One of your public statements since you left office certainly certain suggests you saw something amiss in that system of public warnings. "More often than not," you've been quoted as saying, "we were the least inclined to raise [the threat level]. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment, sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on alert. There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it. And we said, 'For that?'"
But your saying that you didn't see a good reason for the alert is not the same as your telling the country about a perceptible bad reason behind it. So, if you told us all you know, would the full truth confirm to the country that the Bush people used the raising of the threat level for their own political purposes?
How about the threat system itself: was it legitimate? After all, as the American people discovered, there wasn't really anything that the ordinary citizen could do with the information that the threat had become greater, more immediate. In fact, we were told not to stop going about our ordinary business. And there really was no way that we could rally to protect the country better.
Was the only point of that whole color-coded threat system just to provide the administration with a mechanism to increase the fear of the citizenry -a fear that, though useless for our national security, might prove politically useful for the Bush administration?
You were there. There is an urgent need for America to hear what you witnessed.
Even now, as the mid-term elections approach, the president's strategy of heightening our fear of terrorism, while claiming we need him to protect us, is on full display.
President Bush is using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his use of interrogation methods that are understood around the world to be torture, methods forbidden by the Geneva Conventions which as part of a ratified treaty are, according to our Constitution, the law of the land. This, despite the fact that the U.S. military has itself determined that statements elicited by such methods are unreliable.
He is also using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his conduct of warrantless surveillance, despite the finding by a federal judge (and the American Bar Association) that such a practice is unconstitutional. This, despite the fact that the administration has offered no plausible arguments as to why it could not both protect us and obey the law and the Constitution.
"Trust us" has been this administration's continual response to accusations that it is violating the restraints the Constitution places on the executive branch, weakening the system of checks and balances that have protected the American people from tyranny for more than two hundred years.
If you know that they do not deserve our trust, if you know that they have misused these threats for their own political purposes, the American people need for you to come forward and tell what you know.
Of course we need to be protected against external enemies. But as our Founding Fathers understood, what we most need to be protected against is the rise of tyranny from within.
I can imagine, Tom, that even if you do know something that the rest of the country should hear, you might feel inhibited from coming forward by a sense of loyalty-loyalty to your party and loyalty to the president who appointed you.
But if this president has indeed done what many suspect, you can owe such a president no loyalty. If you know that this administration routinely puts their quest for power ahead of service to the nation, then it is your duty to put loyalty to America ahead of any other loyalty.
As Colin Powell has just come forward to call attention -albeit too tactfully- to the truth that the administration is trying to obscure (that its position represents an assault on the Geneva Conventions against torture), even saying that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," so also should you help the American people to understand the destructive and dangerous things that are being done in the name of that "war."
I can sympathize, Tom, if you're afraid of retaliation -from people who shamelessly use character assassination against whistle-blowers-for your telling a truth that hurts your party. But the possibility of such a political cost surely would be an acceptable risk to a man who was awarded a medal for "gallantry" in Vietnam.
We have entered in our sixties now, you and I and the rest of the class of 1967. We've still got productive years left, but this is hardly a time -if ever there is one-to put ambitions ahead of one's principles and ideals. It's time to think of one's legacy.
But your saying that you didn't see a good reason for the alert is not the same as your telling the country about a perceptible bad reason behind it. So, if you told us all you know, would the full truth confirm to the country that the Bush people used the raising of the threat level for their own political purposes?
How about the threat system itself: was it legitimate? After all, as the American people discovered, there wasn't really anything that the ordinary citizen could do with the information that the threat had become greater, more immediate. In fact, we were told not to stop going about our ordinary business. And there really was no way that we could rally to protect the country better.
Was the only point of that whole color-coded threat system just to provide the administration with a mechanism to increase the fear of the citizenry -a fear that, though useless for our national security, might prove politically useful for the Bush administration?
Even now, as the mid-term elections approach, the president's strategy of heightening our fear of terrorism, while claiming we need him to protect us, is on full display.
President Bush is using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his use of interrogation methods that are understood around the world to be torture, methods forbidden by the Geneva Conventions which as part of a ratified treaty are, according to our Constitution, the law of the land. This, despite the fact that the U.S. military has itself determined that statements elicited by such methods are unreliable.
He is also using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his conduct of warrantless surveillance, despite the finding by a federal judge (and the American Bar Association) that such a practice is unconstitutional. This, despite the fact that the administration has offered no plausible arguments as to why it could not both protect us and obey the law and the Constitution.
"Trust us" has been this administration's continual response to accusations that it is violating the restraints the Constitution places on the executive branch, weakening the system of checks and balances that have protected the American people from tyranny for more than two hundred years.
If you know that they do not deserve our trust, if you know that they have misused these threats for their own political purposes, the American people need for you to come forward and tell what you know.
Of course we need to be protected against external enemies. But as our Founding Fathers understood, what we most need to be protected against is the rise of tyranny from within.
I can imagine, Tom, that even if you do know something that the rest of the country should hear, you might feel inhibited from coming forward by a sense of loyalty-loyalty to your party and loyalty to the president who appointed you.
But if this president has indeed done what many suspect, you can owe such a president no loyalty. If you know that this administration routinely puts their quest for power ahead of service to the nation, then it is your duty to put loyalty to America ahead of any other loyalty.
As Colin Powell has just come forward to call attention -albeit too tactfully- to the truth that the administration is trying to obscure (that its position represents an assault on the Geneva Conventions against torture), even saying that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," so also should you help the American people to understand the destructive and dangerous things that are being done in the name of that "war."
I can sympathize, Tom, if you're afraid of retaliation -from people who shamelessly use character assassination against whistle-blowers-for your telling a truth that hurts your party. But the possibility of such a political cost surely would be an acceptable risk to a man who was awarded a medal for "gallantry" in Vietnam.
We have entered in our sixties now, you and I and the rest of the class of 1967. We've still got productive years left, but this is hardly a time -if ever there is one-to put ambitions ahead of one's principles and ideals. It's time to think of one's legacy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
