Friday, March 14, 2008

Sacrifice

PART I
Enemies Foreign and Domestic

The United States is an idea. An idea enshrined in the document that frames it's ideals and protects the people from the government meant to serve them. The United States and our Constitution are an idea worth dying for. So it says in the oaths taken by every soldier and every elected official since it was ratified in 1787. Every fourth January 20th (formerly March 4th), the president-elect becomes president only when he places his hand on the Book and swears this oath before the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the assembled public...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In order to become a citizen of the United States of America, each immigrant must raise their hand before a duely-appointed official and state the following oath:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
I find it distressing, demoralizing, and deplorable that we ask of the immigrant what we're not willing to give of ourselves. But I'll get to that in a minute.

I often hear - as I have here from Denny a few months back - that the opponents of the excesses of the current administration and those who would oppose the actions supposedly taken in the name of our protection need to 'grow up'. That the pragmatic approach is the only one that makes sense. Frankly... those are fighting words. And the assertion is patently false. I posit instead that those who think that we need to surrender to the terrorists by allowing them to undermine our most basic principles and persuade us through the threat of actions to turn our republic into a police state, handing over vast and unchecked powers to the government... they are the ones who are refusing to make the grown-up choices. All the worse, I find that by refusing to engage fully in this debate,
I have certainly been immature, but no more.

As such I am not ready to seek the middle ground for I have yet to fully speak my piece. I've held back to this point because of the very things you recently invoked in your 'finding common ground' post, and I find it is not to my credit. You were trying to tone down the rhetoric, remind us we're all friends here. And I applaud that. We can continue this in the spirit of friendship, that's fine.

But where
are all the heroes?

My grandpa Perkins was a great man in a quiet unassuming way. Chris will attest to that. A decorated war hero. Won the bronze star. During fighting on Luzon during the liberation of the Philippines, a unit of my grandpa's battalion was pinned down by Japanese fire. It was a bloodbath. Men were wounded, dying, and there was a crossfire with wounded men lying beneath the arcing streams of gunfire crisscrossing the jungle clearing. Grandpa didn't hesitate. He crawled in on his belly and dragged a half dozen or more men to safety, going back into the firefight repeatedly to get the next guy until the last guy was out. He had a wife at home. If he'd been shot, my dad and my aunt wouldn't exist today and the world would be the poorer for it. But he was willing to risk life and limb. For his buddies. For those who died at Pearl. Because the president told him to. And because he took an oath to defend America and the Constitution.

I look around me at the America that has arisen in the wake of the latest assault on our country and I want to cry. I cannot believe for a moment that my grandpa, my hero, would approve of the torture of enemy soldiers in our hands. I cannot imagine that he would approve of the conduct of the country as it faces this threat. And I cannot help but wonder how I - who am not in the military or part of the shooting-portion of this war - how I am living up to his example... and how I am not.

The arguments for allowing the broadening of police and surveillance powers to the government are so often 'to protect us' and 'because they'll get us if we don't' or other similar arguments. Because if we don't... people will die. And I agree. If we don't allow the FBI, NSA and CIA to have vast and unfettered power, access to every minutia of our daily lives, then people will die.

The pragmatic choice, the choice of the moment, the
obvious choice is to hand the executive branch all the power they can fit in their pockets and hide under our beds waiting for them to blow the all-clear. It's still the wrong choice. Because that's exactly what terror is intended to do. Change the people it's aimed against. Whether we capitulate or not, it's aim is to change the playing field, provoke us, make us retaliate in kind, get dirty, fight their way, change what it is that makes us Americans, that makes us not like them.

But people will die.

Yes. They might. That doesn't make torturing detainees the correct choice. It doesn't make setting aside the ideals and the ideas of the America that my grandfathers fought for the correct choice.

It doesn't ok torture.
It doesn't ok illegal and amoral behavior.

And we are not absolved of the sins committed on our behalf and at our behest simply because it seemed like the right choice at the time. Because someone might die if we don't allow it. Yes, they might. And it might be someone I love. It might be
me. And I accept that. I'm a citizen. And as such I "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law..." And that means even unto death. Without blinking. Without shirking. Without ceding the high ground to my enemies or giving in to their aims to change what makes us not like them.

This is a war about ideals. If it's a global war on Fundamentalist Militant Islamic Fascists or not, it
has become a non-shooting civil war of sorts for our own country, a war between the needs of the now versus our contract with the future, our constitutional ideals and the backbone of what made us who we are... were.

I look at my government's actions and I am ashamed. I feel sullied by the acts undertaken on my behalf, bloodied by the innocents dead on 9/11, yes, but soiled by the actions taken by the administration in my name - and allegedly on my behalf - since then. And the two do not equate. I don't care what we're supposedly fighting for.

Denny's right. We need to empower the clandestine forces to act on our behalf. We need common-sense protections and laws that allow the protection of our homeland from the dangers of the world at large. I'm not advocating that we stand aside and look while another airplane ploughs into another building. But such laws and such agencies CANNOT act in an atmosphere without checks and balances. And they cannot sacrifice what they are fighting for in order to win the fight.

Do I think the rest of America agrees with me? That we're all willing to die for the ideals and ideas that have lit the world for over two centuries? No. But then, some people believe that a lapel pin is all it takes to be a patriot.

