Undermining the Bill of Rights

In a disturbing turn of events that has been largely ignored by the media, Republicans in the House of Representatives have pushed through a bill that would seriously undermine enforcement of the constitutionally required separation of church and state (the Establishment Clause). The Washington Post reports:

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

The recently passed statute creates an exception (prohibiting reimbursement of attorneys) to this law specifically in cases regarding the separation of church and state, while leaving the reimbursement system in place in cases dealing with any other constitutional right. One must ask exactly why it is necessary to create an exception (which will financially exclude most cases from ever being presented) solely for cases dealing with issues of church and state, unless proponents of the bill intend to initiate programs that violate that specific constitutional right.

Since attorneys are only reimbursed if their client is found to have suffered a violation of their constitutional rights, there is no reasonable argument that this bill is aimed at preventing frivolous lawsuits. The only possible purpose this bill could serve is to establish strong disincentives to keep people from seeking justice when their constitutional rights are infringed by state establishment of religious programs. No doubt proponents of the bill perceive a need to discourage what they see as overly-stringent interpretation of the Establishment Clause by the courts. It is, however, extremely dangerous -- and a serious encroachment on the powers of the judicial branch -- for Congress to intentionally circumvent constitutional protections by impeding the judicial process.

One can hope that respect for constitutional provisions will prevail and this bill will be killed in the Senate. If it becomes law it will not only constitute a serious violation of the Establishment Clause, it will set a dangerous precedent for Congressional interference with the right of citizens to seek justice when their rights are violated. Especially in the current atmosphere of fear and growing government power (due to the ongoing "War on Terror"), such a precedent could open the door to much more grave suppression of constitutional rights.

Rice Caught Red Handed

The Bush administration, which has already built a strong reputation for dishonesty, has been caught in the act again -- this time even more conclusively than usual. On a number of occasions (including in testimony before the 9/11 commission) Condoleeza Rice had claimed that the incoming Bush administration had received no plan for dealing with al Qaeda. Rice, Cheney, and others in the administration also repeatedly talked of a failure to act on the part of the Clinton administration after the bombing of the USS Cole -- a failure they claimed had emboldened al Qaeda and possibly contributed to 9/11.

In his testimony before the 9/11 commission (and in a number of other statements) former counterterrorism "czar" Richard Clarke rebutted these claims, saying that Clinton had only learned from the CIA in December of 2000 that al Qaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing, and was unable to take action before leaving office. Most importantly, Clarke claimed that the Clinton administration had passed on a detailed analysis of the threat from al Qaeda, as well as a complete suggested plan for action against bin Laden and al Qaeda in retaliation for the Cole bombing.

In a recent interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace, former President Clinton also passionately defended his actions against al Qaeda, saying that a detailed plan for the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban (in order to deprive al Qaeda of safe-haven) had been drawn up by his administration. Clinton further claimed that despite his desire to take military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the pre-9/11 climate made it impossible to secure the necessary fly-over rights from Pakistan.

The conclusive proof that Rice (along with Dick Cheney and others) had been untruthful came with the declassification of documents -- including the plan itself that was passed on to Bush -- as well as a memo from Clarke to Rice detailing the Clinton plan and suggesting that the Bush administration take action in accordance with Clinton's plan (copies of the declassified documents are available here). The Bush administration took no action against al Qaeda until after 9/11, and has maintained against the conclusive evidence that they received nothing from the outgoing Clinton administration.

Now that the declassified documents have confirmed the claims of Clarke and Clinton, it has become obvious that a number of Bush administration officials had knowingly lied in order to place blame for the 9/11 attacks on alleged inaction by the Clinton administration. Furthermore, it has become clear that the Bush administration failed utterly to take action as suggested by the previous administration, and attempted to cover up this negligence with repeated misrepresentation of the facts. No doubt Rice will attempt to save face by claiming to have never read the Clinton plan, however such a claim would clearly be untruthful considering the proof that Clarke presented Rice with a memo -- to which the plan itself was attached -- drawing attention to the need for action against al Qaeda.

Spinning the NIE

The recent uproar surrounding the leaking of information from the National Intelligence Estimate -- and the subsequent partial declassification of the document by the Bush administration -- has brought to the fore one of the primary questions regarding the proper way to fight this "War on Terror".

