Finding Our Moral Conscience
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on August 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C Johnson
If I could be king for a day I would like to compel George Bush and Dick Cheney to watch Stanley Kramer’s 1961 masterpiece, Judgment at Nuremberg. The truths in this movie would probably torture their souls, at least I hope so, and force them to reexamine their standard practice of justifying inhuman immoral conduct in the pursuit of national security. Their willingness to justify torture and secret detention, all in the name of protecting the “Homeland”, is neither new nor unique.
I hesitate to pull out the Nazi card but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck. While I am not accusing Bush or Cheney of committing crimes on the scale of Hitler’s Germany, I am saying they have started this country down the slippery slope that produces the kind of evil displayed by the Nazis. This point is driven home during an exchange at the end of the movie between the German Jurist, Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster), and Judge Dan Haywood (portrayed by Spencer Tracy). Janning tries to persuade Haywood that he knew nothing of the final solution:
Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it “came to that” the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.
There are men, women, and children dead in Iraq, who were innocent of any crime, because of George Bush and Dick Cheney. This point is driven home in the following soliloquy by Spencer Tracy, who wrestles with the seeming contradiction of why civilized, ostensibly moral folks, do reprehensible things. As you watch this clip think of Alberto Gonzales and former Justice Department official John Yoo, who drafted the memo justifying the use of torture.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=GHLtTRvdZrk[/youtube]
I would also encourage you to take time and read the review written by UCLA law professor Michael Asimow. Asimow’s observations remind us that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not just a fool and a pathetic mediocrity. Gonzales is the kind of man who has allowed his loyalty to a man to blind him to the morality of the law. Asimow writes:
The questions raised by Judgment at Nuremberg go to the core of what we do and what we are. What does it mean to be a lawyer, professor, or judge? Do we believe in positivism, natural law, legal realism? What do those philosophies require when one is a participant in the Nazi legal system? What if many judges had resisted the Nazis instead of pandering to them? Could the Holocaust have been prevented?
When should we follow the law and when should we resist it or twist it? When must a judge resign rather than carry out an immoral law? How about laws that require a life sentence for stealing a box of Pampers (like California’s three-strike law) or decades in prison for trivial drug offenses (like the federal law on crack cocaine)—are these as wicked and illegitimate as the German blood protection law? Every judge, lawyer, law student and law professor should see Judgment at Nuremberg. If you saw it years ago, see it again.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
That was quite the movie, I saw it a couple of months ago. And, while far too appropriate in this debate, I have no doubt whatever that the WH and its enablers would cherry-pick stuff to support their conclusion. These clown will never heed a lesson that doesn’t match their pre-existing thoughtlines.
Even at end in the movie, Janning knew getting the book thrown at him was indeed the right ruling.
The soulless will never experience torture of the soul.
The most disgusting aspect found in reflecting on the American political class at this point is that, regardless of party, the political class has created an irreparably damaging situation for the US, for the lands we call Iraq, and for the Greater Middle East in general. Egregious, tragic, and catastrophic damage has been done. And the political class simply tries to evade accountability for this by creating a nonsensical and meaningless “debate” at home about illusory issues, for the purposes of harnessing the public hearts and minds in yet another meaningless national election.
The big question is not whether or not Bush or Cheney belong in a Nuremberg situation; the question in truth is “Who amongst the American political class, at this juncture, does NOT belong in a Nuremburg situation.”
Guilty, they almost all are, accountable, none of them ever will be, and absorbing the pain and disaster are an unconceivably large number of suffering and frequently impoverished individuals who simply never had a say in the matter.
There is no mechanism in our “democracy” at this juncture that can provide accountability for all those who need it. Injustice (and incompetence, profound incompetence) have ruled the day.
[...] Wesley Clark Finding Our Moral Conscience » This article link is from an article posted at NO QUARTER on Monday, August 20, 2007 This article contains copywritten material. Please click on the "View Original Article" link below to view the article on the author’s site. article link Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at NO QUARTER » 10 Most Recent News Articles About George W Bush [...]
Marlon Brando had a good line in “The Young Lions” (1958). He played a young German officer who starts out as an enthusiastic Nazi but becomes disillusioned at the end of the war. Near the end of the film he gets separated from his unit and wanders into a German Police Station, where he’s digusted by the screams of a man being tortured by the Gestapo. He leaves with a Parthian shot:
“I do not think it’s possible to remake the world from the basement of this dirty little police station.”
