|
June 24, 2002
Ben Sonnenberg
Ted
Hughes' Spell
June 22/23, 2002
Douglas Valentine
Sex,
Drugs & the CIA
June 21, 2002
Norman Madarasz
Brazil
Over England:
The Gaucho's Wild Ride
John Borowski
Stossel
and Disney's Crimes Against Nature
Chris Floyd
Southern
Cross: The US Takes Aim at Brazil
David Martin
Of Lies
and Oil: an interview with Rahul Mahajan
James T. Phillips
Serbian
Reservations:
Kosovo 2002
June 20, 2002
Chris Kromm
The South
at War: a Tour of the US Military/Industrial Complex
Jacob Levich
The War
on Terror is
Not a Suicide Pact
Mark Weisbrot
What
are They Doing to Argentina?
Jeffrey St. Clair
and Alexander Cockburn
Fire
Walk With Me:
Terry Lynn Barton and the Flames of Colorado
June 19, 2002
Gary Leupp
Red Targets in Terror War
Lenni Brenner
The Road
Forward for the
Palestinian Movement
Bernard Weiner
Inside
Cheney's Diary:
Cakewalking Through Minefields
Alexander Cockburn
The
Incredible Shrinking President
June 18, 2002
David Vest
Raise the
White Flag in Terror War?
Ben White
Is It Possible
to "Understand" the Rise in "Anti-Semitism"?
Edward Said
Palestinian
Elections Now
June 17, 2002
Jack McCarthy
Watergate
and All That
Philip Farruggio
A Maximum
Wage Law
Ron Sullivan
Law
and Orders:
The Assault on Trial by Jury
Rev. Charles Booker-Hirsch
Taking
on the School
of the Americas
Joan Smith
G.W. Bush:
The Man is Stupid
Dave Marsh
Corporate
Buy Outs and the Decline of Teen Jive
Robert Jensen
Rhetoric
Distorts Realities
June 15 / 16, 2002
Tanweer Akram
A Review
of Noam Chomsky's 9-11
Daniel Wolff
The Day
They Shot a Wolf in the Ghetto and What It Meant
Ralph Nader
A Corporate
Crime State
David Vest
Have You
Been Serviced?
Karl Kraus
A Minor
Detail
Alexander Cockburn
The
Terrorism of Everyday Life
June 14, 2002
Mark Weisbrot
US Trade
Policy:
"Do as We Say, Not as We Did"
Starhawk
The Boy Who Kissed the Soldier
David Krieger
Farewell
to the ABM Treaty
Tom Turnipseed
The Fear Factor to Promote
War and Trample Truth
Steve Perry
How the
Bush Adminstration Buried Coleen Rowley
June 13, 2002
Linda Belanger
Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict:
The Story Behind the Headlines
Amira Hass
Indefinite
Siege
Mokhiber / Weissman
Time to Put Lives Over Patents
Robert Fisk
Bush's Weird
War
Stanton / Madsen
Democracy
in Crisis:
What is to be Done?
Roldan Tomasz Suárez
Venezuela:
Five Facts
About the Coup
June 12, 2002
Fran Shor
Dirty Bombs, Blowback
and Imperial Projections
Dave Marsh
Shelley
Stewart, Radio and the Birmingham Civil Rights Movement
Chris Floyd
Murder, Inc.
June 11, 2002
Omar Barghouti
On Dance, Identity and War
Robert Fisk
The Bush
Afghan Gang:
Murderers, Gangsters, Stooges
Minerva Wright
The Donkeys of the Holy Land
David Krieger
Stopping
a Nuclear War
in South Asia
June 10, 2002
Jeffrey St. Clair
Executioner's Last Songs
June 8/9, 2002
Gavin Keeney
Mademoiselle
M.
Or Getting Screwed in Paris
Susan Davis
Sleepless
in the Suburbs
Curing Insomnia: a new use for The Nation?
