Overstated cases

After eight years of the worse governance since James Buchanan...
-Linda Hirshman

Now, I understand that many people are unhappy with G.W. Bush's presidency, but come on. How can any intelligent person make the kind of a statement Hirshman makes with a straight face? I have heard this kind of rhetoric from all kinds of Bush detractors and it sounds a lot like people trying to wish history into making it true.

I agree that Bush has made mistakes, even some big ones. It turns out every president is guilty of that flaw to one degree or another. The only thing that really makes Bush different is the feedback loop created by 24/infinity media combined with the internet.

Further, the election is over, folks. Bush lost--oh, wait, Bush did not run. For people who claim their objective in supporting an Obama presidency based on high flying rhetoric like hope and change, maybe they also need to add the additional practical rhetoric of getting over it.

Whether Bush turns out to be the worst president since Buchanan will be decided by people writing history books many years from now who have the advantage of looking at everything that has happened over the past eight years and the years yet to come with a degree of detachment. I wonder how history will record such powerful pronouncements of disdain when that history is written.

Transition

As a proposed topic for discussion going forward as we try to transition from a blog where we debate the election. Here's an interesting (I thought) early look as Team Obama makes their plays on the transition...

Standout quote:

“You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you’re in for a lot of trouble,” Mr. Panetta said. “Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front.”

Thoughts?

Innumerable thoughts occur to me... but I'll try to put them down.

I'm curious about our conservative members' thoughts on their party's run and future...

What's next for McCain? Party elder? Will he have the clout to bring anything to the table in the coming term? Where do the Republicans go from here? Is Palin the new face of the Republican party? Or did her candidacy turn off those crucial swing voters? Or were they simply defeated because McCain got dealt a bad hand -- doomed from the outset by being handcuffed to an ever more unpopular lame duck president?

And what does it really mean to be conservative in this new paradigm? Is the Christian right going to continue to reign, or will fiscal/business conservativism overtake the GOP because of it's draw across party lines? Or can the Republican party still forge a workable coalition from the disparate and bickering elements from this defeat? Where's the conservative path to a win for the midterms?

Most importantly - to me at least - is the call for a bipartisan effort from McCain in his concession speech... pretty words? Will reaching across the aisle to work with the new Democratic majority hurt or help the Republican cause in the next election? Is bipartisanship even possible on any real scale when the power rests so securely in the hands of one party.

As a side-comment: It is the ultimate irony to me that the party that spoke so brazenly awhile back about eliminating the filibuster from Senate rules must now rely upon it to get any voice in events that will transpire. As many commentators at the time noted, take a move that will effectively disenfranchizing a minority from their ability to block the majority from walking all over them is fine... when you're the ones in charge. Thank God cooler heads prevailed.

Why the candidates’ views on military spending matter

One of the questions raised by the discussion of the previous post has been whether the amount we spend on providing the US Military with modern, sophisticated, expensive weapons systems is justifiable. The discussion centers on the perceived notion that John McCain supports continued spending on such systems while Barack Obama supports cutting or eliminating a large amount of such spending.

This discussion represents a debate that has existed, I believe, since at least the beginning of recorded history and that has never had a concise answer. Before Americans can achieve their own answer to that debate, they must first answer some very important other questions.

First, what is the scope of the US’s defensive interests? Should the US Military only be capable of defending US territory, or should we define defense more broadly? Central to this question is the definition of US interests and their value to US national security. The broader this definition becomes, the more expensive the resulting military force becomes. Is the defense of national interests a justification of an expensive military?

Second, what should the trigger for the use of the US Military for national security purposes be? When we invaded Afghanistan, few people questioned the validity of that use of the military because the trigger was the violation of national sovereignty. Far more people questioned the invasion of Iraq because the triggers were far more esoteric. The reasons for the use of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo were even less clear. A military force prepared for employment for less defined reasons is more expensive. Is national interest enough reason to justify the use of military force?

Third, what should the employment cost of such defense be? When we use the US Military, we cannot just measure the cost in dollars but also in lives and time. There is a clear relationship between the sophistication of military equipment--sophistication is usually more expensive--and the cost in time and lives of any military operation. Certainly, our military is capable of winning with less sophisticated weapons, but is that a cost we are willing to pay?

The differences between McCain and Obama on these questions are clear. McCain believes in a broad scope of US defensive interests while Obama believes that much of that scope is better resolved through diplomacy and through the actions of other nations. McCain believes in a far lower threshold for the use of military force than Obama. McCain believes that the employment cost should be as low as possible--recall he has a lower threshold for use--while Obama seems to support a higher cost of employment because he envisions far less military use.

From my perspective, our government provided the answers to these questions for me in the 70s and 90s.

In the 70s, we allowed the government to decimate military spending because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. The result was that, in 1979, we did not have the capacity to deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis, and by 1980, there was a very real sense that we would lose if the Soviets invaded Western Europe. We spent most of the 80s correcting that mistake, only to make the same one again in the 90s.

In the 90s, the end of the Cold War and the success of Operation Desert Storm convinced many people that the need for a large, expensive standing military was no longer necessary. The 90s evisceration of the US Military made the 70s look loving by comparison. Unfortunately, the handwriting was already on the wall in the 90s. Various adversaries threatened and attacked US interests around the world with virtual impunity. Tribal warriors equipped with khat, AKs, and RPGs forced the US Military to withdraw from Somalia. Al Qaeda attacked the US Military directly and we were not able to respond.

On 9-11, al Qaeda drove this reality home. We have spent the past seven years rebuilding the force we should have had in 1993 when al Qaeda unmistakably attacked us for the first time.

I grant that military spending often seems like a waste. Standing militaries are unwieldy and inefficient entities that only achieve their peak when employed and even then are wasteful. Nevertheless, the value of maintaining such a force is clear.

I believe Obama’s position on this question represents a dangerous return to an idea already proven false and made even more dangerous by the current world situation. McCain’s position on this question is virtually indistinguishable from my own, hence my unwavering support for him.

-=DLH=-

Voting for America’s king

All of this talk in this presidential election cycle about who has the most experience to be president leaves me wondering when we developed an American nobility only from which can our candidates for president be chosen. When did some sort of ephemeral experience at being “presidential” become the prerequisite for being president?

