False Doctrines
9-11 was an opportunity for doctrines false to the Constitution and the nature of our country to be codified as law and enacted in practice. The nation stood upon a turning point and was led toward centralized authority and pre-emptive war. Both doctrines are false and, combined, have caused insufferable grievances by citizens and foreign nationals alike -- grievances which must be righted to enable us to be secure and free again.
The Katrina hurricane tested these doctrines against reality, and the doctrines were found wanting. 9-11 and Katrina put us all at a turning point and, in the latter case, we began to understand that we need to decentralize all critical systems upon which our national life depends. Pre-emptive war drained the nation of key resources which could have helped the citizens living in the ravaged areas, making these situations even worse. Pre-emptive war is now an excuse for Government to deliver only misery, frustration and inaction. We expect more.
The sense of no confidence grows from the falseness of these doctrines and the real grievances citizens now have against, and from which they have the right to seek redress by, the Government.
Point of no confidence: March 21, 2007
Point of no return: When President Bush announces the surge -- January 10, 2007
During the summer after September 11, 2001, the Advertising Council aired a public service announcement on television showing a librarian warning a patron that reading certain materials would attract the interest of "officials". The officials show up and escort the patron out, apparently under arrest. The message was to prize our liberties. The tag line read:
What if America wasn't America?
Freedom. Appreciate it, cherish it, protect it.
In an interview the week of the launch of the campaign, potential criticism of the campaign for being too "harsh" was aired with the creator of the campaign. TVs shows changed their story lines to avoid "sensitive" subjects like government conspiracies and corruption. Movies like the third episode of Star Wars were accused of disparaging the Administration by telling the story of the rise of an empire by destroying a republic.
False ideas are often simple: simpler than true ones, in all too many cases. Those who rule by slogans sufficient for bumper stickers instead of by the advise and consent of experts will eventually engender false doctrines which harm the republic. The Patriot Act is a symptom of this very truth. This bundle of provisions was, and is, based on the slogan, "If you don't have anything to hide, why should you worry about it?". This idea would have been laughed off any public forum in the 70s, 80s and 90s -- but in "the New Normal", it was suddenly seriously used to suppress dissent.
Centralization, Like It's Cousin Greed, Is Now Good
The operational doctrine behind this propaganda is even more insidious: that the federal government should centralize all intelligence and law enforcement information and make that information available at all levels of government without citizen knowledge or consent. Even Democrats like then-Senator Gephardt seriously discussed national identity cards. Centralization of information is a false hope and worse than a waste of resources: it flies in the face of the Constitution itself.
Never mind that one in one hundred database records have errors, no matter how good the entry people are. Never mind that people have the same names and, in one case, fingerprints that automated systems apparently cannot tell apart. Never mind that databases that cannot be reviewed by people outside agencies will never get better, only worse. Never mind that one innocent citizen whose liberty is compromised means the liberty of every citizen is compromised (more on that later). Never mind the temptation to use such secret information to suppress dissent, blackmail political enemies and intimidate citizens who speak out is probably too great to resist if the goal is to retain political power in perpetuity at all costs.
Hit Them First, Even If It's The Wrong They
"If there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response," Cheney said. ... "It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence," he added. "It's about our response."
...This doctrine -- the one percent solution -- divided what had largely been indivisible in the conduct of American foreign policy: analysis and action. Justified or not, fact-based or not, "our response" is what matters. As to "evidence", the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply.
The One Percent Doctrine
Ron Suskind
p. 62
The second doctrine to emerge during this period was pre-emptive warfare. It was founded on another bumper sticker slogan: If there is a one percent chance of harm to America, we will respond as if it is 100%. Never before could an Administration use the rhetoric of a "gathering threat" to justify an actual deployment of ground troops. Even this Administration could not use this rhetoric except as a fallback from a series of "intelligence failures".
The fallacy of this doctrine is knowing who the right "they" are and where "they" really are. Guesses are not good enough. Being wrong is disastrous, and a war crime. But intelligence is the art of guessing, refined by analyzing those hunches and, sometimes, succeeding in finding a solid fact. Law enforcement is the art of gathering evidence and building a case which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Melding the two by tearing down "the wall" between them means treating rumors like evidence and building cases that can never be proven. Law enforcement is particularly devastated and rendered impotent by this unholy marriage.
A scene in Suskind's book marks when the wall was oblitered by Cheney and Rice in a meeting with the CIA and FBI in December, 2001:
...Cheney and Rice fired questions at both. How do we know that? What are you planning next? Who are we after?
It wasn't about evidence -- that was for the slow-footed, for lawyers building cases. This was about action... Cheney wanted targets. "Who do we hit first?" he asked CIA.
They knew only so much. The answers started to be: "I'll get right on it." There was much work to do.
Cheney then looked hard-eyed at both, natural, institutional enemies. He turned to the FBI. "You see any foreign connections whatsoever in your investigation, you have to share it with those guys down the river. Are we clear?" The FBI officials nodded, knowing not to speak.
