MatthewCraffey.com

War on Terror

Recently, I read an interesting article by Glenn Greenwald, on Salon.com. You can read the article at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/13/conservatism/index.html . In it, Greenwald points out how strange it is that while Conservatives in Britain oppose new legislation meant to prevent terrorism on the grounds that it would weaken civil liberties, Conservatives in the U.S. are leading the charge for such legislation.

Greenwald makes a good case as usual, and I do see his point, to a point. However, when it comes to the war on terror, I believe the U.S. and Europe must find a balance between what the Right in America, and the Labour Party in Britain are doing, verses what Greenwald seem to want, which is a return to the way our governments operated prior to 9/11.

I agree that heading down the road we're currently on could take us to an Orwellian place where we have no more freedoms or rights, and ultimately, if that happens, the terrorists will have perversely achieved their objective. On the other hand, we can't deny the horrors of 9/11, 3/11, and 7/11, and to not take steps to limit the ability for terrorists to carry out these attacks, would also be reckless. I’ve known several well educated, politically left friends who were living in Manhattan during 9/11, and they have told me that the Patriot Act and new FISA laws, things that they would normally not support, are worth it if it prevents that atrocity from ever happening again. I realize that's an emotional response in part, but it sums up the feeling of many Americans who are willing to sacrifice a few civil-liberties, but not all, if that translates to increased protection.

It's hard to deny that there were severe gaps in our intelligence and communication systems between law enforcement agencies that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to get on those planes. They were even flagged several times by law enforcement before getting on the planes, but the technological walls put in place between law enforcement agencies in the 1990's under the guise of protecting civil liberties, made the retrieval of information from one agency to the other in a timely manner, impossible. Obviously, living in a free society, we are never going to be completely safe, and that's the risk we knowingly take. However, I think we Americans, and indeed Europeans as well,0 deserve a better choice than either all (complete loss of civil liberties as proposed by some on the Right) or nothing (no expansion of law enforcement powers to combat terrorism, as proposed by some on the Left). Both sides need to use common sense, and I hope the next administration, can bring the public together and find a compromise.

Personally, I think the expansion of law enforcement powers has gone as far as its going to go. Bush had the unenviable duty of coming up with a response to 9/11, and in the emotional aftermath of it, his administration was allowed to take things too far. It will be almost eight years since 9/11 when the next president gets sworn in, and I think (hope) a common sense, non-emotional analysis of what worked, and what was just paranoia can be determined and corrected by the next president.

As for the broader discussion of Conservatives historically being the ones not wanting a huge, intrusive government that limits our freedoms and knows every little thing about us, I do think that is a very interesting development. I remember that even in the 1990's when Conservatives took over congress, they got there on the backs of many people who were suspicious of a huge U.S. government, and sent Conservatives there to limit it. I remember that Conservatives at that time sounded like borderline libertarians. Liberals were seen as the ones that wanted government intervention in almost every aspect of life. President Clinton authorized military action in Somalia, and Bosnia, bombed Iraq and threatened war with Saddam if he didn’t open up his facilities to weapon’s inspectors, meanwhile the GOP opposed the actions calling it “nation-building” and saying that “the U.S. should not be the world’s police.” After the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, the Clinton administration enacted several pieces of legislation, notably the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

In response to the trials of the conspirators being moved out-of-state, the Victim Allocution Clarification Act of 1997 was signed on March 20, 1997 by President Clinton to allow the victims of the bombing (and the victims of any other future acts of violence) the right to observe trials and to offer impact testimony in trials. In response to passing the legislation, Clinton stated that "when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.” These actions, I believe, set the stage for the post-9/11 response.

Meanwhile back in Britain, both the Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath and liberal Labour PM, James Callaghan supported harsh interrogation techniques and what some would call “torture” against members of the Irish Republican Army, an organization that carried out terrorist bombings in Northern Ireland and in England. Even after a proclamation by Heath in 1972 that these techniques would no longer be used, most believe these interrogations continued until the early 1980’s, when the bulk of the violence had subsided. British intelligence agents argue they almost always got valuable information from the suspects after using these techniques.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, the Conservatives in the U.S. were not happy. They likened him to Bill Clinton, and because the two were young, hip, and chummy, and because Labour's win over the Conservative Tories was a huge blow to Conservative ideals in Europe, Blair was vilified by many Conservatives here. His party's support of hidden surveillance cameras in metropolitan areas of Britain to combat crime in the late 90's, was widely criticized by the Right in the U.S. as being Orwellian, and another example "big-brother" European government. Who would know that 4 or 5 years later, Blair would become Bush's best friend in Europe, and his party would espouse many of the same ideals and response to terrorism that Conservatives in this country were putting forth. So what does all of this mean?

