When Will It End, George, When Will It End?

Let me ask those of you who grew up during or because of the ‘60s whether you find comforting or unsettling revelations that the Bush administration is engaged in warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens and that it has directed the FBI to spy on domestic activist groups? It goes without saying that we should all feel unsettled and very concerned about the administration’s decision to spy on PETA and Greenpeace as well as organizations that are certainly on the forefront of pushing for a change of policy toward Iraq. At the same time, however, having grown up learning to be suspicious about everything the government does, I have to admit to a bit of nostalgia and…yes…comfort in a return to the way things used to be. After all, there’s nothing wrong with not taking everything at face value and questioning the goals and motives of the government when those goals and motives appear to be having such dire consequences. Indeed, were it not for the fact of Nixon’s campaign against organizations that opposed the war in Viet Nam, we would never have had confirmation that the opposition was actually having its desired effect. Why else would the seemingly impregnable United States government have devoted so many resources to maintaining watch over peace organizations large and small were it not afraid that those organizations were actually making progress toward turning the nation against the war.

In all seriousness, however, in the current climate there is every reason to be very concerned about the Bush administration continuing to expand the limits of the executive beyond the confines of the law as defined by both the constitution and the Congress. Time and again, we have seen this President and this administration abuse or ignore the limits set or proscribed by the Constitution, treating its fundamental principals as nothing more than an advisory opinion. The Sixth Amendment says what? “What do you mean, submitting a nomination for associate justice of the Supreme Court because she is “one of us” isn’t allowed?” “The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless eavesdropping? The hell you say”.

And now we come to Article II, Section 2 – the framework for functioning of the executive. This seems to be the biggest problem for Georgie boy. He just doesn’t seem to like the idea that his job description is actually encompassed and limited by the Constitution. This latest revelation is an obvious case in point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I just don’t seem to see any evidence in the Constitution of the President’s right to order warrantless electronic spying on his own citizenry no matter how broad a reading you give to it. I understand that he was able to gain the support of Congress to use all necessary force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11th and has, as a consequence, committed us to the wars now raging in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the detention of hundreds if not thousands of people around the world suspected of having ties to Osama Bin Laden (whether actual or simply because his first name is Abdul). However, nowhere in the Constitution nor anywhere in the legislation now being cited by Bush and his Attorney General does it support the kind of domestic spying that is now taking place. Indeed, the legislation that does exist has actually prescribed a process for Mr. Bush to obtain the type of covert intelligence of persons and/or organizations in this country that are believed to pose a threat to our security. However, a piece of legislation like FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act) in the hands of the Bush administration invariably turns into an invitation to excess and abuse and that appears to be precisely what is happening.

The question, of course, is why Bush, already possessed of the power to obtain electronic surveillance of our presumed enemies operating within our borders would nevertheless simply ignore those broad though admittedly somewhat proscribed powers for limitless power? The question is being posed by so-called “Liberals” and “Conservatives” alike including George Will in a recent Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post. The Constitution spells out in great detail the natural and necessary inter-relation of the branches of government and the necessity that each act as check on the other? Whatever limitations that FISA imposed on the President required only that the executive make a good showing to a secret court of the need for the surveillance and little more. In doing so, the Congress left to the President (through his Attorney General) complete control over the when, why and who of the application for surveillance without any requirement that Congress be consulted. Yet even these broad powers are not enough for our President and, again, the question is “why”? Would it not have been appropriate for the executive to return to Congress and ask that the already loose leash attendant to FISA be loosened further to permit him to conduct the type of surveillance we are now being made aware of and let Congress fulfill its “advise and consent” responsibilities on the subject? One can only conclude from the fact that this President chose to go with a secretive, extreme legal interpretation of FISA rather than asking that the law be further amended given the exigencies of the day because he has no regard or understanding of the Constitutional limits placed on his office and because this abuse of power is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg and such an application to Congress would likely lead to revelations about other illegal activities being carried out by this administration all in the name of national security.

With George Bush at the helm, we have been on a journey to undermine and destroy everything that this country has come to stand for. On the afternoon of September 10, 2001, we stood atop the moral high ground embraced by the world community as the victims of an unspeakable act. When Mr. Bush stood on the smouldering pile in the ruins of the Trade Center, we cheered the resolve to make those who brought us so much despair pay from what they had wrought. Our regrettable mistake was believing that Mr. Bush was capable of a measured and appropriate response to the horrors of that day. Instead, we opened a pandora’s box of violence and despair that has effectively yanked us off that high ground and lowered us to the level of those who intend us so much harm. Left to their own devices, the collective imaginations of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld et al have produced innumerable unimaginable practices from torture at Abu Ghraib to foreign nationals being kidnapped and held in secret prisons to the “rendition” of supposed terror suspects to foreign countries known to practice torture as part of its interrogation practices and now electronic surveillance of American citizens without warrant or credible justification.

