5909150
I did not know until today that White House press briefings are published on whitehouse.gov. This is very good; it allows us to bypass yet one more level of spin and agenda, that of the print and broadcast journalists who compose stories for public consumption. And it is reassuring to know that hard questions are being asked, even if they seem not to make it to the front pages of newspapers.
The most recent briefing contains several important questions and responses that I would like to consider. Emphasis is added.
Q: Ari, it does seem that across the board, on proving that these charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations, [and] banks have links to terror; on proving that bin Laden is behind these acts; on what plans the administration has post whatever movement we make in Afghanistan; the answer is always, “that’s classified, trust us.” Does that really serve the democracy well if all this information on which the government is basing its actions is classified?
MR. [Press Secretary Ari] FLEISCHER: I think the American people get it. I think they understand that as the nation moves from a peacetime footing to a wartime footing, the government’s need to hold certain pieces of information closer is an important need. And I think the American people are accepting and understanding of that. And I think you all will be the judge if you believe the government has gone too far. But I don’t think there’s any indications among the public, certainly, that that is the case.
…
Q: — the Swiss and the Cayman Islands and other governments, places where money is usually — large amounts of money are usually stashed and they have strict rules about giving out information to law enforcement?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, we’re going to continue to work with all nations around the world and we’re going to continue to see what the level of cooperation is with each nation. But make no mistake, what is so different about the executive order the President signed last night is now the United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t take action themselves.
Q: So the U.S. is willing to take action against the Swiss?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t help in this cause.
Q: How will that process work? For instance, you identify one of these groups and you go to a foreign bank and say, we want you to freeze the assets of this organization. Will the U.S. just attest that this is linked to terrorists? Will they supply some sort of detailed information? How do you avoid — how do you do that and avoid using sources and methods?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every case is going to be different. … I can’t be in a position of being the spokesperson for every bank or foreign nation around the world. We’ll see what they do to cooperate. …
Q: No, but I was asking you what the administration intends to do, not what they intend to do — what you intend to do to give them information to convince them? I mean, if someone came to a U.S. bank and said, by the way, lock up this account because we think these guys are terrorists — you would have to go through some legal procedures, you couldn’t just say, oh, the Swiss told [us]–
MR. FLEISCHER: [The Departments of Treasury and State] will be the most appropriate places to go [with these questions].
…
Q: The Treasury — the response from the Treasury Department to that this morning was, “we will act like responsible adults.” I think those were the words he used, even. I mean, you’re really asking people to trust the government on this. And without being more specific, do you intend to be more specific soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what you need to do is talk to these foreign governments and talk to the foreign banks and get their point of view. I think you are surmising what their point of view may or may not be. … [W]e’ll see where it goes over time.
That is quite a bit more informative for me than most news reports. More unsettling, too, as it reveals the efforts Fleischer makes to emit sounds from his mouth without answering the questions. I am not a scholar of history so my depiction may be incorrect, but this seems to be the pattern in our country’s history:
- We limit freedoms (Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, McCarthy’s witch hunt) for what seem to be valid reasons.
- We later decide that the restrictions were excessive, but justifiable given the circumstance.
- Even later, we decide that the restrictions were an abuse of governmental power and that the actions were unjustifiable in any circumstance.
Proofs from history are inherently flawed, but I am not attempting a proof, rather a comparison. When the nation is in a state of hysteria, the sacrifice of our freedoms seems a price we are willing to pay. Spurred by the sense of closeness and trust engendered by foreign hostility, we seem to accept that “the government are our friends”, that “they would do nothing to take advantage of this situation.”
And here arises the logical fallacy I am intending to address: we cannot fundamentally change the state of a system and have any confidence that the system will continue to exhibit the same behaviors. Thus it is (strongly) arguable that the very reason the government seem our friends is that the Constitution explicitly limits their power by delegating responsibility to the people.
The past few weeks seem to indicate America turning a blind eye to many abuses. Racial profiling in the federal investigations, for instance: how many of us think that the FBI agents did not take the passenger manifests and scan them first for Arabic names? “Well, Josh, it seems to have worked,” my hypothetical conversant replies. Well, yes; but enforcing a police state, or creating a dictorship, or executing people for their thoughts are all means to ends as well. We cannot use expedient methods that violate Constitutional principles to accomplish a temporary aim.
“I don’t think there’s any indications among the public” that they resent the government telling us to trust them as benevolent, says Fleischer. I hope he is wrong. And I certainly hope the U.S. government will come to their senses and stop saber-rattling (”The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t help in this cause … We’ll see what they do to cooperate”) against countries that keep a cool head through these events.
Another exchange:
Q: A statement broadcast today, apparently a fax from Osama bin Laden, in which he called on Muslims in Pakistan to “fight the American crusade.” A, does this administration believe the statement is credible, and do you have any reaction to it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there have been so many different statements coming out of the Taliban that I think the only statement that the President is looking for is a statement of action. And the words that were issued today by the Taliban are a chilly reminder about how serious and real this is.
I reread these passages a couple of times to make sure I was reading correctly, and I left the passage intact to show I am not selectively quoting. Since when were missives from Osama bin Laden identical to statements by the Taliban? Oh, right: since the “we will make no distinction” speech. Let us assume that North Korea decides that they are not too keen on letting the U.S. government stomp all over their banking system, and refuse to open financial records to American eyes. Could we envision this exchange at a White House press briefing?
Q: A fax from Osama bin Laden called on Muslims to begin a Jihad against Americans. Do you believe this is a threat?
FLEISCHER: Well, North Korea has been engaging in many threatening behaviors in the past few years, and we are worried about their possession of nuclear weapons. But we are really waiting for an explicit declaration from North Korea before we start taking bin Laden’s threats seriously.
I am trying to figure out what flaw my hypothetical conversation partner would find in my analogy, but I cannot find anything (”bin Laden is on Afghan soil” is insufficient.) I thought the “make no distinction” speech was posturing, a statement of hegemonism, a threatening and imposing way of saying “Help us NOW!”. I did not think the administration would literally make no distinction between the terrorists and harboring states. That just doesn’t make sense.
Email subscription