The One Percent Doctrine
Ron Suskind
p. 72
After this turning point, Suskind and many other reporters have documented extensively how precious resources were wasted chasing down thousands of "leads" which bore no fruit, while criminals savvy to the game threw false evidence everywhere, bringing the law enforcement system to a standstill. This Administration, experts in neither law enforcement or diplomacy, embraced the intelligence community as the fundamental source before hanging them out to dry as the reason everything went wrong. The growing catastrophe continues to this day.
With friends like this, intelligence agencies' secrecy is used against them and even ripped away when convenient for political gain. Law enforcement's righteous desire to build cases which could be used in court is mocked and brings only rebuke from a White House out of Constitutional bounds -- indeed outside the bounds of reason itself. Centralization makes information harder to get to the top and real facts harder to discern in the churning mass of data flowing through channels no human being can control or even comprehend. Analysis becomes paste-up. Evidence fades and grows stale, unseen among the ghosts of conspiracies made of fantasy instead of reason.
The combination of these two doctrines, centralization and pre-emption, has been toxic to our nation and wrong on all levels of policy. How long before these practices are outlawed forever?
Law And Order
When used together, these magical words connote safety, uniformity of justice and the sense that we can forget about what is happening outside of our circle of acquaintances and neighborhood and workplace. However, this catchphrase is deceptive. Proponents have taken to saying "the rule of law" is the foundation of our nation, and have linked that idea to "law and order".
The rule of law is not, by itself, the foundation of our nation. It is a necessary condition of having a civilized society, but not sufficient to have a free republic. Suppose I want an ice cream cone. If I get a cone by itself without ice cream, I have satisfied a necessary condition of achieving my goal, but not sufficient to enjoy the treat I desire. Similarly, if I get ice cream without a cone, I have another necessary condition, but still do not have the thing I seek. Only when I have both the cone and the ice cream can the two be put together, and only then do I have the sufficient conditions to actually attain my goal.
The rule of law is not sufficient for establishing a republican and democratic society -- the object of the People's desire and the purpose hallowed and sanctified by the blood spilled by patriots in all ages of our nation. Fascist governments have the rule of law.(UPDATED: See comments below) Simply declaring laws and forcing citizens to submit to them is not sufficient to have a free society. Since laws are created by people, and since people are fallible, and since conditions in the world change, each law may or may not be valid or even possible. Laws by themselves without wise application and enforcement may belie the very reasons for their existence and actually achieve ends which are the opposite of their intent. Indeed, laws often need to be revised or repealed in the end.
Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.
Thomas Jefferson
Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
To have the sufficient conditions for a free society, we must have the principle of individual liberty. If one innocent person is punished under the auspices of any law, that punishment is an error which must be corrected. Moreover, if a law, or it's enforcement, deprives any citizen of their liberty in a way contrary to the Constitution, that law must be struck down or that enforcement must result in permanent changes to Government procedure, or both. Each individual must have the assurance that their own liberty is respected by the Government and that taking away that liberty has consequences for the agents of the Government who breach this principle -- consequences sufficient to stop the Government from breaching the rights of that citizen and of any other. To deprive any citizen of their liberty is, itself, an offense against the Nation and the People, protected ultimately by the Judicial Branch of our government. Such an offense does not need to be prevented by legislation -- it is larger and more basic than any law which can be passed. And everybody in the chain of command committing such an offense needs to be disciplined when it is found to have been breached, not just scapegoats at the bottom of the pile.
Only the combination of the rule of law and the assurance of individual liberty for every citizen create sufficient conditions for a free society. Any actions by the Government which do not meet both of these conditions are a violation of our social compact, the scourge of the Declaration of Independence and false to our Constitution.
We now know this Government is false to the ideals of our nation, so why do we continue to tolerate their actions?
Extraordinary Powers And The Unitary Executive
Stinging from the resignation of Richard Nixon, thousands of disillusioned and angry public servants secretly plotted to take over the Executive Branch in the future and to exact vengeance on the hippies and do-gooders and liberals who "wronged them". Two of these people were Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Over the decades, they fomented their hatred of the Constitutional system which forced Nixon's hand and made him resign. Along the way, their compatriots worked in and out of power to weaken the Constitution. What they really needed was a pretext under which the usual functions of Government could be suspended: they needed a war.
Wars are hard to come by. But since World War II, Congress had allowed a loophole for the military industrial complex, formalized in the War Powers Act of 1973: an authorization of the use of military force (AUMF in spook-speak). Congress never intended for this kind of resolution to allow the President extraordinary powers for unlimited time, but in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress allowed a President to assume such powers for 90 days. Bureaucratic ninjas like Rumsfeld and Cheney figured they had been given a crack in the Constitutional shell through which they could infiltrate and break the system they hated so much. In their open plotting for this day, publicly posted on the Project For A New American Century web site, they knew that once they had planted their flag in that crack, they could use fear and "education" to force the People to go along with the scheme:
Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. ...But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
...
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Statement Of Principles
Project For A New American Century
(emphasis mine)
Pax Americana was being sullied by liberals and do-gooders and weak-kneed lawyers (following "fashion" instead of hard-nosed patriotism, to their mind) wielding only a piece of paper (the Constitution). Thus the movement born in Nixon's failure and consumed by hatred and a lust for power over US military assets was going to fix that. In this statement the doctrine of pre-emptive war was born. In this fertile ground for vengeance, Iraq was the place where UN resolutions could be morphed into an AUMF by Congress. The flag could be planted and used as a lever to crack the Constitution, allowing the Executive Branch to interpret their powers as unlimited for the duration of the "war".