Even more, what kind of experience qualifies someone to be president? We are electing someone to represent us, not rule us, the last time I checked. If some kind of executive-international experience is what qualifies someone to be president, then why is the last commander of Central Command not the universal candidate for president?

After all, since 1976, the man whose experience was arguably closest being presidential was George H.W. Bush, who was vice president for eight years and ran the CIA before that, and we only elected him for one term and replaced him with the licentious governor of Arkansas. The other three presidents in the same period were also governors whose résumés certainly beg the experience question.

From my view, there are two basic qualifications for my support for a presidential candidate.

The first qualification is Constitutional. My support is contingent on the candidate being a natural born citizen of the United States who is at least 35 years old and who resided in the United States for the past fourteen years.

The second qualification is that the candidate demonstrates the worldview, positions, and mettle I expect a president to demonstrate while in office. I believe discovering those qualities is what campaigns and journalists--when they bother to do their jobs--are supposed to accomplish.

Certainly, experience can help show how a candidate fulfills the second qualification, but such experience does not somehow pre-qualify a candidate to be president. Such pre-qualification is the stuff of monarchies, not democracy.

Therein lies the reason that I support John McCain for President of the United States, all the more so because he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Granted, neither of them is perfect, but as an aggregate on issues important to me and especially on my deal-breaking issue of foreign policy, their worldview, positions, and mettle proves to match my own views. Experience factors into my support for McCain only inasmuch as his history of service to his nation proves his qualification by my standards.

So, before you choose a candidate based on experience, consider what that experience really means. Frankly, Dick Cheney and Al Gore are eminently more qualified to be president by the experience measure, but who is going to vote for them? Instead, we should consider which candidate believes what we do about America and its future and pick that person to represent us for the next four years.

-=DLH=-

Cross-posted on Dennis L Hitzeman’s Worldview Weblog

Executive Expectations

George Will should contribute to this blog.

Nationalized Healthcare...

...Is a divisive subject, of course, so examples like this one are sure to inflame people on both sides of the debate. In summary, a girl with a serious congenital disorder, who was covered as a child under one government health care program, is now being denied coverage as an adult under another government health care program.

Granted, the circumstances of the case are not completely cut-and-dried, but they drive to the heart of my question about nationalized health care: how is the government system going ensure quality care for people?

From my view, so much of the problem in the health care debate is that it has been reduced to numbers, but just as focus on the numbers to not tell the real story of Iraq, the focus on the numbers about health care do not tell the real story of caring for people.

Given government's record of caring for numbers instead of people, I am skeptical that it is possible for it care about people on the scale a nationalized health care system would require. I also concede that something needs to be done to make health care accessible--note that I did not say affordable, which means I oppose government price controls--to people who would not otherwise have access to such care.

How to do so? If the government is to have a role, then its role should be to guarantee a system of accessibility--government insured medical accounts provided by the market--combined with regulating the parts of the existing system that are driving prices up--tort reform, medical research regulation reform.

But even before such reform can begin, it needs to start with a different reform: The government needs to remember that the people in question are people, not numbers or constituents. Being people, each case has to be treated differently keeping in mind its unique circumstances.

If the government can change its attitude about people, then maybe it has a chance with health care.

Meanwhile, at the Battle of "Contributing Factors"

I previously asked questions about whether or not we can define the current political divide in the United States as a cold civil war. In the mean time, ongoing debate here on Contributing Factor has helped answer, at least in part, some of my questions.

The posts and comments have presented this answer in the form of an idea that we seem to repeat frequently: “Then we are at an impasse,” or “Then we disagree.” As I understand such a comment, once we utter it, we create a barrier through which we can achieve no compromise.

From my understanding, compromise is the fundamental objective of diplomacy. When sides cannot compromise, then diplomacy has failed. If the issues at stake require action by one side or another if they do not achieve compromise, then in my view, the sides have reached some state of conflict beyond that which required diplomacy to begin with.

In a cold civil war, the battlefield is politics and the goal is the ownership of the means by which one side can enforce their ideals on another. This state of affairs differs from normal politics in that the ideals in question are ones the other side is fundamentally, even morally, opposed to and must continue to resist even after those ideals become law and are enforced.

If this definition holds true, then I believe that we find ourselves in the midst of a cold civil war in the United States. Even among the posters and commenters on this site, the lines seem to be clearly drawn beyond which no negotiation can take place. This is not an indictment of either side, but rather an acknowledgement that further changes in views by either side threatens to compromise their fundamentals.

Of course, the definition I present here may still be flawed, but it is my operating hypothesis. What remains for me to define is how such a war is fought and, more importantly, how it is ended.

We're on the right track

Apparently, quarreling is very American. Go us!

Cuba libre

I had the privilege of seeing the Cuban timba and son band Tiempo Libre perform on 4 April 2008. Their music was engaging, lively, and spirited as one would expect Cubano music to be.

Interestingly, they closed their performance with a song dedicated “to the greatest nation in the world, the United States of America.” Their words, not mine.

This leaves me wondering: What would a bunch of twenty-something natives of Castro’s Cuba think about the assertion of oppression made by some Americans against the Bush administration? What would they think about the political and personal wrangling that has surrounded issues like warrantless surveillance?

Now, I know that the immediate response will be something like “We oppose the Bush administration so that we don’t end up like Cuba.”

Somehow I think the response should be “Yeah, we are the best nation in the world, but we have problems. What can we do about that so that we can be even better?”

Cuba no es libre pero todavía somos. Viva la libertad.

Laws of surveillance

The United States of America faces a difficult and ongoing issue that was brought into dramatic focus on 11 September 2001: agents of foreign enemies are operating on American soil with the intention of killing American citizens, and in great part, the government does not know who they are.

Whether or not the current struggle represents the beginning of a long war against fundamentalist Muslim jihadism or a short-term fight against a flare-up of terrorist activity by the same, the United States has a problem: First, it has enemies on its own soil. Second, its laws are not adequate to deal with the existing threat.

In 2001, President Bush decided to address part of that problem by authorizing warrantless surveillance in order to discover who the enemies were and then pursue lawful actions to stop them. This authority was derived from well-established and historical precedent established by many previous administrations and in is in keeping with the actions of administrations throughout American history in dealing with crises that threaten the Republic.

