Monday, December 19, 2005
How Rovian
I am reminded of the movie "A Few Good Men", and the testimony of Colonel Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, regarding his leadership of Marines at Guantanamo. He has been accused of contributing to the death of a young Marine recruit by allowing certain hazing techniques. Let's leave aside whether such things happen or not. Jessup essentially says, hey, there are certain ugly realities that come with the territory of preparing for conflict. But you sleep well at night because I/we/the USMC "are on that wall." He says, "you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." I am sure there were many people appalled by the rough treatment of the poor dead recruit, and that was certainly the thrust of the movie (and frankly correct - hazing sucks). But the Colonel's point is clear and applicable to a much broader set of issues. And the voting American public gets that. The Democratic Party better wake up and get that too. Because if the lesson they learned from the 2004 election was that they need to back an antiwar candidate like a Howard Dean-like fool in 2008, then I would say look to how George McGovern did in 1972 to start making predictions. Read McIntire's article. Maybe there's a little bit of Jessup in President Bush too, and Rove is putting it out there in black and white so voters can judge who might do more for their security - Republicans/Bush/pick your Republican on the 2006 ballot and 2008 ballots or Democrats/Dean/Pelosi/Kerry/etc.
UPDATE from TigerHawk: I think both sides of the debate could benefit from re-reading the dialogue at the climax of "A Few Good Men":
I want the truth.
JESSEP
You can't handle the truth!
(And nobody moves.)
JESSEP
(continuing)
Son, we live in a world that has walls.
And those walls have to be guarded by men
with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You,
Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly
fathom. You weep for Santiago and you
curse the marines. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I
know: That Santiago's death, while tragic,
probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to
you, saves lives.
(beat)
You don't want the truth. Because deep
down, in places you don't talk about at
parties, you want me on that wall. You need me
there.
(boasting)
We use words like honor, code,
loyalty...we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use 'em as a punchline.
(beat)
I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
very freedom I provide, then questions the
manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer
you just said thank you and went on your
way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
weapon and stand a post. Either way, I
don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to.
KAFFEE
(quietly)
Did you order the code red?
JESSEP
(beat)
I did the job you sent me to do.
KAFFEE
Did you order the code red?
JESSEP
(pause)
You're goddamn right I did.
I think Bush just said he ordered the code red. The question is, do enough Americans want him on that wall? Can they handle the truth? I think they do and can. And another question: if "A Few Good Men" were made in, say, 2002, would the portrayal of Col. Jessep have been different? If so, how? What if it were made today?
19 Comments:
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Dec 19, 11:03:00 AM:
From the tone of Democratic carping, one would think they will be facing Bush in 2008, or at least Cheney (which seems unlikely). It seems that their advocacy of a cut and run strategy is driven by partisan politics, but if so, who exactly is their political opponent here? No, I believe in fact that this group of Democrats, students of the 60s, is acting out of what they actually believe is the best course of action for the country (a truly frightening thought to me). It also means that any substantive change in party ideology is not likely to come from this group, but must come from a new generation of Democratic leaders.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 19, 11:14:00 AM:
Well, I'm fairly sure the Scrutiny Hooligans would agree that there is a little bit of Col. Jessep in George W. Bush. I can hardly wait for Screwy to weigh in on that one!
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 19, 02:04:00 PM:
I wasn't going to comment at all until I saw Hawk's note.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Abu Gonzales have plenty of Jessup in them. I think they have a clear understanding of constitutional law and international law whether they choose to abide by it or not. President Bush, of course, has no background in law, nor does he seem to undertand that he's not allowed to do anything he wants just because it feels like the right thing to do.
Protect us, President Bush. But do not tarnish the name of the United States and do not violate the law or the Constitution. Is this too much to ask? Torture and illegal wiretaps are off-limits. If you're telling me that the only way I can be safe in my own nation is to condone such behavior, then it's not the nation I thought it was.
As far as the populace not caring if Bush breaks a few laws or tortures a few brown-skinned people in secret detention centers - If you're right, then the Bush administration has effectively used the fear of terrorist attacks to undermine the Rule of Law. Super. Wonderful.
