According to Naomi Wolf, the Bush Administration has already initiated all 10 steps necessary to bring fascism to the United States.
One of my pet peeves with the Left is the tendency, almost by default, to liken the Bush Administration to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It is a significant reason I could no longer bring myself to associate with the Left.
Naomi Wolf is a textbook case of this tendency. Last month, Wolf released her sixth book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. The book is based on ideas she presented in an article titled, “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps” which appeared in The Guardian last April. In the article, Wolf argued there is a blueprint the Bush Administration is following to close down an open society and that the blueprint was established by Hitler, Stalin and other lesser despots. “As difficult as this is to contemplate,” Wolf writes, “it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush Administration.”
The first of these ten steps is to identify an all-encompassing enemy. “Creating a terrifying threat – hydra-like, secretive, evil – is an old trick,” writes Wolf. Is Wolf suggesting that the United States created Osama bin Laden? Not only did the United States not create bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalism — bin Laden declared war on this country nearly five years before President Bush took office. While Wolf does recognize terrorism as a threat she dismisses the notion that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to civilization itself. Perhaps she ought to read bin Laden’s words especially when, in his 1996 fatwa, he mocks American forces for withdrawing from Beirut and Mogadishu after suffering casualties. Directing his comments to then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen, bin Laden praised his jihadists by stating:
These youths love death as you loves (sic) life . . . Those youth know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. And infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.
Some trick.
Two of Wolf’s other steps are the establishment of a gulag and the development of a thug caste. Yes, Wolf uses the word gulag in describing Guantanamo Bay, echoing the sentiments of Irene Khan, the Secretary General of Amnesty International. It is a curious use of language considering millions of people were killed in Stalin’s gulag, while at Gitmo all of four people have died, all by way of suicide. Gordon Cucullu, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, has been to Gitmo on five occasions for a month at a time over the past several years. He is writing a book based on his observations that will come out in early 2008. In a recent interview, Cucullu, in describing the nutritional regime at Gitmo, stated, “Americans might be somewhat upset to see the detainees eat better than the American guards.” Quite frankly, where it concerns Gitmo, I am more inclined to take the word of someone who has actually observed the proceedings than someone ready to accept the word of Islamic terrorists at face value.
With regard to the thug caste Wolf bizarrely claims that “groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000.” Clearly she is trying to evoke the Blackshirts and Brownshirts. Yet I am unable to find a report of any such incident. Who were the alleged perpetrators and victims? In what county or counties did these menacing acts take place? Where are these people now? Do they live in the swamps of the Everglades emerging only on Election Day? If such a thing occurred it certainly was not reported to the authorities nor cited by either the Department of Justice or U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in their investigation of voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election. According to Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, while there were instances where Spanish-speaking voters were denied bilingual services, there was no large-scale effort to keep minority voters away from the polls nor were there any gangs of identically dressed, ill-tempered, youthful Republican males wreaking havoc with voters or poll workers.
Given these questionable claims Wolf put forward as evidence that America is fast becoming the Fourth Reich, I knew I had to query her when she appeared to discuss her book at the Harvard Coop, a local bookstore in Cambridge.
Wolf remarked that she at first did not believe America was on the road to fascism. However, she cited a friend of hers who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Her friend kept telling her that the Bush Administration was doing in America what Hitler had done in Germany. Wolf said she didn’t want to believe it until her friend compelled her to read what she had read. I did not ask Wolf what her friend made her read, but whatever it was that she read, it appears she accepted it without a hint of skepticism. After reading these books, Wolf felt the need to write about this dark journey to a closed society. She has also helped find the American Freedom Campaign along with the likes of Wes Boyd, a co-founder of MoveOn.org.
Her lecture generally consisted of half-truths and suspect anecdotes peppered with plenty of hyperbole. For instance, Wolf claimed Andrew Meyer was shot with a taser merely because he asked questions. Nonsense. Meyer would not allow John Kerry to answer the questions he asked. Am I suggesting Meyer ought to have been tasered? Absolutely not. There were other ways order could have been restored without having to resort to the use of a taser. Yet if one had not seen the video one would believe the police just randomly acted against Meyer because he asked the wrong set of questions. She cited Alberto Gonzales' firing of the eight U.S. attorneys as a “purge.” In her Guardian essay, Wolf likened the firing of the U.S. Attorneys to Joseph Goebbels' purge of the German civil service in April 1933, calling it “a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.” Yet Wolf never mentioned Janet Reno firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of the Clinton Administration. If the Bush Administration firing eight U.S. attorneys was a purge, then the Clinton Administration’s firing of 93 U.S. attorneys was an ethics cleansing. Get it? Ethics cleansing.
