Rogues and The Rule of Law

When Kofi Annan said, "Today the rule of law is at risk around the world. Again and again, we see fundamental laws shamelessly disregarded -- those that ordain respect for innocent life, for civilians, for the vulnerable -- especially children," was he enunciating a basic principle of human conduct or merely abandoning a moral principle? Is ideology (of which "morality" is a sub set) a better guide to action than the concept of legality?

He was, according to this conservative perspective.

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

Sounds good, but what does it mean? Is the law only a vehicle to morality or is the opposite true? If morality is an end, whose morality are we talking about? Has neuroscience or evolutionary psychology discovered a universal morality that would serve as a standard? Or is morality subjective, subject to the personal views and even whims of individuals?

Let's take Rosa Parks' case. The fact that the law at the time forbade black people from sitting at the front of a bus, it seems to me, is more of a reflection of the morality of the people of the South than the other way around. By the 1960s, American public opinion had caught up with much of the rest of world. It viewed the principle of "separate but equal" as discriminatory. In other words, it was an idea that conflicted with the basic freedoms guaranteed by the highest law of the land, the Constitution. The ultimate rejection of laws such as the one that put Ms Parks at the back of an Alabama bus came about because of education, the accumulation of knowledge, scientific thinking and a rejection of the morality inherent in the original Jim Crow laws.

Not morality but specific enlightened views forced the changes in law that discriminated against the Rosa Parks of America. While passion for a cause played a role in accelerating this change, it was passion for the law that made it possible – for the principle of equality as embodied in the US Constitution.

The rule of law, not subjective moral views (some of which then and now favor a segregated society) is the only real moral force in a democratic society. The law must stand above individual beliefs. It must enable people to live together peaceably and without the need to use force to resolve their differences (something that prevailed through most of human history). But the law is not merely a code for domestic action, it is a principle that can and should apply to all human activities, including international relations among nations.

That was the point that Kofi Annan raised about the war in Iraq. By the standards of international law, America's invasion of a sovereign nation, pre-emptively and not in self-defense, was wrong. There is no logical defense of US actions, not even from the pragmatic depths of apologists in the administration, the press and the neocon right. Not only was it against international law, it was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place! It has increased the terrorist threat against America, Americans and America's allies and has opened a Pandora's Box that is currently rushing towards civil war.

"We're losing the country, one town at a time. It wasn't long ago that Steve Gilliard and I mapped out the obvious insurgency strategy -- melt away in the face of superior US firepower during the US invasion. While US officials and the warbloggers gloated that entire Iraqi units were disappearing without a fight, we knew that it wasn't the good news they thought it was -- these Iraqis were bidding their time. They would fight on their terms, not ours. Not that we didn't have a window of opportunity to set things right, and to prove that we were a benevolent force. But the electricity never came back on consistently. Abu Ghraib happened. We were responsible for too much "collateral damage". We blew the Fallujah uprising, both by going in too quickly, and then by withdrawing too quickly (hence handing the insurgents a morale-boosting battlefield victory). And the insurgency bid its time. Now, we're relegating to such Orwellian absurdities as calling insurgents "terrorists" and "anti-Iraqi forces" as we take heavy incoming and experience an ever-growing death toll and fatalities rate." (See also David Stout's "Senators Sound Alarm Over Iraq"). All FUBAR In Iraq, Daily Kos, September 13, 2004:

In Bush's Lost Year, the Atlantic's cover story for October, James Fallows argues that over the course of 2002, President Bush squandered myriad resources and opportunities as a result of his drive to war against Iraq. Among the opportunities lost, Fallows argues, were a chance to reassess our "inglorious bargain" with Saudi Arabia, a chance to wage a comprehensive war on terror, and a chance to improve the situation in Afghanistan—all amid a climate of international solidarity that followed September 11.

Perhaps the most worrisome development, Fallows suggests, concerns the threat posed by the other members of the "axis of evil"—the ones that we know have or are developing weapons of mass destruction. With our standing in the international community diminished, our military considerably weakened, and the trustworthiness of our intelligence in doubt, he explains, Iran and North Korea have much less to fear from America than they did before Iraq: "the United States now has no good options for dealing with either country."

Law and Ideology provides a deeper perspective into this question.

If law is a system of enforceable rules governing social relations and legislated by a political system, it might seem obvious that law is connected to ideology. Ideology refers, in a general sense, to a system of political ideas, and law and politics seem inextricably intertwined. Just as ideologies are dotted across the political spectrum, so too are legal systems. Thus we speak of both legal systems and ideologies as liberal, fascist, communist, and so on, and most people probably assume that a law is the legal expression of a political ideology. One would expect the practice and activity of law to be shaped by people's political beliefs, so law might seem to emanate from ideology in a straightforward and uncontroversial way.