George Sunderland
"Send
in the Weekly
Standard": The Screaming Pundits Assault Corps
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
June 24,
2002
Talkin' About
the F-Word (Redux)
by Bernard Weiner
[Dear Readers: This article was
first published in December of 2001, in the wake of 9/11, when
the grim outlines of police-state-like tactics were first starting
to appear on the American horizon. It might be useful to compare
and contrast -- whoops, it turns out there isn't much to contrast
-- between then and now. Doing so may help us understand the
forces we're facing and how to respond as Bush & Co. continue
their move toward a more militarist society. At appropriate points,
I've added [[ in italics inside double brackets ]] some observations
from our contemporary situation. Reading the essay this way might
serve as a reminder that those of us warning then of the due-process
dangers ahead faced epithets like "paranoid" and "conspiracists"
-- much like those today who are connecting the dots that take
us from Bush & Co.'s pre-9/11 knowledge and the Administration's
manipulation of a frightened Congress and citizenry that have
followed. -- BW ]
First, they came for the terrorists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the foreigners, and
I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they came for the Arab-Americans,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't Arab-American.
Then they came for the radical dissenters,
and I didn't speak up, because
I was just an ordinary troubled citizen.
Then they came for me, and by that time
there was no one left to speak up for me.
(Adapted from Pastor Niemoller's 1945
quote about the Nazis)
I've been steering clear of the F-word, because
too many on the Left fling that term so carelessly that it soon
loses its truth-punch. But things are happening, so quickly,
in this country that are taking us closer to a brand of near-fascism
that is frightening in its seeming acceptance by the American
populace and in its implications for the future of American democracy.
The non-domestic corollary: America,
already resented and hated for its arrogant attitudes and policies
around the world, is behaving more and more like a mad bull on
a Pax Americana rampage.
In short, we appear to be at one of those
moments in American history where the executive branch, using
the genuine need to respond to a terrorist attack of massive
proportions, is badly overreaching in both domestic and foreign
areas. (The first draft of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism law even
recommended suspension of the rule of habeus corpus, which would
have allowed for indefinite incarceration without charges or
trials.) [[ In effect, Bush&Co. have been able to do exactly
that to hundreds being interrogated for a connection to terrorism;
when people are "disappeared" in third-world countries,
we get all weepy-eyed and angry as mothers and wives bang pots
& pans in the public squares, trying to find out what happened
to their husbands and sons. Here, aside from civil liberties
organizations, we remain basically silent. ]]
The Administration figures it can get
away with its current actions, and assume even more power, because
the Congress and the American people are frightened and willing
to bend over backwards to make sure the President has the power
he needs during "wartime." [[ Recent polls indicate
that Americans are deeply troubled by giving the government,
any government, that kind of unbridled power, but, given the
current terrorist threat, seem willing to trade off SOME of their
Constitutional protections for personal security. ]]
(Of course, there has been no official
declaration of a State of War by the Congress, and the Bush Administration
is not about to try to get one; doing so would give the legislative
branch its rightful place in the balance-of-power arrangement
the founders set up in order to prevent political mischief.)
[[ Now Bush&Co. are moving quickly toward attacking Iraq,
and not only has there been NO declaration of war by the Congress
against that nation, but there has been NO discussion, NO debate,
NO hearings by the appropriate committees in Congress. After
the body bags start coming back, prepare yourself to listen to
all the breast-beating in the Congress about how they should
have tried to do something to prevent this unauthorized war.
See below. ]]
Now, whether we're moving into the outskirts
of fascism because the Bush Administration is merely confused
and incompetent when dealing with issues of such moment is not
clear. Equally plausible, especially given their ruthless, take-no-prisoners
style as revealed in the Florida election chaos and beyond, is
that they know exactly what they're doing: attempting to enforce
a harsh interpretation of justice so as to more easily cram their
far-right cultural and economic agenda through a complacent Congress
and public, under the cover of "national security"
and "homeland protection." (I grant that it's possible
they sincerely believe they're doing so out of the best motives
" protecting the American people from further terrorism"
but, even if that were the case, the damage being done to the
American polity and Constitutional system of government is incalculable.)
