Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, International, Lawyering, Media, Military, Politics, Society

Reflections On 9/11

Below is today’s brief essay in the Los Angeles Times that is part of a series called Reflections on 9/11. I was asked that day after the attacks to write a column for the newspaper, which ran on September 13, 2001. As I wrote the piece, I could still see smoke rising from the Pentagon. The plane in Washington hit just behind my car a minute or so after I passed the Pentagon on my way to work from Alexandria. On that day, my greatest concerns were two-fold: a change in the definition of war and the expanded use of assassination. Unfortunately, my worst predictions were exceeded by the Bush Administration and later the Obama Administration. It is shocking to think that this was ten years ago. The images and feelings remain so vivid. My car was forced into a curb by a careening car that morning and I had to replace my tire as the smoke bellowed from the Pentagon. The thought of all the innocent people lost in Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania remains an open wound for so many of us. The sheer savagery and inhumanity of the attacks shocked the conscience — a feeling only magnified later when Bin Laden was shown gloating over how he personally advised the terrorists on the best place to hit the buildings. The cautionary piece on September 13th was not meant to take away from the legitimate and collective anger that we felt — and still feel. However, it was already clear within two days of the attacks that Bush officials were going to seek the radical expansion of presidential powers and were already referencing our civil liberties as an impediment to our safety. My heartfelt sympathy to all who lost friends and family on that day.

In his September 13 Op Ed (“Cries of “war” stumble over the law”), Turley warned against the government seeking “greater flexibility” in responding to terrorists by treating criminal attacks “as a matter of war.” “Our system,” he wrote, “requires that legal means be used to achieve legal ends. We decide those means and ends within the general confines of the Constitution.” How has the founding document fared?

As the smoke was still rising from the Pentagon and World Trade Center, it became quickly evident that some of the greatest damage from the September 11th attacks would not come from without but from within our nation.

There was an almost immediate effort by Bush officials to change the definition of war. Rather than declare war on Afghanistan (where Bin Laden was sheltered), President George W. Bush wanted to declare war on terrorism. It was no rhetorical triviality. Bush decided to invoke the heightened constitutional powers of a wartime president by declaring war on what was a category of crime. Because there could never be a total, final defeat of terrorism, this “war” would become permanent – as would the heightened powers of the president.

Ten years later, the country remains “at war,” with President Barack Obama expanding many of the national security powers of his predecessor and, in the Libyan war, claiming his own re-definition of war: “a time-limited, scope-limited military action.”

Of course, the ominous signs in 2001 were realized in a myriad of other ways, from the establishment of the first American torture program to the widespread use of targeted assassinations, including operations killing American citizens. Ironically, I wrote then of the possibility of a new law that could govern the use of assassination, one that would deny a president unilateral authority to kill individuals and would reduce the need to invoke war powers. Instead, the Bush administration claimed full wartime authority as well as radically expanding the use of assassination as an unchecked presidential power. The claim of unilateral presidential authority to kill even United States citizens has been embraced by Obama.

What ultimately fell on that terrible day proved to be some of our most important constitutional structures. Tragically, it is a degree of damage that cannot be claimed by Al Qaeda alone.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

87 thoughts on “Reflections On 9/11”

  2. Well put Mike. If the Bush Administration had worked apolitically and openly without taking us to war in Iraq on lies, the Republicans would have had a solid hold on the White House and the Congress. Instead, he lied us into a war that cost the lives of thousands of our best and brightest and emptied the coffers at the same time.

  4. “Krugman’s sin wasn’t that he inappropriately politicized what was otherwise an apolitical day. His sin was the opposite. He deviated from the approved, mandatory political script for that day: by pointing out that it isn’t only the Terrorists but also ourselves who engaged in deeply shameful crimes. He didn’t politicize an apolitical day; to the contrary, he subverted the most politically propagandistic day that now exists in American political culture.”

