A New Kind of War
I'm listening to the Senate hearings on the NSA program with AG Gonzales. I'm happy to see that the Democrats are acting feisty and asking tough questions. Still, it's hard to listen to. I can only stand so much lying and obfuscation, and obvious previous coordination between certain Republican senators and the AG.
One point I haven't heard raised has come to my mind. The AG and others have talked about how this is a new kind of war, because al Qaeda is a stateless, amorphous enemy. Which is true. But doesn't that make it even more important to follow the rules about warrants, rather than less so?
In the past, the enemies wore uniforms that marked them as obviously the enemy. So it was clear who you could shoot, or capture, or spy on. Even so, the desire to protect ourselves led to governmental excesses like the internment of Japanese-Americans, to our lasting shame. We have historical evidence that the government, in wartime, will tend to exceed its necessary and valid authority, even when the enemy is clearly identifiable.
Now we're faced with a war where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and isn't so obvious. The Republican senators are correct that some of them may be here in our country. Since they aren't clearly distinguishable on casual inspection, shouldn't we protect ourselves from accidental governmental excess by demanding even more confirmation that the person under suspicion is, in fact, an enemy? Wouldn't this also help make sure our limited resources were actually working on tracking the bad guys and not just good Americans who happens to be of the wrong race, or speak the wrong language, or hold the wrong political belief?
The AG cannot simultaneously argue that the President has traditional war powers (based on the old paragigm) and that it is a new kind of war with vague enemies and uncertain end. If it's a new kind of war, it's a new kind of war, and we need to examine the full implications of that thesis.
The powers granted for wars in which people wore uniforms, and came from foreign states organized in armies and navies, and battlefields were clearly delineated, should not be extended blindly into an era where the "enemy" looks just like you and me, and could be living next door, and the battlefield is global. If this is a "new kind of war", than a process for knowing who is an "enemy" and who is not is critical, and the best system we have for that is that of requiring a warrant.
Frankly, I still remain unconvinced that this conflict is a "war". Nor do I understand why al Qaeda is more dangerous than the adversary who had the power to simultaneously destroy all our major cities with nuclear fireballs throughout my childhood, and while Congress was passing the FISA law in the first place. But, if one grants the assertion of the right that everything is different now, and that somehow the al Qaeda threat requires us to redefine the legitimate practices of government, let's do that. How does the Attorney General propose to assure that I am not identified as an "enemy", aside from the good will of the President? Does Mr. Gonzales expect me to trust the "career professionals" at the NSA that he keeps talking about?
I think I would prefer judges, who issue warrants, as provided for in the Constitution and FISA.
One point I haven't heard raised has come to my mind. The AG and others have talked about how this is a new kind of war, because al Qaeda is a stateless, amorphous enemy. Which is true. But doesn't that make it even more important to follow the rules about warrants, rather than less so?
In the past, the enemies wore uniforms that marked them as obviously the enemy. So it was clear who you could shoot, or capture, or spy on. Even so, the desire to protect ourselves led to governmental excesses like the internment of Japanese-Americans, to our lasting shame. We have historical evidence that the government, in wartime, will tend to exceed its necessary and valid authority, even when the enemy is clearly identifiable.
Now we're faced with a war where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and isn't so obvious. The Republican senators are correct that some of them may be here in our country. Since they aren't clearly distinguishable on casual inspection, shouldn't we protect ourselves from accidental governmental excess by demanding even more confirmation that the person under suspicion is, in fact, an enemy? Wouldn't this also help make sure our limited resources were actually working on tracking the bad guys and not just good Americans who happens to be of the wrong race, or speak the wrong language, or hold the wrong political belief?
The AG cannot simultaneously argue that the President has traditional war powers (based on the old paragigm) and that it is a new kind of war with vague enemies and uncertain end. If it's a new kind of war, it's a new kind of war, and we need to examine the full implications of that thesis.
The powers granted for wars in which people wore uniforms, and came from foreign states organized in armies and navies, and battlefields were clearly delineated, should not be extended blindly into an era where the "enemy" looks just like you and me, and could be living next door, and the battlefield is global. If this is a "new kind of war", than a process for knowing who is an "enemy" and who is not is critical, and the best system we have for that is that of requiring a warrant.
Frankly, I still remain unconvinced that this conflict is a "war". Nor do I understand why al Qaeda is more dangerous than the adversary who had the power to simultaneously destroy all our major cities with nuclear fireballs throughout my childhood, and while Congress was passing the FISA law in the first place. But, if one grants the assertion of the right that everything is different now, and that somehow the al Qaeda threat requires us to redefine the legitimate practices of government, let's do that. How does the Attorney General propose to assure that I am not identified as an "enemy", aside from the good will of the President? Does Mr. Gonzales expect me to trust the "career professionals" at the NSA that he keeps talking about?
I think I would prefer judges, who issue warrants, as provided for in the Constitution and FISA.
posted by Paul at 11:15 AM |
|
email this
