Five Years On: Hubris

I have used the ancient Greek word many times in the last 5 years, but I have been particularly impressed in the last week.

 

Just days before the 5 year anniversary of September 11^th, Mr Bush gave an unprecedented speech. In this speech, Mr Bush not only admitted (for the first time) to the existence of the secret CIA interrogation centers (a.k.a., “black sites”), but he further provided intimate details of the intelligence that had been garnered thereby. He admitted that top terrorist officials had been interrogated in the program, and that when they clammed up the interrogators had used “alternative methods.” Through these alternative methods, Mr Bush continued, these prisoners were basically exhausted of their intelligence worth. They have now been transferred to the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Mr Bush then used his platform, surrounded by 9/11 family members and other sympathetic faces, to tell his Congress that their top legislative priority is the delineation of military tribunals, in order that these 14 high profile prisoners may be tried and that the victim families may finally see some justice.

 

My first thoughts on this speech were somewhat mundane. From what I’ve heard, the beginning of September is the prime moment in which to capitalize in an election year. That is, if you have an ace, you use it then: earlier and people will forget, while later is too late. Thus, by handing over these folks and shifting all debate back to a combination of fear (“They’re still out to get you!”) and paternalism (“See? Only I can keep you safe!”), he was trying to keep his own party in power.

 

But then I thought about the specific wording of the speech. In June the Supreme Court decided that the president of the United States does not have sole authority when it comes to military tribunals. That is, Congress must provide specific guidelines upon which these people can be tried. Mr Bush thus used his speech to lay all of the onus on his own party: get a bill written immediately so that these terrorists can be brought to justice and so that the American people (not least of all the 9/11 families) can seek some recourse (read: retribution) for their pain.

 

Here is where things get sticky: there are many in Congress, not to mention the Pentagon, who are completely against Mr Bush’s guidelines for tribunals. The administration still insists that the prisoners must be tried without full access to the evidence against them. This has been met with astonished indignation by people like Senator Lindsay Graham (who, before working in Congress, was a military lawyer), Senator John McCain (who was held in solitary confinement while a POW in Vietnam) and former Secretary of State and 4-star General Colin Powell, among many others. There are a few reasons for this. First, unlike many constitutional issues wherein one must attempt to divine the intent of the Founders, the authors of this nation were pretty blunt when it came to tribunals. In short, being tried in court without the ability to face one’s accusers and all related evidence was one of their principle concerns. In the history of this nation, and for most democratic peoples around the world, to be tried without such due process has been considered a defining attribute of tyranny. Second, as Senator Graham has continually stated, to act in such a manner would endanger our own troops and civilians in every subsequent venture overseas. There is simply no reason to expect any foreign power to treat our troops any differently than we are treating these people, regardless of differences in their respective offenses. Mr Bush is well aware that many people in his party have such reservations. Indeed, four Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee joined Democrats to endorse their own version of the tribunal guidelines. Finally, there is that issue about “alternative” means of deriving information. Although Mr Bush (et al) has continually asserted that the United States does not torture people, most of the world is unconvinced. And why should they believe him? The legal advisors who wrote that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists and that torture needs be redefined have been promoted to Attorney General and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff. Meanwhile, on the same day that Mr Bush spoke, the Pentagon announced that a new field manual had been made which strictly states our adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Did our military and civilian personnel on the ground need to be reminded? Congress has already passed one bill which seeks to remove the courts from having any say in such cases involving terrorists and their ability to sue, and the president is seeking further laws which will retroactively protect all military and civilian personnel from being sued for any actions (e.g., physically torturing or ordering torture or condoning subordinates torturing, etc.) since September 11^th. Best of all, the Washington Post revealed a few days ago that CIA personnel have been buying up a new type of insurance policy in which, should they be sued for any actions against folks in the war on terror (e.g., torture), the government pays any legal fees and damages. If the US doesn’t torture, we sure are putting a lot of safety nets in place to protect ourselves from that which we don’t do. But all of this leads many to believe that much of the evidence against such individuals like the 14 just sent to Gitmo, should it be transparent and released to the detainees, lawyers, and public, would be inadmissible in court due to the information’s being derived through coercive, illegal means. In short, no matter how guilty these people may be, the government would be unable to put together a case to try them.

 

So where does the hubris come in? The president all but said in his speech that the voters would judge Congress on the basis of whether they were capable of passing a bill that brought these people to justice. His own party is in deep trouble come November. This speech, with all its revelations and investiture of Congress, should only serve to bolster his base, no? Of course, but that only helps those in Congress who are willing to go along with the speech itself. In other words, a president with terribly sagging approval ratings who faces the possibility of losing both Houses to his opponents just strong-armed his own party to cede him more power. If they buck him now, they face the wrath of their own constituents for presumably letting terrorists “get off” (even though they will just face illegal imprisonment for life) and thumbing their noses to the 9/11 victims’ families.

 

I don’t really want to believe this, but I haven’t seen a better explanation of it. Somebody point me in a less cynical direction, please.

 

-W.

 

Postscript: On Friday, September 15, the BBC reported that Bush responded to his critics in the following manner:

 

“‘Were it not for this programme our intelligence community believes that al-Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland…’ Mr Bush said he would work with ‘members of both parties to get legislation that works.’ But he warned that ‘time is running out’, and urged Congress to pass a ‘clear law with clear guidelines’ before it goes into recess in two weeks, ahead of November’s mid-term elections.”

 

The Master of Non-sequitur strikes again: Mr Bush is defending the practice of extreme rendition (flying high profile folks off to non-disclosed locations, i.e., black sites, in countries that either condone or allow torture) to support his call for Congress to give the Executive unprecedented power with tribunals? How now?