Wolf claims that Verizon Wireless is censoring text messages. Now given that I am a Verizon Wireless subscriber and often communicate with my girlfriend by text message, that raised my ears. Indeed, last month, Verizon declined to send text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America on the grounds it could prohibit “controversial and unsavory” messages. But what Wolf did not mention was that after a public outcry, less than a week later, Verizon reversed its decision. Wolf also said of the Bush Administration that “violent criminals are at the helm of the U.S.” But real dissidents can tell a democrat from a tyrant. The Dalai Lama, Elie Wiesel and Natan Sharansky greatly admire President Bush. Does Wolf take the Dalai Lama, Wiesel and Sharansky to be fools taken in by a violent criminal?
Wolf also complained about her treatment at our nation’s airports. She said that for the past 18 months she has been subject to extra searches and cited as a “top security risk.” How does she know this to be so? Because a TSA employee told her that she was “on the list.” So because Naomi Wolf is on the list (whatever that list might be) she declares America a fascist state. Talk about chutzpah. I have no doubt such a thing is a pain, particularly if one travels by air a great deal, and I am sure I would not care for it a great deal if I were in a similar position. Yet I think these experiences have perhaps compromised her capacity to reason. She also described being “menaced” by a New York City police officer at a train station. Wolf also complained that she could only get a small publisher in Vermont to print End of America and that there was a “media blackout” on it. She also said that if a journalist or editor is declared an “enemy combatant” in this country she will stop talking. Clearly this is someone who is at wits end fraying at the edges.
That emotional state was in evidence when I questioned her. In her Guardian essay, in easy step number nine (dissent equals treason), she warns of arrests of public figures taking place. “If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.” I reminded her of several things. One, we were in a bookstore. Two, we were in a bookstore that had dozens of books critical of the Bush Administration including Charlie Savage’s Takeover, John Dean’s Broken Government, Jack Goldsmith’s The Terror Presidency and Glenn Greenwald’s Tragic Legacy. Third, I pointed out that people were not afraid to speak in this country and that in New England most political commentary was decidedly anti-Bush. Fourth, I reminded her that we were discussing her book in public and not under cover of darkness. Fifth, I further reminded her that the Bush Administration would be leaving in fewer than 460 days, never to return. With this in mind I asked her if she honestly believed that she and the other authors I mentioned would be arrested and imprisoned.
Naomi Wolf did not want to answer my question. She began by talking about Germany in 1931-1932 and that there was an intellectual class strongly opposed to the Nazis before the “tipping point.” Then for some odd reason she veered off into talking about Dan Rather’s lawsuit against Viacom. I must have had a skeptical look on my face because she then shouted at me, “Let me finish” even though I had not uttered a word of interruption. If Dan Rather has the right to sue his former employer and wins money as a result I am not sure quite sure how this brings us fascism. She then cited journalist Greg Palast (who has also written a book critical of the Bush Administration) being under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security for filming an oil refinery. What she did not mention was that while there had been a complaint filed against Palast, he was not arrested and DHS ultimately decided against pursuing any charges.
Since she did not answer my question the first time I asked her once more. Wolf replied, “I hope not.” She then shouted at me yet again and asked me, “Why are we having this discussion?” If she had permitted me to retort I would have said because she brought it up in her essay. Wolf then proceeded to tell me she was getting “angry” and then invoked her two children, much to the delight of the crowd sympathetic to her who began applauding. I just smiled, having successfully gotten under her skin. That was not my intent although I was prepared for such a reaction.
In all fairness, a few minutes later, Wolf did publicly apologize for getting angry with me, citing the need to be civilized. I told her and all assembled that I had taken no offense from her diatribe. But her outburst was quite revealing. Aside from whatever stress she is experiencing in her life it is also clear to me she has not thought her argument through and is ill-prepared to defend it. After all, if you are going to tell people it is the End of America you ought to expect your ideas to be vigorously challenged and be able to answer tough questions arising from honest scrutiny.
I do not believe Naomi Wolf will be arrested or imprisoned between now and when a new President is inaugurated on January 20, 2009. In the highly unlikely event she should be arrested and imprisoned for anything arising from her writing and speaking (short of inciting people to kill) I will be the first to denounce any such arrest. As unimpressed and unpersuaded I am by her arguments they do not warrant the loss of her freedom. Her ideas ought to be heard and the public can choose to accept, reject or ignore them. Yet crying fascism is not unlike crying wolf. So long as Naomi Wolf insists on calling every transgression, real or imagined, another step towards fascism in America, people will turn away from her incendiary language and simply ignore her call to arms.
Personally, I don’t find anything at all wrong with tasering disruptive and uncontrollable people who refuse to act reasonably or respond to orders from police to stop their obnoxious behavior. Like Andrew Meyer, Naomi Wolf, or any of the other leftists yahoos who exhibit the same kind of behavior.
I recall that the left began using the term “fascism” like “seasoning sprinkled
over a salad (to steal a line from Edward Alexander)” sometime after Reagan’s
victory over Mondale. The Reagan victory ended whatever pretentions the demo-
crats had to a progressive economic policy and in its wake the democrats adopted
more or less the republican’s ideas on the economy. However despite the growing similarity
between the two parties (at least in matters of economics), the left’s language became more strident–especially on issues
of race.