Nobel Laureate Hans A. Bethe once famously noted (regarding war with H-bombs), "
If we fight a war and win it... what history will remember is not the ideals we were fighting for but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan who ruthlessly killed every last inhabitant of Persia." The same can be said of our current course. And it is incumbent upon every citizen sworn of the United States to shoulder their share of that burden.

I find the current debate about warrantless wiretapping and the illegal behavior of the current administration to be part of a larger and far more important debate. And I fear that in the focus on minutia and pragmatism the larger debate is getting obscured.

Our constitution isn't a contract we make with ourselves, it's a contract we make with our kids and our grandkids. We can bequeath to them a country proud and free, protected by a government of, by and for the people, or we can bequeath to them the first tentative steps toward authoritarianism and darkness.

The first step to fighting a war against "Terror" is to stop being afraid.

PART II
The Way It Is As I See It...

We live in a time of vast and far-reaching challenges to our republic. But the greatest threats are not from without, but rather from the manner in which we are reacting to those threats and what it is doing to us as a country.

What does it say to you when the FBI's own inspector general annually comes out with ever more appalling reports on the manner in which the agents of our government are abusing the powers vested in them? And some that most certainly were not. We see our government taking more and more power for itself, law enforcement essentially issuing their own subpoenas on-spec with no oversight, no checks and balances. And now they want more power with less oversight.

The Attorney General of the United States of America has refused to enforce Congressional subpoena and censure, precipitating a constitutional crisis that has yet to be resolved as two branches of our government vie against one another. By refusing the mandate of the constitution for checks and balances and oversight, the executive is shaking the foundations of our country when we can ill afford to do so. As they keep reminding us, we're at war, and we can't afford these distractions. No. Before you ask, no, I do not hold the congress accountable for the crisis. For once, I think they're doing what they're supposed to, exercising oversight. Too late, I fear and for the wrong issue, but something is better than rubberstamping the executive's whims.

I feel this is further compounded by Mukasey taking the chair but refusing to repudiate his successor's arguments for the legality of a practice pioneered the the Inquisition. And I refuse to vote a man for the presidency when he, an officer in our armed force who was captured, imprisoned and tortured as a POW in Viet Nam, who has vehemently opposed such practices has now reversed himself as long as it's the CIA and not the army doing it. ("Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear." -John McCain, 2005) Torture's ok for you, but not you. If the CIA gets the bad intel from torturing detainees in black sites, that's ok. As long as it's not Our Boys doing it...
The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be done by them to prevail.
- Senator John McCain, Newsweek Op-Ed, 2005
(linked above)

It's pathetic. And in case you had any doubts, this is when he lost all hope of my vote.

We live in a time of constitutional crisis, when the vice president is operating under the illusion that he is a fourth branch of government and a law unto himself (since no laws apply to this fictitious fourth branch) with vast extra-constitutional powers.

We live in a time when dangerous precedents are being sought and set regarding the extra-constitutionality of presidential powers, of the Executive branch as a law in and of itself and of military bases as living outside the scope of federal law governing the manner and conduct of those who reside there or are held there. The president has spent his entire presidency shoring up the belief that he is a law unto himself, that he can create, ignore and set aside laws and policies both foreign and domestic without recourse to constitutional channels. Vast extra-constitutional powers that include the ability and right to choose which laws he shall enforce, the right to act in a complete blackout from congress and the people who elected him. A man who has repeatedly attacked the separation of powers encoded in the constitution and in many ways failed to live up to an oath we all watched him take.
Twice, God help us.

This is a time when heroes are needed. Men and women willing to face the fire, willing to shoulder the burdens of life in an uncertain world. Citizens willing to sacrifice all for the ideals and to set aside the terror engendered by that horrible act on that fateful day. America changed that day, yes, but not for the better.

PART III
So... Now what?
There isn't anyone in the political arena who speaks to these issues adequately. Not one. Because no one wants to hear it. No one wants to think about what it really means to fight a war, not at the mall, or in Iraq, but in our own hearts and minds, knowing that it might mean our fellow citizens might die horribly before our very eyes... that we might be sacrificing ourselves for a higher ideal.

As Denny has noted, our diplomatic corps is woefully anemic. Our foreign policy has been a mess for years. And our once mighty economy is coming down around our ears... and now here I stand, talking about sacrifice. Real, honest-to-God sacrifice... or the potential thereof.

I'm willing to die for this country. I'm willing to risk it all to save something worth the sacrifices of my forebears, worth the risks endured by the immigrant who threw it all away to sneak aboard that ship and come here illegally. Just as they were, so am I.

We make dangerous decisions without thinking forward to the time when those empowered will be asked to return those powers to us. I hear confident speech that the government works for us, they'll do what I ask or I'll vote them out. Good luck. I am not so optimistic. Every legal decision to uphold this implacable erosion of freedoms and protections from search and seizure, every time we hand more power to the government, it gets harder to take it back. The courts can't help us if we keep handcuffing them by removing them from their constitutional role of oversight. And the principles of
stare decisis we heard about so much during the Supreme Court nominee hearings awhile back are very real, and those alone make these decisions perilous. Future attempts to roll back such expansions of surveillance powers are eroded with every law and decision affirming this. When the time comes... how will we get back what we have so blithely given away?

