- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
At what point in time did America shift to acceptance of “only following orders”? I mean, the campy “I vas only following ze orders” was always, always a goofball lampoon response to such a suggested excuse… until when? Why do today's Beltway "pundits" think it's persuasive or even morally acceptable to say otherwise now?
Even Hollywood depictions of governmental illegality have generally and consistently “toed the line” of the Rule of Law. In A Few Good Men, the impassioned speech of Col. Jessop (“you want me on that wall/you need me on that wall/you can’t handle the truth!) ends up with him arrested for the homicide his illegal order caused. In the Bourne movies, the villain isn’t offed, Jason Bourne and the CIA outsider turn the bad guys over to Congress for hearings. And in The West Wing, the President actually orders the assassination of a “clearly bad” terrorist dude – but the story line is that all involved in the decision acknowledge that if it becomes public knowledge, they will be going to jail; they implicitly make the decision that they will take that rap if they get caught, because they believe it is the right, albeit illegal, action to take. Where are such principles -- acceptance of Law as important and accountability as necessary -- in today’s debate?
It certainly seems that these “no remorse/no accountability” arguments we are hearing now have their sole origin in the pathetic presumption that “9/11 changed everything”. But if by “changed everything”, it is meant to be suggested that this includes the core principles of this country – the Rule of Law, the allocation of powers and the government's rights and obligations provided in the United States Constitution, the adherence to principles of international treaties governing war crimes – then, as recently-nominated OLC chief Dawn Johnson so eloquently expressed in the video clip being circulated this week, the terrorists have won and we have lost.
The reality is that while 9/11 may have gotten the Bush Administration’s attention, nothing in the run-up to the 9/11 disaster was the “fault” of “defects” in our system of government. Quite simply, the Bush Administration ignored plenty of existing intelligence, all obtained without torture or massive illegal wiretapping or suspension of habeas corpus or extraordinary renditions to torturing partners. The fact that the intelligence was ignored does not justify jettisoning the existing frameworks, purely and simply. Now we are supposed to listen to how the Bush Administration has “kept us safe since 9/11” and that is supposed to serve as a justification for jettisoning the structure of our freedoms and an excuse for flagrantly and undeniably illegal actions by Bush and those following Bush’s illegal orders?
Where would we be if Germany’s response to the Allied firebombing of Dresden had been to torture every POW to death? Do we really advocate a right to torture – or to ignore the United States Constitution and statutes declaring warrantless wiretapping to be a felony -- because two buildings in New York were destroyed in a sneak attack? And that nobody involved in such conduct is subject to the Rule of Law, not even to the point of having to explain why their personal conduct should be punished less harshly because their role in the process was demanded by a superior officer?
Thank you, Glenn, for laying out the framework of the fundamental principles of civilized society that our “leader class” is currently so intent upon defiling. There is no excuse for offering such excuses, and quoting their arguments next to the text of such principles ought to shame and humiliate any pundit or “Serious” person willing to advocate such vile and cowardly excuses.