It was about this time that the Holocaust became a popular term exploited by the left–and one often used to
browbeat republicans on issues of race. Both terms, fascism and “Holocaust” were
rarely used with any reference to actual history. I routinely recall hearing Reagan referred to
as a fascist while walking up and down Seattle’s University Avenue. Tom Segev, in his book the 7th Million, discusses how Israeli scholars attempted to preserve the historical specificity of the
Holocaust museums (and the like) springing up all over America. He writes that they soon
gave up because Americans were obsessed with creating the Holocaust as a sort of
“universal” idea–quite distinct from its particular details. IN this way, both “fascism”
and “Holocaust” have become part of contemporary (and alas banal) AMerican
political parlance. Despite the enormous amount of attention given to the Holocaust,
SEgev argues that this largely served to banalize it as an event. The Holocaust came to
imply a sort of “universal humanism” or “goodness”. A transformation much along the lines of
turning hot Mexican salsa into Tostitos catsup.
Walter Benn Michaels in his recent book “the Trouble with Diversity” discusses how
modern leftist rhetoric, having lost its orientation towards the “working class”, now has
found a home in strident ethnic rhetoric. However, he argues,
this “ethnic rhetoric” (and “sexual diversity rhetoric, too)serves
less to benefit those who are endlessly labled “oppressed” and in fact facilitates
the “multicultural” environment of America’s corporate world. Academic obsessions
with subjects such as “Albanian lesbianism” reflect less an interest in liberating lesbians in
Albania than in creating a “safe” corporate environment for people of different sexual
persuasion. The representation of real Albanians,real poor Afro-Americans, real Holocaust victims (and so on) becomes a sort of therapy for office politics (and anxieties).
Woolf’s silly abuse of language probably comes from her own anxieties. The liberal
“tolerance” she and others intolerantly (and fashionably!) impose on others
(and of course must
abide by religiously, lest they appear hypocrites), has no doubt left her in a tizzy.
It’s hardly suprising that presumably even in her own social circles she feels
“oppressed by fascism.”
I saw NW on CSPAN this weekend. I kept waiting for a fact to backup her accusations. No fact ever came. Her whole conspiracy theory is based on her “Feelings”. She compares GITMO to Auschwitz, but neglects to mention that the Red Cross was never invited to visit the Nazi death camp, nor does she provide and example of a Jew held at any of the infamous Nazi camps who was guilty of acts equivalent to those confessed to by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Neither does she mention that KSM is still alive and getting fat at GITMO.
In the leftist lexicon “fascist” is a word used to describe anything or anyone the left doesn’t like, particularly its political competition. For example, before he instituted his Popular Front strategy, Stalin had Communists denounce Marxist Social Democrats as fascists, and he had Communists falsely argue that fascism was the highest form of capitalism. The truth, of course, was that Mussolini, like Lenin, had been one of Europe’s foremost socialists prior to WW I and had turned to a socialism based on nationalism when the start of that war showed that nationalism was a more powerful force than proletarian solidarity. The German National Socialist movement was modeled on Lenin’s concept of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries and their regime, as Peter Padfield puts it in his biography of Himmler, “in most of its institutions and methods Nazism aped Bolshevism”.
Mussolini’s Fascism and German National Socialism were in reality politically incorrect variants of totalitarian socialism. It should be needless to say that the left looks upon totalitarian socialism with favor so long as it is politically correct.
In the Vietnam era the left claimed that the America of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was a repressive facist state little different from National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, which is why they spelled it with a “k”: Amerika. All that Naomi Wolf and her ilk have done is refurbish this hoary chestnut for the war on terrorism.
It’s entirely possible to “recognize terrorism as a threat” while doubting “the notion that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to civilization itself”. Al Quaeda is to the United States (let alone Western civilization) like an angry chihuahua to a person. It can be annoying, it can even get in some painful bites on occasion. It can’t threaten someone’s life.
We’ve lost over 30 times as many citizens to traffic accidents since 9/11 as we’ve lost in 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined. Even Katrina, which wreaked more destruction than any terrorist group has ever managed – it essentially destroyed a major American city – didn’t threaten the existence of the United States.
Of course, terrorism is a threat – but not an existential one. It should be considered and fought, of course – relative to the actual risks it poses. For example, the worst case – a terrorist attack with a nuclear device (which, I note, also would not threaten the existence of the United States) – isn’t being addressed by any of the measures we’re currently employing. Instead… well, read for yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html
As for the more long-term threat of “Islamic facism” – it’ll be decades, at minimum, before the Middle East poses any kind of political or economic threat to the West. Their government and culture is quite incapable of serious science or technology work. They have to import technical workers from elsewhere, and their science output is… well, again, read for yourself: http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml
The only reason they have any power at all is because the West, and the United States in particular, is hopelessly addicted to oil, so we give money to our ‘dealers’ and they turn around and buy weapons to attack us. Kicking the oil habit (via nuclear power and other means) would strengthen us and hurt them immeasurably.
