“Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west. Part of eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire.”
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding…
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution.”
For this case, which was decided over 85-years-ago, the Supreme Court deliberated whether the wiretapping of private telephone conversations — which was initiated by federal agents — could produce evidence that was legally admissible. The Supreme Court eventually ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that such wiretapping was not a violation of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, and thereby was not an encroachment on the defendant’s rights.
I agree with Justice Brandeis’s dissent here. And, happily, so did the Supreme Court — albeit not until four decades later, when they overturned Olmstead with their decision in Katz v. United States in 1967.
In thinking about this underlying but essential truth — that the government, like citizens, is not be allowed to break the law — I’m drawn to a juxtaposition that’s latent in the now popular story of Marcus Luttrell. When their lives were put on the line, when they were at their most vulnerable and had an easy but morally dubious way out, they refused to commit a war crime. Instead they abided by the rules of combat, knowing that such a choice would very likely lead to their demise.
Contrast this with the tough-talkers who were in Washington at that time. Bush, Cheney, and co., themselves so allergic to combat when their names were called, shredded not only domestic law (including habeas corpus, arguably the most important legal instrument we’ve got), but also international rules and norms, including the Geneva Conventions and the precedents set at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
President George W. Bush, speaking at his second inauguration: “America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited; but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause…”
Interviewer: Gore Vidal, your response to these words?
Gore Vidal: Well, I hardly know where to end, much less begin. There’s not a word of truth in anything that he said. Our founding fathers did not set us on a course to liberate the world from tyranny. Jefferson just said, “all men are created equal, and should be free,” et cetera, but it was not the task of the United States to “go abroad to slay dragons,” as John Quincy Adams so wisely put it; because if the United States does go abroad to slay dragons in the name of freedom, liberty, and so on, she could become “dictatress of the world,” and in the process “She would lose her soul.” That is the lesson we should be learning now, instead of this declaration of war against the entire globe.
He doesn’t define what tyranny is. I’d say what we have now in the United States is working up a nice tyrannical persona for itself and for us. As we lose liberties he’s, I guess, handing them out to other countries which have not asked for them. That’s the reaction in Europe — and I know we mustn’t mention them because they’re immoral and they have all those different kinds of cheese — but, simultaneously, they’re much better educated than we are, and they’re richer. Get that out there: The Europeans per capita are richer than Americans, per capita. And by the time this administration is finished, there won’t be any money left of any kind…
And none of this we heard about in the last election. We were too busy with homosexual marriage and abortion: two really riveting subjects. War and peace, of course, are not worth talking about. And civilization, God forbid that we ever commit ourselves to that…
__________
A selection from Gore Vidal’s critiques of President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, which were recorded this week in 2005.
I’ve uploaded a recording of the rest of Vidal’s brilliant, biting response below. It’s relevant and worth a watch even today.
As we now watch President Obama deliver this year’s State of the Union, almost 9 long years to the day since Bush uttered those words, it’s worth reflecting on how little has changed.
The War in Afghanistan, with it’s unprecedented 82% disapproval rate, is almost as unpopular as the Congress which kind of, sort of, almost authorized it. Still, we’re spending about $400 million there each day. Meanwhile, as I walk a block from my downtown apartment in America’s beautiful capital city, I see schools moldering and potholes flecking every street. (That 400,000,000, by the way, does not include the additional $130 million which we are daily funneling into Iraq, nor does it account for the $5.5 to $8.4 billion which we will spend annually to care for our veterans from both wars over the next three, four, five decades.)
Our Constitutional liberties remain largely ignored (much less restored) by a burgeoning surveillance state which, a decade later, is yet to make a single arrest that has prevented a terrorist attack. There are now over a million names on our terrorist watch list: a hay stack that, as it distends, obscures the few needles hiding inside it. Correspondingly, a million people now hold “top secret clearance” to access classified government information — a label fit for the gruesome world of Winston Smith and farcical enough for Peter Sellers or the President of Faber College. It took one in a million — Mr. Edward Snowden — to finally reveal what this unelected, unmonitored, and undomesticated appendage of the federal government was doing with our money and to us and our allies (in Brazil, in Germany, in South Korea), but he, like other whistle-blowers under this administration, was hardly honored for that act of conscience. While his stand has produced some valuable backlash against these security developments, the direction of their momentum remains unchanged; as the surveillance state becomes more opaque to us, we become more transparent to it.
