A Suitable Hell for Bin Laden

Six years after the bloody fact, I am still trying to understand September 11. I don’t understand how 19 men could callously murder so many people. It was not a crime of passion, but a crime of calculation. It was more than revenge.

 

Osama Bin Laden’s latest video does nothing to clear things up. His soliloquy was a series of poorly reasoned rants. He is a conspiracy theorist and a reactionary.

 

It’s comical, really. A look at the rather hard-to-find transcript of the video, released Friday, shows why.

 

Bin Laden opens with some religious prattle about the eye-for-an-eye doctrine that is favored among jihadists as well as, more disturbingly, many Americans in reaction to the attacks of September 11, whose solemn anniversary we remember today.

 

The grizzled old killer, now sporting a frisky new beard - it appears that even global superterrorists need a makeover every now and then - pitifully harkens back to his glory days, when he engineered, he all but admits, the crime against humanity that destroyed the World Trade Center. Bin Laden has little else to talk about. Our troops and even, he probably fears, the more rapacious members of his own coterie, thinking about the bounty on his head, doubtlessly make his sleep unbearably troubled at night, forcing him to keep moving from refuge to uncertain refuge.

 

Oddly, Bin Laden claims that the “morality and culture of the Holocaust is your [Western] culture, not our culture. In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man? ” Oh really? Is it Bin Laden’s argument that those killed in the September 11 attacks were not people? That is precisely what the Germans thought about those they killed during the Nazi holocaust he refers to.

 

It is clear that Bin Laden sees the world in terms of racial and religious identity, writ large. He assumes that we, Americans, consider the Germans of the Second World War to be our “brethren” and the Spanish of the Inquisition to be our “brothers.” Although many Americans do have European ancestors, few of us think of ourselves as anything but Americans. Cairo is just a little bit further down the road in our imaginations than the Rive Gauche. Neither place is particularly familiar.

 

Bin Laden makes a grand, sweeping gesture of generosity, he supposes, when he states that Muslims have not killed the Jews of Morocco or the Christians of Egypt, and, for the latter only, have no plans to do so. Such charity.

 

And even Bin Laden cannot help but bash the media, whom he claims has “lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires.” Perhaps he watches Fox.

 

Most amusing, however, is the Bin Laden’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic-controlled Congress. It seems that even our most wanted ubervillain jumps on the Congress-trashing bandwagon. Both Americans and terrorists, in case you haven’t heard, are terribly cross at Congress these days.

 

He’s right that “this war [in Iraq] was entirely unnecessary,” and, hilariously, that “the leader of Texas [Bush, of course] doesn’t like those who give advice.” Equally hilarious is his insistence that the president should have listened to Noam Chomsky. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has been known to give Bush the same advice. Chavez should invite Bin Laden to moderate a call-in show on Telesur. They could invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a guest.

 

As others in the media have remarked, Bin Laden seems at times to be as shrill as any conspiracy-theorist blogger from the left or right. He combines Marxist ideas about capitalism with bluster about globalization. He’s even concerned about global warming and the Kyoto agreement. Good old Al Gore. That really was a rather good PowerPoint presentation.

 

All of these events, the attacks, America’s response, Bin Laden’s poorly reasoned motivations for the attacks, our president’s hazy goals for Afghanistan and Iraq, his conflation of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, all of these things are profoundly disheartening.

 

It would be nice to believe that we are at least, in Bin Laden, confronting a person who is rational, who can perhaps consider that he was wrong, who is not so barmy as to simply react, with lethal criminality, to any of the many supposed wrongs he sees our country having inflicted on Muslims.

 

And it would be nice to think that we Americans, having perfected the art of democracy as much as anyone, having a fairly enlightened view, in theory at least, of human rights, should respond in such an irresponsible way to the real and horribly tangible wrongs of Bin Laden and his acolytes. We struck out viciously in fear and anger against those who caused us pain. It was a primal response, not one suiting a nation such as ours.