Much the same caveat applies to the Busheviks. Democracy implies the rule of law, and should be spread through example and persuasion. Instead the Busheviks attempt to apply the old Nazi slogan, “Be my brother or I’ll bash in your head.”
I think that if we are ever to restore the rule of law in this country and get rid of the notion of the unitary executive, we’ll have to have some sort of Nuremberg Trials. Methinks it’s pretty much the only way to restore our credibility in the world. Is Spandau Prison still operational? Impeachment hearings today, war crimes tribunals tomorrow.
Another great post, Larry.
Dee, here’s what Justice Robert Jackson had to say at the Nuremburg trials:
“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.”
One can hpoe, can’t one?
I wrote this in the comments to my essay “He’ll Always Be Abu To Me”:
Besides Bush and Cheney, I think Gonzalez is the one most ressponsible for what’s happened at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. It certainly appears that he never hesitated to do the wrong thing, even though he clearly had a choice. Whether that was due to personal loyalty or just some lust for power is irrelevant to me. The man is utterly despicable.
And none of those guys who went on trial at Nuremburg was the least bit sorry for anything he’d done. Oh, sure, Speer said he was and that he’d been sadly deluded, but he was almost surely faking it, and anyhow he was the only one.
None of our top evil-doers have shown any inclination to acknowledge the slightest bit of guilt. Last week I received one of those chain emails which compared peaceful Muslims to the “good” Germans who didn’t resist Nazism and claimed that all Islam is currently being led by radical fanatics. The whole thing was filled with ridiculous, reprehensible stuff. I feel like the entire country between two looking-glass sets of perceptions of reality. We view the same events but have entirely separate interpretations and moral evaluations. As Dee Loralei says above, we’re no longer governed by the rule of law, but we also don’t agree on how to get back.
You know, it really freaked out my 7th grade history teacher when I checked out Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. I found out she was concerned I would want to be like a Nazi or something instead of what really had me reading. WWII was a frequent motif in movies I would see on TV, Big Red One, Patton, and stories about Vietnam and Korea were also very impressionable on a boy like me. They sell us army men, and Rambo all in one scoop. I even remember buying the Rambo knife from the back of the Sunday paper insert.
But this book RFTR was amazing to help me get a root understanding of what is misunderstood about terror creeping up from within, the “never happen here” myth.
Now that I’m older I am aware of why real historians consider Shirer’s book to be fairly pedestrian as a history book, but his work is an opening to moral equivalency lies we tell ourselves about what can happen in a “civilized country”.
What is a Good German?
I do know a little of what it means to blindly believe in my country. I was a teen in Reagan’s terms and was caught up the “Red Dawn” beliefs of the Russians. If they told me that a Russian was tortured to keep us from being nuked by the Rushkies, then I’d not have been equipped to question it because of what I was bought into. But thank god, yahweh, or bob dobbs, that we grow up and open our eyes.
This clip is a perfect reminder of what Good Germans will let happen with their eyes closed. Thanks again to Larry for the perspective.
You beat me by a year. I read Shrier in 8th grade and did a book report. I’m not sure there are many middle schoolers these days taking on such a weighty tome. But seventh grade? You must be a major brainiac.
I’ve been curious about symbols my whole life. Got started on Bullfinch’s Mythology, Joseph Campbell, and then saw the movie, “The Late Great Planet Earth” on an independent channel around 80 or so. (that channel owned by Fox now). Hal Lindsey’s little docugandarama scared the piss out of me basically. It didn’t take long to get over that.
At the same time though, while we didn’t have The History Channel, we did have PBS and the late movies, John Wayne, big icon stuff, Audy Murphey is huge here, so Big Red One, etc. Always from the America’s glorious position. And maybe that’s how History really is.
But trying to make Vietnam smell like roses when it smelled like shit confused kids my age who had little knowledge of the world around them. I wasn’t a braniac, except for loving history and world studies. I sucked at math, kept asking what the hell Pi was.
Shakespeare wrote all the stories, but how in the hell 6 million Jewish people are killed makes no sense to a kid about 14 who just lost his dad and is just fittin in. Seems worth the study, no?