    Elaine,

    Thanks for Glenn’s article. As in most things Glenn again speaks truth to power, as does Krugman. That 9/11 is used to drive political narratives of a certain kind is a truth, though those who use it as such are despicable.
    What should have been a moment of solidarity among the American people was usurped in the service of political gain. It takes courage to publicly state that since the myth builders have worked so hard to make it a shrine to American Jingoism, while simultaneously lauding and betraying those who were heroes of that day. Heep’s of praise are laid on the heads of those who selflessly volunteered to work in the rubble to find survivors, but when the ailments caused by that heroic work arise, the necessary care and it cost are denied them. This is true to of our troops who are so self-servingly glorified by these political scoundrels, but have their Veteran’s Benefits cut or denied when they return from harm’s way. Rather than a fitting memorial rite that brings common union to us all, it has become an event used to promote a political agenda and hide the mistaken excesses committed in its name.

  8. “Krugman was right back then and he is right now.” -Mike S.

    Agreed.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/about-that-paul-krugman-allegation-of-911-shame/2011/03/03/gIQAdwBMNK_blog.html

    Excerpt:

    Here’s top McCain adviser Charlie Black, during the 2008 campaign:

    A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.

    Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.”

    By the way, as some on the left have conceded, the “politicization” of national security issues isn’t necessarily a bad thing — the parties should be presenting sharply contrasting visions about these issues. And I wouldn’t tar all Republicans with this brush, either. During Obama’s presidency, current GOP leaders have for the most part kept the debate clean on topics such as Guantanamo Bay and terrorism. But as Dave Weigel notes, to deny that terrorism was used as a wedge issue after 9/11 is tantamount to “denying a few years of political history.” There’s no denying that in the wake of 9/11, and in the four elections that followed, some Republicans and conservatives viewed the terrorism debate as a way to gain political advantage and to sow gut-level fear of the opposition. This isn’t a controversial assertion. To parahprase Weigel, what’s controversial (in addition to his language) is Krugman’s timing in making it.

    UPDATE: Krugman weighs in again. I second his recollection of the post-9/11 environment being a “terrible time in America — a time of exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq.”

    And it’s worth remembering the crucial point that Krugman is saying nothing now that he didn’t say at the time. (end of excerpt)

  12. The meaning of political rituals like 9/11 Day
    BY GLENN GREENWALD
    Salon, 9/13/2011
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/13/rituals/index.html

    Excerpts:
    On 9/11 Day, Paul Krugman provoked a wave of petulant, angry condemnation for pointing out just some of the valid reasons that day is now inextricably linked with the shameful acts done in its name by the U.S. Though I continuously defended Krugman on Twitter, I had no intention of writing about this pseudo-controversy because it was little more than what Digby describes as a standard formulaic “hissy fit” from right-wing warmongers who long ago ceased having the power to stigmatize people for such heresies (the apex of this absurd spectacle occurred when the man widely admired around the world as The Nation’s Moral Conscience — Donald Rumsfeld — announced that he was cancelling his subscription to The New York Times in protest of Krugman’s “repugnant” post).

    But then yesterday, I read what is one of the most self-evidently inane posts the Internet has ever produced: this must-be-read-to-be-believed sermon from Mother Jones’ Rick Ungar condemning Krugman and demanding that other progressives join with him and the Right in these denunciations. Just for sheer entertainment, I really encourage you to read the whole thing; my favorite part is when Ungar decrees that 9/11 Day is “a day when Americans of all stripes should have been giving thanks to both President Bush and President Obama for doing whatever it is they do that has protected us from a tragic repeat of the events of September 11, 2001.” On so many levels, that’s just the funniest sentence ever (and we now bow our heads in reverent gratitude toward our Leaders, George Bush and Barack Obama, and solemnly thank them for doing whatever it is they do — no matter what that might be — to Keep Us Safe).

