as usual — regurgitates false Government claims

    Speaking of “frat boy reactions,” Leon Panetta is excitingly speculating about which actors should portray him in the movie about the Hunt for bin Laden, helpfully suggesting Al Pacino. It’s been a long time since Americans felt this good and strong about themselves — nothing like putting bullets in someone’s skull and dumping their corpse into an ocean to rejuvenate that can-do American sense of optimism.”

    End Quote}

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/03/propaganda_bin_laden/index.html

  14. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/05/04/arguing-against-torture/

    (credit goes to Frank for posting this to another thread)

    excerpt:

    Arguing Against Torture
    by mistermix

    While I agree that torture almost never yields valuable information,… I’m willing to entertain the possibility that torturing someone will gather useful intelligence. The reason I’m willing to do so is because I’m not interested in arguing whether there might be a case somewhere in history where torture led to important intelligence. The argument I want to have is whether a policy of torture is one we ought to adopt, and that’s a far broader question than whether it might work on rare occasion.

    Let’s start with principle, then. Why don’t we torture? Because torture is diminishes our humanity—because in any and all instances we have a basic duty to ourselves, our allies and our enemies to treat all human beings in our custody with dignity. Not torturing, specifically the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, is as key a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech. It’s codified in laws governing conduct of our citizens, and in military regulations governing our treatment of non-citizens. Not torturing is both a founding principle and the law of the land, and Guantanamo and Bagram and all other places where we tortured people exist because some actors in the Bush administration knew damn well that they needed to hide their horrible deeds from the law.

    After this first principle, and the laws that come from it, the next practical argument against torture is that it diminishes our standing in the world, which I don’t think requires a lot of argument, considering that we’re constantly inveighing against regimes that torture and have signed treaties prohibiting it.
    These first two arguments are absolute, and there’s no “ticking time bomb” scenario that can be used to argue against them. Our deeply held principles are true no matter what Jack Bauer did in some episode of his show, and our national standing is hurt by us torturing regardless of whether we gleaned some nugget from waterboarding KSM.

    The reason that we’re always hearing arguments about efficacy instead of principle or national standing is because that weak argument is the only place that torture proponents can put a stake in the ground. Once in a while, though rarely, and almost cetainly not in the case of Osama bin Laden’s killing, torture may work. So, they argue, we should make it our policy.

    The simple answer to that is that even if it works in some rare scenario, it’s not worth sacrificing a 250-year-old principle and our national standing for the tiny, fleeting benefit that may come from it. We’re America, and we’re better than that.

  15. As I stated above I can accept retracted statements; however, the Chief’s entire statement and his exact wording were damning and irrelevant. There is a distinct difference between the two statements of using a woman as a human shield and hiding behind a woman.

    OS: I doubt that the Bush Admin would have made any retractions and the cover-up would have begun.

Comments are closed.