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!

Facts and Opinions

At the risk of stirring the hornets' nest this weblog can sometime be, I want to take a moment to discuss something that is important to debates such as the ones that often rage here. In these debates, as has been true for most of human history, an ongoing confusion of the understanding of fact and opinion has occurred that has served to cloud the debate and make it more vociferous.

Fact and opinion can be hard to define because the difference between the two is often subtle and sometimes imperceptible. An example of where this definition as become extremely difficult is in the use of information in the ongoing warrantless surveillance debate.

Both sides of this debate have reached very clear and opposing conclusions, ones supported by the citation of information from a variety of sources--some reputable, some not--which information itself is also a conclusion based on information gathered from still other sources. This chain of information and supporting conclusion extends back until it, hopefully, reaches facts, such as the citation of specific laws or the Constitution.

The semantics of the above description are important because those semantics represent definitions of logical debate. While conclusions and the information used to support them are powerful and important, they are not facts.

In a way, this is a legal definition as well. Conclusions are opinions, as informed and reasoned as they might be. This is the same definition used by the constitutional courts of the United States (appellate and supreme) in referring to their own conclusions about the law. This terminology is used because the judiciary has always accepted the inevitability that some of their conclusions will be overturned by the conclusions of future courts.

Such conclusions can be deeply held, but ultimately they are still opinion. Such conclusions should be based on facts, but even with a majority of facts, they are still opinions. Because they are opinion, they can still be proved wrong by better conclusions or facts.

Because such conclusions are opinion, how they are used in the course of logical debate is very important. The use of conclusions as a proof of the wrongness of an opposing conclusion is a tricky proposition because of the risk that the conclusion used might yet be proven wrong.

Fact, on the other hand, has none of the potential ambiguity of opinions. Fact is irrefutable and empirical. Semantically, fact is. Fact serves as the basis for everything else including debate.

In the course of logical debate, it is possible for certain opinion to become fact-like, due to agreement or inattention. This conversion does not imply that such opinion is fact; rather, that it is being used as fact in the absence of more obvious fact.

Understanding of these distinctions cannot help but strengthen the nature of logical debate. Conclusions, though opinion, are the inevitable result of the absence of definable fact, but such conclusions must fulfill other requirements before they can be facts. In logical debate, the use of conclusion must be tempered by its nature, or the debate ceases to be anything more that argument.

That’s my opinion. Let the stinging begin...

-=DLH=-

Words By Which To Live

For all of us would-be writers:

"The road to hell is paved with adverbs." - Stephen King

If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

More examples of “media malpractice,” this time courtesy of The Weekly Standard.

(In case that last wasn’t unambiguous, it’s the Standard that seems to be reporting on the malpractice, rather than necessarily committing it. But maybe there’s media bias in the article about media bias. You never know…)

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=-

Rule Number One Of Pillow Fight Club...

Screw finding common ground; let's fight!
http://www.pillowfightclub.org/

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.

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).