This authority also represents a temporary and constitutionally difficult solution that is far better resolved by better-crafted laws targeted at dealing with the nature of the issues at hand. If there is any mistake in the administration’s handling of these issues, it has been that it did not aggressively pursue legislative remedies to these issues far sooner.

Now, the administration and Congress have no choice. The methods the administration was using have been compromised and legally challenged. In order to resolve these issues, the administration and Congress must craft laws that simultaneously protect the American people from potential abuse and also grant the intelligence agencies the ability to discover who the enemies are so those enemies can be stopped.

Unfortunately, it seems that the politicians and thinkers responsible for crafting such solutions are too fixated on politics to fulfill their obligations. This fixation seems to be a national infection, which results in no solutions being presented even as the threat continues and, perhaps, even grows.

In an effort to counter that infection and help guide the national discussion in a direction that may lead to solutions, here are presented several ideas that can form the basis of those solutions.

First, any law that is created must ensure that the liberty of the American people is preserved to the greatest extent possible and that the Republic is defended so that this liberty can be enjoyed. Therefore, the intelligence agencies must be granted the ability to establish causal evidence against enemies of the United States, but they must be constrained from using that evidence for any other purpose than cause by continual and practical oversight. The most effective way to accomplish this end is to create a function, probably judicial, that reviews gathered evidence and certifies it for legitimate use as causal evidence against agents working militarily against the United States on behalf of foreign enemies.

Second, any law that is created must protect intelligence sources, methods, and means from disclosure to protect intelligence agents and those cooperating with them. Specifically, this law must exempt those who cooperate from civil liability over the collection of causal intelligence in order to ensure continued cooperation for that purpose.

Third, the law must clearly state that any punitive action requires the securing of warranted surveillance and authority to act as clearly established by the Constitution. Due to the sensitive nature of these warrants and resulting cases, federal jurisdiction must be clearly established over them, the FISA court must be greatly expanded to accommodate the legal function of the intelligence services in this capacity, and a parallel court must be established to handle cases resulting from this activity.

Fourth, any law must be clearly set to expire on a regular basis, forcing the existing administration and Congress to review the law for applicability and flaws.

Finally, any law must specifically and explicitly apply only to the gathering of causal intelligence against agents of foreign enemies acting on American soil; however, this law must apply to the activities of both foreign nationals and natural citizens acting in this capacity.

This list is neither exhaustive nor complete. Such a law is very complex due to the nature of the problems it deals with and must be carefully crafted before it is implemented. This list simply gives a place to start the conversation, one that will hopefully happen quickly and for the benefit of the United States and its citizens.

-=DLH=-

Cross-posted on Dennis L Hitzeman’s Worldview Weblog

Laws and surveillance redux

[T]hat government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-The conclusion to the Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln, 1 June 1865

The Civil War was the greatest Constitutional crisis the United States ever faced, not just because of the obvious schism of the Republic, but also because of the things the government of the United States, including President Lincoln, decided to do to weather the conflict. Yet, even in the midst of that crisis, the goal of the Union was always clear: to preserve the Republic against forces that would destroy it from within and from without.

That effort was a difficult, costly, and bloody one. Things were said and done during that effort that still reverberate through American society one hundred forty three years after it ended. Broad wounds left from that effort took decades to heal. Some scars are still visible, and some argue that those scars have not completely healed.

In 2008, new threats loom against the Republic both from within and without. Much like the government of 1861 discovered, the counters to these threats are neither always clear nor always the best. Unfortunately, as with all threats in all times, the government of the United States in 2008 must respond with the resources it has available to it, not the resources it wishes it had.

The chief role of the Executive of the government of the United States is to preserve the Republic. Without the Republic, there is no Constitution, there are no citizens, there are no liberties, there are no laws. In 2001, President George W Bush, seeking to fulfill his role against the threats he and his administration perceived as arrayed against the Republic, authorized the warrantless surveillance of individuals in the United States believed to be operating in a military capacity against the United States in cooperation with foreign enemies.

According to the Congressional Research Service (.pdf, 44 pages), every President since Franklin Roosevelt has asserted the right to and used warrantless surveillance against perceived threats to the Republic. Since the Carter administration, warrantless surveillance has been a regular part of every administration’s actions to counter terrorist threats. Warrantless surveillance against agents of foreign enemies is a well established and well documented method for countering the threat these agents possess.

The matter at hand in the several posts on A Host of Contributing Factors has been whether or not the President violated established law by using warrantless surveillance to gather information on the activities on fundamentalist Muslim jihadis working on behalf of al Qaeda and other similar organizations and--I am speculating--working on behalf of some nations against the United States.

Empirically, I do not believe this violation has occurred, for the very same reasons that Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Clinton, and Bush did not believe they had occurred. I believe these violations have not occurred because there is a well-established and historic body of evidence saying that the current administration has acted in accordance with the actions of many previous administrations in dealing with threats against the Republic in times of crisis.

I believe that the current problem that lies before the administration and Congress is that the current body of law that exists to describe the bounds of this well-established and historic authority of the President did not anticipate the contradictions within that body of law itself. A particular portion of this contradiction is granting immunity to telecommunications providers when this authority is exercised. This immunity is important not just to protect telecoms from liability for cooperating, but also to prevent the disclosure of sources, methods, and means in open court, thereby compromising active intelligence operations and personnel.

I also believe that this method of collecting intelligence against foreign agents is the worst solution to a very complicated and ongoing problem. The administration has made countless decisions in implementing and carrying out this program that would have been far better done through better legislation and its accompanying oversight. I have and continue to advocate for those better solutions even as I grant that the existing solution must be allowed to continue until those better solutions exist.

Further, I believe these solutions are necessary because, like any conflict, the current conflict is not isolated to a single front. Certainly, fighting our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq has substantially reduced those enemies’ ability to bring the fight to us, but they still have some capacity, and it is that capacity these solutions are designed to protect against. In the same way that Civil Defense was organized to combat the domestic threats posed by America’s enemies during World War Two and the Cold War, so these solutions in conjunction with law enforcement combat the domestic threats posed by our enemies now.

I think the problem that has presented itself in the warrantless surveillance debate and is repeated in so many of the debates surrounding the actions of the current administration since 2001 is that one side in the debate typically demands that the other side concede or agree to some significant point before any further debate can be had. As a result, there is no opportunity to move beyond the point of concession because these are often fundamental points that the other side cannot concede.