Why do we kill each other in the end? It makes no freaking sense.
I learned to quit fighting when I was finally taught how to defend myself. When will these chickenhawks be shown the light?
Braniac? wouldn’t be worth it anyway, still can’t figure out how to get all us on the good page. But, I still got hope in some good people. Lots of them, lots and lots.
You’re pretty sharp yourself. Bunch of ya. Semper fi.
oh, one more thing, merit to the whole point.
The teacher calmed down only after I pointed out several archeotypes, I don’t know that I called them archeotypes at the time of course, but signs of changes, reasons why small men manipulate and play upon prejudice. I had just started living with a man who is the worst racist i’ve personally ever known. My father was quite a different man, so it was a stark shift. It didn’t last forever but it sucked while it did.
The teacher got cool and asked me questions about these motifs and changes, suggested that I come talk to her if I had anything about it I wanted to discuss further. I never did, but she didn’t have that tension either. What puzzled me was why was it in the Library, that compendium of knowledge bibliotecha…and then get freaky when you read it.
They’re still doing it to them too. I have kids now in school, and they are learning base level teaching on History with no hint of Socrates touch. My kids are taught to ask questions and accept no shallow conclusions.
best to you
I have too agree with with Larry. All the signs of what our country has become have been evident for a long time and no one, and I mean absolutely no one spoke up and tried to stop it.
The Democrats are just as guilty and are all complicit now in War Crimes. As is all who voted to continue torture, grant immunity for War Crimes to those who committed them under the American War Crimes Act and the stripping of Habeas Corpus out of our Constitution while giving the President the right to label American Citizens Enemy Combatants.
The passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes them complicit. They knew what they were passing and still refused to filibuster it. They are all War Criminals in my eyes. Both under American Law and International Law {Geneva Conventions}.
I think that we have come too far to turn our country around at this time in our History. I also believe that we will not have elections in 2008 since War with Iran is just around the corner and no one will be able to rein in this madman running our country. Just as no one in the German Legislature was able to rein in Hitler.
He will declare Martial Law and execute Executive Order for the new COG putting the congress and judicial system under his control, while suspending elections during a time of War.
We also now will probably face China and Russia backing Iran and we could very well see mushroom clouds over many of our cities. If he don’t destroy the world with his madness he will leave it in shambles before he is removed from power.
I long for the day Bush and the rest of his administration will sit in the court of the Hague for their Crimes Against Humanity and all the other War Crimes they have committed. And believe me that day will not be soon enough.
End of rant. I’m sorry but I feel that our country is too important not to speak out when one sees where this administration is taking it as it leads it down the path of destruction.
God Bless.
I think Bush/Cheney would not hesitate to suspend elections, declare martial law, put a lot of people in concentration camps, etc., if they are of the opinion that they can effectively execute such a take-over. But can they?
A new aggressive, criminal war launched by Bush/Cheney against Iran probably would not be the peg upon which they would hang their attempt to impose a dictatorship. It will take attacks within the borders of the United States.
Elections are conducted by States at local levels. I don’t see how Bush/Cheney can field the number of people it would take to close down all voting places in the US. (Can you imagine the response to the drones and incompetents who apprently staff the Dept. of Fatherland Security fanning out over the United States, and telling local elected and election officials that they cannot have elections for county commissioners, city councils, and local school boards?) Suspending the federal elections would mean suspending local and state elections, also. And I can almost be positive that attempts to close many of those places would be violently resisted. It is more likely that Bush/Cheney would do something like arrest all or a majority of the Electoral College, so that a Presidential vote cannot be counted. As far as I know, the Constitution does not address a situation in which the Electoral College cannot meet and/or cannot cast its votes. Is there legislation which addresses such a situation?
This is a huge Country. An attack on a single particular place, or even on a few places, would not bring the entire Nation to the ground. There would be no need for martial law on a national scale, even though there may in fact be a need for it locally.
I grant you, I am thinking along rational lines here, while Bush/Cheney would not necessarily be thinking in a like manner.
So, what I would like to hear from you are your thoughts, speculation included, as to how Bush/Cheney would rationalize the suspension of elections and the institution of martial law nation-wide, and how they would implement those decisions.
Thank you for your response.
I tend to believe that Bush/Cheney can get away with what the heck ever they want to. They have already repealed Habeas Corpus and the Geneva and Hague Conventions. We have lost Fourth and Fifth Amendment freedoms. The National Guard going door to door in post-Katrina New Orleans confiscating the weapons of law abiding citizens, with no one being held to account, has shown the administrations position on the Second Amendment.
As far as suspending elections. Do they care who is gonna be elected at the local level? Hell no! We got the Unitary Executive “decider guy” and the fourth branch of government “Vice decider guy”. The state and local elected officials will become mere pawns in the game. Who cares what they think? If they don’t toe the line, there’s a nice internment facility run by Haliburton waiting for them.
All done in the name of liberty.
Well, the Fourth Amendment’s protections were pretty much lost during the War On Drugs. (Which, by the way, we don’t hear much of anymore. I guess we won it.)
Still, I really would like to see some thoughtful discussion of just how Bush/Cheney would go about doing it. Make an announcement on the Bill O’Reilly Show? Nail plywood over the doors to the Senate and House? Arrest the ringleaders of the Democratic Party? Just how?
Keep in mind that a huge portion of the National Guard is not available for service within the US. Would they use mercenaries? Do you think all the Bubbas and the armed left-wing radicals are going to go quietly at the demand of hired thugs? And how many hired thugs would it take to suspend all elections?
Your comment about the National Guard seizing weapons in the aftermath of Katrina is interesting. I had not heard this and would like to know more. Just my own opinion, of course, but the disaster brought on by Katrina (and the incompetence of George Bush), is just the kind of thing that could justify the most scrupulous of Presidents to declare martial law in a particular area of the country. Wonder why Busheney did not do that….
Doran, In the aftermath of Katrina, Police Supervisor Eddie Compass III declared that no civilians were to be armed. NO Police and the National Guard, who was under the command of Gen Honore IIRC, went door to door confiscating weapons. Meanwhile, hired guns from Blackwater, under government contract, were in town protecting some of the homes in the “high rent” neighborhoods.
Both ABC News and Fox broadcast stories about the gun confiscation. Check this link http://www.sdgo.org/alertarchive/2005_Dec20.htm
It will direct you to the videos.
Good Day!
Excellent post Larry, and great comments here as well.
I have long wondered what could have been done by citizens of Germany to prevent Hitler’s horror. What lessons can we learn to prevent this attrocity, or another like it (Iraq??), in the future… Just this past week, I read again on that topic:
it is long, but very informative, on how average germans became unwitting accomplises. The similarities to our own situation are very striking, and right on topic with this post. Thank you once again Larry, for not being afraid to speak the truth, even when it is ugly…
I think we need to Impeach, and throw out the residents of the executive mansions, then Indict every one of bushies minions, and send them to a trial before the same court that tried SH for the crimes he was found guilty of commiting. At least they should have the same punishment, since we are talking about CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY as well as TREASON… I’ll volunteer to help them form their final prayers…
Larry a soundly informative piece as usual. Thankyou.
I think I mentioned before that my father was a weapons salesman for the good guys years back, when we were told there was a raging cold war going on. Or rather everyone except President Ford seemed to be of that opinion. How right Ford turned out to be prophetically. My father sold weapons for the good guys on the the basis of the cold war. His premise was that nukes were purely symbolic and a good thing as they acted as a deterent. The bullshit worked with his peers, but I chased him to the grave with the notion that he might be wrong. Fortunately he didn’t last long enough for me to prove him wrong.
Really the World changed with the desimation of Dresden and Hamburg. The whole notion of colateral damage began. It was ok to bomb 10,000’s, 100,000’s of civilians on the pretext there was a legitimate target - industrial, military, UFO….whatever. Colateral damage reached a pinnacle with Hiroshima and Nagasaki which at best were unnecessary. There has been no ceasation of the colateral damage standard, arguably the fault of the Nazi V1 & V2 (in particular) attacks on the UK. Iraq is another example of how war does not impact or has limited impact on military people, but has devestating effect on the civilian populations who square up as lambs to the slaughter. And we have seen a vision with Iran that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not enough. Those who itch to play with their menacing toys are planning doomsday once again.
Therein is the issue Larry. It is not Nuremburg. It is not the punishment of wrong doers, it is the design of an effective solution to stop the cycle continuing. There is the problem. Colateral damage is now good war policy. It must cease if humanity intends to survive.
It looks as though Bush has some support from those who you refer to as “Those who itch to play with their menacing toys are planning doomsday once again.”
From
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The entire article by Mr Atkinson is posted by digby at: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/hail-caesar-by-digby-ive-been-getting.html
greatdogs,
I love it when neocon hacks try to draw political analogies with selective memory. Julius Caesar was assassinated, and the reign of the Roman Emperors began regular periods of civil war! If Bush can declare himself Emperor, why not the Commanding General of the Fourth Army or whatever? No doubt the guy would call that survival of the fittest. What a full mooner!
Montag,
I agree with your recollection of history. The part of the wingnuts post that got me was how Bush should nuke the Middle East and then we would just go over and get the oil and whatever else we wanted. Yeah, fur sure! How many years before any human being could set foot in the area due to the radiation?
Yea, It bothered me they were saying to dump democracy here, but it appalled me they were saying commit genocide and nuclear holocaust there and replace Iraqis with Americans…… My guess those Americans would be people who spoke out against this administration… Where wou;d we go? We couldn’t escape to another Middle-Eastern country and beg them to take pity on od//// all they would see was that we were the hated. dreaded Americans and they’d kill and torture us.
For what it’s worth I don’t necessarily blame Bush, well for anything other than incompetence. It happened long before him.
I think I have now worked out the sick excuse for “morality” that those who have done this have used to jusify their conscience (nothing you will read in your tabloids). If any are watching, you will not be rewarded in the afterlife, so make sure you don’t pass too quick.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18061.htm
don’t know why my link didn’t work in last post…
The first place to do this is through our allies.
The media schills on Murdoch turf in the UK & Australia, the Hill & Knowlton types.
The doughy pantload Jonah Goldberg. He lives in Canada. They’re party to Geneva? What a perfect example he’d be. Heaven forbid he leave Canada and return to the USA fleeing extradition for Nuremberg precedence.
He’d probably have to quit smoking pot all the time. Pity that LBJ’s bastard would have to go so grave a length as that. The right wing schadenfreude theme would be forced to undergo full retreat. An undisclosed bunker awaits, one much like the echo chamber that is Goldberg’s media voice.
Larry, another great movie to watch that’s currently being run on Cinemax is “All The President’s Men.”
Everytime I watch it, I’m reminded of the Bush administration.
Many of the statements made in “All The President’s Men” about Richard Nixon and other top officials in his corrupt administration are chillingly familiar when viewed in the context of what the current Bush administration has been guilty of doing, especially in regards to the Justice Department and our intelligence agencies.
With only one difference that I can tell.
Bush and his gang have gone far beyond what Nixon did to the executive branch, with the Bushites conducting a coordinated attack on the separation of powers, checks and balances, and even on the U.S. Constitution itself, as well as the Bill of Rights…essentially attacking the very foundations of our democracy. Nixon, to his credit, didn’t even go that far.
I’m not as kind as you are Larry. I’ve been calling them ‘neonazicons’ for some time because their pattern is identical to what the nazis did to enslave the masses in Germany to propaganda bullshit. When I was overseas I studied the Nurenburg War Crimes documents and from what I recall, the modus operandi is identical including the German people’s blatantly ignoring of reality and facts.
So who would play Spencer’s role? Muqtada might fill the bill.
To have another Nuremburg, someone would have to have a nation shattering defeat. Judges from the USSR, GB, FRA and the USA sat on the banc at Nuremburg. Would it be judges from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and Afghanistan sitting on the new banc?
Life in Prison, years and years on the public dole. Life in Prison for Madeline Albright? 500,000 children dead over the lifetime of the Iraqi sanctions traded for the paltry few remaining years of her dreadful life? 600,000 Iraqis killed by American combat actions, fair trade for the remaining years of Colin Powell’s life and James Yoo’s and a half a dozen other enablers and justifiers and cheerleaders. Our Lord Haw Haws and Tokyo Roses doing life without parole, making small rocks out of large rocks. Remember that the ones responsible for Germany escaped the punishments, escaped the judgements, as always the remora paid a wee bit and the sharks went on their merry ways.
All the fine sounding bloviation the film writers tranferred to Spencer’s mouth don’t change a thing; don’t mean a thing; don’t signify a thing in today’s world. The victors sat in judgement over the defeated and meted out as they saw fit. It has always been thus and it will always be thus.
Since Nuremburg, there have been three nation supported genocides, a dozen aggressive wars, uncounted small wars and local massacres. Judged by its efficacy, the Nuremburg Tribunal was a bust.
PrchrLady,
There was a German resistance, such as the attempt to assassinate Hitler. But I believe there were too few of them and they tended to be in small, isolated groups that weren’t as coordinated as the French resistance, say.
It’s funny, because in some ways we could compare the German resistance to the American anti-Bushie one. There was an element of the German intelligence and military community that was opposed to Hitler. But Hitler had neutered the press and media and a majority of the public supported Hitler, which made it impossible for the opposition to organize and oppose him publicly. Plus, the opposition couldn’t agree on a coherent message. For example: Some only opposed Hitler’s plan to lead Germany into a world war, but they agreed with Hitler’s other policies. World leaders, such as Neville Chamberlain, also acquiesced to Hitler and emboldened him as a result. We could compare that appeasement to the way other countries are afraid to challenge the US.
Excellent post Larry, thank you.
Judgment at Nuremberg might be a bit too subtle for middle Americans. They’d be waiting for Shatner to tear his shirt and Beam Up.
We must be careful to avoid equating Nazis with Fascists. HUGE DIF. We have Fascism in this country now, but we don’t yet have Nazis. Yet.
What do you mean Mudkitty? There are similarities between the two.
There was a pretty decent made-for-TV movie made in 1968 called, “Shadow On The Land,” that took place in a future Fascist U.S. Even decades later I can remember it. Like most movies of this kind it centered around a “McGuffin,” a plot device to hang the story on. In this case it’s a plan by the Regime to stamp out what little freedom remained by staging a fake Resistance attack on a power station during the Christmas holidays, triggering a domino power outage accross Southern Calfornia. This will give The Leader the excuse to announce the newest Draconian measures in his Christmas Address to the nation.
The main protagonists are two Resistance moles within the Internal Security Force (our homegrown Gestapo), an officer and his driver. They have to find out what the secret is and alert the Resistance in time to stop it. The chit-chat between the two is effective in explaining what has happened. The officer says that everyone with a house and a two-car garage was willing to give up their freedom in order to keep what they had, or so they were told.
Some of the images are striking. A Stormtrooper Xing out the Constitution with a paintbrush begins the movie! A Resistance raid on an ISF concentration camp ends with dying Resistance members lowering the totalitarian ISF Flag and partially raising the democratic U.S. Flag in a last gesture of defiance. The ISF symbol itself, a sinister spread eagle with “ISF” on it. The life-and-death struggle taking place while surrounded by Christmas decorations–as if nothing has changed.
I thought John Forsythe was particularly effective as the ISF General, with perhaps the best line in the movie. As the wounded Resistance mole/ISF officer reports to him that the rest of his ISF Strike Force is dead and that the entire power plant scheme has ended in a stinky fisco for which he thinks the General is responsible, Forsythe manages to keep it all in perspective. “You’re bleeding on my desk,” he chides the angry man.
Not a great film by any means, but an interesting one. The scheme is foiled by ordinary individuals helping the Resistance because it’s the right thing to do. In a veiled warning the Resistance mole tells the ISF General about the Greek Hero Jason, who planted the Hydra’s teeth in a field only to have each tooth instantly grow into an armed soldier. Each time Jason killed one of them another would spring up in his place . . . and another . . . and another . . . and another . . .
I still prefered “Linda Lovelace for President”!!!
The great american fable that ordinary people will overcome apathy.
“The right thing to do” would that be “In your heart you know he’s right.” ” Yeah far right.” To know the right thing to do is easy. Let Joe Do It. I am reminded that just a few months ago, American troops were “detaining” the families of members of the “Deck of Cards” in Iraq. It would be easy to create a deck of cards for the USA. Do you really think that American boys and girls in thrall to the DHS or the CIA or the USA would have any more moral compunctions about “detaining” your wives and children in the USA than they had about “detaining” the families of Iraqis over there?