Of course tonight’s pageantry is amounting to little more than a string of platitudes, but nevertheless, it is worth hoping that the coming days will reflect a glimmer of the promise that we are turning away from the imperial and the tyrannical, and turning towards Constitutionality at home and diplomacy abroad.
It’s often tricky to identify “the best” of a certain category. But with debates, ironically enough, the question is, at least to my mind, settled. There are a lot of nominees for second place: Buckley-Vidal, Chomsky-Foucault, and Miliband–Poulantzas (Here I’m talking about debates for which we have a substantive record, so Lincoln-Douglas, Huxley-Wilberforce, and Einstein-Bohr don’t count). But the greatest recorded debate of all time is Hitchens-Galloway. No Question.
It is simply the most caustic, articulate, and galvanizing verbal clash that has ever been captured on film. If you do yourself the favor of watching it, within a minute you will have found a side — and you will be enthralled. Once, after a long, desultory day of swimming last Spring, two politically-minded friends and I decided to put Hitchens-Galloway on in the background as we poured some drinks and planned out our evening. Within 5 minutes, we were glued to the screen; within 10, we had forgotten about the night’s plans and were rehearsing arguments about the Iraq War; within 20, we had taken sides in a 2-on-1 verbal fray that eventually ended — I’m amused and embarrassed to admit — with several not-so-light shoves being thrown.
I happened to be fighting solo in that scuffle. Because I did, do now, and have always categorically opposed the invasion of Iraq. In this debate, I take the side of Mr. Galloway. My two friends, loyal as ever to the Hitch, were flanking me from the right.
This does not alter the fact that I despise almost everything I’ve subsequently read about Mr. Galloway, and believe that Hitchens is dead right in many of his cutting ad hominems against the Respect MP. Nevertheless, the gravity and intensity with which Galloway gives voice to the concerns of the anti-war Left is unmatched really by anyone I have ever seen. Like an acid reacting to its catalyst, the venom that bubbles out of Galloway is clearly a response to what he identifies as the “malevolence and incompetence” of the “neo-con gang” which occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at the time. Fanning this brushfire of wild contempt were the looming effects of Hurricane Katrina, and the naturally conjoined questions which arose from it: Why are we hemorrhaging resources over there? Don’t we need that cash and manpower here?
Galloway makes this explicit several times in the exchange, but it runs like an underlying seam through several of his rejoinders. Some of these are, in addition to very clever, scathing and overflowing with (righteous?) animosity: “What you are witnessing is something unique in natural history: the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug”; “Never wrestle with a chimney sweep… there’s no way you can come out clean”; “People like Mr. Hitchens are ready to fight to the last drop of other people’s blood”; etc. But while these are below the belt, I don’t think they are — to borrow a line from Hitchens in the debate — beneath contempt. For one, Hitchens invites them (see the last two minutes of his opening remarks); and second, Hitchens can handle them. Galloway and Hitchens were two of the biggest alpha-males on the planet, and Galloway was not going to relent on his alpha-maleness. He couldn’t bring a knife to what was so clearly going to be a gun fight.
I can remember watching this debate when it aired on DemocracyNow the week of September 9th, 2005. I can also remember how much the Iraq question was beginning to fill the sky in the Fall of 2005 — that moment when some of us could foresee the now nearly unavoidable truth that our invasion was an enormous blunder and our occupation a Sisyphean waste. As a freshman at my conservative Southern Baptist high school, I was among the only students who felt this way about Iraq, and I can remember not only how strongly I was beginning to oppose the invasion, but also how much I despised the assumed self-righteousness of those who repeatedly excused the Bush administration’s rank deceptions and bravado.
It would be several years until I would read James Fenton’s “Prison Island”, a poem he wrote during his visit to Cambodia as the U.S. began bombing there in 1970. One particular stanza rings most acutely in my mind when I recall the bad early news out of Iraq and that 15-year-old kid who didn’t exactly know how to express why he didn’t like the war.
My dear friend, do you value the counsels of dead men?