In response to claims in the NIE and from critics that the war in Iraq has led to increasing numbers of terrorists and a greater threat of terrorism, Bush stated,

"We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September 11. We weren’t in Iraq when thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps. We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when the blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

Conservatives have repeatedly cited this as a firm rebuttal of the criticism that Iraq has hurt, rather than helped, in the fight against violent Islamic extremism. While it does establish that there was a substantial threat before the invasion of Iraq -- a fact that is not contested by critics of the war -- it fails to address the actual importance of the NIE's finding.

The criticism being brought up here is not that terrorism would cease to threaten America if not for America's military adventures abroad, but that the war in Iraq is having decidedly negative unintended consequences. These consequences include (among others) 1) inflaming hatred of America in the Arab world, which radicalizes poor, uneducated people and leads them to violence and 2) providing a massive terrorist training ground and networking tool in Iraq, where naive extremists become battle-hardened killers.

The first unintended consequence does not produce a terrorist threat where there wasn't one before, but it most certainly does help to expand it throughout the world -- many of the "home-grown" terrorist groups that have recently appeared in the West name the war in Iraq as a primary motivating factor for their resort to violence. The second consequence provides a thriving forum for aspiring terrorists to mature into well-connected, resourceful killers, much like petty criminals often emerge from prison as antisocial thugs. A very similar phenomenon has been well-studied by terrorism experts surrounding the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where the mujahideen established vast personal networks and shared bomb-making and insurgency know-how, forming the foundations for what would become al-Qaeda.

This is not to say that terrorists would not train, establish connections, or recruit new terrorists without an American presence in Iraq. However our presence most certainly does provide the impetus for the accelerated growth of terrorist networks on a much larger scale. The sharp increase in the number of global terrorist attacks and the proliferation of violent extremist ideology since the invasion in 2003 make it even more clear that the strategy of war in Iraq has worked against the security interests of the US.

Greenwald on Warmongering Psychology

Glenn Greenwald has a good post over at his blog discussing the prevalence among many conservatives and hawks of macho, tough-guy rhetoric. Many prominent conservative writers and media figures -- Rush Limbaugh, David Warren, Bill O'Reilly, Jonah Goldberg, and Victor Davis Hanson come to mind, among others -- have a seemingly compulsive need to emphasize their manliness, courage, and masculine dignity. While critics of Greenwald could dismiss this with any number of cliches about "armchair psychology", I think he does in fact raise an important point. As Greenwald discusses, many of these men very frequently accuse others of cowardice, while they advocate for others to be sent to war, for others to show bravery, and for others to take risks.

Rather than just focusing on specific media personalities, Greenwald posits that psychological factors have at least as much influence on American foreign policy as any kind of political ideology. When you look at the rhetoric and recurring themes of our foreign policy, it is hard to deny this -- so much of president Bush's rhetoric centers around being "strong" and "resolute" and standing up against any hint of a threat, so as to not look "cowardly". Republicans also constantly criticize Democrats along these same lines, saying that the Democrats are "weak" or "afraid" or "confused" -- qualities obviously opposite to the self-styled manliness and courage of Republicans.

Greenwald also says that this goes far beyond the idea of "chicken hawks" (those who push for war but never served in the military) in that it concerns the entire structure of decision-making and results in serious government policies with widespread effects being formed on the basis of our leaders' need to feel empowered and masculine. This is certainly something to think about next time you listen to a political speech or the tough-guy rhetoric of TV pundits and writers.

Living In Constant Irrational Fear, or The Decline of Western Culture

The bigotry and aggressive ignorance born of our ridiculous culture of fear and militarism continues to grow and grow. A Hasidic Jewish man was recently kicked off of a flight to New York City for praying, supposedly because the airline had received "numerous" complaints about his behavior. Possibly the most disgusting aspect was revealed by this account of the incident:

"The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation but they had to ask him to leave."

So not only was this man kicked off of a flight for doing absolutely nothing that could reasonably be seen as threatening (i.e. praying silently to himself), the attendant found it necessary to relate that because he wasn't a Muslim, no one really thought that he posed any threat. As we all know, if he was a Muslim, he would certainly have been preparing to blow himself up because all Muslims -- not a tiny, tiny percentage of extremist Muslims that amounts to far less than 1 percent of all Muslims in the world -- are dangerous and suicidal. (/sarcasm) Exactly how ignorant and terrified were these people to complain about such obviously harmless behavior? Living so long under the constant fear-mongering, hateful rhetoric, and militarism of the Bush administration (and many other Western governments) is having a serious toll on our society.