And, yet again, the question is “why”? We are, above all else, a nation of laws that are not intended to reveal themselves only in times of peace and succumb in the face of terror and tyranny. It is the very fact that those laws prevail regardless of circumstance that has permitted us to assume and maintain the moral high ground. That fact, however, seems to have escaped Mr. Cheney, for one, a master of inference and innuendo who (not surprisingly) implied that the death of more than 100 people in US custody, many of which are being investigated as homicides, were acceptable and justified as a reminder to the American people that the pain of September 11th should never be far from their collective conscience.

When you think about it its an astonishing statement for one so close to the pinnacle of power in this country. It certainly makes one wonder what other reminders Messers Bush and Cheney have in store for us and the rest of the world.

George and His Toy Spyglass

What a country we live in, eh? Apart from the multitude of problems which have beset us over the past several years --- war, crushing budget deficits, a shift toward theocratic rule – we now learn that we’ve become the object of George’s curiosity. Living in the bubble that separates our chief executive from the rest of us, W has apparently seen fit to find out just what’s going on in the world around him by unleashing the NSA, the FBI and God knows what other acronyms to listen in on the telephonic and cyber conversations of his constituents and to surveil and gather intelligence on groups and organizations that were viewed as posing a threat to the nation’s security…like PETA and Greenpeace and….

It appears that in giving this direction to his law enforcement agencies, Mr. Bush may have misunderstood the mandate given to him by Congress in the days following September 11th. You may recall, after his return from the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, Mr. Bush, with nary a protest from anyone on either side of the aisle, secured authority from Congress to use all necessary force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11th. Somewhere along the line, however, that supposed mandate became confused in George’s mind with the belief that no law should limit the executive in such dangerous times. And so Mr. Bush, with the obvious support of Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld and the tenuous legal support of AG Gonzalez and a law professor at Berkeley, John Yoo, embraced the idea of expanding the reach of his office into the homes and offices of his fellow citizens.

As for the spying itself, it is beyond my understanding how one gets from the legislation permitting the President the use of all necessary force against those responsible for the September 11th attacks to spying on people who oppose the inhumane treatment of animals or oppose deforestation or other abuses of the environment? Unless I’m missing something none of those organizations had anything to do with the attacks in 2001 or any other attacks for that matter unless you count throwing red paint on a fur coat being worn by one of Bin Laden’s cousins as she fled the country on September 12th.

The ultimate hypocrisy of all this, I suppose, derives not from the list of organizations which are under surveillance, but those which are not. As between PETA and Operation Rescue, for example, which poses the greater threat to the safety of the nation and its populace: one that opposes the butchering of mink to be used as expensive clothing by splashing red paint on starlets on some Hollywood red carpet or one that advocates and executes the planting of bombs in public areas to announce its opposition to abortion? Yet nowhere in this discussion do we find any evidence that anyone or anything connected with the anti-abortion movement is falling under the government’s gaze. If this program of domestic spying was truly intended as an extension of the mandate Bush believes he received back in October 2001, certainly the domestic threat posed by Operation Rescue and like-minded terrorist organizations would be included among the organizations viewed as posing a threat to our security. That the anti-abortion industry has managed to escape the government’s scrutiny makes clear, at least to me, that it is not security that George is concerned about, but suppression of views that just don’t sit well with him.

Whats Driving Senator Joe?

Joe Lieberman’s recent campaign to support the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and take issue with those, particularly within his own party, who take exception to his positions and support of the administration’s policies, raises a number of interesting issues about the Senator’s motives and aspirations. First, it needs to be said that these recent public statements about Iraq are not the pronouncements of someone who has come late to the game and prone to shifting his views depending upon how the wind is blowing. Lieberman’s position, most recently offered to the Wall Street Journal, is a reiteration of a position that the Senator has taken well before the drums of war began to echo across the nation’s political landscape. Indeed, one need only look at the Senator’s work on behalf of “The Committee on the Present Danger” (www.fightingterror.org) to understand the breadth and intensity of his devotion to his hawkish philosophy, particularly as it relates to Middle Eastern policy. That he has chosen to frame his support in the context of the opposition undermining Bush’s credibility certainly leaves one wondering precisely how Senator Joe defines credibility in the context of the current debate. Nevertheless, in much the same fashion that we have consistently decried the administration’s failure to understand and encourage the exercise of our right and responsibility to question and protest, Mr. Lieberman’s statements must be accepted and embraced as embodying, again, the reasons why the Constitution is worth fighting to protect and preserve.

