Open letter to Tom Ridge, ex-director of Homeland Security
OPEN LETTER TO TOM RIDGE, MY OLD HARVARD CLASSMATE AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BY DR. ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER, AUTHOR AND RADIO COMMENTATOR.
Although our casual contacts as students at Harvard during the 1960s never amounted to a friendship, they did give me a sense of your character, Tom.
We came to Harvard when JFK was still president, and the torch of liberty had been passed ("the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God") to a new generation whose idealism was being expressed in the Peace Corps, in the civil rights movement, and sometimes at our dining room tables.
You and I, being not only members of the same class but also residents of Quincy House, ate our meals in the same dining rooms for four years. It was during these dinner conversation that I derived my impression of you as an earnest
young man, who did not pose as a sophisticated cynic like some of our classmates, but rather took seriously the great ideals of America.
DID I SEE YOU CORRECTLY THEN, TOM?
It is, in any event, with that image of you in mind that I write to you now. For I believe that you are in a unique position at this historical moment to help America come into better alignment with the great ideals that you and I both cherished back then.
There is an important issue on which I am now asking you to speak out: it is the Bush administration's use of the "war on terror" for its own political advantage.
As you doubtless know, suspicions about this administration's "fear-mongering" have been around for some time, but they have lately been increasing in intensity.
A HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS CORRELATION
Just weeks ago Keith Olbermann, on his MSNBC program Countdown, laid out a timeline that painted a deeply disturbing picture. Olbermann delineated a highly suspicious correlation between those times when the Bush administration faced political difficulties (and thus would have wanted to divert the public's focus) and those times when it made a terror-related announcement that changed the news headlines (and usually lifted the administration's poll numbers).
And then there was the recent, much-publicized bust of an alleged terrorist plot in Great Britain. Even as the American people were being reawakened to fears of terrorists attacking our air travel, reports were widespread that the Bush administration had pressured the British into making the arrests precipitously, well before the British investigators themselves felt the time was right. - [FPF: Fake UK cabal 'terror' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/rz8ke]
No plausible explanation has been offered as to why the Bush administration was so eager for these arrests to be made immediately, despite the now-evident fact that there was no immediate threat of an attack, and despite the danger that premature arrests might jeopardize a successful prosecution. This failure to offer a legitimate reason clearly suggests the possibility of an illegitimate reason, such as how the "terrorist plot" story could serve to overshadow the extraordinary defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) by his own party for being too supportive of the Bush administration generally and its war in Iraq specifically.
Surely you'll agree, or at least the young Tom Ridge I thought I knew would have agreed: it would be hard to find words too harsh to describe the perfidy of leadership that deliberately played politics with such vital matters of
national security. How terrible it would be for a president of the United States to evoke and cultivate fear in the American people, not to serve the people's needs but to serve his own at their expense.
PROPAGANDISTICALLY PLAYS THE TERROR CARD
But while many Americans harbor such suspicions of this president and his administration fear-mongering about the "war on terror" to increase their own power, almost half of the country continues to be swayed whenever the Bush
administration propagandistically plays the terror card, hypnotized by the fear that is intentionally evoked by those who declare themselves to be the people's only possible protectors.
If the trust of Bush administration supporters is being betrayed, it would be a matter of urgent national importance for them to know of this betrayal. However, people who still turn to the Bush administration for protection are not going to listen to Mr. Bush's critics. In this deeply polarized society, such critics have long since been dismissed by the president's supporters as "Bush-bashers."
BUT THEY WOULD LISTEN TO YOU.
SO I CALL UPON YOU TO COME FORWARD AND TELL THE COUNTRY WHAT YOU WITNESSED DURING YOUR TENURE AS THIS PRESIDENT'S DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
For instance, were your Department's announcements of movements to higher states of alert ever politically motivated?
One of your public statements since you left office certainly suggests you saw something amiss in that color-coded 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 increased alert level is not the same as your telling the country about a perceptible bad reason behind it. So, if you told us all that you know, would the full truth confirm to the country that the Bush administration used this raising of the threat level for their own political purposes?
And how about the threat system itself: was it legitimate? After all, the American people discovered there wasn't really anything the ordinary citizen could do with this information that the threat level had become greater, or more imminent. 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 color-coded threat system to provide this administration with a strategic mechanism for increasing the level of fear in the citizenry--a fear that, though useless for our national security, might prove politically useful for the Bush administration?
YOU WERE THERE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE URGENTLY NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU WITNESSED.