That behavior like this has become commonplace and even largely accepted is disgusting and unacceptable. Our tenuous, slipping hold on global hegemony and the constant decline and degradation of our culture are more and more prominently displayed every day. Whether or not this decline can be stopped or reversed, only time will tell, however it seems now as if most people are content with the ever-worsening state of our culture.

The Cost of Smearing Social Sciences

While most political and economic issues in America remain the subject of extensive debate and widespread political differences, the right has succeeded with most Americans in largely marginalizing and discrediting many of the most important theories and discoveries in the social sciences. In public (as well as most private) schools, greater emphasis is placed on natural sciences such as physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry, while social sciences such as sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, and philosophy are sidelined or neglected altogether. Beyond the classroom, there is a general prevailing notion that social sciences are in some way not factual, irreparably biased, or not scientific.

The conservative worldview came to be seen as irreconcilable with many aspects of modern social science partially because the discoveries of the social sciences were seen as supporting a more "liberal" worldview, and partially because of a general trend in which conservatives became increasingly hostile towards some sciences and academia in general, which they viewed as "out of touch" with American values. Conservatives have been largely successful in undermining the credibility of social sciences, though the rejection of these sciences was mostly based on misperceptions and mischaracterizations of many ideas and theories in the social sciences.

Most effectively, conservatives brought attention to a number of fringe elements in social science, such as those who advocate strict moral relativism, and associated entire fields of legitimate study with these widely rejected theories. In other cases, the value-neutral methodology of social sciences was intentionally conflated with a general rejection of moral values, when in fact a value-neutral approach is scientifically necessary for the effective study of different cultures and moral systems. The use of such methods does not imply that social scientists reject morality, any more than a judge would reject the law in trying to understand the actions of a criminal.

While it is not widely recognized, the marginalization and rejection of the social sciences has had profound negative effects on our society. In rejecting social sciences, our society has come to espouse an ill-informed view of individuality that neglects the great influences of culture, social interaction, and institutions which come together to shape and form our behaviors and perspectives. Our rejection of valuable sociological and feminist studies has led us to perceive women's eating disorders and self-image problems as simple personal or psychological issues, rather than realizing the important role of social norms, cultural pressures and societal ideals in causing these disorders. Similarly, our neglect of anthropological and cultural studies has left us largely incapable of understanding the differences in cultures throughout the world. This ignorance no doubt contributes to unfounded hostility towards other nations as well as misunderstanding of the actions and motives of allies and enemies alike. These failings of understanding result in substantial costs to America in our globalized world, and can contribute to hostility and global conflict.

This neglect has held our society from gaining vital understanding of human interactions and has prevented the development of a better, healthier, more flourishing society. What is to be made of the state of our culture when we can send men to the moon and unleash unthinkable destructive power with nuclear weapons, yet we neglect the necessity of understanding the intricacies of human interaction? Americans can continue to neglect the important studies of society and human formation at their own risk, however they should be aware of the costs of their willful ignorance.

Resolving the Iran Issue

As the deadline for the UN Security Council's demand for Iran to cease uranium enrichment activities passed on September 1, the issue of Iran's intentions and the probable response from Washington become more and more important. Having passed the deadline without ceasing its enrichment activities, Iran has exposed itself to possible sanctions, if the United States can push such a resolution through the Security Council over possible objections by Russia and/or China.

In the Bush administration and in most Washington circles, it is taken for granted that Iran's enrichment programs aim at covertly developing nuclear weaponry. Other governments throughout the world, whether because of their better standing with the Iranian regime or for other reasons, do not see the issue as so certain. There has been no evidence to date of any covert weapons programs, except for a number of failures to comply fully with international inspection programs. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence, and there are a number of reasons to believe that Iran might be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran has long had aspirations of establishing itself as a regional power on par with Israel, and has largely succeeded in becoming a leader among its neighbors. However, Iran's ability to effectively project power and influence major political issues in the region is hampered by its lack of nuclear deterrent capabilities. The lack of nuclear weapons in the Middle East has allowed Israel to maintain its dominant status, and has left the majority of Muslim nations open to intervention and attack by Western nations. If Iran could successfully develop nuclear weapons, it would not only solidify its role as a primary regional power, but would also gain a deterrent guarantee against foreign intervention or any attempt at regime change.