 

As I did after the attacks occurred in 2001, I think that the only responsible and humane response to 9/11 worthy of our dignity is that advocated by Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz. His essay, “After September 11: Thoughts on What Can Be Done,” posted one week after the attacks, is worthy of the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, of Martin Luther King Jr. It should be read by everyone and taken fully to heart.

 

Contrast Ferencz’s essay with Bin Laden’s latest rant, and you can easily see which man we should respond to.

 

Ferencz mapped out a course of action that we tragically failed to follow. He would have had the United States draw up specific indictments against Bin Laden and his co-conspirators, submit them to the governments that might be harboring the fugitives, create a military force under United Nations auspices, enforce economic and other sanctions against countries that refused to hand over suspects, and, most importantly, “the [United Nations] Security Council, following its own precedents, can quickly set up an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to try the accused - as was done with US support - for the crimes against humanity committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The trials should be absolutely fair.”

 

This last point, having an ad hoc criminal tribunal fairly try Bin Laden and his lieutenants, is the best way forward. It is the only way, to my mind, to redeem September 11. Instead of merely shaking our heads in disbelief, sadness, and disgust at what happened on that dark day, we can remember, with satisfaction, that we showed the world that an eye for an eye is the dogma of the condemned, not of us.

 

We are Americans, we can say, we stand for justice and fairness, we give everyone a fair trial, no matter what their crime. We were pushed, pushed back, but then realized that an eye for an eye soon leaves everyone blind.

 

Ferencz offered his solution because he “experienced the horrors of war and…cannot bear to see the destruction and the pained eyes of those digging in the ruins or the helpless relatives refusing to accept what they know is now inevitable.” We have seen that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not brought us any closer to satisfaction. We must now choose the high road, the road of progress, the road of law.

 

Let us bring Bin Laden to trial for everyone to see his crimes. Some will say that this will only give him an ill-deserved soapbox. This is true. He will be insistent, indignant. He might receive adoring coverage on some middle eastern television stations. But he will be exposed, and we will finally be vindicated.

 

And maybe late at night, after he shuffles away to his lonely cell in a maximum-security prison somewhere in the United States, he will begin to sweat as he counts out his sins in his head. And we will all begin to sleep a little easier.

 

Ferencz ended his essay with one of the best sentiments I have ever heard expressed. I hope we can all learn from it:

 

“We must try to understand the causes of the violence and try to diminish the hatreds that encourage people to kill or be killed for their particular cause. This requires new thinking, a willingness to compromise, compassion and tolerance, a greater respect for the goals set down in the UN Charter and infinite patience. I am now approaching 82 and I have not given up hope. To those of all faiths, I extend my best wishes for peace and happiness.”

 

Chuck Hagel and John Warner: It’s a Shame to See Them Go

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska plans to announce his retirement from the Senate on Monday. Senator John Warner of Virginia said on August 31 that he would resign his post. It is a great shame to see good and honorable legislators like these two leave the Senate.

 

This blogger is no fan of Republicans in general, just see my previous posts, but I do make exceptions. I am generally not such a partisan that I cannot countenance any views that come from the opposing party’s members. I think there are many of us in America who feel this way. It is, after all, rational.

 

The Founders railed against factions. Albert Einstein refused to be identified with any political party of the basis of his abhorrence of conformity. More Americans should follow these examples.

 

Although I think it is a good thing to support the Democrats when the Republicans have been, as a whole, profligate in their control of the executive and legislative branches, I don’t think we should be rigid in our thinking. We should follow good people and good policy. Anything else leads to corruption as the entrenched party consolidates its power. Why blindly follow any party?

 

Both Hagel and Warner were independent voices crying out in the wilderness of the GOP’s machine. While others walked in lockstep with the president, Hagel and Warner criticized the Iraq war and proposed solutions to the quagmire. Both senators were veterans and had credibility on defense issues. Any Republican replacement is likely to fall short of this standard.

 

John Kerrey, former Nebraska governor, senator, and presidential candidate, now president of New York’s New School University, is exploring the possibility of running for the seat vacated by Hagel. He should run.

