The Security and Peace Institute held an excellent seminar on this topic today in New York City. The most provocative and sobering part of the day was a panel discussion on the tension between the war on terror and the protection of civil liberties. Richard Ben-Veniste, late of 9/11 Commission fame, laid out how easy it is for a government to use fear to lure people into giving up their freedoms voluntarily to a point where there is no reclaiming them. He ended with this quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
It was a statement by Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials. Next up was former Congressman Mickey Edwards, a conservative Republican who put the onus squarely on the Congress to stand up for civil liberties in the face of executive overreach.
Then Professor Jenny Martinez of Stanford laid out four imperatives for a detention regime in a democracy: 1) a law governing detentions; 2) a mechanism for judicial review of the application of the law; 3) a set of human rights standards applied to detainees; 4) transparency so that the public and the media can monitor how the system works. The U.S. has none of this (we do have a law governing detentions, the U.S. constitution, but by declaring some detainees "enemy combatants" the government has argued that constitutional protections and habeas corpus do not apply - the Supreme Court disagrees, but this is one area where its far from certain which branch will get the last word in practice).
Professor Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University, whose ouster as the UN's Expert on human rights in Afghanistan is discussed here, then weighed in to say that he differed from the other 3 panelists only in his view that the Administration is not well-intended when it comes to preserving civil liberties. He gave a host of examples from his work in Afghanistan, including the U.S.'s practice of extraordinary rendition, which means turning over detainees for interrogation in countries that we know practice torure.
My question to the panel was how do we build a political constituency to fight against all this? Detainees are a voiceless population. The media has very limited access to what's happening at Guantanamo, much less detention facilities that the U.S. maintains in Afghanistan and Iraq (moreover, after the Newsweek debacle, they will likely be more circumspect in what they report).
The panel's reply was that there's a way to make the case to the American people that the war on terror can be fought effectively without resorting to these tactics. That's true, but until they are detaining our children, parents, and friends, there will be no pressing reason for ordinary people to demand the less repressive alternative.
The same point, of course, is true relative to so many issues we talk about here. We are confounded by how to get the broader public to understand the ill-consequences of the U.S.'s approach in Iraq, its manipulation of intelligence, its high-handedness at the UN and other multilateral forums, its misuse of the military.
You might think that the riots in the Muslim world last week would be a wake up call about the resentment caused by US detention practices, but rather than taking a hard look at what's behind the reaction, the Administration blames it all on Newsweek.
What will it take to turn this around? This may be naive, but I believe that bit by bit the American public is waking up to the painful boomerang effect of many of Bush's policies.
They worry that we'll soon learn that the Koran incident actually did happen. They know that, based on everything reported about Guantanamo, Muslims had reason to believe it even if it wasn't true. They don't want to live in a world where America's standing is withering like a leaf in winter.
They see the contradiction between Bush's stand for Sunni minority rights in the Iraqi government, and his trammeling of minority rights in the U.S. Congress back home.
They were fearful enough to bury all these misgivings for a while, but not forever.