Keeping these major incentives for nuclear development in mind, it seems very logical to conclude that Iran would pursue such weapons, especially in light of their past record of noncompliance with weapons inspectors. The amount of suspicious evidence seems so overwhelming that it could be termed a "slam dunk" -- and as America has learned all too well in its experience in Iraq, such overwhelming circumstantial evidence can easily backfire. If the Bush administration is unable to positively establish the existence of such programs, it is unlikely that the rest of the international community will go along with the harsh sanctions (and possible military actions) desired by Washington.

In the meantime, the issue of Iran's noncompliance will likely be dealt with through any number of weak sanctions and harshly worded denunciations. That is to say, Iran's noncompliance will likely not be dealt with in any serious manner until the U.S. is able to provide more than declarations of its suspicions. For hawks in the Bush administration, this situation is unacceptable as it allows Iran to move ever-closer to gaining nuclear capabilities. Contrary to a number of experts who estimate the Iranian nuclear timetable at anywhere from 5 years to a decade, many are warning of a "point of no return" after which Iran will inevitably gain nuclear weapons, no matter what further actions are taken by the international community.

This growing disconnect between those who demand immediate (and often military) action and those who are comfortable at this point with extended diplomatic negotiations is likely to end in frustration for Washington. Earlier in his administration, president Bush would not have hesitated before ordering massive military action against Iran to prevent the "mad mullahs" from coming into possession of nuclear weapons. This, however, is 2006 and much of Bush's credibility and energy have been expended in the ongoing slaughter in Iraq. No doubt the president would love to deal with Iran just as he dealt with Saddam's government, however he is incapable of dealing with Iran precisely because he chose to go after Saddam.

In the best case scenario, Iran would cease its enrichment efforts, open its facilities to inspectors and prove that it was not developing any illegal weapons capabilities -- this, however, is highly unlikely as it would amount to political suicide for Iranian president Ahmadinejad. While Iran could conceivably open its facilities and prove its innocence, it is highly unlikely that any Iranian official would dare cease enrichment activities. The Iranian people pride themselves on their sovereignty, and passionately assert their right to develop peaceful nuclear technology. Any cessation of enrichment would amount to a surrender of this sovereignty, and would be met with outrage among the Iranian people. Sadly, in the atmosphere of suspicion that currently prevails, any good-faith efforts by Iran short of stopping enrichment programs would almost certainly be rejected as insufficient (or mere stalling) by the United States.

The worst case scenario, against which many realistic thinkers are now bracing themselves, could go one of two ways: either an indefinite stalling of diplomatic negotiations culminating in the announcement that Iran has developed nukes in the meantime, or a brash unilateral attack on Iranian facilities by the U.S. or Israel culminating in a horrific regional war that would make Iraq look like Iowa.

In walking the thin line between ineffectiveness and belligerence, American diplomats and policymakers can only hope for some political miracle -- a new development or Iranian change of heart -- that will turn the tides in their favor. As things stand now, Iran appears to be holding more than a few trump cards, and any attempt to restrain its programs (illegal or not) are very likely to meet with failure.

In the Minds of the Far Right

Among the various supporters of the Bush administration's "War on Terror", there can be found proponents of virtually every ideological leaning, from the "liberal" Christopher Hitchens to the many right-wing hardliners such as Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer. The mainstream media and cable news networks tend to give substantial speaking time to representatives of these numerous Bush-supporting "factions", however the talking heads that make their way into the mainstream bring with them a certain degree of diplomacy and tact that is not found with many writers in the blogosphere.

From this disparity, the question arises whether the more blunt and provacative rhetoric found on right-wing blogs is a more extreme version of Bush's brand of conservatism, or whether it is simply a more honest exposition of the same ideas. Considering that the ideas themselves seem to be almost identical -- with the only difference between the mainstream and the fringe being the uncompromising presentation found in much of the blogosphere -- it appears that the conservative mainstream and fringes share many of the same guiding principles.