I do not and will not concede that warrantless surveillance has violated the law, nor will I ask anyone who believes that such surveillance does violate the law to set aside that belief before I am willing to discuss better ways to solve the problems of collecting intelligence against foreign agents on American soil. I also grant, even with as strongly as I state my position, that I may still be wrong; however, I believe that the case for my being right is compelling and I will stick with it.

If those who believe that I am wrong wish to pursue their conclusion to its logical course, that is their right, even their Constitutional responsibility. I find that such a pursuit is destructive in a time of conflict, but I concede that our nation is capable of enduring even that kind of destructive behavior if it sets its mind to it.

In the mean time, my greatest wish is to move beyond the “Bush lied, broke the law, knows the size of my underwear…” debate to come up with solutions to the problems that remain whether anyone concedes or not. It is clear to me that our government and its supporting appendages in think tanks and like organizations are so fixated on one problem that no one is coming up with solutions. In the same way that the border with Mexico remains unsecured because of the Washingtonian fixation on comprehensive immigration reform, so the United States remains vulnerable to the actions of the agents of foreign enemies because one side of the debate wants someone to go to jail.

If someone going to jail is the solution to this impasse, then fine, I volunteer. In the meantime, let’s concentrate ourselves on finding solutions to this mess before it really does destroy the Republic.

-=DLH=-

Of laws and surveillance

Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed."

Daniel 6:8

In his post “Code Violations”, Scott asked some pointed questions about the legality of the telecommunications companies’ cooperation with warrantless surveillance with regard to the law as contained in the United States Code. The appeal made in the post was, in my view, to the inviolate nature of the laws that these companies and the current administration purportedly violated and how this violation proves the wrongness of the activity.

Fortunately for us Americans, unlike the Medes and the Persians, our laws are not inviolate. They can be and are often changed for a variety of reasons. This ability to change our laws represents one of our greatest strengths as a republican democracy: the ability to adapt and change our governance to keep it consistent with the circumstances at hand.

When the current body of telecommunications and foreign surveillance laws were originally crafted, their writers did not anticipate the circumstances that currently challenge those laws. Those writers did not anticipate a situation where our intelligence agencies are a fraction of the size and budget that existed at the time the laws were crafted. Those writers did not anticipate a situation where an enemy was present on American soil in numbers sufficient to be a military threat.

Those writers and very few Americans anticipated a situation where 19 foreign militants would take advantage of the protection of those laws to strike and kill nearly three thousand of our fellow citizens. Since 9-11, attempts have been made to rectify the significant shortcomings those laws proved to have in fighting an enemy that is not a state and already among us, but those attempts themselves have failed to appreciate the sheer scope of the threat.

The result of this shortcoming has been that the current administration chose to more widely execute an already existing executive power. From the moment that decision was made, the administration, the legislators in oversight, and the professionals of the executive agencies knew this was an inoptimal decision that would have to eventually be resolved legislatively rather than executively. Before the existence of this temporary solution was made into a headline, the administration and the Congress were already working to resolving the problem.

Now, this resolution is stalled, not because it is unneeded, but because some want an admission that the original laws were broken. Some want the inviolate nature of the original laws to be confirmed before they can be amended to more adequately deal with the circumstances that actually exist now and were not anticipated when they were crafted.

Hypocritically, some of those who want this admission were involved in the crafting of the original laws, were aware of the temporary solution, were involved in the derailed solution, and were part of drafting the current compromise. What purpose does this appeal then serve? Not to make the law better, no to solve the problem, not to give the professionals the tools they need, but to score political points against an opponent that something was done wrong.

Even this desire to score political points would be forgivable if some kind of alternative was being offered, but instead the demand is that the inadequate laws be left in place and wrongdoing be admitted. Meanwhile, America’s enemies continue to exploit flaws in its own laws against it. How many political points are scored with dead citizens?

I know that there will be many, many people who disagree with my view. Some have gone so far as to declare the government the enemy because it violated the law, ignoring the damage the enemy has done exploiting the same. Nevertheless, the one option we do not have is to do nothing, because that option has already been proven not to have worked.

There are compromises that can be reached that would likely make everyone happy. Some options might even leave these much vaunted laws untouched. Of course, any of these alternatives cost the kind of money that very few seem to be willing to spend and require a political will of their own.

What remains is that inadequate laws governing telecommunications and foreign intelligence need to be amended to deal with the circumstances at hand. Will we manage to accomplish that task, or will our belief in the inviolate law simply make us victims of our own rigidity?

Code Violations...

I have to admit, I find it all a little confusing. At the very least I'm experiencing a bit of rhetorical whiplash trying to parse the dialog coming out of Washington.

For the past few years we've heard the collected conservative members of the United States congress practically threatening to tar & feather anyone who mentions the word amnesty with regard to illegal immigration...

"…We will not grant amnesty to illegal aliens in this Congress or, hopefully ever again. We did that once. Everybody said it was a one time deal. We were to never do it again. The problem with doing it was we reward people who violated the law. We reward people who came into the country illegally.”
- Senator Phil Gramm, (R-Texas)

“I thought then [1986] that taking care of three million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it." - Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
(Quoted in the New York Times)

These are only two that I found when I looked. There are more, lots and lots more. Those two aren't the only ones reciting this mantra or one like it. Anyone who broke ranks was vilified. Even the president. It damn near derailed John McCain's hopes for the White House and might yet. I talk to people all the time, conservatives who are still pissed at him for crossing the aisle.

But that's not the half of it. We were repeatedly warned of the dangers inherent in amnesty, in the rewarding of those who break the law by allowing them to get away with it. And to be frank, it wasn't just the Republicans. This is a bucket of tar that spared few politicians and just about everyone had a slightly feathery look about them at the time... such were the prevailing winds in Washington. But I digress. What I want to focus on here is the sentiment: 'If we let them get away with it... what's to keep them from doing it again?'

That's a hard line, a conservative line. And though I disagree strongly with most of the rhetoric about immigration, at least I can respect a principled stance. And I'm not immune to the conservative thought process here... laws exist for a reason. They're the guideropes that show you the edge of the cliff. If you step beyond this point you're Wile E. Coyote. If you step across the barrier and don't fall... why wouldn't you cross the barrier again? Hey mom! See what I can do?