FOREIGN POLICY
The hawks in the Administration seem
to have convinced Bush that with the successes in Afghanistan--forgetting
that perhaps as many as 20,000 Al Queda troops are holed up for
the winter, in caves and in neighboring Pakistan--it's time to
widen the war by going after Iraq, and maybe a few weaker states,
such as Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, maybe even North Korea. (This
plan may be put on temporary hold while the U.S. assays the military/political
fallout from the quick-building war between Israel and the Palestinians.)
Why go to war against any of these countries?
There is no evidence that any of the states named above has engaged
in threatening activity " no bombs exploded on US soil or
US assets abroad, no airplanes flying into tall buildings, no
biochemical attacks launched " but, we are led to believe,
these rogue states threaten America's vital interests merely
by existing and, in some instances, by having weapons similar
to ours.
Iraq may be a special case. Saddam Hussein,
who Bush Sr. let stay in power, i s a truly vicious, monomaniacal
dictator who has been known to dabble in biological weaponry
and other weapons of mass destruction. Since he kicked out the
U.N. inspectors, we don't know what mischief he's been up to.
A good candidate, so goes hawk-logic, for getting his ass whupped
by the US, provocation or not.
Were the US to bomb or invade Iraq to
topple Saddam and install an opposition government, the current
war coalition would collapse, and the worst stereotype of US
foreign policy --of America as a giant bully not averse to arranging
a Pax Americana with massive violence--would be verified in a
good share of the globe. There might well be uprisings widely
in the Muslim world, and probably the toppling of several key
governments in the process, Pakistan and Indonesia being the
top candidates -- either by popular revolts or, more likely,
by military coups. (Let us not forget that Pakistan has nuclear
weapons.) [[ There is speculation that Saddam will resign
and appoint one of his sons in his stead; it is hard to imagine
that this ruse will stop the U.S. from attacking. ]]
But let us suppose that the US approach
is successful, and that it is able to navigate its way through
the negative foreign consequences flowing from that demonstration
of high-tech warfare carried out against low-tech resistance.
How would you feel living in a modern version of the Roman Empire,
our armies abroad enforcing a peace on several continents at
bayonet point?
DOMESTIC POLICY
Which brings us to what life would be
like domestically in such a neo-imperialist arrangement. Even
some right-wingers are reacting negatively to the alterations
of our judicial and Constitutional system a la Bush and Ashcroft.
There have been columns in the Wall Street Journal, William Safire's
blistering attack on Bush as a would-be "dictator,"
ex-FBI officials willing to be quoted denouncing the Administration's
more extreme policies, politicians such as right-wing Republican
Bob Barr decrying Bush's policy excesses, editorials in the mainstream
press chorusing that Ashcroft has gone way over the top. [[ Off
the record, many GOP senators and Congress members -- especially
conservatives anxious about giving too much power to big-government,
which regularly has abused that authority -- express their revulsion
at what the Bush Administration is doing to Constitutional guarantees.
But they tend to keep silent in public, lest they be accused,
in an election year, of being insufficiently "anti-terrorist."
However, lately, a few GOP moderates have begun to speak out
publicly, along with more Democrats. But virtually all of them
tend to backpedal whenever Bush&Co. make growling noises.
]]
Unless you've been living in a cave --whoops!,
wrong metaphor these days-- you must have become acquainted with
Ashcroft's way-out-there approach to civil liberties mostly,
it is claimed, directed at non-citizens suspected of terrorism.
That would be bad enough. But the wording of some of Ashcroft's
orders " and Bush's setting up of secret military tribunals"
is so vague and (deliberately?) sloppy that it wouldn't take
much to blur the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
[[ Despite Ashcroft & Bush's protestations that such a
thing would NEVER be allowed to occur, this is already happening,
as several U.S. citizens have been whisked out of Constitutionally-guaranteed
due process, and secreted away in military installations, and
permitted no contact with lawyers or anyone else. They can rot
there for years with no contact with the outside world. Did a
judge or jury OK this? Nope, Bush signed a piece of paper authorizing
the transfer. Bush&Co. thus becomes prosecutor, judge and
jury. It's clear that this could happen to ANY citizen now.
]]
Already--shades of J. Edgar Hoover's
COINTEL program of the 1960s-70s!--Ashcroft wants to begin more
spying on US citizens, especially religious and political organizations.