The most widespread and controversial of these principles together form a sort of ad hoc ideology which is, if not entirely consistent, at least sufficient for expressing the worldview and goals of many on the right. These core ideas are as follows:

• Violent extremist Islam (sometimes called "Islamofascism") poses a serious existential threat to Western traditions of culture, democracy and liberty -- a threat on par with the Nazi fascism and Soviet communism of the past.
• These Islamic extremists are committed to the destruction and/or conquest of Western civilization, and possess the means to succeed if they are not strongly opposed.
• The ideology and actions of "the Left" work against the interests of Western civilization and serve to enable Islamic extremists in their attempts to subvert Western traditions.
• Muslims -- whether living in Western countries or elsewhere -- are to some extent complicit in the actions of Islamic extremists, and should be treated with suspicion, much as Japanese Americans were treated during World War II. (The degree to which Muslims are seen as complicit varies between different elements on the right.)

These ideas, together with the firmly established traditions of militarism and exceptionalism, lead many to view the current conflict as a clearly defined, Manichean "Clash of Civilizations", to use the term used by Samuel P. Huntington. In this epic struggle -- the stakes of which are nothing less than the continued existence of Western civilization -- it often becomes necessary to empower government (specifically the Executive branch) in order to counter the numerous threats from outside the country as well as within.

The first idea forms the justification for expansion of government power, by framing the conflict in terms of exceedingly serious existential threats of the past. Further, the second idea identifies an enemy that is not only sufficiently powerful to threaten the American way of life, but is also completely irrational and uncompromising.

The third and fourth ideas establish a more immediate threat, within the boundaries of Western civilization, which justifies the suspension of any number of traditionally held rights and the domestic empowerment of the Executive. More specifically, the third idea delegitimizes any political opposition to Bush's policies by casting it as opposition to democracy and liberty, or even worse, as active support of irrational, bloodthirsty forces that threaten to annihilate Western civilization. Similarly, the fourth idea introduces an element of uncertainty and fear by identifying the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority with a much larger group. By emphasizing the difficulty of differentiating "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" -- and by implying some degree of complicity shared by all Muslims -- wider, more indiscriminate violations of liberties and more extreme policies can be justified.

While most of these ideas arise from a seed of truth, the way in which they are expanded and generalized provides a basis for mass-scale government involvement and escalation. In keeping with the right-wing emphasis on military strength and order, it is natural for a perceived threat to be countered with the growth of government power. From this premise, it is obvious that the greater the threat, the greater the expansion of government power will be. If war is the health of the state, it is very much in the interests of the state to maximize perceptions of danger and uncertainty, in order to maximize the benefits it can derive from a threat.

None of this, however, depends on any sort of conspiracy or conscious deceptive effort on the part of government officials. The nature of our government and military are such that escalation and exaggeration are not only beneficial but almost unavoidable. In a political context, overstatement of a threat often serves to consolidate support and reinforce national identity, while understatements risk being contradicted by future serious developments. When the exact nature and extent of a threat is not immediately evident (as is surely the case with violent Islamic extremism) it is virtually always better to overestimate the threat and act accordingly, since any underestimation would likely result in catastrophe (i.e. another terrorist attack due to inadequate protection). In addition, large-scale responses to even the most uncertain of threats are politically valuable as they generally present leaders as strong and in control. Thus it is natural -- though often harmful -- for governments to maximize the seriousness of threats in their rhetoric and responses.

The ideology that arises out of this process, as we saw above, reinforces originally unfounded assumptions and, in many cases, becomes self-fulfilling. For example, the conflict of Iraq, which was falsely framed as part of the War on Terror (Iraq in fact had nothing to do with al Qaeda), has become central to that conflict as Islamic extremists exploit anti-American sentiments that have arisen as a result of that war. Similarly, as numerous elements within American and European society continue to unjustly target peaceful Muslims (with rhetoric, legislation, and cultural pressures), it is inevitable that the resulting injustice and alienation will expand the ranks of extremists.

As we have seen, these fundamental conceptions of the nature of the "War on Terror" pose a danger to liberty and democracy that could surpass the danger of terrorism itself. In contrast to many wars of the past, in which definite goals and enemies were evident, this 21st century war is one that will be fought more with ideas than with guns or tanks. Since there is no way to effectively identify all or even most of our enemies in this conflict, let alone exterminate them, it is paramount that we commit our resources not to escalation but to adaptation. The American militarism and dominance of the 20th century are things of the past. Unless Americans quickly come to this realization, it may be our reaction to the terrorist threat, rather than the threat itself, that brings about the end of our way of life.