9-11 provided the perfect vehicle: a war lasting "generations" -- a never-ending period in which the Executive with all powers unified in a single branch (hence the unitary executive) could really stretch its wings and fly. In fact, in 2000, PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses ( WARNING: PDF file ) in which they bemoaned the fact their "reforms" would take too long -- unless:
the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.
Chapter V: Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force
Rebuilding America's Defenses Annual Report - 2000
Project For A New American Century
A year later, that kind of "catastrophic and catalyzing event" happened, on September 11, 2001. The confluence of historical opportunities was just too good to miss for those bent on total power and absolutely convinced they knew better than lowly citizens what was best for America.
That crack is being widened with every signing statement, a practice rarely used before Reagan began to use it regularly and the practice continued in the next two Administrations. In this Bush Administration, however, the practice was taken to new heights and put to a new, insidious purpose by this glorious Final Reich of Pax Americana. "If only it had been executed properly, it would have worked," says Richard Perle. "If only the American people weren't so weak at the knees," says Dick Cheney. "If only the press wasn't so eager to make me look bad," whined Don Rumsfeld. "If only you would do what I say and shut up until I tell you to talk and what to say when you talk," says George Bush Jr.. (paraphrases mine)
OK. Now they have educated us. The students now see the teachers for what they are, and it ain't pretty. Our rights are not "fashions", which can be discarded for a new season. What are We, the People, going to do about it now that we have our PNAC graduation certificates?
The People Are Now Fixed Around Results, Not Policy
If only we could believe, but we can't any more. Katrina showed us no one in this White House cares about the citizens of this nation -- their needs, their rights, their lives. No funding for a coordinated emergency response. Individual agencies already challenged with bureaucratic inefficiencies thrown together into the Department of Homeland Security. Even more layers of committees to approve even the most obvious actions, like getting water and food to the citizens of New Orleans who managed to survive the initial onslaught of storm and flood. Federal employees unable to bring grievances against the agencies for which they work. Arrogance. Incompetence. Anger directed at us, the People, veiled within accusations of being Nazi appeasers, terrorist enablers, criminals and ungrateful slackers sucking on the Government's tit.
The Fatherland knows best. Centralize all emergency response in the military by suspending posse comitatus and we'll take care of it (unless our National Guards troops and equipment happen to be tied up in one of our wars). Funding all those emergency responders and state-level planning programs and fixing the infrastructure (rotting since the glorious Reagan Revolution decreed we don't need to waste money on such luxuries) is just silly. So what if water intended for New Orleans ended up in Maine? So what if hundreds of mobile homes sit rotting in fields far from their intended recipients? So what if citizens want their city back or want to go back to their city -- they should cough up the money themselves and not burden us while we are saving the world for Pax Americana (which will take forever, by the way). Spike Lee's documentary on HBO last summer showed us all of this, and much more, up close and personal with an unblinking, powerful eye for human beings aspiring to noble service to their fellow citizens in the face of mind-numbing silence from the rest of the nation and our leaders.
Still, we listen as the Government whines:
It will all work out in the end. Trust us. We don't respect your right to know what we are doing, but it will all turn out glorious in the end, don't you idiots and wimps know? Your faith is weak. Who are you to question our motives, blessed as we are by God with the knowledge of what is best for you?
The gathering response from the People is:
We are the citizens of the United States of America, and we don't believe in you any more. We don't trust your judgement and we reject your leadership in all areas of public service -- an idea foreign to you. Listen to us, you arrogant, broken excuses for leaders. Put away your infantile hatred, your dreams of being vindicated for Nixon's failure and your free market approach to the defense and welfare of this nation.
Tell us truth, not doctrines. You cannot force us to believe -- your ideas must work to be worthy of being believed. We have given you years, and you have failed.
Faith isn't enough. Results are non-existent. Time is running out for you to demonstrate anything about you that is not false. Show us, the People, respect or leave the job to someone who knows what they are doing.
Gathering, but not yet spoken. A little more credulity remains. But the sense of no confidence grows as "leaders" prove themselves, and their ideas, false. We are being educated, indeed. We have learned a republican democracy cannot be an empire. At least we can thank PNAC for that hard-won truth, but the tuition has exacted a terrible price.
See you again in ten days as the countdown to no confidence continues.
Prior: T-80: Inflection Points And Catastrophes
Next: T-60: The Powell Doctrines (Lewis & Colin)
Please feel free to use this as a common thread. Pimp your own diaries, links and ideas without shame, because I want to hear from you. Promote the words of others that our fellow citizens need to hear when the point of no confidence is reached. Identify inflection points, realized and gathering, that you see. This power is the power of the Internet, of this online community and of the People. Use it now as more and more citizens need real ideas and real debate. Prepare yourselves for the moment for which many of us have worked decades: a chance to finish the work left undone after the resignation of Nixon.