BTW, you can read about the incident of Republican operatives harassing Florida vote counters here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html and here: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/
RI writes “It can’t threaten someone’s life.”
You have got to be kidding! Right? Maybe you meant “It can’t threaten a people’s way of life.”? I don’t know, but I think we need an explaination. And how about a drop from 12,000 to under 8,000 in the Dow. How many trillion was that?
And as a final aside, just because someone is in Gitmo does not mean that they are “Islamic terrorists”, or even guilty of a crime. Far too many people assume that, if someone’s in custody, they are ipso facto guilty. This is manifestly not the case.
Detaining suspected ‘enemy combatants’ makes sense, of course. But they are still entitled to a tribunal under the Geneva Convention to determine if they actually are ‘enemy combatants’. Article 5 of the Geneva Convention is pretty clear on this: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590008?OpenDocument
This isn’t to protect the guilty. It’s to protect the innocent. And, yes, innocent people have been sent to Gitmo. The majority of the ‘detainees’, by far, weren’t captured by
U.S. forces. They were turned in by people looking for reward money or to suck up to U.S. forces: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm
This has resulted in the deaths of innocent people in U.S. custody. See, for example, the sad case of Dilawar the taxi driver. This guy was captured by an Afghan warlord
trying to deflect suspicion from himself for an attack on U.S. troops. Then, because they thought he screamed funny, a bunch of United States soldiers “pulped” (the words of the doctor who performed the autopsy) his legs. The other four guys were shipped to Gitmo and held for a year or so before they finally decided they posed no threat. The main reason their claims of innocence were finally believed? People eventually
noticed the warlord who’d turned them in wasn’t being honest with them: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1270785600&en=37bef79604f97228&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
And if you think this is only happening off of U.S. soil, think again: http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_tale_of_two_decisions_or_how.html
We used to be a shining light to the world in this regard. It was the U.S. who pushed for the Nuremberg trials; the Soviets and the British were all for summary executions. How far we’ve fallen…
Is Bush as bad as Hitler? No, of course not. But it’s entirely legitimate to be concerned about the tactics this administration is using. Consider: would you want Hillary Clinton wielding the powers Bush has claimed with the whole “strong executive” push? If Bush can take your 4th amendment, Hillary can take your 2nd.
Me, I rather trust the founders with the whole “separation of powers” thing.
As I (thought I quite clearly) stated: an angry chihuahua can’t threaten a person’s life. It’s an analogy, as I specifically stated in the second sentence of my comment. Terrorists can certainly threaten American lives – but they cannot threaten the existence of the United States, much less the existence of Western civilization. I was responding to the author’s apparent acceptance of – and I quote directly – “the notion that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to civilization itself”.
Islamic fundamentalism is not a threat to civilization itself. It’s a threat that needs to be dealt with – sometimes even militarily, as in Afghanistan – but it’s not an existential threat.
Aaron, your criticism is inaccurate. The first of many inaccuracies begins with, if I counted correctly, your 10th sentence, quoted here: “Is Wolf suggesting that the United States created Osama bin Laden? Not only did the United States not create bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalism — bin Laden declared war on this country nearly five years before President Bush took office.”
Wolf never suggested the U.S. created bin Laden. The U.S. identified a real threat and then magnified and repeated it for political purposes. That is what Wolf said, clearly explaining that the historical terrorist threat could be and was real or fake.
After quoting bin Laden, you state, “Some trick,” as if Wolf had claimed the terrorist threat was a trick.
I agree with you that Guantanamo is not a gulag, but I disagree otherwise. That is, the setup of Guantanamo has some characteristics of the gulag. Your reminding us that millions were killed in the gulags does not address Wolf”s point that Guantanamo was set up to be outside of the law, or as President Bush said, situated in legal “outer space.” One brief link: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1243
Your criticism continues with problems. Instead of my continuing exposing them, I want to say that I believe Wolf’s identification of 10 actions leading to the closing down of a democracy is valuable. However, even if the U.S. has done all 10, that does not necessarily mean our democracy is about to close down, but it does mean that the foundation is in place to close down our full liberties and freedom of speech. Since Hillary seems likely to become our next president, you probably would not want that foundation to be in place for her. Furthermore, our democracy has multiple flaws that need to be dealt with. Wolf emphasizes or exaggerates some of its flaws. Can’t you agree that many of our flaws, including civil liberties, deserve immediate attention?
