In 1998 The Only Thing “Bush” Connoted Was A Bad British Rock Band . . . Take Me Back There
Posted by Contrarian on October 3rd, 2006
Although I think it’s interesting and important to have a public conversation about the best way to deal with the terrorist threat, I wonder if we would be as vocal about rights, wiretapping, extraordinary rendition and everything else if Bush wasn’t in power.
The issue seems to be boiled down to this:
How the measure will look decades hence may depend not just on how it is used but on how the terrorist threat evolves. If a major terrorist plot in the United States is uncovered — and surely if one succeeds — it may vindicate the Congressional decision to give the government more leeway to seize and question those who might know about the next attack.
If the attacks of 2001 recede as a devastating but unique tragedy, the decision to create a new legal framework may seem like overkill. “If there is never another terrorist attack and we never obtain actionable intelligence, this will look like a huge overreaction,” said Gary J. Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton.
If we are uncomfortable with the direction Congress and the President are taking this, the next obvious question is what we do instead. I don’t know how you should treat terrorists in the court system. I don’t know what I think about terrorists being enemy combatants. Do we want dozens of Al Qaeda suspects on trial in Virginia? Are they more like an enemy during wartime? Don’t we want the government to be aggressively monitoring bad actors?
These are questions that should go beyond simple caricatures of a Bush-Cheney Junta.
As a point of comparison, when Clinton bombed terrorist camps in Afghanistan in 1998, we got Tony Kushner wringing his hands about “otherness”. With a Republican president, we get Tim Robbins making bad political satire*.
So, given, the national conversation is different. What I want to know is what to do. And it’s not clear that’s happening.
*Update, I completely forgot, until I heard Brian Lehrer this morning, that Kushner himself is actually working on a Bush piece full of dead Iraqi children!
One Response to “In 1998 The Only Thing “Bush” Connoted Was A Bad British Rock Band . . . Take Me Back There”
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post a comment.
Now Playing: Episode 360
Biden and Palin square off while international intrigue heats up in Africa and the Middle East.
Links Mentioned: Africom … Frank Rich on Palin …
Mr. C, not only am I certain that I would be just as vocal about the various breaches you describe into my rights as a citizen, and those of others, should someone other than Bush be in charge*; I’m also quite certain that Republicans would be the loudest voices in the charge against these actions.
I believe that the nature of these decisions transcends any blue/red affiliations…at least, I believe that it should, but that’s a dangerous word.
And while I admire the fervor being felt in going after a possible terrorist suspect, getting rid of the need for proof not only brings to mind images of Kafka and Orwell, but also the recent story of the Canadian resident’s mistaken identity. The room for error is enormous.
In Matski’s response to this entry, he describes what he wishes would’ve been the UStian response to these attacks. He describes a more sedate and mature response, one that is not unlike the typical European response. One of the more willfully naive aspects of the UStian response to this terrorist attack is its unwillingness to recognize that this sort of thing happens worldwide, and that there are ways to reconcile the loss to your country that do not involve torture, persecution, and the use of brute force.
I could list various examples of this lesson being learned by other countries, from the several Bloody Sundays that took place in Ireland to France’s retaliation against Algeria.
What should be happening? I know I’d like to see more of an international cooperation effort in the hunt and persecution of terrorists, and one that is based more on established international law, than one based on a vigilante desire to set things right.
A question that will never be answered: Why did the Bush hunt for the terrorists responsible for 9/11 stop at Bin Laden’s door and then re-focused onto Iraq?
Speaking of Bin Laden, what was the right saying during Clinton’s bombing of Afghanistan? I think it rhymed with “Hag the Shog.” Lastly, if you want a harangue from someone in the entertainment industry that is decidedly non-partisan, seek no further than Harold Pinter: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html
sorry for the length of this reply, the question begged it.
*though I certainly can’t imagine either Gore or Kerry doing anything remotely as hamfisted as what has transpired under their opponent.