Our nation is risk-averse. We're coddled and spoonfed. And we'd rather take the surety of the current course than plot a new one so uncertain as what I've been talking about here. And my vision is a worst-case. I'm not advocating throwing it over and letting them come... we'll fight them on the streets of New Jersey and Deleware. I'm advocating a real view of what we're talking about and assessing what has already been sacrificed to get it for us, and whether we - as a nation - are really,
truly willing to throw it away in the throes of the current conflict.

Our grandparents are called the "Greatest Generation" and indeed there were giants in their midst. Men and women of stature and integrity. There was also Joe McCarthy and the travesty of HUAC and the Red Scare and all the rest.

Or forebears have made manifold mistakes. Each generation compounding them as they think of the now and put off 'til tomorrow what we should pay for and do this day. This is manifest in our debt, in our crumbling infrastructure, in the deplorable waste and embarrassing contempt our elected officials show for us, the electorate that put them where they are. Our dismantling of the intelligence gathering apparatus and our inward navel-gazing that has allowed so much unrest to fester in the world when we could have done something about it... or at least kept a closer eye on it so we would see it coming.

Our country's history since 1945 is a litany of unbelievable potential largely gone unrealized. As great as we became, we could have been better and I find that sad. Fellow citizens and closely-held freedoms cast aside in the interests of the moment. And that is what is being asked of us once again. A new era of fear and surveillance. Of being allowed to hide from the unknown until someone in a government-issue suit sounds the 'all clear'. It took an act of greatness to set aside HUAC, heroism on the part of those who found themselves at the nexus of a historical moment doing the hardest thing a human can do... make the right decision. The decision that sets aside the certainty of personal safety in the interest of preserving our integrity.

We can fight this war with honor and inside the rule of law. No one has yet convinced me that the loose constraints of the FISA courts place an undue burden on law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

Denny's first real post on this site asked "Where Are the Heroes?" Where are those willing to die that others might live, that others might be free? I ask again. Where is the informed citizenry raising their fists to the sky, saying "We will not let them change us! We will fight with honor and we will win with honor?"

My forefathers did not sacrifice so much to preserve what we have only for me to buckle to the pressures of the present and set aside the promise of the future. I am here to keep the pact we have made with the future. A promise enshrined in the constitution - with all its flaws - a promise not to me, but to my nephews and children yet unborn (God willing). It is something I am willing to fight for. Something I am willing to die for.

I am not a child. I do not need to 'grow up'. I don't need to be coddled, I do not need to have my patriotism defined for me. I know full well what I ask of myself and my fellow man. And I bear the full and total responsibility of my actions and those undertaken on my behalf. I feel that the ideals and the aims of this country would be better served if the citizenry would wake the fuck up from our media-induced coma and believe in something... and fight for it.

There is risk. Some may die. But only so that others may truly live in freedom. In this country and others. I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Now you know where I stand. Now... only now can we see if there's a middle ground somewhere on which we can meet and agree. I don't know. You tell me.

26 comments:

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

Scott, thanks for your post. I think it helps clarify for everyone the position you engage in the debate from, and it is far more coherently define than most positions are.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

Scott, don't take the following statement as detracting from your position because it is not intended to do so.

I want to make very clear that my support for something like warrantless wiretapping does not therefore automatically mean that I support torture or extraordinary rendition or any other kind of extraordinary power. My willingness to grant our government one power is not a warrant to grant it whatever power it wants to have. I believe, fundamentally, that there must be limits. I think where we disagree is on where those limits lie.

I think that we must be very careful if we are willing to consign Americans to death to preserve an ideal, especially if those Americans have not agreed to face that death voluntarily. Having taken the very oaths you mention in the beginning of your post, I am perhaps more fully aware of the weight they carry than most, and because of that awareness I understand that such consignment is its own form of tyranny.

What I am driving at here is that the reason we have a government--and intelligence agencies and a military--to begin with is because we, in the contract you rightly identify, agree that there are certain things we do not want to do ourselves and are willing to place in the hands of those who are willing to do them. I may agree that the average American citizen has abdicated too much of their own interests to that contract, but it is their choice to do so. It is the government's purpose to figure out how to act on the responsibility it has been given, even if it has been given too much.

Therein lies the nature of the debate we are having. If we lived in the nation of our grandfathers, or if we lived in a nation populated with people who are willing to die for it like you and me, we would not be having this debate because the problems that led to it would have never occurred. We, however, do not live in that nation, but a nation instead waiting around for somebody else to do the hard work. How that hard work gets done is the clear focus of the debate.

In this much I think we agree: We, as a nation, have a problem because we face a crisis domestically, constitutionally, and defensively and we are not, as a nation, rising to the occasion. Until we do, this debate will rage on and, as you pointed out, people will die whether they are willing to do so or not.

Eternal Apprentice said...

I hope that I didn't imply I was casting the torture and/or rendition at your feet, or anyone else's. Simply that they are all symptoms of the same malaise.

It is not the intentions of those who want to wiretap 'on a hunch' without recourse or oversight that I question. But it is in the interest of protection that we set aside fundamental parts of what makes us different from those we oppose.

Sometimes it is the government's duty to do the peoples' will in the most minute detail. Often it the government's job to say 'no'. We can't do that. You told us not to.