I imagine most of her 10 steps are actions that many conservatives either support or are not bothered by. And that leads to the question, do conservatives support world domination by the U.S., apparently in order to feel secure? Isn’t the conservative personality style one that tends to say, “My country, right or wrong?” Finally, what is the closed mind?” We know that that is how conservatives are characterized. What it means is that a person has an exaggerated defense system of avoiding opposing evidence and logic. And it is this fact that I believe conservatives should study. Conservatives already outdo most other groups in the achievement of traditional forms of success, such as political influence, religious power, corporate and financial recognition, and even happiness. If the conservative personality style has some weaknesses, couldn’t it help to be highly aware of them?
The maxim is “Know thyself!” We’re all susceptible to self-deception, it’s largely unconscious. It’s worthwhile for each person to know about his own susceptibilities.
“… the Bush Administration would be leaving in fewer than 460 days, never to return. With this in mind I asked her if she honestly believed that she and the other authors I mentioned would be arrested and imprisoned. … Naomi Wolf did not want to answer my question.”
Of course not. It is just a variation of the same question I’ve been asking Bush-haters for the last five years: “If Bush is turning American into another Nazi Germany, where can I apply to be kommandant of the concentration camp that holds Leftist academics, judges, politicians, and reporters?” I’ve never gotten an answer either.
Look, this episode is nothing more than another in a long litany of sour grapes over the “stolen” election of 2000.
Sedonaman, you & Aaron don’t understand. Wolf never said that she was going to be arrested. She tried to emphasize that she and other non-terrorist Americans could be. Furthermore, she said any administration – and mentioning Hillary by name – could close down our democracy.
When you are ignorant of the facts, it implies the avoidance of opposing information.
Her first step involves terrorizing the citizenry by promoting the threat of terrorism. Conservatives seem to cling to that glorious threat, thinking and talking about it fairly routinely. The 9-11 terrorist attack has been overblown. But conservatives seem to want it that way. Why? Why is that?
Conservatives also favor harsh punishments. Are harsh punishments associated with anything else you can think of?
DL writes “The 9-11 terrorist attack has been overblown.”
Yes, and so was FDR’s speach calling December 7, 1941 “The day that will live in infamy”
As far as being arrested for non-terrorist activity, it’s being done now to men behind on alimony or child support payments assesed by feminist judges. I have pay-up or go to jail letters to prove it.
I’m looking for typical conservative-personality style responses, maybe I’m getting them. Ivan makes the apparently absurd statement that FDR’s statement was overblown. Then he follows up with a non-sequitur about arrest for non-payment of court-ordered child-support payments.
Maybe he’s making a joke and at the same time evading the argument. An example of self-deception in progress. Thank you, Ivan.
Mr. Laird,
I’m not following you.
How has the US exaggerated the terrorist threat? Since you agree that there is a threat, what is
the proper “trade off number of deaths” we should absorb in order to not exaggerate our
response?
Guantanamo is not a gulag–good. HOw much to you think tax payers should spend
to deal “appropriately” with these guys? –don’t respond in terms of the apocalypse that’s allegedly to happen
should we not provide them all w/ attorneys. I want a cost based answer. What are you willing
to pay so that these guys don’t burden your conscience?
World domination by the US? Woah. How about a globe dominated by democracies–or governments
which are being encouraged to move in that direction? Should the globe move towards
democracy, this would mean that democracy dominates the globe–not “THE US DOMINATES
THE GLOBE” as you phrase it (The Iranians like to reduce the US to just another force–
and in this way ISlamic extremism can be seens as “just another perspective”, right alongside
the “perspective” of democracy).
I think the rest of your post consists in insults and inuendo, so I will leave it aside.
As for the comment on child support payments/arrest, this is certainly quite true. Any father
making less than 40K in any major east coast state and paying child support
cannot afford representation (presumably
like you wish to provide–for free–the terrorists in Guantanamo). Hence they are at the
mercy of a system which is dysfunctional–and they are unrepresented. I think this point is very appropriately
brought to readers attention
Please state your criticisms of Goldstein’s article clearly–I’m not understanding them.
Nathan, for exaggeration, please re-read response # 5. Regarding finances and economics . . . those are your diversions, not mine. You don’t comprehend that the U.S. dominates the world? I can’t educate you about that. “Insults and innuendos” . . . sure, my identification of ways conservatives succeed is a put down in your interpretation. I label your bizarre interpretation as another example of self-deception . . . a diversion. (It’s a diversion for you, not for me.)
You’ll have to educate me about what you don’t understand regarding my comments about and evaluations of Aaron’s criticism . . . that is, please tell me what it is you fail to understand. I’ll be happy to elaborate on anything that I wrote.
Thank you Nathan!
I was insulted by DL’s comments and prepared to withdraw from this thread, but I see that you “get it”. Maybe others do also. As to the “Day of Infamy” comment, I was just trying to show that the hero of the left could also hype a threat and rally the nation in a time of war. It’s also interesting that FDR funded the Manhattan Project with incredible sums keeping it all a secret from the people. I’m glad he did as it saved my father’s life and lead the good old USA to dominate the world.
