9/11 Did Not Change Everything

Thinking back on yesterday's post about the House vote to give the President a host of new police powers that would do any tinhorn dictator proud, I was reminded of this insane statement by our current Speaker of the House:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) praised the legislation, saying Americans should not give foreigners suspected of being enemy combatants the rights that U.S. citizens enjoy. "The Global War on Terror is different from any war we have ever known," he said in a statement. "As a country we must understand that adaptation to these new situations is critical in order to achieve victory over those who seek to hurt us as a nation."

Yet again, we are told that 9/11 changed everything, and that all those comfortable freedoms we enjoy and those protections against government power that we used to take for granted are antiquated and obsolete — indeed, to use the Administration's own terminology, "quaint". Desperate times call for desperate measures, our leaders say: this is war, World War III, a clash of civilizations. We must be prepared to sacrifice for the Global War on Terror. Or rather, you must be so prepared.

It's important to note the irony in the fact that we are being asked to sacrifice exactly that which we are told is the reason for terrorism in the first place — the terrorists, Bush said to the nation on the night of the original 9/11, hate us for our freedom. Indeed, I'm tempted to accuse Bush and Co. of trying to appease the terrorists by taking away from us exactly what they want taken. But it's more important to note that just about every premise that's involved in this "ironic" hullabaloo is false.

First, just let me say it: 9/11 didn't change everything. In fact, it changed very little. I would guess that the only important thing it changed was the Bush Administration's appreciation that there is, and has been for quite some time, a terrorist threat. But just because their perceptions changed, or probably more accurately, just because an event gave them the excuse to do some of the things they have always wanted to do, doesn't mean we need to drink their kool-aid and put the Constitution in the shredder.

Second, there is no "Global War on Terror" except in the minds of those who like the way that phrase makes them sound tough-minded and resolute. There is no war because there can be no end — countries can surrender and revolutionaries can put down their weapons, but terrorism is too multivariate and dispersed to ever be "defeated" as such. Instead, there is a threat to be contained, and the first step in doing so is acknowledging it for what it is, and not turning it into something where total victory is the only positive outcome. We can't "win" this war, but if we continue doing what we have been doing, we can surely lose it, and ourselves.

Third, rights are a feature, not a bug. They aren't outmoded or "quaint", and they don't hinder our ability to contain the threat of terrorism. Those who argue that unchecked police power is a good and necessary thing are obviously deluded and should not be listened to; those who want to give this current bunch of jokers that power are seriously deranged. Even if we could be certain that we would only detain without charge and torture "real" terrorists, it would still be a bad idea since our (already much-reduced) moral authority is one of the most powerful tools in our foreign policy shed. But let's face it: history isn't kind to those who have exercised such authority, and since we know for a fact that Cheney is evil and that he runs this show, the outcome is guaranteed to be a complete disaster.