    But there is a point raised by Ungar’s finger-wagging that I do actually think is worth addressing. He writes that while he agrees with the substance of Krugman’s criticism, it was his timing that was so offensive, because 9/11 Day “was decidedly not a day that needed to be about politics.” This notion — that 9/11 Day was nothing more than an apolitical grieving ceremony, akin to a private funeral, and Krugman’s sin was one of etiquette: it just wasn’t the day for politics — is a common one. But it’s completely wrong, and quite destructive to accept.

    Everything about 9/11 Day — like all political rituals — was deeply politicized to its core. It was imbued with political meaning, political messaging, and controversial claims, both implicit and explicit. Almost every speech given that day made claims about the meaning and “legacy” of 9/11, what caused it, and what the nature of the American response was. President Obama proclaimed that “our character as a nation has not changed,” that “these past 10 years have shown that America does not give in to fear,” that “these past ten years have shown America’s resolve to defend its citizens, and our way of life,” and that “these 10 years have shown that we hold fast to our freedoms.” Vice President Biden boasted that “The terrorists who attacked the Pentagon . . . sought to weaken America . . . But they failed,” and that Al Qaeda “never imagined the sleeping giant they were about to awaken.” Those are all highly politicized claims. I happen to disagree with each of them. Others of course agree. But there’s no denying that all of that — and much more in those speeches — is consummately political.

    **********

    Krugman’s sin wasn’t that he inappropriately politicized what was otherwise an apolitical day. His sin was the opposite. He deviated from the approved, mandatory political script for that day: by pointing out that it isn’t only the Terrorists but also ourselves who engaged in deeply shameful crimes. He didn’t politicize an apolitical day; to the contrary, he subverted the most politically propagandistic day that now exists in American political culture. It’s unsurprising that the American Right wants to demonize him for that; they’ve long viewed themselves as the Owners of 9/11 who, as such, can dictate how we talk about that event. But to watch a writer at a liberal journal demand that progressives join in the bashing — based on this blatantly false pretense that these types of propaganda rituals are devoid of politics — was ultimately too extreme to ignore.

  16. Krugman was right back then and he is right now. On Sunday I literally could not watch any of the memorial services because this entire episode was shameless in the aftermath of a great loss. For the sake of honesty I must admit that I did not at first have Krugman’s prescience and my reasons were deeply personal. Saddam Hussein’s dropping Scuds on Israel during the first Iraq war angered me. He did it to specifically provoke Israel to attack and thereby split the Arab world, since Israel was specifically requested to sit out the war.

    My anger at Iraq was short sighted in retrospect and I must admit that I suspected the whole of the Bush claims of weapons of mass destruction at the time and supported the War. I’m not proud of my thoughts back then and I am even less proud now in the clear hindsight of history. The Bush Administration’s response was murderous, shameless and motivated by greed and lust for power. All who perpetrated this madness should be prosecuted, especially for misusing our innocent troops and causing the death of probably a million or more innocent civilians.

    Krugman is the real hero and The Bush/Cheney mob, along with the Giulianni/Kerrick, mob cashed in on the rage of a stunned public to perpetrate war crimes. Shame on anyone who would besmirch him for his bravery and foresight.

  18. rafflaw,

    “Rumsfield and Bush and Cheney should be ashamed of themselves.”

    One thing is for sure–Cheney certainly isn’t ashamed of himself. Remember how he said heads were going to explode in Washington when his book was published. Too bad his head wasn’t one of them.

  19. Elaine,
    I have to agree with Krugman. The war in Iraq and the torture campaign do stain the memory of anyone who died in the 9/11 attacks. Rumsfield and Bush and Cheney should be ashamed of themselves.

  20. September 12, 2011, 2:37 pm
    More About the 9/11 Anniversary
    by Paul Krugman
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/more-about-the-911-anniversary/

    It looks as if I should say a bit more about yesterday’s anniversary.
    So:

    The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.

    It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, when people who made speeches, then feathered their own political or financial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – those who put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.

    So it was a shameful episode in our nation’s history – and it’s one that I can’t help thinking about whenever we talk about 9/11 itself.

    Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.

    But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Comments are closed.