I wonder how much smart dissent debate went into tarring and feathering tax collectors?

That scene from John Adams still gives me nightmares.

It was called slavery. I guess nobody's perfect.

Andrew J. Bacevich in an outstanding op-ed piece (see sig), What Bush Hath Wrought, in the Boston Globe today has outlined the challenge Obama faces on national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His latest book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.” Bacevich graduated from West Point in 1969 and served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War, serving in Vietnam from the summer of 1970 to the summer of 1971. Afterwards he held posts in Germany, including the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the United States, and the Persian Gulf up to his retirement from the service with the rank of Colonel in the early 1990s. He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston University in 1998.

On May 13, 2007, Bacevich's son, also named Andrew J. Bacevich, was killed in action in Iraq by a suicide bomber south of Samarra in Salah Ad Din Province.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article
/ALeqM5ihSd23YLVLMLx8tEc6GQXpZ12j7A

U.S. court ruling on Arar enables gov't to send foreigners to torture, says lawyer

"NEW YORK — A United States appeals court decision upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit from Canadian Maher Arar essentially enables the U.S. government to send foreigners to be tortured, a lawyer with a human rights group representing Arar said Monday.

It means that the U.S. can do to anyone what they did to Maher," said Maria LaHood, a senior attorney with the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

"They can do it to anyone, to any foreign citizen, and use the immigration process as a guise, basically, to send someone to be tortured."

Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian birth, was stopped by U.S. officials at JFK Airport in New York City as he returned to Canada from a holiday abroad in 2002.

Arar was labelled a member of al-Qaida and deported to his native Syria even though he was travelling on a Canadian passport and had insisted he wanted to go home to Canada.

He was eventually released without charges and he returned to Canada, where a judicial inquiry cleared him of any terrorist links and Ottawa awarded him compensation of $10.5 million.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York ruled Monday that Arar's claim that it was a violation of due process to send him to Syria could not be heard in federal court. The court concluded that adjudicating the claims would interfere with sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security.

"It's a quite sweeping and reprehensible opinion," said LaHood. "It's quite sweeping in how much deference it gives to the U.S. government." [...]

------------

Seems that we all should forget whatever our civics teacher told us about our "rights" as she did not know what she was talking about.

I wonder if Obama's campaign has polling data that suggests enough doubt among the electorate in swing states about Obama's "toughness" on national security issues that they are willing to risk any fallout from the resulting "character" issue as the lesser of two evils.

This would be unfortunate. One reason I think so much animus and confusion has been stirred up in such a short period of time is that people, while they may be passionate about a few issues, judge their chosen candidates by the same standards they use for their best friends and auto mechanics: basic competence, certainly, but most critically personal character. With someone we deeply trust, even minor inconsistencies can spark unease: an excuse that doesn't sound quite right, a bill that looks tricked up, a position that rings false can instantly inflame suspicion. Where there is a history of past betrayals - by other friends, other mechanics, other politicians - the fierce will to believe goes to war with our deepest fears.

By setting the "character" bar so high this year, and making himself and his personal story a central focus of his campaign, Obama deserves the credit - or blame - for the intensity of his criticism. By making his personal story central to his campaign, by calling others to follow in his footsteps, by running so explicitly against business as usual, he is holding himself up as a exemplar and template for what public service means and how the business of politics should be conducted, even what kind of life should be lived.

A commenter mentioned the danger of a politician becoming fixed in public positions he then feels compelled to defend. While true, Obama, unlike most traditional politicians, has already committed himself in essence to being, not just the candidate of good government, but the candidate of goodness itself. This gives him greater latitude for operating outside of any fixed ideology, while imposing a much heavier burden on him personally: he must be seen to embody what he claims to represent, or he risks not just desertion but outrage. When Obama says he doesn't cower, and that he welcomes a national security debate with McCain, he has to show us, not tell us, that he means it. No poll result can change the person he has already led us to believe he is. No endorsement or vice-presidential selection can possibly make us think he is as good as he claims to be. Only his tough choices and exemplary conduct can demonstrate that.

Both John Kerry and Al Gore have written about their own regrets on the campaign trail. Central to both tales is a rueful admission of self-betrayal. Both men wish that in the heat of the moment they had listened to themselves, and taken the counsel of their own intuition over the conventional advice of hired hands.

Barack Obama should hearken to these war stories, and remember the price of ignoring the admonitions of his closest and most reliable guide.