Even now, as the mid-term elections approach, the president's strategy of heightening our fear of terrorism, while claiming that we need him to protect us, is on full display.
Even now, 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. Moreover, these inhumane coercive methods are forbidden by the
Geneva Conventions, which are part of a Senate-ratified treaty and thus, according to our Constitution, the law of the land. Furthermore, the U.S. military has itself determined that statements elicited by these coercive methods are unreliable.
Even now, President Bush is using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his conduct of warrantless domestic 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 simultaneously protect us while obeying federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
"JUST TRUST US!"
Even now, "Just trust us!" is this administration's disingenuous response to accusations that it has been repeatedly violating the U.S. Constitution's restraints on the executive branch, and thus weakening the constitutional system of checks and balances that has protected the American people from tyranny for more than two hundred years.
If you have personal knowledge that this administration does not deserve our trust, if you know that they have misused these threats for their own political purposes, then the American people need for you to come forward and tell us what you know.
Of course we all agree that 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 internal tyrants.
I can imagine, Tom, that even if you do know something which the rest of the country should hear, you might feel inhibited from coming forward due to a sense of loyalty--loyalty to your party, and loyalty to the president who appointed you.
However, if this president has indeed done what many suspect, then loyalty to him is misplaced, for you cannot owe such a president your loyalty. If you know that this administration routinely puts their quest for power ahead of service to the nation, then it is your paramount duty to put loyalty to America ahead of any lesser loyalty.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently come forward to call attention--albeit too tactfully--to some obvious truths that the Bush administration is trying to obscure: that its position represents an assault on the Geneva
Convention prohibitions against torture; and that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." So too should you help the American people better 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 whistleblowers--for telling this nation important truths that hurt your party. But surely the possibility of paying such a political cost would be an acceptable risk for a man who was awarded a medal for "gallantry" in Vietnam.
We have entered 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 the time--if ever there is one--to place one's ambitions ahead of one's principles and ideals.
IT'S TIME TO THINK OF THE LEGACY ONE WILL LEAVE FOR POSTERITY.
You have served your country in many ways for almost forty years. But nothing you have done so far would serve your country better than coming forward right now, and speaking plainly to the American people about what you have
witnessed concerning this administration's uses and abuses of its "war on terror."
Dr. ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER
Source: Published on 9/18/06 by NoneSoBlind.org. - Url.: http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=309
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew Bard Schmookler's website, NoneSoBlind.org, is devoted to understanding both the root causes of America's moral crisis and the means by which we can meet the urgent challenges of this dangerous moment. Dr. Schmookler is the author of numerous books, such as The Parable Of The Tribes: The Problem Of Power In Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating The Good Society: A Quest To Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states. Reach him by e-mail at: andythebard@comcast.net
PLEASE ALSO READ FOUR EXCELLENT RELATED ESSAYS:
[1] Dr. John Mueller's Sept./Oct. 2006 Foreign Affairs essay, "Is There Still A Terrorist Threat?" [Despite all the ominous warnings about wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable--but rarely heard--explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.]:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html
[2] Dr. Frida Berrigan's 9/18/06 Common Dreams essay, "Take It From Him: America Is Safer?" Terrorism, Iraq, And The Political Uses Of Fear Five Years Into The 'Long War'" [Mr. Bush's current strategy of shamelessly evoking World War II and Cold War imagery and figures is just the latest in a long line of scare tactics that his administration has used to bolster the increasingly-unpopular Repubican Party.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-30.htm
[3] Cynthia Tucker's 9/18/06 Common Dreams/Baltimore Sun essay, "Appetite for Oil Fuels America's Warmongering" [Scholars of history acknowledge that America's addiction to oil is the underlying cause of both its growing militarism
and its recent wars of aggression.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-23.htm
[4] Doug Thompson' 9/18/06 Capitol Hill Blue essay, "Ashamed To Be An American" ["Bush is not only a serial liar but an unstable despot whose sanity is increasingly doubted by members of his own family and party. He ignores the will of the people he is supposed to serve, violates international law at will and shreds the Constitution along with the freedoms it once protected. ... I love my country but I hate what our so-called leaders have done to her. Thanks to the illogical, illegal and insane actions of George W. Bush and those who follow him, Americans can no longer hold their heads high and take pride in their country. Bush and his fellow terrorists have so thoroughly destroyed this great country that I fear the damage may be permanent and irreparable."]: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/ashamed_to_be_a.html
Fwd. by:
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/jwgqa
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl
-0-
BY DR. ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER, AUTHOR AND RADIO COMMENTATOR.