We'll find another way. A legal way.

And in the meantime - if we have decided we want to fight a war - we will open up a homefront. We will engage our citizenry rather than keep them in the dark about all aspects the things we do in their names. Not by releasing information which could do harm or should be classified, but in a manner in keeping with our highest traditions. Because the American people aren't sacrificing because no sacrifices are asked of them. We aren't informed and engaged because our government has gone out of its way to keep us uninformed and unengaged... and at the mall.

No one is making the hard choices because we don't have to. And sometimes - as in WWII - it is the government's role to get us to where we need to be, to a mental space where we understand that casualties might come, in our very midst. Not treat like children/ Not throw a blanket over us and sing lullabies while the desperately hope we don't notice what they're doing in the next room and ask embarrassing questions.

And it is our leaders that I call upon to lead. To engage us. And none of them are willing to do that because they're afraid of losing their jobs if they tell us the truth.

Eternal Apprentice said...

Or at the feet of those doing it rather...

David said...

First, bravo Scott. You have eloquently articulated the case. I agree with very nearly everything you wrote.

Second, Denny you wrote:

"I think that we must be very careful if we are willing to consign Americans to death to preserve an ideal, especially if those Americans have not agreed to face that death voluntarily."

I think this isn't an accurate statement of the reality. (But I hasten to add, I don't think you are intentionally inaccurate.)

People aren't consigned to death because we seek to preserve the ideals this nation was founded upon. Risk of death may increase, but we aren't consigning Americans to death by asking that our principles be maintained any more than the President has consigned us to death by engaging in a war in Iraq that is being used as another excuse to recruit terrorists. Many people believe he acted carelessly and made things more dangerous for us, not less so. (As evidence of that possibility, I point you to your own sources about how many terrorist plots have been foiled. Can you think of another time in our history that so many attempts have been made to harm us?)

We cannot know the future; we can only weigh possibilities and assess probabilities. Further, the ideals are worth dying for if need be. Unlike the rest of you, I will not pledge my unquestioning allegiance to any state, organization, or person. Those entities must continually earn my support. When my government becomes errant, I believe it is my duty to oppose it. That's what makes me a patriot.

I'm fortunate that we still live in a country that allows for peaceful dissent and course corrections. That is, in my opinion, beginning to change. If the day arrives that armed resistance is necessary, I'm not sure if I'll have the courage of my convictions. Honestly, I hope I don't have to find out.

We have confused the idea of patriotism in this country with support of the government, with the idea of "America right or wrong." That's not patriotism; it is blind nationalism.

The not often talked about sacrifice our founders made was that they were loyal British subjects. They rebelled against their government, their beloved country, and they did so for a pretty loose definition of tyranny. They were rebels who adhered to an idea, an ideal that superceded their loyalty to their government. It is loyalty to that ideal -- an ideal which, unlike people or organizations, is constant -- that is the mark of the true patriot.

I also disagree that we have a government to do the things we don't want to do ourselves. In our country, there really isn't supposed to be a separation of people and government. It's not always that we don't want to do those things, but that each of us can't do everything.

The nature of our military, for instance, has changed over time, but it is still a volunteer army even if it has also become a professional army. When you joined up, one of "us" (the people) did. When John McCain votes in Congress, he does so as a citizen.

The problems we face are not caused by monoliths. They are, always have been, and always will be caused by people -- individuals. When individuals make bad choices, when they put their own interests above the "common" good, when they sit idly by and allow injustice to occur, bad things result.

That is why discussions like this get heated from time to time. Denny, you believe that we face a great threat from Islamofacists and want the rest of us to be aware of it. Your interest in this is not personally motivated -- you're not trying to bring about personal gain or the Apocolypse or the like. You really believe it is a threat which is why you get frustrated when you can't convince others to see it the same way. Scott and I see that threat, but we don't think that we're incapable of meeting it on our own terms. We think our own government -- if not this grouping, some future grouping -- forms a greater potential threat. Moreover, we are our own worst enemies if we do not properly understand the nature of the transformation that is happening and if we don't wake up to the new definitions and concepts we are allowing ourselves to swallow as a group. Not being able to covince others of this threat is what frustrates us and gets us hot.

There are currently people in our own government who are not interested in the truth or allowing people to make up their own minds. They want what they want. Maybe there are good reasons for their positions, but they aren't eager to engage in further discussion.

As but one example, this is why some people are furious about the war in Iraq. It might have been the right thing to do, but the need to act was not immediate. Nonetheless, that's how it was pitched to us lest we end up in a 'mushroom cloud.' We had time to debate (and many people knew this) and allow serious dissenting voices -- voices we know were trying to be heard at the time but who were pushed to the background or forbidden to speak, voices from within the administration and agencies we tasked with giving us a proper assessment -- those voices could have been heard and their positions weighed and discussed.

However, the President and his handlers lost patience with that process. They thought they knew best and forced us into actions that all of us are effected by. They superimposed their will for our collective will. Whatever the other results of it, the divided mind of the nation now comes to the surface as it was bound to and makes things harder, not because we're wrong to have the divided mind, but because individuals in our government did wrong by us, did wrong because they weren't interested in the truth or reality or other people's considered, relevant, and realistic opinions on the matter. Why the outrage about this isn't even more pervasive than it is, is a mystery to me and a shame for the country.