 

He did a superb job as U.S. Senator and would have made a brilliant president. As a former Nebraskan, I remember the chills running up and down my spine as he sang “Waltzing Mathilda” after being elected to the Senate. A cheesy moment in politics, for certain, but the impromptu ballad was heartfelt and bittersweet. We knew we had an unusual politician on our hands.

 

So long, Hegel and Warner, too bad there aren’t more like you.

 

Don’t Believe the Hype: Why You Should Not Support Fred Thompson’s Candidacy for President

Fred Thompson announced his candidacy for president today. He does not deserve your support.

 

 

First, Thompson downplays the role of people in causing climate change. This might play well among oil company executives, but Americans recognize the seriousness of climate change, support some sort of governmental response to global warming, and realize that it is caused by human activity.

 

 

Although claiming, predictably, to be a different kind of candidate “running a different kind of campaign,” Thompson repeats the same old Republican line about gay marriage: “Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.” Thompson is wrong: judges who rule that state constitutions cannot bar marriage between gay couples are merely upholding the law. His opinion strongly resembles that expressed in the 2004 Republican Party Platform: “We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.” 

 

 

The candidate gives greater weight to gun owners’ Second Amendment rights than to the safety of the public. This trend is popular with the Republican base, but is wrongheaded. Republicans of this ilk should balance the right to own a Glock against the right of children to walk to school in safety.

 

 

He accuses Giuliani of leaning too far to the left. This should speak for itself.

 

 

Thompson, lockstep with the loud, alarmist wing of the conservative movement, focuses on securing the borders rather than providing a workable solution to our country’s immigration problems.

 

 

His warnings about Iraq resemble the Domino Theory espoused by supporters of the Vietnam War. He is just as alarmist in his rhetoric as the president.

 

 

Most worryingly, however, are his bizarre and atavistic views on what used to be called state’s rights. “Strong states and limited federal government” receives his strenuous support. Few would argue against a limited federal government, but what Thompson has in mind smacks of the arguments advanced by segregationists. It is a common, knee-jerk reaction of those opposed to progressive social change. The fact that Thompson’s Principles page of his website is devoted to his conception of federalism shows that he sees everything through the lens of this sine qua non.

 

 

Even so Thompson has gotten a few things right, a very few things, and other candidates should take note. He supports free trade. This is sensible. He opposes abortion. This is humane. But these two bright spots are not enough.

 

 

To support Thompson is to support the failed policies of the Bush administration and the Republican party. A Thompson presidency would lead to insecurity, disunity, and torpor, the precise opposite of what candidate Thompson promises.

 

Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out

Karl Rove. There’s not much to like about him. The White House adviser has been on a charm offensive recently, hitting the Sunday morning talk shows with abandon in a desperate attempt to shore up his drooping reputation. Nobody’s buying it, Mr. Rove.

 

 

In a seemingly stage-managed piece of down-home street theater, Rove yesterday fingered Al Hubbard, a White House staffer, as the merry prankster behind the wrapping of Rove’s car in plastic. The car was also decorated with stuffed eagles, a GOP elephant, and a sticker reading “I Love Obama.”

 

No, you don’t. And yes, Mr. Rove, history will judge you. With the back of its hand.

 

Rove really can’t be gone soon enough.

 

An Amusing Day for the Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal, despite Rupert Murdoch’s recent shenanigans, remains one of the nation’s best newspapers. Today, the day on which it reported the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, it was a particularly good read. And to look at. Just check out the cover.

 

 

 

The right two-thirds of the paper above the fold, you will notice, contains nothing but bad news for our esteemed president. There is a jolly old photo of Gonzales, looking rather fat despite having been canned, but near the fold in the lower right, the eye is drawn there in its descent, is our unsmiling Dear Leader, the real topic of the day.

 

 

The headlines told the tale: “Case Closed” said the puckish slug just above the largest headline, “Gonzales Resignation Ends an Era: Broader Bush Effort on Executive Power Is Dealt a Major Blow.” We are beginning to sense that the practice, if not the theory, of the unitary executive is in its final days in this country. And good riddance.