Look ma! No consquences!

So - somewhat related to our debate here of late - you can understand my confusion when I see that there a Conservative push underway to grant an amnesty by applying retroactive immunity to the telecoms after they violated the laws? Not once, but literally millions of times? Each time carrying a specified penalty under federal law.

USC Section 18,2702 and 2703 lay out the parameters in which a telecommunications company whether internet, wireless or land-based may share information in their possession or moving across their equipment with the government. And it's a pretty clear law...

"A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant."

usc sec 18, 2702 - Cornell Law usc sec 18, 2703 - Cornell Law

So what is in that law that's supposed to make me want to give them a pass? They stepped off the ledge... why shouldn't I want to see them hold up a little sign that says 'Yipe!' and then plummet to the desert floor below?

They might be able to argue a case under 2702, subsection c4, but in order to prove it there needs to be an adjudication by the judiciary and the rest of the two codes are demonstrably written to prevent just such a deviation from the law.

There are laws on the books for a reason, not least of all because information has value. The SEC has an entire body of case law governing who can know what, when and what you can do with what you know for exactly this reason. Information is money. It's also power of a more ephemeral kind, as the columnist at Wired said, and the disparity of power felt by a citizen when they are dealing with someone who knows everything about them when they have no idea who has their information or what uses it's being put toward... well, it isn't going to make us feel safe & secure so much as violated. So the laws were broken.

And because the bulk of information that flows across the electronic hubs of our nation's telecommunications array is unprecedented, and if you're trying to 'find out who the bad guys are' it's a daunting task. I get that, I really do. But I keep coming back to a single salient question... why cut out the judiciary in the first place?

The telecoms should have demanded the legally mandated subpoenas. Because they didn't, they're in legal jeopardy. But I don't buy the argument that if we don't indemnify them after the fact they won't cooperate in the future... in fact, they'll just adhere to the laws. Like they were supposed to do in the first place. If some nice person in a snappy government suit shows up with a writ, you bet your bippy they're going to cooperate... because they won't have a choice. And they will be protected by the code they adhered to...

"No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter."

USC 2703 e

That is how you protect yourself and your shareholders from litigation. You obey the law and the law protects you. You step across the line and... Wile E. Coyote time.

And I'm still wondering and no one has yet answered me... why didn't the NSA just ask for a legal finding on what they were up to? How again did a FISA hearing somehow impede them from protecting us? Before they built a secret router into AT&T's facility to monitor internet traffic (Hi guys!), before they asked (politely, I'm sure) for the 'largest database ever assembled' to thumb through for information... where was the judge in all this? The laws of our land demand one. Explicitly. Do they think Al Qaeda has infiltrated the Federal Bench? Or do they just see the judiciary as a hurdle to be cleared or gone around so they can do their jobs as they see fit...

I've told you most of what I think on the subject of FISA and warrantless wiretaps, not to mention combing the calls and internet postings. But a subject we've largely ignored is the Telecom issue and I think it needs to be addressed because I - for one - am angry at the flagrant abuses I see in all this. The lawbreaking was so profound and the audacity of the legislators trying to double-talk and pretend that it's ok sickens me. Because, as the distinguished gentleman from Iowa reminds us "if you reward illegality, you get more of it."

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.

Politics of everything but the point

Here on A Host of Contributing Factors and across the media cyberscape, debates rage with incredible ferocity and vociferousness about politics and policy without ever really reaching what anyone can honestly call a point.

Here on AHOCF, the debate du jure has been over the legitimacy and consequences of warrantless wiretapping and its many associated concerns. Yet, somehow lost in this debate are the concerns that brought it to light to begin with. The result is that those concerns continue to boil and burn even as we beat ourselves to intellectual death by mischaracterizing another’s views, ignoring the subtleties of another’s points, and refusing to consider that at least some of our own views might actually be flawed, misguided, or just plain wrong.

What results is a debate sans points and many, many questions sans answers. Even in this little corner of cyberspace is gathered a group of people of considerable knowledge, intellect, and logic who have turned those gifts to digging trenches rather than building bridges. No one benefits from more fortifications, but everyone benefits from more dialogue.

I am just as guilty of contributing to this phenomenon as anyone, but I would like to believe that I can be part of the change needed to put and end to it. That change is why I started writing on the internet to begin with. That change is why I gravitate toward asking questions and trying to discern out points of commonality, as flawed as those attempts may be.

So, here again I offer an opportunity, not to beat to death another set of points that apparently cannot be reasonably resolved, but to find those points of commonality and create solutions that are actionable.

Let’s start with the debate du jure: I agree that warrantless wiretapping is not the best method to gather intelligence on enemies residing within the United States because of the risks involved in compromising the liberty of the innocent, however I also agree that the better methods of gathering that intelligence are either not available to our intelligence agencies or are now impractical or impossible to implement. Therefore, we Americans have a very clear problem: Our enemies are operating on our own soil and the apparent solutions to finding and stopping them are not the ones we really want to use. Our choices are clear: Use the methods we have available or find some other way.

Therein lies my question: I am not asking anything other than how do we do what needs to be done if we do not use the methods we have? I do not claim to have an answer, hence the reason that I have come down on the side of using the methods that are available. I believe, however, in the collected group present on this weblog, an answer can be discerned if we try. There is no deception or attempt to trap buried in this question, simply an honest attempt to coax out ideas that may be buried within the collected intellect of the group.

Of course, the moment I end this post, its interpretation is left with the reader. I hope the interpretation is as I intended it. Otherwise, all that is left is to try again.

The Economy, Politics, and Ohio

“Pity me that the heart is slow to learn / What the swift mind beholds at every turn.”

- Edna St. Vincent Millay

The Sunday, February 24^th edition of the Dayton Daily News ran an article entitled “Slumping economy is on the minds of these voters” making the argument that the state of the Ohio economy will be a significant decision maker for Ohio voters in both the primary and the general election. No doubt the economy is on the minds of these voters, and it is sad to realize that they put so much stock into the promises of a person who can do virtually nothing to change Ohio’s economy in the short term or, perhaps, even in the long term.