For those not familiar with Mr. Lieberman’s views, take a look at either or both Hernandez and Yardley’s article, “Lieberman’s Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party” which appeared on the front page of the New York Times on December 10, 2005 or Shailagh Murray’s piece in the Washington Post of the same day. Both pieces iterate Lieberman’s contention that Bush does have a strategy “for victory” in Iraq, that there should not be a timetable of any kind for the withdrawal of troops from the war front and his admonition to the loyal opposition – particularly those within the Democratic party – that they (and I suppose we) need to get used to the idea that Bush will be the commander-in-chief for another three years and that the opposition which has certainly been gaining strength over the past many months only serves to undermine Bush’ “credibility” at home and abroad. So strong has been the Senator’s support for the administration’s policy that he has drawn enthusiastic praise from Bush/Cheney as a shining example of how a bipartisan approach to Iraq should work (note that that bipartisan approach embraces only unwavering support).

Needless to say Mr. Lieberman’s support within his own party – which peaked with his nomination to run as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 – has dwindled considerably as a result of his increasingly public debate with the leadership of his own party over a number of policy issues including, but not simply limited to the war policy.

As for the question about what might be driving Mr. Lieberman, certainly given his earlier foray into Presidential politics it is likely that in some way he fashions himself a viable candidate for another run for the Presidency though given the ever-increasing void that has arisen between the Senator and the majority of the Democratic party, its likely that he will gain the nomination of the Republican Party before he is again embraced by his colleagues on the minority side of the aisle. Indeed, given the current climate, it seems that Mr. Lieberman has more in common with former Senator “Ranting” Zel Miller than either Harry Reid, Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer.

The explanation for the Senator’s hawkish philosophy toward Iraq and the Middle East may, in truth, have more to do with his spiritual than his political life. The Senator, as is widely known, is not simply Jewish, but orthodox in the observance of his faith and thus may believe that the best chance of gaining support for policies that are important to the Orthodox Jewish community lies with his aligning with the more strident elements of the Republican party.

It goes without saying that the term “religious fundamentalism” has gained increasing currency in the political debate that has consumed this country over the past two decades. Indeed, one need only consider the lengths that the Bush administration goes to satisfy the most conservative and religiously fundamental elements of his constituency to understand how embedded the idea of a conservative devotion to G_d has become in virtually every aspect of our lives. I have, in fact, repeatedly expressed the belief that it is the increasing influence of religious fundamentalism that poses a far greater threat to the nation than any of the extra-national issues (e.g. terrorism) that dominate the current debate. One need only look at the pressure being exerted by the so-called, “religious right” to shape the judiciary to ensure that the nation’s laws receive treatment favorable to its agenda or the allocation of billions of dollars to so-called “faith-based” organizations to understand the direction in which we are being driven and the threat posed to a Constitutional framework by which this democracy has flourished, nearly unfettered, since its inception.

When we speak of religious fundamentalism, however, it is not simply the so-called, “Christian Right” to which the appellation applies, but the conservative elements of every religion that has been permitted by the grace of our founding fathers to exist and flourish in this country. For the American Jewish community, it is within its orthodox base that it finds its most ardent supporters of the type of conservative and fundamental doctrine that has gained so much currency in this country through the political activism of the Christian Right. For Orthodox Jews, their dogmatic view of their role in the nation’s political debate begins and ends with the impact of that debate upon the State of Israel. While it is admittedly somewhat unfair to paint the entire community with so broad a brush, nevertheless it is first and foremost about Israel and how a policy or a particular candidate will effect the existence of the Jewish State that dominates the talk in shul and in the community at large when either electoral decisions are to be made or there is national debate such as that involving Iraq and the Middle East.