Lest you think I draw these conclusions because I assume their true (or whatever it was you were trying to tell me on your blog that was the flaw in my arguments), check out the PNAC web site. Note who is involved with that project. Note how many and who became members of the administration. Take a look at the section on Iraq and the Middle East from 2000-1997. Then Google for reports that the administration was discussing scenarios for attacking Iraq before 9/11 and see if they don't sound more realistic in light of the PNAC information.

A very reasonable conclusion to draw is that the administration wanted to invade Iraq from the get go and 9/11 just provided the excuse. I've read the PNAC reports. They make some compelling arguments. My problem is that this wasn't the conversation our nation had leading up to Iraq. And the dissenting voices weren't given much opportunity to speak.

That's when transparency, checks and balances, and freedom become compromised. And it has happened to us.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

David, my point about consigning someone to a death they have not volunteered for was made in the context of wondering where all of the heroes might be. I join Scott in asking the same question, but temper it with the realization that not everyone feels that fundamental calling to be heroic.

Meanwhile, perhaps so many attacks against the United States have been thwarted because we really are in a Long War and those thwarted attacks represent some of the battles.

So, am I correct in assessing the rest of your statement to mean that people who support some parts of the current administration's policies are not patriots because you happen to disagree with those policies? Does dissent becoming patriotism mean that I was more of a patriot because I opposed the slashing of the military and intelligence budgets under the Clinton administration?

I agree that some elements of the Bush administration have used heated rhetoric claiming that failure to support the administration in a time of war are not acting patriotically. This is not a view I share or support any more that I support the view that someone who agrees with the President is not patriotic because he does not oppose him.

Further, your view of patriotism becomes an insult when you decide that Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration are acting out of any other motivation than love of country. In doing so, your view becomes no better that people who accuse Hillary Clinton of running for president because she wants power.

Frankly, I supported the invasion of Iraq before 9-11. I agreed that Iraq was a next necessary step after the invasion of Afghanistan. I do not see these things as conspiracies. Desert Storm ended with a cease fire, not a peace treaty. Something had to be done about the fact that we were faced with a situation that consumed 50,000 US Military personnel and billions of dollars a year and was failing. Are you saying that I am not a patriot because I believe we needed to finish what we started in 1991?

I agree that these kinds of exchanges can become heated because we want to convince others of our views and are frustrated when we cannot. They also become heated when one is faced with presumption, insinuation, and implication that are not borne out in fact or practice.

I respect your opposition of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and intelligence. I happen to agree with some of the administration's policies, but hardly with most or all. I also disagree with your characterization of Iraq and intelligence surveillance. In spite of these agreements and disagreements, I will not characterize anyone as being anything other than a patriot unless they take on that character themselves. Disagreement is a fundamental force of a libertarian, republican democracy, not a label to malign or criminalize someone.

David said...

Denny, about patriotism I wrote:

"We have confused the idea of patriotism in this country with support of the government, with the idea of "America right or wrong." That's not patriotism; it is blind nationalism."

"It is loyalty to that ideal -- an ideal which, unlike people or organizations, is constant -- that is the mark of the true patriot."

From this you were moved to question:

"am I correct in assessing the rest of your statement to mean that people who support some parts of the current administration's policies are not patriots because you happen to disagree with those policies?"

I don't see how you derive that from what I said at all.

"Does dissent becoming patriotism mean that I was more of a patriot because I opposed the slashing of the military and intelligence budgets under the Clinton administration?"

Mere dissent is no more patriotic than mere adherence to your government's actions. Many issues are not even largely matters of patriotism. I don't think that was such an issue. Recognizing that we need to defend ourselves might be an issue of patriotism, but debating the best way or how much money to spend is just about the best way to go about it.

"Further, your view of patriotism becomes an insult when you decide that Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration are acting out of any other motivation than love of country."

I don't know that it is my view of patriotism that is insulting, but if my comments about Bush and Cheney insult them, I'm fine with that. Both men have proven to be deceptive and their statements can justly be taken with a high degree of skepticism. I'd say there is more evidence in the public record to suggest that they act for themselves than that they act for love of country, however, the two motivations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My only real contention is that they seem very willing to put their own desires -- whatever the motivation -- before the will of their country. They love to cite polls when the poll supports them, but denigrate polls when they disagree. They aren't committed to acting on the will of the people. That much is clear.

"In doing so, your view becomes no better that people who accuse Hillary Clinton of running for president because she wants power."

Well, if this is supposed to make me recant, it won't. It could be true. Let's see their evidence for that contention and I'll let you know whether I still feel better than them or not.

"Frankly, I supported the invasion of Iraq before 9-11. I agreed that Iraq was a next necessary step after the invasion of Afghanistan. I do not see these things as conspiracies."

Define for me "conspiracy." Did a group of people get together and decide a course of action? Yes. Was it secretive? Mmm, parts of it were. Like I said, the PNAC stuff was pretty compelling, but clearly Cheyney and company didn't believe their own propaganda enough to feel confident that they could convince the American public by being on the up and up about it.

"Are you saying that I am not a patriot because I believe we needed to finish what we started in 1991?"