"Ideology" was a relatively new word when Marx and Engels used it in The German Ideology in the 1840's. It had been coined by the French rationalist philosopher Destutt de Tracy, in the 1790's, to refer to the "science of ideas," as opposed to metaphysics. It very quickly took on a pejorative sense, and Marx and Engels use it in that way in The German Ideology; there "ideology" generally refers to theory that is out of touch with the real processes of history. The ruling ideas of an epoch, according to Marx and Engels, "are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships , the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas." But the relationship between the ruling ideas and the dominant material relationships are instead seen in reverse--people think that material relationships are the expression of the ruling ideas rather than vice versa:

The Nuremberg trials that followed World War II to prosecute Nazi war criminals emphasized a principle that needs to be better understood by all of us. The Rule of Law.

The point seems to be that, without the rule of law, international relations among nations is not possible; the world is reduced to the law of the jungle. This, It seems to me, is what we are now witnessing in Iraq – the law of the jungle. No doubt this is not the intention of the current administration. Nevertheless, this is the reality on the ground. That makes Bush's appearance at the UN this week even more ludicrous. According to the American president, things are going well in Iraq.

By this standard, things are going well on the planet earth and we need not worry about terrorism, poverty, the destruction of the environment, biodiversity and the widespread belief in supernatural beings that guides the actions of leaders around the world, including the USA.

Intellectuals and Religious Warriors

"Ann Coulter is the most high-profile and controversial conservative intellectual on the scene today."

No, this is not a quote from Ironic Times, it is apparently intended as a serious comment by the right wing Human Events, in an advertisement at Townhall.com. Townhall.com is part of the Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, to paraphrase an old joke, talks only to Bush and Bush talks only to God.

Judging from what I've read of Ann Coulter's writings and emotional outbursts, she may be the missing link between neocon and paleocon conservatism, masquerading as a real conservative. And, as everyone knows, real conservatives are William Buckley conservatives. The difference is not hard to discern. Buckley's intellectual credentials are well known. The weapons he chooses to confront his ideological foes are ideas, not character assassination. While Buckley tosses out erudite tits and tats, Ms Coulter calls for the "for the murder of Islamic heads of state, the invasion of their countries, the forced conversion of their citizens to Christianity, the execution of liberals and a terrorist attack on the New York Times. ?" (Source: Bush Bashers & the Bashers Who Bash Them)

Humor, indeed. Intellectual? Hardly. If this is the best that the conservatives can come up with to defend against the "evils" of liberalism, it may be time for Mr. Buckley to put down his own copy of Pet Goat and return to the political battleground -- not, mind you, to save America from liberalism but to save conservatism from Ann Coulter.

Or to save the GOP from itself. Take the current presidential election campaign, for example:

Republicans' strategy is to counter critique with caricature, and they do it with all the panache of an old Roadrunner cartoon, effectively smashing Kerry with rhetorical frying pans. Read all about it here.

To be fair, though, while there may be a shortage of conservative intellectuals, there is no lack of religious warriors. Remember the infamous General Boykin?

General William "Jerry" Boykin, formerly of Delta Force, the US army’s anti-terrorist unit, was appointed in June 2003 as the deputy undersecretary of defense with responsibility for intelligence. He is an evangelical Christian who once told a congregation in Oregon that radical Islamists hated the US "because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judaeo-Christian . . . and the enemy is a guy named Satan" (5). On another occasion he said: "We in the army of God, in the house of God, the kingdom of God, have been raised for such a time as this." During the fighting against Islamic warlords in Somalia he had , said: "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol" (6).
The general offered a few excuses for his utterances, kept his job and was able to use his talents in exporting the prison system created in Guan tánamo Bay to Iraq: we know all about the results of this (7). The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, defended him at the beginning but the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, then stepped in to say: "This is not a war between religions. No one should describe it as such." How are we supposed to believe that when we read the statements of tortured Iraqis, who were forced to renounce their religion (8)?

You can read the full story in the latest issue of Le Monde Diplomatique by Alain Gresh. En Anglais!

Speaking of Iraq and Bush's own battleground against terrorism, it seems that Kofi Annan had something to say on that subject today. He called America's invasion of Iraq illegal! Besides stating the obvious, Annan did little to enlighten us as to why Bush chose to make Saddam Hussein the cornerstone of his foreign policy, instead of the war against terrorism.

There are several theories. Daniel Pipes, the paleo conservative who writes for the Washington Times and other houses of ill repute, recently put forth his own. Bush did not invade Iraq for oil, he said, nor to help Israel rid itself of a fly in the Middle East ointment, he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein turned against his American bosses! Pay back time!

There's another variant on the same theme -- viz. that Saddam tried to kill George W.'s father. Well, whichever it may or may not be, a recent scientific study seems to confirm that revenge is a potent motor in human behavior:

In Dante's Inferno, the inner circle of hell was reserved for
betrayers like Judas and Brutus. But new research indicates that punishing those who break social norms is not merely the province of poets. Scientists have uncovered evidence for an innate satisfaction in human beings for giving people their comeuppance.
Brain Scans Reveal That Revenge Is Sweet

While that may be part of the equation, Harley Sorenson has a slightly more credible argument. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, he used the "r" word:

So we invaded Iraq not to save ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the world of a brutal dictator and not to avenge the murders of Sept. 11. We invaded Iraq because Bush and his pals think America should rule the world.(Source)

If it weren't so sad and detrimental to the nation and so helpful to radical Islam, it would be amusing to watch the clowns run the White House and play Risk with the world.

During the recent Republican convention, a group of prominent persons discovered another amusing pasttime -- reading the Constitution of the United States out loud. Amusing? Indeed, according to Victor Navasky:

My fear that a simple reading of the Constitution, no matter how accomplished the readers, would fail to entertain the full-house audience turned out to be unjustified. The energetic crowd whistled and whooped and cheered for their favorite passages: the First Amendment (read by Floyd Abrams), the civil war amendments against slavery and guaranteeing the vote (read by Ossie Davis), etc. Betty Friedan got a standing ovation when she recited the Nineteenth, which granted women the right to vote.
They hissed and booed when they heard the line where blacks are counted only as "three fifths of all other Persons," and grumbled during the reading of the National Rifle Association's favorite, the Second Amendment; and they laughed and booed, then cheered, as Prohibition was first incorporated into the Constitution and then repealed. From New York Minutes

A great flame follows a little spark -- Dante Alighieri

Matadors, Mimes and Messages

Following on the theme touched on in The American Taliban in the preceding post, The Origins and Nature of Fundamentalism in Society by Niccolo Caldararo provides a scholarly analysis of and insights into religious fundamentalism of the kind we see at home and abroad.

Among the more original and interesting voices on the Right is that of Lee Harris at Techcentral. In a fascinating essay entitled Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology, Harris presents a highly original view of terrorism, terrorist ideology and terrorist motives. Well worth the read!

Bush's Lost War by James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic Monthly boldy goes where most journalists fail to go regarding the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq:

By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost.

Here's another original view of the same subject:

It’s hard to believe, but the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the writings of a cave-dwelling hermit who had apocalyptic visions some 2000 years ago.

And yet, it seems, there's method in this madness:

Rutgers University history professor Jackson Lears, in a recent letter to The New York Times, “How a War became a Crusade” (3-11-03), suggests a reason why Bush is so cavalier about the possibility that war in Iraq will have unintended consequences. Bush, according to Lears, “denies the very existence of chance.” “Events aren’t moved by blind change and chance,” Lears quotes Bush as saying; rather, events are determined by “the hand of a just and faithful God.”(Source)

Lest we forget -- and for those who don't but should know -- here's a slide show you won't want to miss: The Right 101.

Finally, a little fantasy of our own at our favorite message board.

As the Singing Detective said, Am I right or am I right? :)

The American Taliban

Few Americans take such an idea seriously, probably because they are either not interested in knowing or not well informed about what is going on in the land of true believers.

In 1980, Republican Strategist Paul Wyrich wrote, "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context." In 2002, another Republican announced, "We need to find ways to win the war". These are the words of Karl Rove, President Bush's political director, talking to a gathering of the Family Research Council – one of the most powerful lobbying groups of the Religious Right. Rove wasn't talking about the war on terrorism. He was talking about the war on secular society. (Winning the War)

An article in the online Progressive, entitled Bush's Messiah Complex, shows that, while Karl Rove tackles the domestic evils, Bush seems bent on ridding the world of evil – at the barrel of a gun.

A picture emerges from the President's public statements--and even from such adulatory accounts as Bob Woodward's Bush at War and David Frum's The Right Man--of a President on a divine mission. Call it messianic militarism.

The step from the Bush administration's messiah complex to a seeming disregard for scientific evidence to bolster its political agenda is a matter of public record.

The problem is not so much that Bush and other members of his administration (including his Attorney General) seem guided by "higher" purposes than science and reason; the point is that such "leadership" is sending messages to some of Bush's Taliban-esq supporters.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -- -Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue

"In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used." "Democracy is a heresy against God!"(Source) -- -R.J. Rushdooney, Director of the Rutherford Institute (the person behind Christian Reconstructionism).

This is not purely a religious issue. It is a fundamentalist issue, not that different from the values and beliefs of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan. The Religious Tolerance group published this article showing comparisons between Christianity and Islam. Religious Movements, a Virginia-based group, also has an interesting article on religious fundamentalism.