[[ Just recently, Ashcroft, by fiat, simply gave the FBI this
authority to spy on any organizations -- just as under COINTEL
decades ago -- including, in this new technological era, fishing
expeditions into anyone's personal e-mail. ]]
In short, the foundations for officially-sanctioned
neo-fascist policies are being contemplated and swiftly put into
place. And, since Bush and Ashcroft, from the beginning, have
made it clear that if you're not on the side of the war on terrorism,
you're probably a supporter of terrorists, the way is clear for
cracking down on dissent internally against US citizens. It's
not outside the realm of speculation that in the near-future
even writing analyses such as the one you're reading might be
adjudged detrimental to the war effort and thus liable for prosecution
"or to being "disappeared" into the judicial system,
with all that suggests in the way of respect being paid to citizens'
constitutional rights.
Am I being overly paranoid? I hope to
God I am, that I'm misreading what's happening. After all, Bush
and Ashcroft and their spokesmen claim that their approach will
NEVER overstep Constitutional bounds and everything will be handled
fairly. Maybe you trust the government, especially this government,
that much; I don't. These guys are playing political hardball,
and they appear to be aiming at any institution and individuals
that dissent beyond certain boundaries.
Those boundaries are being laid out clearly
for the usual sources for dissent: the media and academia. Most
of the big papers and networks are now owned by huge corporate
conglomerates; Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and
Alumni, a well-financed conservative group devoted to curbing
liberal tendencies on campuses, already has issued its first
blacklist of professors it considers insufficiently "patriotic."
Many will be fired or eased out, many more will tone down their
criticism--as many journalists already have--and the message
will be quite clear: Do not dissent too vocally. [[ Look what
happened at the Ohio State graduation ceremonies recently, when
Bush came to speak. The authoritative voice of the university's
president announced that any students who turned their backs
on Bush as a protest would face expulsion and arrest. Only a
few continued their planned silent, turning-of-backs protest,
and were immediately hustled outside to the waiting police. ]]
Two scary ramifications:
1. We're only in the first year of Bush's
term; the damage he can cause to the Constitution and the body
politic during the next three (or, God help us, seven) years
is frightening to imagine. [[ Even more frightening, because
Al-Qaeda elements inside our borders are planning another massive
attack inside the U.S., frightening the population even more
-- which fear Bush&Co. will attempt to manipulate once again,
to give it even more extra-Constitutional control over thought,
activity, dissent. ]]
2. The American people, for the most
part, still appear to be lending strong support to Bush's interpretation
of the war on terrorism, although cracks are starting to show
up. [[ Nearly 4000 innocent Americans died on 9/11, and Bush&Co.
had been apprised months in advance that an attack like that
was coming and did nothing to prevent it. Many ordinary Americans
are disgusted and angered by that behavior. In addition, there
are the Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, Venezuela scandals, and
probably many more, that are starting to cause stirs and ripples
in the body politic. Dots are starting to be connected. ]]
So what is to be done? If there ever
was a time for a rebirth of the Movement, this is the time...
The US Senate is probably the place where most attention should
go at the moment, given that the House is pretty well dominated
by the Bush/Armey/Delay-led right-wing majority. The Democrats
in the Senate, who rolled over too easily on the so-called PATRIOT
anti-terrorism act, need backbone; hearing from their constituents,
urging them to stand up for the Constitution and the balance-of-powers
that rein in power-hungry executives, might actually work in
stopping some of the more extreme actions to date, and to come,
by the Bush Administration.
This struggle for peace and justice and
respect for the Constitution will not be an easy one, if only
because of the politicized nature of the Supreme Court majority.
But it is one we must join, and, for the sake of our representative
democracy, we must win. [[ That's even more clear today. If
we can't stop them now -- or, at the very least, put sand in
their total-control wheels -- it may not get any easier in 2004.
]]
Bernard Weiner,
Ph.D., has taught government and international politics at Western
Washington University and San Diego State University; he was
with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years, and has
published in The Nation, Village Voice, and widely on the internet.
Today's
Features
Ben Sonnenberg
Ted
Hughes' Spell
Douglas Valentine
Sex,
Drugs & the CIA
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|