Quit trying so hard to make this personal. You know I'm more than willing to launch a personal attack when I want to. :)

All I'm saying is, do you believe in the ideals of this country and are you willing to act on them and defend them if need be? If yes, then you are a patriot. However, just because someone is willing to follow the government slavishly doesn't make them a patriot. Just believing that we must be right because we're Americans doesn't make you a patriot. Believing "my country right or wrong" doesn't make you a patriot. Those things make you a nationalist. "My country right as often as humanly possible and even if I have to 'oppose' my government to ensure it" -- that's patriotic thinking.

"They also become heated when one is faced with presumption, insinuation, and implication that are not borne out in fact or practice."

Not at all what I've been trying to do, nor what I think I have done. I have misunderstood and accidentally mischaracterized your points recently, but otherwise I haven't insinuated anything about you personally. In fact, I think until the last couple of comments on your part, we've done very well keeping this not personal. You seem to have taken personal umbrage at some of my comments, but I don't think that response is warranted (no pun intended).

Maybe another poster or reader could shine a more objective light on the conversation. If I've strayed to the personal, I sincerely apologize.

On a more general note, could we bring these various threads of conversation together somehow? I'm worn out chasing down all the different threads we have going on.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

"Quit trying so hard to make this personal."

David, you are right that I am making this personal, simply because I share at least some of the same motivations that people like George Bush and Dick Cheney have, perhaps only separated by decades of difference in viewpoint (mine) and experience (theirs).

"There are currently people in our own government who are not interested in the truth or allowing people to make up their own minds. They want what they want. Maybe there are good reasons for their positions, but they aren't eager to engage in further discussion."

I find that when anyone starts trying to define someone as being a patriot or not based on disagreement with their positions, I take that very personally simply because I have personally served so that people can make that distinction for themselves.

"However, the President and his handlers lost patience with that process. They thought they knew best and forced us into actions that all of us are effected by. They superimposed their will for our collective will."

I'm not accusing you of a personal attack on me (in this kind of debate that is all too easy, as you note) but on a category of people to which I at least tangentially belong. I use myself as an example of the class simply out of convenience and not personal affront.

I draw my conclusion no from a simple statement, but from the tone of the whole post (which could be dangerous given how tone deaf the internet is), hence my conclusions and my response, neither of which are particularly personal other than that I want to be very clear about what I am saying.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

"On a more general note, could we bring these various threads of conversation together somehow?"

I agree.

Eternal Apprentice said...

I'm seeing something here that does trouble me about the manner in which we are engaging in this debate. Something endemic in the discourse currently underway in our nation dating back to the beginning of this polarization of our people into warring camps and as damaging to the nation as a whole as it is to our microcosm of the larger debate here on Contributing Factors...

I think we - and by extension our debate - would be best served if all of us swore off the 'reductio ad absurdum argument'. It would raise the tone and tenor of the debate and alleviate some of the tension if none of us had to defend the extremes of a position which might not really reflect the reality of our statements or beliefs.

And - for the record - I don't swear allegiance to any governmental entity, I swear to uphold and protect the ideal, embodied in the constitution that created the government meant to uphold and protect it. And I stand ready to die for the ideal... not for the man (or woman) in the office.

chris j pluger said...

Amen to that, Scott. "You say X, therefore you MUST mean Y..." Hopefuly it's obvious that we don't, and let's not insult each other by assuming that we do. We can, however, seek to clarify how believing X doesn't have to lead to Y.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

Chris, David, Scott, et al,

Without all those ad blah, blah, blah rhetorical methods, how are we going to debate?

It's a joke. Laugh.

Anyway, I agree, but I wonder how to keep the debate focused in such a way that such methods do not come into play. This debate reminds me a lot of my impression of the Western Front with most of the posts representing the attempts by one side to find that one point of weakness in the other's line. Until some body of evidence comes forward as the Americans to imbalance the system, I doubt much progress gets made.

Maybe what we're really dealing with here is the historical and national equivalent to a nation getting kicked in the nuts. The actual problem here was decades in the making, but that really doesn't matter when we're writhing in pain at the moment. The real solution is to unravel the problems created during those decades, but it's hard to get past the solution we need to find to the problem we have right now.

Eternal Apprentice said...

I wanted to address something... specifically the question of whether or not I'm willing to risk the lives of those who are not willing to take such an oath as I have discussed.

While I admit the views I expressed are more emphatically stated than the text of the citizenship oath, I want it to be clear that I very much believe these things to be not only something I take "freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion" but also that I understand them to be a very real legal obligation that applies not only to me, but to the reluctant standing beside me. That I accept them willingly and understand them is all that differentiates me from him or her... or so I hold to be self-evident.

The reason I brought up the oaths, and quote and parse them to such a degree is because the oath of citizenship required of all naturalized citizens applies to those born here as well. Something which is not always understood. The legal principle is known as "Jus Solis" I believe. Our adherence to the constitutional ideal and the application of the laws of this land is not something we can opt out of except by renouncing our citizenship and emigrating elsewhere. Whereupon we will - I assure you - be called to task under the laws of that place and the ideals underlying that civilization.

Willingness to uphold and defend the founding ideals of the nation of which you are a citizen is only marginally optional. That's not to say 'Love it or leave it', it's only to accept the reality that whether we ever spoke the words or not, the citizenship oath applies legally to all of us.