Ohio’s economic problem is not presidential policy so much as it is an ongoing reliance on old economy income sources in a new economy world. Ohio relies heavily on low-tech manufacturing for many of its jobs, and many Ohio politicians, unions, and workers claim that it is the export of those kinds of jobs from Ohio that has had such a dramatic effect on Ohio’s economy. From their view, a president who promises to prevent the export of such jobs cannot help but benefit Ohio.

And a president can put into place policies that prevent companies from exporting manufacturing jobs, but preventing those jobs from leaving will not make Americans buy domestically produced products. The problem with low-tech manufacturing is not one of retaining the jobs, but of producing products consumers will buy, and American low-tech manufacturing, to a great degree, is not doing that.

There are two pieces to this production problem for Ohio:

First, American low-tech manufacturing has far too high of a cost to profit ratio. Significant portions of that cost are related to wages. Frankly, in order for American companies to pay manufacturing workers what they are willing to work for, it then requires the companies to charge far more for their products than many Americans are willing to spend. Without demand, there is no need for supply, and that is a lesson that Ohio is in the painful midst of learning, as an example in domestic auto industry.

Second, American low-tech manufacturing has not embraced the developing high-tech economy. Frankly, the days of being able to graduate from high school and find a factory job that can be worked for thirty years until retirement are dwindling. The modern economy requires a higher degree of education and specialization than ever before, and low-tech manufacturing simply does not make that cut. Further, the modern economy is not one where people stay with one job, even one career, for the entirety of their working lives. As a result, continuing education and the ability to adapt to the demands of modern job availability are a must.

If Ohio needs any kind of president, then, it is a president who will invest in retooling education, taxation, and opportunities so that Ohioans can adapt to the economy that exists rather than the economy they wish would come back. Of course, that presumes that the president can affect those things either. Even better, Ohioans should invest in those things themselves, whatever the president thinks or tries to do.

Certainly, the economy is on Ohioans’ minds as they go to vote, and it is unfortunate that so many voters plan to vote for a panacea rather than a solution. Until Ohioans realize that the solution to Ohio’s economic woes lie with them, they can vote for whoever they want, the economy will remain the same.

-=DLH=-

Cross-posted from Dennis L Hitzeman’s Worldview Weblog

Liveblogging “Super Tuesday II”

Tomorrow, 4 March 2008, is the primary election in Ohio and probably D-Day for the Democrat candidates for president.

I will be liveblogging at my Worldview weblog throughout the day, providing my impressions as the election unfolds from when polls open in Ohio at 6:30 AM EST to sometime that night. I hope to have six to ten posts for the day, maybe more depending on how things unfold.

I invite all of you to participate as well by contributing your comments and by passing this weblog on to others who might be interested in what’s happening in Ohio.

By the end of the day tomorrow, we could know who the contenders for the White House will be in November. Then the real fun begins.

-=DLH=-

Living freely and happily in the land of “the Government should”

I have heard the collective gasp that I, an otherwise avowed libertarian, would grant the government the power to eavesdrop on my communications in order to prevent harm to myself, my fellow citizens, or my nation. “How can you possibly believe the government should have such power,” people ask. Bluntly, I think the government should have that power because the government works for me and because I believe in the system of checks and balances our system allows for.

Again, I point out that I am an active, engaged, participating citizen in a nation governed of, by, and for the people. Part of that engagement is that I understand, as a citizen, what tools I have available and what tools I am then willing to let the government use. I also understand that, if the government decides to take tools I do not allow for or fails to give tools back once it is done with them, I have options that I can exercise.

Perhaps, the problem that so many people have with this reasoning is that they want to give the government a carefully crafted blank check then be able to forget once that check has been issued. I, on the other hand, do not believe for a moment that the government should be able to do anything without the constant, hawkish watching of its citizens. This watching is the citizen’s role in republican “democracy” and is the price of liberty.

What strikes me as so odd about the current reaction to warrantless wiretapping and its associated issues is that people ignore their history and their practical application. People have this image of a monstrous, overpowering government watching over each and every one of us with Gestapo-like powers. If such a government comes into existence, then it is our fault for not stopping it.

Now some people, at this point will shout, “But that’s exactly what warrantless wiretapping is allowing to happen!” I argue, however, that is not what is happening at all. Instead, warrantless wiretapping represents the inevitable results of other choices, made a while ago, that limit our ability to effectively protect ourselves as a nation. Does warrantless wiretapping mean greater vigilance? Certainly. Does it mean the police state has come into its own? Absurd…

For those people who just cannot accept that warrantless wiretapping should be allowed, there are solutions. The broader power exercised by at least the past two administrations and the current one would not be necessary if we had not allowed our intelligence agencies to be decimated and hamstring since 1989. If our intelligence agencies had enough funding, manpower, and resources, they could pursue our enemies “over there” instead of having to do so from here. If our military had not been allowed to shrink to such a small size, we could keep our enemies over there instead of being worried about them coming here. If we had not allowed our diplomatic service to atrophy to the point where it cannot tell the difference between over there and here, we would not have this problem.

Warrantless wiretapping is the result of our own national laziness toward our own wellbeing. We want our government to protect us, to defend us, and to do the things we are unwilling or unable to do ourselves, but we are not willing to be vigilant enough to ensure that it can do the job. Is warrantless wiretapping the best answer? Hardly. If not, then how would you do it differently?

-=DLH=-

Prioritizing

When people make decisions, there are three considerations which will usually ― consciously or unconsciously ― be a part of the decision-making process: (1) because, (2) in spite of, and (3) as long as. Let’s take a look.

Usually, we decide on a course of action because of a significant factor (or perhaps factors ― more on that later). I eat because I am hungry. I watch TV because I can’t or won’t think of anything better to do. I’ll go to the grocery store because I’m out of peanut butter.
But that’s not all. In all but the most simplistic decisions, we also decide on a course of action in spite of a significant factor or two that would indicate action to the contrary. I eat in spite of the fact that I don’t really need the calories. I watch TV in spite of the fact that I’ll be exposed to hours of odious advertising. And I’ll go to the grocery store for peanut butter in spite of the fact that it will cost me $1.69 in gas to do so.

And, whether we are conscious of it or not, our decisions usually involve action as long as a particular undesirable consequence does not occur, or as long as a suitable alternative does not exist. I eat as long as I don’t have to steal to do so. I watch TV as long as no one is around to have a conversation and a glass of Scotch with. And I go to the grocery store for peanut butter as long as I don’t have to shovel 8 inches of snow to do so.