Why you support maneuvers like this is beyond my ken, CP.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Dec 19, 02:39:00 PM:
SH - I don't know what specific "maneuvers" you are referring to. Earlier I commented that I thought the Patriot Act, for one, had been pretty effective with limited cost in terms of civil liberties-at least when compared to internment during WWII, the Suspesion of habeus corpus during the Civil War, and the Alien and Sedition Act (I think 1807 or thereabouts).
What one does with enemy combatants (of any color) and POWs is not precisely a constitutional matter, and I am out of my legal depth in analyzing these things with great precision. But I don't think any Federal Marshals will be showing up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anytime soon. I am absolutely certain that our treatment of captives, while imperfect, is so substantially superior to the treatment of our captives (virtually anywhere in the world), that we can hold our heads high on the matter.
As for your comment about a person's skin color, Screy, I have no idea what your axe might be there. Are you suggesting Bush is a racist too?
By Admin, at
Mon Dec 19, 02:47:00 PM:
earlier we had this blog defending bush's lying about the wmd (im sorry - misleading) because it was in the nation's best interest.
now its in our best interest to have the president break the law and violate the constitution.
i was in new york city on 9/11; and personally, losing our democracy and liberties is more frightening.
maybe you guys are right, 9/11 did change everything.
will we even recognize our nation when bush is done?
By Cassandra, at
Mon Dec 19, 03:15:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Dec 19, 03:25:00 PM:
Protect us, President Bush. But do not tarnish the name of the United States and do not violate the law or the Constitution. Is this too much to ask?
Two comments Screwy, because I haven't had time to entirely read up on this:
1. Has it been established beyond doubt that the President broke the law or violated the Constitution? I'm not sure it has.
1. This appears to be one of those grey areas where the President's wartime authority gives him broad powers.
2. You also (and this is critical) have to distinguish between using warrantless searches to surveil or prevent attack and using them to prosecute, which is when a citizen's rights come into play. There is no really serious infringement of rights, relative to national security, before that.
However, it is illegal to use called 'poisoned fruit' in a criminal proceeding. It is not at all clear that it is illegal to do what NSA did: monitor conversations between known contacts of terrorists. Even the lawyers are still arguing over this:
Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.
. . .
The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.
While the privacy laws have an exception for this type of monitoring, see 18 U.S.C. 2511(f), and the constitutional limits on e-mail surveillance are uncertain even in traditional criminal cases, the constitutionality of warrantless interception of telephone calls in situations like this is really murky stuff.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Dec 19, 03:37:00 PM:
I wasn't going to comment at all until I saw Hawk's note.
And you have to comment, Screwy!
I always worry that your head is going to explode... either that, or mine is :) It's all in good fun.
We don't have to agree, and it's good to have your opinion heard here.
By 
, at
Mon Dec 19, 04:01:00 PM:
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."
Hilter's speech before passage of the Enabling Act, 1933
Hmmm.
By Admin, at
Mon Dec 19, 04:30:00 PM:
the one thing i like about tigerhawk is the debate in the comments!
here's mud in your eye!
=)
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Dec 19, 04:35:00 PM:
ANON -
I love comparisons of America and Bush to Hitler's Germany. They make the commenter look like a fool or a lunatic. You should remain anonymous.
The relevant comparisons when assessing what the US is doing in a war context viz. civil liberties is to look at OUR OWN HISTORY - not some look at a perversion of civilization. Orwell makes the point better than anybody that the worst fascistic tyrants use harmless language.
And in our own history, we have substantially abrogated civil liberties in time of war, most recently in WWII when we interned our own citizens to protect the nation. We suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, arguably the most serious abrogation of liberty ever in our nation.
Today's actions are virtually meaningless as a societal matter. Monitoring calls IS OKAY WITH ME. Water hoarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is OKAY WITH ME. There will be serious and occasionally tragic mistakes. A cost worth bearing - especially if it puts us in position to prevent another major assault -- which in my estimation would give rise to even greater curtailment of civil liberties....potentially revisiting internment.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Dec 19, 05:13:00 PM:
By the way, when Bruce Willis's movie about US troop performance in Iraq comes out (it is based on the outfit Michael Yon blogged about), it is going to be a monster hit. Monster.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 19, 05:44:00 PM:
"1. Has it been established beyond doubt that the President broke the law or violated the Constitution? I'm not sure it has.