From this confluence of fundamental religious ideas and ideals has grown a seemingly close relationship between religious Jews and Christians that would have been unthinkable no more than twenty years ago. With the nation’s heartland less familiar with Jews and Judaism than its urban centers along both coasts and thus historically prone to an anti-semitism born as much from religious teaching as with simple ignorance, it is ironically in the bible belt where a true religious-based connection between Judaism and Christianity has grown. This affinity finds its nexus in the debate and dialog over the nation’s policies toward Israel with each seeming to tolerate and embrace the other in the short-run because of the benefits to be gained in the long-run from the relationship. Both the Orthodox Jewish community and the Christian right believe that the land of Israel was given to the Jews by G_d and that the Jews are not simply entitled, but obligated to live on the land we know as Israel (including territories which have or are about to be ceded to a new Palestinian state). It is with the establishment and preservation of a Jewish state that the confluence of interest ends. So-called, “Christian Zionists” premise their belief that G_d has ordained that the land known as Israel belongs to the Jews as a pre-condition for the second coming of Christ. As such the ultimate goals of fundamental Jews and Christians is obviously vastly different, particularly when one considers the teaching of many such Christian Zionists to envision converting Jews to Christianity after Christ’s return and slaughtering and condemning to hell all remaining Jews who refuse Christianity’s pull. The Orthodox Jewish community, presumably aware of what lurks in the hearts of their brother and sister fundamentalists, chooses to ignore the religious rhetoric for the benefits to be gained from their unwavering mutual interest in ensuring Israel’s survival. The ultimate in ignoring long-term consequences for short term gain.

So…where does Joe Lieberman come into all this? The Senator’s record makes clear his unabashed and steadfast support for Israel and in this context it is not difficult to appreciate that he would pursue the support of constituencies that reflect his devotion to Israel and belief in its primacy. Nor is it difficult to recognize that in this context, as an Orthodox Jew, Senator Lieberman would not only seek common ground with the Christian Right in this country, but seek to preserve and protect that relationship and its benefits – both political and religious – against those who might raise a protest against the overt agenda pursued by Christian Fundamentalist advocacy groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition.

With this dynamic in play, was it then a mere coincidence that the Senator sought a more public spotlight for his support for Bush’s policies within days of two speeches given by prominent leaders of the Jewish community, Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Eric Yoffe, both directly confronting the Christian Right and its injection of religion into politics, the Bush administration’s use of tax-payer money to fund religious charities (which tend to be almost exclusively Christian and evangelical in their teaching) and the atmosphere of religious intolerance that has increasingly permeated our culture. It is not mere happenstance that both Mr. Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Rabbi Yoffe, president of the Union of Reform Judaism are far more secular in their observance than Mr. Lieberman and that their retort to the religious right and to the Christian right, in particular, has drawn so much derision from the more observant elements of the Jewish community in this country. (The debate between Christians and Jews and within the Jewish community was well framed by Michelle Goldberg in her recent article appearing on the Salon.com website, “Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over? Worried by increasingly strident evangelical rhetoric, Jewish leaders have finally dared to criticize conservative Christians. Will an alliance held together only by a shared support for Israel survive?” which can be found at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/29/foxman/ and should be required reading for anyone concerned about the lessening separation between religion and state in this country).

Both speeches took direct aim at the very constituents that Mr. Lieberman undoubtedly believes he needs in order to realize a stridently pro-Israel policy and one can only imagine his reaction to the clearly inflammatory language by both Foxman and Yoffe and the rather pointed and almost threatening tone of the response from his “friends” at Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, all of which were singled out by Mr. Foxman for criticism.

Both speeches also clearly exposed a very raw nerve in the Jewish community which has existed over these past months and years like a family pariah…always present but rarely spoken of --- never completely comfortable with our seeming acceptance into American culture and thus not wanting to do anything to either draw attention to ourselves or say anything that our “hosts” will find unsettling or distasteful. There are, as Ms Goldberg describes, now cries emanating from the ranks of the both the secular Jewish community, in particular, that the Foxman and Yoffe speeches are going to trigger a new age of anti-semitism in this country and complicate our lives just when it appeared that we had gained so much acceptance.

For Senator Lieberman, the speeches pose a greater threat as they not only raise the specter of anti-semitism, but undermine years of work cultivating relationships with those who may best be able to help him continue to press for policies that ensure Israel’s survival.

The problem, of course, is that the issues and problems identified by Messers Foxman and Yoffe are real and pose a greater threat to this country than the less tangible and more abstract issues that derive from foundering policies abroad. This is a nation of laws, founded upon very concrete principles that have well withstood the test of time. Chief among them is a very fundamental decision to separate religion from government and politics. I am not talking about whether there should be a crèche or a Menorah on government property or whether its okay for the President or any government official to wish someone a Merry Christmas. Such observances hardly pose a threat to anyone’s right to worship (or choose not to worship) in peace and simply distracts from our ability to observe and contest the insidious infiltration of religion into politics and, in turn, into our lives whether it is welcomed or not.

The danger posed by Senator Lieberman is not his support for the Bush administration’s policies toward Iraq, but his seeming willingness to trade that support for a concession to an agenda which threatens our very way of life. Concessions to fear that speaking out, whether against religious intolerance or an intolerable war, has no place in the current debate. Our mandate as citizens requires vigilance and the courage to meet head on those who would seek our silence by concession.