All of which is a very long-winded way to say that human beings, when making almost any substantive decision, are wont to prioritize. Very few decisions are able to be boiled down to a simple, binary, either/or. There’s always another choice, or another “contributing factor” (there’s a plug for our blog!), or another complication to the decision-making process.

Say I need a vehicle. I need to consider many things. How many people will I need this vehicle to carry? What kind of gas mileage do I want? What sort of status do I wish to convey? What color do I like? What country’s industry do I want to support? How much money do I have to spend? How reliable do I want the vehicle to be? Whatever vehicle I end up buying, my decision-making formula will have looked something like: I bought this car because it x, y, and z, in spite of the fact that it a ― and I’ll be happy with my decision as long as b turns out like I expect it to.

The good news for vehicle buyers is that there are a myriad of choices available, almost infinitely customizable so that all but the most exquisitely selective purchaser can have his x, y, and z without having to worry much about the a, and can pretty much count on b as well.

The bad news for voters is that the same variety of realistic candidates is not really available (not to mention the fact that, unlike your car decision, the person for whom you decide to vote might not end up winning) ― such that voters need to be a lot more picky about their x, y, and z; a lot more tolerant of their a (and their a1, a2, a3 ...); and a lot more skeptical about their b.
All of which ends up being an encouragement that our discussion of “on what basis am I making my vote?” be both a little more, and quite a bit less, nuanced than it has been.

A little more nuanced, insofar as I’m not sure that Denny (stubborn and intransigent though he is) is not really a “one issue” voter. He might not have a y or a z in his consideration – in fact, he says that he doesn’t. Denny is voting for McCain because he thinks that McCain will be the best CinC for our nation in the War on Terror. The lack of a y or a z (and the fact that McCain’s “in spite of” list of a1, a2, a3... is so long) makes Denny see himself as a “one-issue” voter (and for that David and Scott are chiding him and urging him to have a wider view). But the reason I see Denny as a slightly more than one issue voter, and ask for a little more nuance, is the existence of b. Denny is more than happy to consider only McCain’s strong stance in the War on Terror, as long as he sees McCain as a principled, and generally reliable enough person. There simply aren’t that many as long as items to worry about. (To over-simplify: “I support John McCain because of his strong stance in the War on Terror, in spite of the fact that I disagree with some of his voting record in Congress, as long as I can be sure that he has the basic conservatism necessary to not triple my income taxes, try to force mandated health care down all of our throats, and give Texas back to the Mexicans.”) I’m sure David and Scott would have a fun time dreaming up imaginary in spite of and as long as items and asking Denny hypothetically how far he would continue to support a strong CinC who faced significant deficits in the a and b areas. To summarize, I think Denny is, practically speaking, a one-issue voter because to him all other issues pale in comparison to national security ― but only because there is no realistic threat to the as long as side of the equation.

On the other hand, I ask for a quite a bit less nuanced view of the question insofar as David and Scott (open-minded and wide-viewed though they are) still only get to pull the lever once. And as many factors as play into their decision, and as many issues as they find important and pressing in our time, their decision-making formula is still the same as Denny’s: I voted for Candidate Lizard Q because of x, y, and z, in spite of a, and I’ll be happy with that as long as b turns out like I expect it to. And, as much as we wish the opposite were the case, I don’t even think we can count on x, y, and z falling where we want them to. In so many lizards, like in so many other decisions in life, we might line up perfectly on x and y, but end up differing on z, or even agreeing wholeheartedly on x but agreeing to disagree on y and z. All of which makes our vote, that frustratingly binary choice of “him or her?” really at the end of the day always a matter of one issue.

One issue, that is, and the priority which we choose to give to that one issue. It’s easy to find a candidate who agrees with us on our primary x issue, and then be happy because he agrees with us on a couple of other, slightly-less-primary y and z issues too, leaving the less significant a to a “happy inconsistency” and a b or two in the not-bloody-likely column. But if push came to shove (and I’m sure Denny would love to play this game with David and Scott as much as they with him) I’ll bet there is a real, live, potentially-deal-breaking x issue with all of us. It’s the issue we give the highest priority to, and it’s the issue which will ultimately decide our vote.

So quibble with your fellow contributors all you want about the most important, priority-number-one issue in this election. But let’s not waste a bunch of time pretending that, at the end of the day, a one-issue vote is a bad thing. Because we’re all one-issue voters ― and the real one-issue, the one thing that matters more than anything else when we cast our vote, is our own prioritization of our country’s most pressing issue(s).

It’s Academic – Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

In his last post, Denny Hitzeman takes me to task for what he characterizes as an “academic understanding of the Constitution, the war against fundamentalist Islam . . . and the role of the President and the federal government in our lives.” He doesn’t believe I understand our nation’s toolbox or the reasons for its hammer, our military.

Generally the charge that someone has an academic understanding of something is tantamount to saying he is being unrealistic. I think it is fair to suggest that Denny is using the charge in this way, though he does so respectfully. Denny himself gives mixed signals about how he weighs the academic and the real. He has no problem using his academic understanding of the Constitution and his understanding of the reality of history to conclude that the President’s domain is international in scope, but what are we to make of his reading of the Constitution and history to suggest that we are a nation that “otherwise chooses to deal with its own affairs by actions other than the government?”

This statement seems to be a denial of the legislative role of the Congress that is laid out in great detail in the Constitution and the long history of its role in our affairs. He further clarifies his position in the comments section of his last post. In a response to my comment he says, “Put another way, I take the Constitution very seriously when it doles out responsibility, and want my elected leaders to do the jobs the[y] have been assigned and nothing else.” It is a wonder, then, that he seems willing to ignore the Senate’s important role in balancing and enforcing the limits on the Presidency or, in fact, legislating.

Regarding the Constitution and the role of the Presidency, Denny rejects the President’s role in solving domestic issues. “I do not elect a president,” he says, “to stimulate the economy, force me to accept government health care, or create moral dictates for me to abide by. I elect a president to abide by the role he occupies as clearly defined by the Constitution and nothing more.”