Although our casual contacts as students at Harvard during the 1960s never amounted to a friendship, they did give me a sense of your character, Tom.
We came to Harvard when JFK was still president, and the torch of liberty had been passed ("the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God") to a new generation whose idealism was being expressed in the Peace Corps, in the civil rights movement, and sometimes at our dining room tables.
You and I, being not only members of the same class but also residents of Quincy House, ate our meals in the same dining rooms for four years. It was during these dinner conversation that I derived my impression of you as an earnest
young man, who did not pose as a sophisticated cynic like some of our classmates, but rather took seriously the great ideals of America.
DID I SEE YOU CORRECTLY THEN, TOM?
It is, in any event, with that image of you in mind that I write to you now. For I believe that you are in a unique position at this historical moment to help America come into better alignment with the great ideals that you and I both cherished back then.
There is an important issue on which I am now asking you to speak out: it is the Bush administration's use of the "war on terror" for its own political advantage.
As you doubtless know, suspicions about this administration's "fear-mongering" have been around for some time, but they have lately been increasing in intensity.
A HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS CORRELATION
Just weeks ago Keith Olbermann, on his MSNBC program Countdown, laid out a timeline that painted a deeply disturbing picture. Olbermann delineated a highly suspicious correlation between those times when the Bush administration faced political difficulties (and thus would have wanted to divert the public's focus) and those times when it made a terror-related announcement that changed the news headlines (and usually lifted the administration's poll numbers).
And then there was the recent, much-publicized bust of an alleged terrorist plot in Great Britain. Even as the American people were being reawakened to fears of terrorists attacking our air travel, reports were widespread that the Bush administration had pressured the British into making the arrests precipitously, well before the British investigators themselves felt the time was right. - [FPF: Fake UK cabal 'terror' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/rz8ke]
No plausible explanation has been offered as to why the Bush administration was so eager for these arrests to be made immediately, despite the now-evident fact that there was no immediate threat of an attack, and despite the danger that premature arrests might jeopardize a successful prosecution. This failure to offer a legitimate reason clearly suggests the possibility of an illegitimate reason, such as how the "terrorist plot" story could serve to overshadow the extraordinary defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) by his own party for being too supportive of the Bush administration generally and its war in Iraq specifically.
Surely you'll agree, or at least the young Tom Ridge I thought I knew would have agreed: it would be hard to find words too harsh to describe the perfidy of leadership that deliberately played politics with such vital matters of
national security. How terrible it would be for a president of the United States to evoke and cultivate fear in the American people, not to serve the people's needs but to serve his own at their expense.
PROPAGANDISTICALLY PLAYS THE TERROR CARD
But while many Americans harbor such suspicions of this president and his administration fear-mongering about the "war on terror" to increase their own power, almost half of the country continues to be swayed whenever the Bush
administration propagandistically plays the terror card, hypnotized by the fear that is intentionally evoked by those who declare themselves to be the people's only possible protectors.
If the trust of Bush administration supporters is being betrayed, it would be a matter of urgent national importance for them to know of this betrayal. However, people who still turn to the Bush administration for protection are not going to listen to Mr. Bush's critics. In this deeply polarized society, such critics have long since been dismissed by the president's supporters as "Bush-bashers."
BUT THEY WOULD LISTEN TO YOU.
SO I CALL UPON YOU TO COME FORWARD AND TELL THE COUNTRY WHAT YOU WITNESSED DURING YOUR TENURE AS THIS PRESIDENT'S DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
For instance, were your Department's announcements of movements to higher states of alert ever politically motivated?
One of your public statements since you left office certainly suggests you saw something amiss in that color-coded 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 increased alert level is not the same as your telling the country about a perceptible bad reason behind it. So, if you told us all that you know, would the full truth confirm to the country that the Bush administration used this raising of the threat level for their own political purposes?
And how about the threat system itself: was it legitimate? After all, the American people discovered there wasn't really anything the ordinary citizen could do with this information that the threat level had become greater, or more imminent. 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 color-coded threat system to provide this administration with a strategic mechanism for increasing the level of fear in the citizenry--a fear that, though useless for our national security, might prove politically useful for the Bush administration?
YOU WERE THERE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE URGENTLY NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU WITNESSED.
Even now, as the mid-term elections approach, the president's strategy of heightening our fear of terrorism, while claiming that we need him to protect us, is on full display.