As Chris is no doubt about to tell you 'Jus Soli' means 'Right to the Soil'. It is an obligation that is double-edged. Just as it infers the right to protection from your government, it also infers that you are obligated to the ideals that are the foundation of the society. It is most telling about our society that those obligations are not to the government, but to the Constitution. And on that, we hang our hopes.

What I find sad about the oath applied to naturalized citizens is that the everyday Joe doesn't understand that that oath applied to them at the moment of their birth. It is a legal reality.

So unwillingness to accept that one might be called upon to sacrifice for the ideal in no way means that you cannot or should not be called upon to do so. If you are a citizen, it applies to you.

If more people understood that, I believe that more of them would take part in our elections and it would raise the volume of the national debate about the issues we are addressing here.

chris j pluger said...

Can you help with the derivation of "Jus Soli"?

I know "solus, a, um" the first and second declension adjective generally translated "alone" or "only."

I've also got "sol, solis" the third declension noun meaning "sun."

But whence the meaning "soil"? I'm unfamiliar with that vocable. Gramattically, it looks like a second declension genitive singular noun/adjective, but...

Wikipedia was unhelpful. It also didn't mention much about the rsponsibility side of jus soli (as Scott makes the large case for), but rather just the rights side of the equation.

OT, there's a "jus soli" winery. that's a cool name. After last night, I wonder how their merlot is?

Eternal Apprentice said...

Relevant to Jus Soli laws, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment codified it into law after the Civil War as part of the 'Equal Protections' push and to help clarify that those born in the states are equally citizens of the nation to which those states belong (hence making secession tantamount to treason) but also conferring the national identity upon the identity by state or territory to help avert a repeat of what had just happened...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

As for oaths, I don't think anyone has said that allegiance to one's nation requires allegiance to one's nation's leader.

Again, as Scott's reference to the oaths taken by the President and others show, the only allegiance is to the Constitution--that is, to the people. The rest of the oath is an agreement to obey the law, which in the case of the military oath is clearly defined by the UCMJ including those conditions under which the agreed to portions of the oath can be set aside because of the allegiance portions.

The conditions that he refers to for natural citizens bears consideration, but I still think it might be over stated. During the Revolution, a small fraction of the whole population engaged in what can actually be called rebellion, but they did so on the behalf of a much larger portion population that played along. I guess my point here is that many natural citizens have never had the kind of buy-in to the ideal that people entering the ideal have.

I grant this situation runs afoul of notions like compulsory service, which natural and naturalized citizens are subject to, but even in instances where such service has been enacted, not the entire population consented or participated.

I agree that if more natural citizens understood the nature of the ideal they've been born into they would be more likely to participate in it. I think that becomes a matter of civic responsibility, which is something that is also missing in abundance among most natural citizens along with their sense of duty to the ideal.

Eternal Apprentice said...

I realize that the notion I'm discussing stands athwart a libertarian ideal. Even my own mind balks at the full weight of it.


Chris, your Latin's better than mine.

Solum means soil - and by extension, the territory. Derives from 'under the sun' or that's the general idea, in opposition to sky is the ground. Third declension, genitive, singular.

The problem with Legal Latin is that it's so often bad Latin.

Eternal Apprentice said...

Forgot the link...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solum

David said...

Denny, I didn't initially set out to define anyone's patriotism, only what patriotism means to me. None of what I wrote was intended to call into question any specific person's or group's patriotism. It was a train of thought that seemed connected to what I was saying at the time. If it has caused this much confusion, it is likely I went on a tangent walkabout.

I liked your joke and actually agree with the sentiment to a degree. I respect Scott's advice on this, but I don't think the tone has gotten that bad at all. We've been much more well behaved than we were and I think we're learning to keep things away from the personal. Even when Denny mistakenly took my comments personally, he did a brave job of not becoming personal in response. I'd have been upset myself if I thought he was questioning my patriotism. I thought he stayed quite calm under the circumstances.

That said, sometimes you have to draw a logical connection through a thread of thought. If it becomes absurd, then we should point that out as Chris says. But I think if we try too hard to avoid it we may paralyze conversation. Certain sets of premises do lead to a limited number of conclusions. I find it useful when people are able to show me the limits of my own logic because sometimes I don't see how I've created a box for myself or contradiction or hypocrisy.

One final thing I just have to say because I've been chuckling about it all afternoon. Denny's earlier post cautioned all of us that sometimes we need to allow for the possibility that we're wrong about something. I just want to say that I'm willing to accept his surrender any time. And just so you know, I spent a long time trying to determine if that had been said to me if I would have thought it was funny, and yes, I would.

So now that we've had a group hug and recognized, as Denny said, that we may have reached an argumentative impass, what's say we actually try to take on his challenge to actually form a policy that we think the government should follow. We'll be our own little Congress. We couldn't be worse, and if we are, at least nothing that we decide here will have any real impact on life as we know it. We've got nothing to lose.

So what's our target: national defense policy in general or the use of surveillance specifically? Or something else completely?

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

"Denny's earlier post cautioned all of us that sometimes we need to allow for the possibility that we're wrong about something. I just want to say that I'm willing to accept his surrender any time. And just so you know, I spent a long time trying to determine if that had been said to me if I would have thought it was funny, and yes, I would."