I should say this. Fear defeat. Keep it before your minds
As much as victory. Defeat at the hands of friends,
Defeat in the plans of your confident generals.
Fear the kerchiefed captain who does not think he can die.
Ironically enough, I would for the first time stumble upon these words in the second-to-last page of Christopher Hitchens’s memoir, Hitch-22. The fact that Hitchens could write them without embarrassment or irony stands as verification of Michael Faraday’s immortal rejoinder. “There is nothing quite as frightening as a man who knows he is right.”
Watch “The Grapple in the Big Apple”, the greatest debate of all time (Playback begins as the debate heats up, so rewind to the start to watch all of Hitchens’s opening):
__________
Some of my comments on the so-called “Debate of the Decade”: George Galloway versus Christopher Hitchens on the Iraq War.
For the record: I don’t endorse all of Galloway’s remarks, nor do I oppose all of Hitchens’s. I admire this debate first for the rhetorical skill and knowledge it exacted from the interlocutors, and second because it brings to light many nuanced issues surrounding the Iraq invasion and occupation — issues which we should still grapple with today.
Several weeks ago, after giving a talk at the University of Florida, Noam Chomsky was confronted by a ‘9/11 Truther’ during the Q&A period. The questioner asked Chomsky what he thought about the evidence that 9/11 was the product of a government conspiracy. He specifically noted the large groups of people (in particular a society of ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’) that believe World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished in a controlled explosion.
I’ve transcribed Chomsky’s reply below.
NC: Well, in fact you’re right that there’s a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers – a tiny number – and a couple of them are perfectly serious. But they’re not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.
What you do, when you think you’ve discovered something, is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at M.I.T. or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results. And then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional societies of physicists and civil engineers, the departments in the major universities – and convince them that you’ve discovered something.
Now there happen to be a lot of people are around who’ve spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics – but it does not work like that, and it never has.
There are reasons why there are graduate schools in these departments. So the thing to do is pretty straightforward: do what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve made a discovery.
Now when the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement is brought up in talks I give, there are always one or two minor articles cited. Like there’s one article that appeared in an online journal, in which someone claims to have found traces of nano-thermite in Building 7. Now, I don’t know what that means. You don’t know what that means. But if it means anything, bring it to the attention of the scientific community.
So, yes, there’s a small group of people who believe this, and there’s a straightforward way to proceed…
However there’s a much deeper issue, which has been brought up repeatedly, and I have yet to hear a response to it.
Whatever one thinks of Building 7, and frankly I have no opinion: I don’t know as much about science and engineering as the people who believe they have an answer to this. So I am willing to let the professional societies determine it if they get the information.
There’s just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved. Very elementary evidence; you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. So let’s think for a minute.
There are a couple of facts which are uncontroversial. One fact that is uncontroversial is that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq – that’s a longstanding goal, there’s good reasons for it. It has some of the largest energy resources in the world, right in the middle of the world’s energy producing region.
So they wanted to invade Iraq.
Second uncontroversial fact: they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis. They blamed it on Saudis mainly. And that’s our major ally. So they blamed it on people from a country which is a major ally, not on the country that they wanted to invade.
Third uncontroversial fact: unless they were total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis. That would have given them open season for an invasion of Iraq. Total international support. A UN resolution. No need to concoct wild stories about WMD’s or contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which of course quickly exploded, discrediting them…
The conclusion is pretty straightforward. Either they are total lunatics, or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. So whatever you think about building 7, there are other considerations to be concerned with.
__________
Noam Chomsky, speaking at the University of Florida on October 18, 2013.
Two footnotes:
1. Chomsky underestimates the sustained popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Numerous surveys show that skepticism towards the official story is prevalent around the world. A 2008 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that only 9 of the 17 countries studied featured majorities that held al-Qaeda responsible for the attacks. In the U.S., some 15% of people believe allegations of a controlled demolition to be credible.
2. In vehemently expressing skepticism about the official story, or in directly charging the United States government for the attacks, you are also vindicating the criminals who hijacked those aircrafts and killed thousands. The allegation of a conspiracy is not merely an intellectual position, it is a moral one. Watch Chomsky below.