Just an FYI for Raymond Ingles, and any of the other mindless hordes of leftist drones who would cite the Geneva Convention vis-a-vis our treatment of terrorists outside of the country: non-uniformed, non-affiliated combatants that do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population and/or do not carry their arms openly, are not legal combatants and are not afforded the rights of legal combatants under either the Geneva nor Hague conventions according to International Humanitarian Law. So very few (if any) of the people detained at the American Gulag in Cuba would qualify for any of the protections of a combatant in the first place.
In other news: the governments in the middle east thought to pose a threat to Western security tend to purchase their scientific technology and arms from other, more developed anti-Western countries. So the inability of Islamic governments to graduate fine scientists from their universities isn’t much of a consideration in their ability to wage war or threaten and destabilize other countries.
You might want to find some new sources to consult, by the way. The NY Times and The Guardian aren’t exactly held up as bastions of fair and reputable reporting. Unless you happen to be a raving socialist who enjoys fabricated liberal fairytales.
D. Laird:
“Wolf never said that she was going to be arrested.”
She certainly implied it by saying, “If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.”
She is taking her observations and extrapolating what she thinks is the next data point, which naturally led to Goldstein’s question.
You state, “The 9-11 terrorist attack has been overblown. But conservatives seem to want it that way. Why? Why is that?”
Conservatives are doing nothing more than what Wolf did – extrapolating the next attack. Here http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm is a list of “Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003″. I think it is sufficient evidence to suggest that the attacks against the US leading up to 9/11 were increasing in size and scope, and that it doesn’t take much imagination to conclude the next one will be even worse. Couple that with Iran’s attempt to get a nuclear device, and it doesn’t take any more than adding 2+2 and coming up with 4 to see where they are going with it.
However, if the next one is only roughly comparable to the 9-11 terrorist attack, would you still conclude that 9/11 was “overblown”? Does the bomb have to fall on your toe before a threat is not “overblown”?
Patrick Mulligan:
You are absolutely right. Combatants who do not follow the rules of war do not fall under the Geneva Convention’s protections. That is 100% correct. And even more, I agree that al Quaeda types (and “al Quaeda in Iraq” types, who belong to a different group) don’t follow the rules of war and deserve whatever they get. You are right about that.
But that was not my point. I never said that terrorists fall under the Geneva Convention.
What I actually stated was that the Geneva Convention very clearly specifies that combatants pre-emptively get Geneva Convention protection until a competent tribunal has determined that they don’t qualify. Let’s quote the actual passage – this isn’t obscure legalese or anything: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
To belabor the point – again – the aim of those protections isn’t to coddle the guilty. It’s to protect the innocent, like hapless taxi drivers turned in for reward money by real insurgents. He should have been pre-emptively given protection until it was determined if he was a terrorist or not. Instead, he was killed by our troops, who (apparently like you) just assume that anyone in custody is a terrorist. (If you doubt that, see the shameful treatment received by Spc. Sean Baker: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml The Army even tried to deny him disability.)
The majority of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere do, in fact, pre-emptively get protection because, as I pointed out (with a cite), they were not captured by U.S. troops in the heat of combat. They were turned in by others for reward money. So, until it’s actually established they they are terrorists, they get the protections.
This isn’t because ‘our hearts should bleed for the poor terrorists’. It’s because it’s critical that we keep the moral high ground and not sink to their level. The IRA lasted as long as it did because Britain decided to ‘get tough’ and resorted to dirty tactics. This blurred the moral distinction between terrorists and legitimate government. (Rudy Guliani was attending Sinn Fein fundraisers up until 9/11.) If people can’t tell the difference between us and the terrorists – especially people in Iraq and Afghanistan – then there’s no hope we can accomplish anything of value there.
Being ‘better than a Soviet gulag’ and ‘better than Saddam Hussein’ isn’t anything to brag about, and it sure as hell isn’t good enough. We should be obviously different in kind and not just degree. I can’t understand why more people here – who claim to be patriots – don’t hold the U.S. to a much higher standard…
Iran’s leaders, like Saddam Hussein, are brutes and thugs. No question about that. But, also like Saddam, they aren’t stupid. Saddam knew he had to keep up at least a suspicion that he had WMD to protect himself from invasion by his neighbors. (Ask yourself, would we have protested if another country had invaded Iraq? Who could he have counted on for help?)
Al Quaeda could, perhaps, ‘get away with’ a nuclear attack. They don’t have any particular national base and can move freely around. Iran, however, is a nation, in a particular geographic location. Attacking us (or Israel) with nuclear weapons would be suicide. Iran’s leaders are thugs but they’re savvy enough to understand that. you don’t hold onto power very long if you don’t grasp basics like that.
A nuclear-armed Iran would complicate Middle East politics, of course. All the more reason for us to finally kick the oil habit and disengage from the region. If they nuke each other, but we don’t need the oil, we can send humanitarian aid and such. It would no longer be our problem. The only reason we care more about Iran than Darfour is that we’re weakly, helplessly dependent on a resource they have inordinate influence on.