Sometimes words come back to haunt in the strangest ways. I never considered my own surrender... Bah! From my cold, dead lips.

It is funny, by the way.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

David, I think your policy experiment might lend itself more toward tackling the surveillance question first because of its narrow scope. Perhaps whatever process of consensus we build can then be applied to the far broader topic of defense policy.

Here's what I want in a current surveillance policy:

First, it has to solve the immediate problem of figuring out who the bad guys are and assist in stopping them as much as that is possible.

Second, it has to begin the reinvestment of the funding and resources our intelligence agencies obviously need to effectively do their jobs.

Third, we need to create a specific divide between military and strategic intelligence. The military's intelligence needs are different than the strategic ones most of the time. The DNI can arbitrate when intelligence needs are at cross purposes. This probably means separating out neutral intelligence assets like the NRO and the NSA and placing them directly under the DNI. This ends the "militarization" of the strategic services.

Fourth, we need a system of oversight that is dynamic. The one-size-fits-all approach to surveillance in this period of national history does not work.

That's my broad view. I figure we can work our way into specifics.

Eternal Apprentice said...

We must needs also identify the overlap, and the boundaries between matters of military and civilian law enforcement. Because the muddying of those waters has not been helpful thus far. The principles of the Posse Comitatus & Insurrection Act of 1878, as amended, cannot be ignored in this... or should it be further amended. The overlap of foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement has been problematic as was strongly indicated by the findings of the 9/11 Commission. A problem which has yet to be fully rectified despite the additional layers of bureaucracy brought into play.

David said...

In broad terms, we might be closer on this than has been evident.

To Denny's first point, yeah, let's do it. Let's make sure that warrants are necessary and that oversight of procedures and court decisions takes place on a periodic basis (as you say, dynamic). As Scott said earlier, if 72 hours isn't enough, we can tweak that or provide for a field approval process before final submission to the court or something. As Denny has previously stated, let's ensure during the oversight process that the information of American citizens isn't swept up in the effort. When it is unavoidable, let's make sure that information is expunged from the government record.

To Denny's second point, I agree. Let's make sure that our intelligence infrastructure is well-funded and manned, especially abroad. Also, there needs to be a balance between state department needs and military needs. The military is a great hammer, but sometimes it's too blunt of an instrument for what we need. The military should never have been put in the position to have to manage the rebuilding of Iraq.

Third, military intelligence should only be allowed to gather in the field, not on our soil. The FBI is responsible for the homeland, with the CIA and other organizations like it responsible for international operations. As you say, the DNI has authority to ensure the proper sharing of data as the need arises. Again, oversight and accountability is key.

Fourth, yes, but the specifics of this are beyond me at the moment.

That's probably way too broad and not well-informed. I just don't read as much Tom Clancy as I should.

Eternal Apprentice said...

Another thing that is murky and needs to be brought into relief in our 'legislative deliberations' are chain-of-custody requirements and documentation, habeas corpus, and avenues of appeal.

Eternal Apprentice said...

PErhaps it's worth dwelling for a moment on what we're discussing here is a selective suspension of constitutional protections on the word and whim of someone who acts largely without public scrutiny. Our specific hypothetical is legislation that *would* have blowback and *would* affect innocent citizens and foreign nationals caught in the collateral shrapnel of our law. "Friends and neighbors might have data and intel they don't even know they possess..." &c.

Any laws that suspend or set aside constitutional provisions for specified individuals under specified circumstances must be as narrowly-defined as possible, carry maximum oversight and carry an avenue of appeal through the legal system as yet another check on the process. At stake here is no less than the future of American Juris Prudence under the auspices of the shifting of the burden of proof from the shoulders of the governing to the head of the governed. Currently in the EU this case is being fought out and will eventually come here... once once is classified as such an individual, what legal recourse is there to remove such a stain from the record, to disprove the aspertion and lift the doubt and cloud from them. At present, no such avenue exists. If you are put on the list, that's it.

The very idea of this shift of the onus from the accuser to the accused makes me queasy, as it should anyone safely ensconced in the warm embrace of their full constitutional rights as a citizen.

Perhaps #1 on our list should be nomenclature... what defines a terrorist in our hypothetical legislation? How are they differentiated from agents of foreign powers? How does the distinction matter? How do these distinctions affect thier rights if at all (for instance the Eisenhoweresque reclassification of captured fighters as 'enemy combatants' rather than soldiers, affecting thier recourse to Geneva)? Who decides? Whose jurisdiction is in play? Is this muilitary or civilian law?

Clarification is needed especially for the following areas:
1. Avenues of appeal for both primary suspects and ancillary individuals caught in the dragnet for retention/purging of thier names from records.
2. Clarification of what constitutes "aiding & abetting" and "aid & comfort" as legal distinctions as they are affected by this specific category of case.
3. Notification.
4. Legal right to see the evidence against you and face your accuser.

These and many more problems vex me as we delve into this morass...

Eternal Apprentice said...

As noted earlier, there has to be a balance of approaches, and a coordination of efforts beyond mere legislation. Deterrence? For terrorist networks? Sure, why not?

This morning's article in the New York Times intrigues me...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/washington/18terror.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin