In 2001, Cheney created the “one-percent doctrine,” which Ron Suskind wrote a book about. He said America now had to consider a new type of threat, a “low-probability high-impact event.”
If there was a 1% chance of it happening, the chance had to be treated as if it was going to happen.
The way al-Qaeda and 9/11 bookended the speech delivered by Obama makes me wonder if the Obama Administration will be making policy based on Cheney’s “one-percent doctrine," based on that sliver of a chance that something happens.
Can’t the Homeland Security-complex created by Bush do better? Can't we get to a point where we can differentiate threats so we have a real reason to respond?
If we continue to let the smallest of threats (perhaps unsubstantiated ones) determine what we do, what does this mean for America? How many of us are willing to let our lives be driven by a 1% chance that something could happen?
Obama’s speech ran the gamut and touched on civil liberties, the Constitution, Truth Commissions, transparency, and the rule of law, but the mindset in Cheney’s speech could be found throughout Obama’s speech too. It was toned down, but al-Qaeda and 9/11 still set the terms for Obama’s case to close Guantanamo.
If Obama really thinks “we cannot keep the country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values,” we the people will have to lead the way in enlisting these values.
We the people have made the current political climate one where politicians and the media are following torture and Guantanamo closely. Let us continue to discuss the way forward so that perhaps we can move forward under a pretext of preserving human rights and civil liberties instead of simply preventing another 9/11 from happening.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