1. This appears to be one of those grey areas where the President's wartime authority gives him broad powers.
2. You also (and this is critical) have to distinguish between using warrantless searches to surveil or prevent attack and using them to prosecute, which is when a citizen's rights come into play. There is no really serious infringement of rights, relative to national security, before that."
Aside from the whole two 1.'s thing...
FISA is in place to allow for exactly the type of surveillance Bush has described. There is no "need for speed" exception necessary because the FISA allows for filing up to 72 hours after the surveillance.
For some reason this President has, admittedly, gone outside the bounds of established law into the gray area of which you speak.
Why?
Also, wartime authority's peachy and all, but we're not in a declared war. If you're referring to the Congressional resolution as basis for the authority to sidestep existing law, then there are certainly questions. But we wouldn't want to think that the President is legislating fron the Oval Office would we? That would make him as bad as those durned activist judges.
The fact remains that there is an existing framework to effectively provide security, and the President has chosen to work outside of that.
Again, why?
And, geez, the only way to establish if the President broke any laws is to have some hearings. I take it you would get behind such an inquiry?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 19, 05:54:00 PM:
I may write more on this later, but I have to get the kids to go see "King Kong," which I'm very excited about.
The one nit I do want to pick: Screwy, please do not hang your argument on a declaration of war, or absence thereof. We have had more than 150 armed engagements in our history, and only have only declared war 11 times (I believe). And, in any case, al Qaeda has specifically and exactly declared war on the United States, so I think we are in a declared war (do you have to declare it back?).
By Cassandra, at
Mon Dec 19, 06:23:00 PM:
No need to be snarky Screwy. I worked late last night and I'm extremely tired. I had about 3 hours of sleep and I'm sick, so I'm really not seeing too well today.
Not necessarily. I very well might support hearings - it depends on what type of hearings we're talking about. They tend to mushroom out of control and get ridiculous.
We do not need to have hearings every fricking time there is a question about something. Personally, whether it was Clinton or Bush, I generally support Executive privilege so long as there is a reasonable legal opinion authorizing it beforehand. If the offense is listening and invasion of privacy, then what the heck is the value of getting a warrant AFTER? It's always easier to go out and do and ask forgiveness after.
And I don't think he has admitted anything - you are putting words in his mouth. Anyway, I'm not really making much sense - I'm far too tired to argue intelligently right now.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 19, 07:40:00 PM:
Hawk,
If folks are going to say that Bush has authority due to some understood *winkwink* war powers, then I guess we'll need a legal distinction. If he's got the powers, say so. If he don't, don't. But no more of the one-man, change the rules by fiat nonsense. It leads to the bad place, and you know this.
Cass,
Again, there is a system in place to obtain the type of warrants Bush says he needs. It's called FISA, and it's been working like a charm. The distinction between the President's "program" and using FISA is one of oversight.
I want the President overseen by somebody. Whether it's Congress or a judiciary, there is no one-man rule in this country.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Dec 19, 07:51:00 PM:
Boy - I AM tired! My comment is full of typos. And I actually looked at it before I posted it. I'm not even seeing them anymore.
Just more evidence I'm way too tired to fence with you tonite :) You're too sharp for me and I'm in no shape to respond.
Maybe after I get some sleep and wrap some more presents. I love Christmas, but being a woman really sucks at this time of year. I need a maid. Or a wife.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 19, 11:25:00 PM:
I need a maid. Or a wife.
Between the office and the home, I hear that a lot this time of year!
By Cassandra, at
Tue Dec 20, 05:18:00 AM:
Yes, well the other trend I have my eye on is that bordello for women some twit is opening out West. I saw it out of the corner of my eye but didn't read the article.
What a hoot. What do you get for the woman who has everything for Christmas?