I think the reason for these strange alignments had little to do with the ideals of each party or because of the leaders of the respective political parties. Those ideals never seem to be written in stone. Rather, I think what it mostly has to do with is the appearance of the party in power responding decisively to the attack, so as to not fall out of favor with the electorate. I would bet, if Gore had become president in 2000, if John Major had still been PM in Britain, and 9/11 and 7/11 happened, the subsequent reactions would not have been much different, even though the parties would have been at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Iraq may or may not have happened (remember that Bill and Hillary, Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Ried, Richardson, Albright and Gore were all on record saying that Saddam had WMD's, was a threat, and they supported the Iraq invasion), but Conservatives here would be criticizing their big-government interventionist response to the attacks, calling it "political opportunism" and the expansion of an already bloated big-brother style government. Liberals on the other hand, would likely be united behind their party's response to these tragic acts, and would argue for the expansion of government powers to ensure the protection and freedom of the people. Basically, I believe terrorist acts, particularly 9/11, 3/11 and 7/11 defined the parties based on which party was in power and the subsequent obligations and responsibilities that come with that role, and is not so much based on some pre-existing ideology that governs that party or politician. It almost has nothing to do with what they stood for prior to the attacks. If the party in power, liberal or conservative, did not appear to be doing everything possible to prevent another attack, they know they would likely be viewed as weak, inept, and would be out of a job come the next election. Their heavy handed response is more about holding onto power, than following their party’s platform. Meanwhile, the only action the opposition can take if they want to eventually win back power, is to criticize the action taken by the ruling party, and to change the argument over time so that the majority are on the defensive. Why else would Conservatives in Britain be criticizing Labour’s response to terrorism, and why Democrats in the U.S. criticize the Republican’s response, even though Conservatives and Liberals on both sides of the pond, essentially believe the same thing?

Minority party support of the actions taken by the majority would only ensure greater power for the majority, and that is not in the minority’s personal best interest. We have seen this time and time again. The core principals of a given movement or party never seem as important as actually having the power. Principals and ideals can be changed and "refined" as needed. Power is absolute.

Mark my words: if the Left wins the White House in 2008 and retains congress, they aren't likely to make significant alterations to the Patriot Act, FISA, Iraq, and possibly even Guantanamo. We've already seen them accept these policies more or less since gaining control of congress. Once they have the power, they will need to be seen by the public as doing everything possible to ensure the public's safety, and to not be the weak, bleeding-hearts that the Right has so often painted them as. Post-primary season Obama is a perfect example of this shift. With his recent position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, gun-control, and FISA, he is now more closely aligned to the post-9/11 Conservative position not only so that he has a better chance of winning moderate Independents and Republicans, but also he has a smooth transition to the policy positions he knows he will need to have as President. If he actually continued into the White House with his 2007 platform which was simply the opposite policy position from George W. Bush and the Conservatives on every major issue facing this country, especially in regards to terrorism, he knows he would be straddled with a platform that could not be carried out, and would cost him and his party politically. If you need an example of this, just look at Jimmy Carter’s disastrous presidency, that was filled ethically governance, but void of the aggressive action the public expected on issues such as Cambodia, the economy, and most importantly, the Iran hostage crisis. Because he refused to adapt politically, or respond decisively to these situations, he lost reelection, and accomplished very little as President. Ditto for the first two years of the Clinton administration. Appearing weak, and afraid of every using military force, Clinton sat idly by while genocide engulfed Rwanda, and Bosnia, while U.S. troops were massacred in Somalia, and the most importantly, while Twin Towers were bombed. Clinton would likely have been a one term president if he didn’t change course in 2005, co-opting many Conservative policy positions, and most importantly, responding decisively to the Oklahoma City bombing. His leadership in that situation, subsequent legislation, and later his decision to finally take action in Kosovo, changed the public’s impression of him, even while his policies were often at odds with his own party.

You can almost guarantee that if there is another terrorist attack, the current Democratic majority in congress will be scrambling to come up with new legislation that at least makes it appear that they are doing something to fight terrorism. Ditto for Britain. If the Tories win big in the next election and David Cameron becomes PM, they will become the party of protecting Britain and fighting terrorism, and this current position of opposing recent terror legislation with either be “refined” or simply disregarded. This isn’t to say every politician or party responds consciously to these grave threats with their personal interests at the forefront. This also isn’t to say their actions have necessarily been wrong. If you want to keep your people safe, and believe you more than anyone else can do that best, you realize that you have to remain in power to be able do so. That need for power may be for the betterment of the people, but it is almost never for the ideals of a political party. Of course, how far each side decides to try to take advantage of their power is up to the politician, and how far they are able to, is still up to the public. But commitment to political ideals and philosophy will almost always come in a distant second against gaining and/or maintaining political power.

Back to list.