Even now, 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. Moreover, these inhumane coercive methods are forbidden by the
Geneva Conventions, which are part of a Senate-ratified treaty and thus, according to our Constitution, the law of the land. Furthermore, the U.S. military has itself determined that statements elicited by these coercive methods are unreliable.
Even now, President Bush is using this strategy to pressure Congress to legitimize his conduct of warrantless domestic 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 simultaneously protect us while obeying federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
"JUST TRUST US!"
Even now, "Just trust us!" is this administration's disingenuous response to accusations that it has been repeatedly violating the U.S. Constitution's restraints on the executive branch, and thus weakening the constitutional system of checks and balances that has protected the American people from tyranny for more than two hundred years.
If you have personal knowledge that this administration does not deserve our trust, if you know that they have misused these threats for their own political purposes, then the American people need for you to come forward and tell us what you know.
Of course we all agree that 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 internal tyrants.
I can imagine, Tom, that even if you do know something which the rest of the country should hear, you might feel inhibited from coming forward due to a sense of loyalty--loyalty to your party, and loyalty to the president who appointed you.
However, if this president has indeed done what many suspect, then loyalty to him is misplaced, for you cannot owe such a president your loyalty. If you know that this administration routinely puts their quest for power ahead of service to the nation, then it is your paramount duty to put loyalty to America ahead of any lesser loyalty.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently come forward to call attention--albeit too tactfully--to some obvious truths that the Bush administration is trying to obscure: that its position represents an assault on the Geneva
Convention prohibitions against torture; and that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." So too should you help the American people better 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 whistleblowers--for telling this nation important truths that hurt your party. But surely the possibility of paying such a political cost would be an acceptable risk for a man who was awarded a medal for "gallantry" in Vietnam.
We have entered 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 the time--if ever there is one--to place one's ambitions ahead of one's principles and ideals.
IT'S TIME TO THINK OF THE LEGACY ONE WILL LEAVE FOR POSTERITY.
You have served your country in many ways for almost forty years. But nothing you have done so far would serve your country better than coming forward right now, and speaking plainly to the American people about what you have
witnessed concerning this administration's uses and abuses of its "war on terror."
Dr. ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER
Source: Published on 9/18/06 by NoneSoBlind.org. - Url.: http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=309
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew Bard Schmookler's website, NoneSoBlind.org, is devoted to understanding both the root causes of America's moral crisis and the means by which we can meet the urgent challenges of this dangerous moment. Dr. Schmookler is the author of numerous books, such as The Parable Of The Tribes: The Problem Of Power In Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating The Good Society: A Quest To Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states. Reach him by e-mail at: andythebard@comcast.net
PLEASE ALSO READ FOUR EXCELLENT RELATED ESSAYS:
[1] Dr. John Mueller's Sept./Oct. 2006 Foreign Affairs essay, "Is There Still A Terrorist Threat?" [Despite all the ominous warnings about wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable--but rarely heard--explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.]:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html
[2] Dr. Frida Berrigan's 9/18/06 Common Dreams essay, "Take It From Him: America Is Safer?" Terrorism, Iraq, And The Political Uses Of Fear Five Years Into The 'Long War'" [Mr. Bush's current strategy of shamelessly evoking World War II and Cold War imagery and figures is just the latest in a long line of scare tactics that his administration has used to bolster the increasingly-unpopular Repubican Party.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-30.htm
[3] Cynthia Tucker's 9/18/06 Common Dreams/Baltimore Sun essay, "Appetite for Oil Fuels America's Warmongering" [Scholars of history acknowledge that America's addiction to oil is the underlying cause of both its growing militarism
and its recent wars of aggression.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0918-23.htm
[4] Doug Thompson' 9/18/06 Capitol Hill Blue essay, "Ashamed To Be An American" ["Bush is not only a serial liar but an unstable despot whose sanity is increasingly doubted by members of his own family and party. He ignores the will of the people he is supposed to serve, violates international law at will and shreds the Constitution along with the freedoms it once protected. ... I love my country but I hate what our so-called leaders have done to her. Thanks to the illogical, illegal and insane actions of George W. Bush and those who follow him, Americans can no longer hold their heads high and take pride in their country. Bush and his fellow terrorists have so thoroughly destroyed this great country that I fear the damage may be permanent and irreparable."]: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/ashamed_to_be_a.html
Fwd. by:
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/jwgqa
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl
-0-
posted by Forpressfound at 2:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home