Ordinary folk obey and get paid. Bullshit fantasy folk from bad novels and worse tv defeat evil by their righteous love of each other and all the things that are good…or by swords and magic spells.
Former CIA Bob Baer was on Faux News today saying the administration will probably attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and nuke sites within 6 months.
I sure hope he’s wrong! If not, Iran will be the second nation we’ve attacked, which hasn’t attacked us. We’ll be broadening the conflict to the region, providing al Qaeda with more excuses to exist and boosting their recruitment, and we’ll be committing another war crime. It’s against international law, or it used to be, to attack a nation that hasn’t attacked you and isn’t even thinking about it. You can bet Iranian casualties won’t be limited to the Revolutionary Guard, but will include innocent people.
Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis. SC Justice Scalia’s father, for example, was a member of the American Fascists…even during WW2.
Mudkitty,
I realize there are differences, but not sure which differences you’re highlighting?
Didn’t know that about Scalia’s father, but it doesn’t surprise me. W’s grandfather, Prescott, was in business with the Nazis. Hate to imply generational complicity, except that the W apple didn’t fall far from that tree.
So Bush and the Democrats [Levin, Clinton] are trying to shift blame to Maliki—just in case the surge fails—they’re calling to replace Maliki. Even though Bush, Levin, Clinton et al are now saying that the surge is working. Their point being that if we stay, it’ll be in spite of our military “success” and due to the Iraqis’ political failure.
This is where I want to scream at the Dems: Oppose the war, damn-it, and withdraw all our troops! What is their problem? They want to play it politically safe? We’re talking lives here.
“The truths in this movie would probably torture their souls”
From The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, currently DSM-IV-TR), a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders,
Anti-Social Personality Disorder
#7: Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Quacking like a duck indeed.
If Larry could be KFAD the best he could come up with would be to “force” two people to watch a 46 year old movie. What would Larry do for the other 22.5 hours in that day? Ain’t it always the way of the statist, force and more force; tax and more tax.
Thanks for the post, Larry. I’ve loved JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG since it first came out, and have re-visted it periodically over the years. It always seemed to me to embody the notion of America as the preeminent moral leader in the world, and has served (to me, anyway) as a touchstone of American values and integrity.
It was sad to realize, the last time I watched the movie, that thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney, none of this is true any longer. It seemed to me on this recent viewing that the movie addressed morality from the point of view of a country that no longer exists. Then, we were the good guys, with a clear moral prerogative. Bush and Cheney have robbed us of that, and now we are, to one extent or another, Ernst Janning–or, perhaps, the frightened servant couple in the movie who keep insisting, “We never knew, none of us knew about the camps.” Now, however, we know. Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article on renditions tells us; the photographs from Abu Ghraib tell us. We can’t say ‘we didn’t know.’
It’s nearly intolerable to watch the Democrats fumbling with a response to the crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration. War crimes have been committed; orders have been issued, signed by people still in power, but held in the deepest secrecy at least partly because of war-crimes implications.
I wonder, since our politicians don’t seem to have the spine for it, if the rest of the civilized world will insist on an accounting from us about our war criminals. I wonder, indeed, if someday, someone will make a “Judgment at Nuremberg” about US.
The Nuremberg Prosecutor, I think his name is Jackson called both Sadam Husein and Bush war criminals and said they should both be prosecuted.
*Newflash”: Self-appointed Emperor (little) Johnny Howard (Australian PM & unrepentent Bushite) staffers caught “tampering with wikipedia”.
Be careful what you read! Most Australians have a speech impedement that prohibits the pronounciation of ll’s
I’ve seen Judgement several times and recently. I read Asimow’s point as we are already pretty far down the slippery slope. It takes an understanding of social (mass) psychology to fathom our failures to adhere to our Constitutional principles. GWB and his crime syndicate have plenty of enablers, the unfinformed quiescent folk of ordinary life. WE, who are the consumers of the ever expanding corporate media. Clueless we are, loyal to our benefactors first and averse to any perceived threat to our personal security. We click right into the breech when the spector of collective threat is raised. It’s oh so natural! Sadly, the world is leaving America behind in the forward struggle to fashion civil societies that will withstand the pressures of population and technology.