 

 

 

 

And then there is this charming article, helpfully post on the WSJ website: “Lame-Duck President Has Fewer Tools to Advance His Shrinking Agenda.” And how exactly, Mr. President, does one swagger when one’s agenda is so wretchedly flaccid?

 

 

Take that, Mr. Murdoch.

 

Unsurprisingly, one of the president’s aims, says the Journal, will be “advancing a Republican agenda as best he can through regulatory moves and executive actions that skirt congressional input.” Funny, that sounds familiar.

 

It is indeed a shame that Bush could not get his immigration bill, as insufficient as it was, through a xenophobic Congress. But the president’s lame-duck status can only be good for the nation. Throughout his presidency, Bush has displayed remarkable arrogance coupled with unflinchingly bad policymaking. His wrongs range from starting a war for no good reason, his worst fault, to comparatively minor offenses, such as hobbling the agency might have inspected the now infamous lead-riddled foreign toys.

 

Arrogance? Witness spokeman Tony Fratto’s schoolyard disparagement: “the term ‘lame duck’ is for dime-store political scientists,” he said. Sticks and stones, Tony.

 

Deconstructing Alberto’s resignation

When President Bush announced today that Alberto Gonzales had resigned, I did a little dance. So did thousands of other relieved Americans, if only symbolically. It is interesting to deconstruct for a moment one small portion of the president’s speech announcing the long-awaited event.

 

The president calls Gonzales a man of “integrity, decency and principle.”

 

Let’s deal with this issue of principle. A person with principles, one might venture, especially an attorney general, would uphold the basic principles of our Constitution. Especially the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to privacy, two pillars of not only American law, but of the laws of most nations claimed to be ruled by them.

 

And yet Gonzales has done his level best, at the president’s prodding, to claim that unreasonable search and seizure and privacy protections apply to only some Americans some of the time. They certainly don’t apply, he claims, to some Americans in extraordinary times such as these, times of war. Gonzales and those who support his views seem to believe that the threat of terrorism exempts his officials from their obligation under the Constitution to obtain permission to wiretap Americans. The establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 1978 made obtaining wiretaps in cases of suspected terrorism even easier for law enforcement personnel. In fact, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant could even be obtained after the fact.

 

But the Gonzales and the Bush administration would have none of this. Gonzales asserted that the president had the authority, under Article II of the Constitution, to monitor communications between Americans and people outside the United States without a warrant. He justified this with references to Washington’s, Wilson’s, and Roosevelt’s similar actions during wartime. He further stated that Congress had authorized the president to conduct warrantless surveillance under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40, of September 18, 2001.

 

However, the law stated that the president may use “all necessary and appropriate force” against the sordid gang that committed the September 11 atrocities and those that helped them to do so. The president and the attorney general have a lot of leeway to interpret the necessary portion of this statement; the appropriate portion, much less so as it is confined by the law.

 

Is it reasonable for the administration to have argued that it was “appropriate” for the president to have ignored the Fourth Amendment? I think not. No president may do this. Although nearly all Americans, I presume, support reasonable efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, few of us would support giving up our civil liberties in order to gain such illusory safety. Even if this were not true, these liberties are protected unequivocally by our Constitution. The majority, if such a majority exists, may not take these protections away.

 

Isn’t freedom what we’re told we’re fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan? If we must protect freedom abroad, surely we must protect it at home. Now that Gonzales is gone, I feel a little more free. I’ll feel even better on January 20, 2009.

 

Is Gonzales a man of principle? Maybe, but certainly a man of the wrong principles. The nation is better for his resignation. It is too bad that Gonzales was brought down not by this erroneous application of what he thought was the law, but by the administration’s petty political vendettas against judges it thought were not performing up to par. In any case, Gonzales will soon be gone, but the feculent ideas he embodied still remain. We may not be able to breathe easier until 2009, but at least the air is getting a little less cloudy.