Now, if all this does not seem Taliban enough, all one has to do is look at this site to understand that the Taliban mentality is alive and well in America, in all shapes, stages and ideologies.

Evil Freedom Should Be Disallowed

We, the corporeal citizens of America (and the world community), should acquiesce to the fact that many of the so-called "rights" and "freedoms" guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, its Amendments and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not genuine rights and freedoms, but moral evils in the sight of God.

This was a sampling of what one might call up-front Talibanism in America. But, as I said at the top, few Americans take such threats seriously. Well, here's one person who does.

The media were shocked, shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for segregation -- something that was obvious long before Mr. Lott inserted his foot in his mouth. One of these years they'll be equally shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for theocracy.

And then, years from now, when it becomes clear that much public policy has been driven by a hard-line fundamentalist agenda, people will say "But nobody told us."

Gotta Have Faith by Paul Krugman (New York Times)

Privatizing Abuse

Now we're hearing reports about private contractors being involved in Abu Graib. There's nothing surprising about that. Since the current occupation of Iraq is being run by the original Night of the Living Dead (particularly Rumsfeld and Cheney), nothing should surprise you when it comes to "interrogation methods and tactics". After all, the original theme of the invasion of Iraq was the end justifies the means.

The really interesting thing is to look back on the Conservative press in the US when the abuses at Abu Graib first surfaced. Here is an overview of who blamed whom.

Fundamentalism by any other name ...

The Woodwork

As the US election nears, we are seeing a flurry of fundamentalist views hitting the public fan, most of which are coming from the Bush camp. First we had Alan Keyes calling on Dick Cheney to abandon his daughter because she is lesbian, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

Next we had Dixiecrat Zell Miller ranting and raving about Kerry. One rather humorous comment at the above site was that Miller's speech "reads better in the original German."

Now Cheney has come out with a statement that a Democratic victory in November would invite another terrorist attack. This looks very much like electioneering desperation.

There is of course one erudite site that always manages to put things in proper perspective. Summing up the achievements of the Republican Convention, this week's Ironic Times listed key features of the GOP platform:

No abortion
No same-sex marriage
No affordable drugs
No health insurance
No clean air
No peace
No fun

When Bush Comes To Shove

As cliches go, the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world at the start of the 21st century has a lot going for it. Perhaps it has reached a crisis point -- or soon will --, as E.O. Wilson argued in his fascinating article in Scientific American, Bottleneck . Or perhaps it is the culmination of a "conservative" revolution taking place simultaneously in liberal democracies and authoritarian states -- a return to fundamentalist political and religious ideas. Whatever it is, the political message is clear: there are no leaders left to guide the ship of state, only incompetent, fumbling politicians who seem willing to do "whatever it takes" to stay in power or ascend to the throne of power.

Let's face it, by any objective standard the war in Iraq is not going to win a popularity contest. As an expat living in Europe, public opposition to the war in Iraq was almost palpable. Polls released on the eve of the invasion showed only one country in Europe whose population supported American policy: Poland. The leaders of such European countries as Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands et. al. simply ignored public opinion and ultimately sent troops to spill blood on the streets of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. So much for public opinion.

Even the Bush administration's "unholy alliance" with Libertarian groups such as Reason.com and Cato began to crack because of Iraq. Now, after Bush's big-spending speech at the Republican Convention, some Conservatives seem to be abandoning the Bush ship, since their leader has now dropped all pretence of being a Conservative.

Andrew Sullivan even used the phrase "The End of Conservatism" in a recent blog.

“It’s deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry – especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending – easily the choice for fiscal conservatives."

Say what? Where has Sullivan been for the last 25 years? President Reagon talked the Conservative talk, but he failed to walk the walk. Newt Gingrige probably would have taken America farther along the road to revisiting Victorian England, but his blossoming intellectual challenge wilted rather abruptly. So now Bush II is carrying the Conservative torch -- but not really. Like most politicians who have tasted the ambrosia of power, he will apparently do whatever is necessary to hang on to it. As one Conservative publication put it, Bush is "no friend of limited, Constitutional government."

It may be that "Bush's War" in Iraq set back the fight against terrorism and gave Al Qaeda time to regroup and disappear after 9/11; it may be that Bush has caused traditional conservatives to recoil in anger and disappointment because Bush has done too little to push a fiscal conservative agenda (except for some extraordinary concessions to the Religious Right in terms of abortion, gay and lesbian marriage, stem cell research and fudging the science on official government websites).

But it seems to me that, when Bush comes to shove, there is another factor in the Conservative equation, one that is seriously underrated: the marriage of political ideology to religious fundamentalism, a phenomenon that is by no means restricted to America.

But more on that later.