Raymond, I agree with your comments. Furthermore, our intervening in the Middle East and the world is a demonstration of the U.S. as an empire, out to dominate the world militarily, economically and politically. We, with all sorts of WMD, are in Iran’s neighborhood and threatening Iran while Iran already feels threatened by Pakistan, Israel, and possibly even India.
Some on this discussion board have actually imagined we’re out for democracy, when our interventions over time reflect how we have not only supported dictatorships but have helped to install them, in some cases by overthrowing democracies.
Self-deception is how we humans discard opposing evidence in order to maintain our false beliefs, and it must be how Aaron found himself ignorant of the widely-spread news about Republican operatives harassing Florida vote counters. One thing about us Americans is that since we’re humans we’re all susceptible to human frailties. Our leaders and our military are not different from all others, although I’ve heard that they are virtually all my life.
Sedonaman, thank you for your answer and elaboration to my question regarding why conservatives like to focus on the threat and attack of 9-11.
One type of terrorism your list omitted is state-sponsored terrorism. Our attack of Iraq was terroristic, just as our attack of Branch Davidians was terroristic (and some of the tactics used are reminiscent of torture). Some of our mercenaries in Iraq act in a terroristic manner. State-sponsored terrorism, like that in Russia and Indonesia, is often much worse that non-state-sponsored terrorism.
I’m glad I was born and live in the U.S., but I don’t approve of my country’s record. Maybe that makes me a realist.
Mr. Laird,
Looking at your comments in point 22 it now is clear why you dislike characterizing
countries in terms of their political beliefs.
1. US intervention of the world is about “World Domination” (was there one–just one-
exception?)–
2. The stock leftist response to the US acting in its own particular interest (as opposed to
some abstract democratic ideal) is of course to assert that because the US acted once in its
self
interest, this implies the US never acts in the broader democratic interest (or has no right to morally
distinguish itself from self interested authoritarian govts). This was
a standard position used by the left to rationalize Soviet imperial interests
during the cold war. This is of course why you prefer to characterize the US as “just
another interest” as opposed to calling it a democracy. IN this way, your terms
(“Terrorist”) lose any political context and you can throw around words like
“terrorist” and slap them anywhere you like. In your forumulation, you actually
can’t distinguish between Al Quada and the US.
Naturally any actual examination of the context of US intervention
reveals complex motives. –but hey, that requires thought and analysis, not slogans.
3. You accuse the author of “self deception,” but of course w/o offering any
evidence to the contrary. And you declare the request for an argument to be part of even
more “self deception.”
4. One more try. How about a definition of terrorism? You’ve naturally tagged all the
boogie men you don’t like with a nebulous grab bag version of it (ie. presumably
any action of the US that seems to be in its own self interest). Now let’s have
something clear. . .
Nathan, your comments would more appropriately be directed toward the issues instead of at me, unless you’re ascribing some particular motivation to my comments. Your comment is false that I accused the author of something. I explained the most likely reason for why he was unaware of a widely-reported attack against Florida vote counters by dressed-in-suits Republican operatives, many of whom were paid for their actions.
Furthermore, your usage of the word “accuse” is inappropriate. It doesn’t fit the dictionary definition. Please don’t make up special definitions for common words to use when criticizing my comments. Your comment about “argument” makes no sense and has no reference in #22.
I have carefully explained that self-deception is a normal process that we all are susceptible to. Please try to comprehend that fact.
As for defining terrorism, you could have looked it up as easily as I.
DEFINITIONS
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
D. Laird:
“Sedonaman, thank you for your answer and elaboration to my question regarding why conservatives like to focus on the threat and attack of 9-11. … One type of terrorism your list omitted is state-sponsored terrorism. … I’m glad I was born and live in the U.S., but I don’t approve of my country’s record. Maybe that makes me a realist.”
I don’t think conservatives “like” to focus on the threat and attack of 9-11; we do it out of necessity.
If you are glad you were born and live in the U.S., there must be some redeeming virtue of the US, or you would live elsewhere. Your disapproval of our country’s record is focusing on the past at the expense of where we have come as a nation. In essence, you are demanding that the founding fathers should have produced a perfect country in the beginning. That is totally unrealistic. If America is a “terrorist” country, something must explain why illegal aliens pay coyotes thousands of dollars and risk their lives, and the lives of their families, to cross a burning desert in order to get here. To be terrorized? I don’t think so.
You think the US is a terrorist country? You must compare something with something else. If you want to see some REAL state-sponsored terrorism, here http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM is an in-depth study of it. The closest thing the US did to be called “death by government” is the way it treated the Indians. I also noted your lack of mention of any other nation’s crimes against humanity. To me this says you have a double standard: one for the US, which is to be measured against perfection, and a second for other nations, which are judged against nothing being expected of them.
