Fear destroys what
bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK,
MiamiHerald.com from the Web, January 2, 2006
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't
win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he
had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack
our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and
ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate
him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had
crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its
people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have
invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be
pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had
been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a
legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate
secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's
security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by
destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge
against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling
supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year
Marine Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the
populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a
daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've
been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country
appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised
attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once
believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking
metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate.
I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere
terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so
profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy
a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil
war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression,
recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead
the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for
promising to "protect us."
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S.
citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His
justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to
disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the
American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are
there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would
have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What's wrong with giving up a
little liberty if it protects me from death?"
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the
''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end.
Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation.
If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know
where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a
bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the
fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law
forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they
believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his
extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We
are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down
its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is
holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
Posted Dec.26, 05,
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com
|