Denny places great weight on the fact that the first of the President’s duties is as Commander in Chief. Though he picks up on the importance of the placement of the enumeration of the President’s powers, he doesn’t give enough weight to the actual words. The President only assumes the role of C in C when “the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” are “called into the actual Service of the United States,” in other words, when Congress declares war. Further, the President’s other international role, that of treaty making, is a power he only has “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” It is clear from such a reading of the Constitution – a reading, I would argue that is at least academically accurate, if not an indication of what now actually happens – that the powers of the President are extremely limited even in the international arena.

This confusion between the academic and real, if that is what it is, is easy to understand. We the people have not been particularly vigilant of what has become of our Constitution over the years. As a group, we have been all too willing to let the office of President gather power to itself well beyond the intentions of the people who framed out our government. This fact is far from academic. The Constitution is a living document, not only in the sense that it can be amended, but in the sense that it provides a blueprint, one adjudicated by our Supreme Court, for how to run our government. That process has very real effects on our lives. How then are we to set aside what that document says in some instances and not in others?

All that said, Denny takes a realistic view of the situation. As he says in his comment, “We're not going to achieve limited government in one President's term.” He does acknowledge that change needs to be made but that it will take time. On that point we agree.

Denny also claims I possess only an academic understanding of fundamentalist Islam. On this point he is certainly being too kind. I’ve heard a lot about this threat, how vast and deadly it is, but only in the most vague terms. It is almost always as part of some doomsday scenario where the fundamentalists acquire a nuclear or dirty bomb and obliterate our civilization. There’s a lot of talk about “us” and “them” and “over there” and “good” and “evil” and all of it, or most of it, is very non-specific.

Denny and I do not disagree that fundamentalist Islam is a threat to us. Fundamentalism of almost any sort is a danger to rational beings everywhere. What we seem to disagree on is the level of that threat. I can’t speak to Denny’s inside knowledge, but I know that I can’t say with certainty what the level of threat is because I have never heard it specified. How many fundamentalist Islamists are there? How many actually want to destroy us (all of them, I assume, but again, how many is that)? What weapons do they actually have at their disposal? What are their finances? Where are they located? How likely is it, really, that they will be able to obtain and successfully deploy WND? We never get this information. We only hear about a most dire, amorphous, usually faceless “threat.” How are we to gauge our response or even accurately target that response if we don’t have this information?

One might assume that someone has this information. We are certainly asked to trust that the President and his administration do, yet they have given us little reason to trust either their judgment or intentions. Certainly, I believe he and his advisors want us to be safe, but I fear that this simple motivation is mixed with others less simple and obvious. Again, it is a matter of just how big a threat fundamentalist Islam presents that determines whether or not our current actions – which appear on the surface to be out of line with our stated principles – are justified and appropriately measured.

So to the extent that I know anything on this subject, it is, in fact, academic. A point to Denny on that score.

On Denny’s last point, that our struggle against fundamentalist Islam is a war and one “fought on behalf of the United States by an all-volunteer fighting force made up of professional, educated, dedicated, and willing warriors who understand better than anyone of any political ideology what our nation is and why it is necessary to fight,” I clearly have to tread carefully. That it is a war may be true. Wars are generally fought between nations, but perhaps the term is fitting for this struggle. His other contention about our military is a trickier issue.

While I have not myself served in the military, I have many family members, both immediate and extended, and friends who have. I say this not to somehow excuse my own lack of service; I do not believe I need an excuse for not joining the military. I say it because I know some military people and have had some exposure to their demeanor and their reasons for joining. Their service, particularly the service of those who have seen combat whether direct or from rear positions, is commendable and, I would never do or say anything to impugn the sacrifices they and their families have made.

However, as a nation, we have perhaps become overly sentimental in our views of the military. We have created icons out of the men and women who serve and have often forgotten their humanity, both the positive and negative aspects of it. Returning veterans do not always receive the care, treatment and benefits that our government has promised them. Too often, we find that once they have completed their service, veterans are no longer actively appreciated though we speak emotional words at various times about their brave service.

Similarly, we tend to lionize these men and women. Yes, they are as Denny says, “professional, educated” – at least in the arts of war – “dedicated, and willing warriors” – for the most part. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that they “understand better than anyone of any political ideology what our nation is and why it is necessary to fight.” This sentiment may be true of Denny and certain people with whom he has served. It is certainly true of some number of our military personnel, whether that is many or few, I cannot say with certainty.

However, it is also certainly true that many of the people who volunteer do so for reasons that surpass an undying commitment to and understanding of the principles that lie at the heart of this great nation. Some number enlist to escape economic hardship – which is saying something when you consider how little the average soldier in any branch is compensated – some enlist because of promised money for higher education, some enlist for the training, because they have no other driving goals, or simply because they like the romantic idea of being a soldier, traveling to far lands, and using modern weaponry.

These are not bad reasons to join, merely common ones. They aren’t the noble reasons that Denny and others assign to our military personnel in our eagerness to create that romantic vision and pay rightful homage to their sacrifices when they have been called upon to make them. I do not seek to denigrate them – any of them – but I do seek to clarify that you do not need to have survived boot camp and carry a gun or faced enemy fire to understand the intended nature of this country’s founding principles in either a very real or an academic way.

Furthermore, that the men and women in our armed forces continue to serve during this period may be an indicator of their understanding of the threat, as Denny implies, but I find it far more likely that it is an indicator that for them to leave the military before the term of their service is up would be a crime that would certainly be punished. For those that re-enlist, I suspect that the commitment to their fellow soldiers and the guilt they feel leaving others behind has more to do with their re-enlistments than their supposedly superior understanding of our nation’s principles and the threats arrayed against us.

In a final analysis, our entire discussion is, to a great degree, academic. Neither Denny nor I are in a position to make policy decisions. Denny clearly has the right to vote as his conscience leads him. On that point, there can be no argument. However, in my view, the internal threats we face to our nation – an economy groaning under the weight of debt and an increasingly unaccountable government that has grown disconnected from the people it serves among others – are at least as important to the future strength and safety of our country as the threat from the fundamental fringe of an otherwise peaceful religion.

We’ve seen what adherence to a one issue government policy has wrought over the past eight years. It’s time for a course correction, and that will require a leader who has a broader vision. If Denny feels McCain it that man, so be it. But I hope others won’t take such a narrow view of our future.