I am a resident of Arizona and wrote to Senator McCain about his comment on NBC’s Meet The Press that, “the weight of evidence has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these (Guantanamo detainees) people’s cases.” His response to my letter was that he felt the United States’ image was suffering because of “alleged and documented abuses” of the detainees, and that the United States should hold itself up to a “higher standard”, with which I vehemenently disagree. I believe the US should follow the letter of the applicable international laws with regard to the detainees (or any issue, for that matter) as an incentive for other signatory countries (and individuals) to do likewise. To hold ourselves up to a “higher standard” by conferring special privileges (e.g., POW status) on unlawful combatants is to undermine the law that is intended to discourage unlawful combatants in the first place, much like making no distinction between criminals and honest citizens would undermine the abiding by civil law. I think Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir put it just right when confronted with condemnation from many nations: “We are not going to die just so the world will speak well of us.”
McCain’s response did not address the lack of incentives his approach would have.
Your comments have a ring of what Peter Beinart said in an in an interview for frontpagemag.com http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23176 , in which he “seeks legitimacy” for America’s power and also desires to hold America up to the “highest standards” of democracy and human rights. For him, the morality of a nation is determined not by its actions measured against an objective standard such as international law, but subjectively and inversely to its perceived degree of military power. To this Leftist way of thinking, because America is strong, it is immoral and needs to be made “legitimate”. When Israel was the underdog, the world rooted for it; now its perceived degree of power has shifted in the minds of world, and as the “overdog”, it is automatically immoral. It too must legitimize itself by meeting “higher standards” of human rights by giving terrorists not an even break but much more than an even break. The fact of the matter is, America and Israel will never live up to McCain’s and Beinart’s “highest standards”.
Having jettisoned objective international law as a yardstick, McCain, Beinart, and other liberal Left-thinkers, will always seek to impose ever more higher standards no matter how well America and Israel perform. I suspect you would do the same. The more America (or Israel) does to overcome its shortcomings, the worse – not better – America (or Israel) appears. The reason for this is built into the dynamics of human nature. Very simply, the more perfect America and Israel are, the more unbearable and unjust seem even its slightest remaining imperfections.
But what about the rest of the world, specifically totalitarian regimes and terrorist organizations that snub their noses with impunity at international law and any standard of human decency, and draw not a single word of criticism from the Leftist McCain/Beinart/media camp? When asked about this apparent double standard, they respond with something along the lines of, “Well, I’m concerned about us, not them,” or “We don’t really expect them to follow the law.” Now, think about that. Why should rogue regimes and terrorists obey international law if there are no expectations for them to do so?
“He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it.” – Seneca (AD 5-65)
Sedonaman, you have truly written a thoughtful response. I appreciate that.
Instead of dealing any longer with the issues, I’m going to mention something that has been common in my experience. Take # 23. In his point #2, the author goes to an extreme to mischaracterize what I said. Even his quote is wrong. He said, ” This is of course why you prefer to characterize the US as “just another interest” as opposed to calling it a democracy.” He also made the extreme statement that “of course to assert that because the US acted once in its self interest, this implies the US never acts in the broader democratic interest . . . .” He used this statement to justify his mischaracterization of me.
You take my comments to an extreme, but not in the same, bizarre way. You said that in essence I was “demanding that the founding fathers should have produced a perfect country in the beginning.” I fully disagree with your interpretation – an extreme interpretation. You go on to say, “To me this says you have a double standard: one for the US, which is to be measured against perfection, ” Sedonaman, I believe your interpretation is extreme, just like I have encountered so many like it in the past, and just like the comment in #23 reinterprets my comments in an extreme manner. Using the word “perfection” actually tends to imply extremism. I didn’t use it, I didn’t imply it, I didn’t have it in mind.
I’m gonna sign off here. I appreciate your honesty.
Good luck.
D. Laird:
Not to belabor the point, but if my interpretation of your comments is “extreme”, why don’t I see any condemnation from you of despots like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? Saddam murdered his way to power and refused to abide by his own agreements (see UN Resolution 1441 and others it referenced), and Osama is a private citizen waging private warfare, a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.
Heaping criticism on the US while offering no criticism of them is what I would term “extreme.”
More evidence comes in for Wolf’s step 7 . . . meanwhile, are conservatives concerned about the out-of-Soviet-Union style of propaganda from our federal agency FEMA?
Ann Wright | Banned From Canada for a Year for War Protest http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103007A.shtml
Ann Wright, writing for Truthout, says, “After nearly four hours of interrogation, I was told by the senior immigration officer I was banned from Canada for one year for failure to provide appropriate documents that would overcome the exclusion order I had been given in early October because of conviction of misdemeanors (all payable by fines) in the United States.”
(Please note Sedonaman’s ever-so-typical labeling of my comments as extreme . . . because . . really (!) I didn’t criticize miscellaneous despots. ) EVER SO TYPICAL