Civil liberties and all that jazz
While I will immediately admit that I am no supporter of the Bush administration, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. I've heard the left-leaning elements of the media carry on about how Bush is a war-mongering simpleton, or an oil-consumed, plutocratic nincompoop, but I just don't think so. I don't think he started a war because of a generational grudge, and I don't think that he destroys the environment just because he can. I really think that he is attempting to do his best.
That being said, there is one thing that does genuinely concern me about Bush, and that is his haphazard curtailment of civil liberties. The recent flap between the administration and some members of the press--specifically the Times--is an example of the Bush administration's attitude toward the smaller freedoms the constitution affords us.
For those of you not familiar with the incident, on Thursday the Times reported that the US government has a program in place that looks at records of international bank transactions in hopes of "following the money" to find out just who finances terror operations. Members of congress had been briefed on the program and found no fault with it; however, the program has not been tested in court.
Shortly after the report aired, a number of members of the administration--including Bush, Cheney, Snow, and a host of others--lashed out against the report, arguing that revealing such a program hamstrings the government's ability to conduct anti-terror investigations. Some even called for prosecution against the Times, and in particular against executive editor Bill Keller. Keller shot back against these calls with a letter, which emphasized that the Times considered thoroughly whether or not they should release this information, and that it was deemed in the public interest to green-light the story.
Bush's response to this story has been animated, calling the report "disgraceful." This has been an archetypal exchange between Bush and the press lately: the press reports on an anti-terror operation of questionable legality, the administration gets angry at the press for reporting it, and the schism between the administration and the press widens.
On one point I agree with Bush: revealing these programs may hurt their effectiveness. Likewise, revealing Abu Ghraib probably hurt the effectiveness of that institution, and revealing Haditha probably hindered the effectiveness of Kilo company. But these little inconveniences are the inevitable results of democracy, and they are to be celebrated.
The difference between the US and totalitarian states is that we believe that we have nothing to be ashamed of. We don't deal in misinformation, but in facts, cold and hard, and we trust the public to judge them appropriately. We stand by democracy because we believe that power corrupts, and that accountability is the only cure for the moral flim-flam of the demagogue. We believe that the morality of the many outweighs the morality of the few.
The founding fathers chose to allow a free and vigorous press because they stood by the idea of public oversight. Hopefully, Bush can understand that public oversight, while it is an inconvenience, is always a necessary part of a free and worthwhile democracy. While fighting the war on terror, we must remember not just what we fight against, but what we fight for.
That being said, there is one thing that does genuinely concern me about Bush, and that is his haphazard curtailment of civil liberties. The recent flap between the administration and some members of the press--specifically the Times--is an example of the Bush administration's attitude toward the smaller freedoms the constitution affords us.
For those of you not familiar with the incident, on Thursday the Times reported that the US government has a program in place that looks at records of international bank transactions in hopes of "following the money" to find out just who finances terror operations. Members of congress had been briefed on the program and found no fault with it; however, the program has not been tested in court.
Shortly after the report aired, a number of members of the administration--including Bush, Cheney, Snow, and a host of others--lashed out against the report, arguing that revealing such a program hamstrings the government's ability to conduct anti-terror investigations. Some even called for prosecution against the Times, and in particular against executive editor Bill Keller. Keller shot back against these calls with a letter, which emphasized that the Times considered thoroughly whether or not they should release this information, and that it was deemed in the public interest to green-light the story.
Bush's response to this story has been animated, calling the report "disgraceful." This has been an archetypal exchange between Bush and the press lately: the press reports on an anti-terror operation of questionable legality, the administration gets angry at the press for reporting it, and the schism between the administration and the press widens.
On one point I agree with Bush: revealing these programs may hurt their effectiveness. Likewise, revealing Abu Ghraib probably hurt the effectiveness of that institution, and revealing Haditha probably hindered the effectiveness of Kilo company. But these little inconveniences are the inevitable results of democracy, and they are to be celebrated.
The difference between the US and totalitarian states is that we believe that we have nothing to be ashamed of. We don't deal in misinformation, but in facts, cold and hard, and we trust the public to judge them appropriately. We stand by democracy because we believe that power corrupts, and that accountability is the only cure for the moral flim-flam of the demagogue. We believe that the morality of the many outweighs the morality of the few.
The founding fathers chose to allow a free and vigorous press because they stood by the idea of public oversight. Hopefully, Bush can understand that public oversight, while it is an inconvenience, is always a necessary part of a free and worthwhile democracy. While fighting the war on terror, we must remember not just what we fight against, but what we fight for.
posted by Tim Dees at 10:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home