In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the superpower
state of Oceania — a totalitarian regime marked by the constant
surveillance of its people — is in a state of perpetual war
with Eurasia and Eastasia. Big Brother, the leader of Oceania’s
repressive regime, tells his citizens that the nation is better
than its enemies, which at any given time may be Eurasia,
or Eastasia, or both, and that it is winning the war against
its rivals. Meanwhile, the people of Oceania really do not
know for certain that Oceania is winning the war, or that
the war actually exists, or even that Eurasia and Eastasia
actually exist.
America’s so-called war on terror reminds me
of this Orwellian concept of perpetual war. One can make
the argument that both are used to manipulate the citizenry
through secrecy and coercion, justify a waste of precious
resources, and rationalize the purging of basic civil liberties.
A new book by Georgetown law professor, David
Cole, and University of Pittsburgh law professor and Center
for Constitutional Rights, vice president Jules Lobel, provides
a critique of America’s post-9/11 war on terror. Less
Safe, Less Free: Why America Is Losing the War on Terror
(The New Press, 326 pp.) suggests that this war has been an
abysmal failure. The authors focus their attention on the
cornerstone of the Bush administration’s antiterrorism efforts,
the preventive paradigm.
Under the preventive paradigm, nations are
attacked and suspects are kidnapped, tortured, detained and
prosecuted, not based upon what they have done, but on what
they could do in the future. Under this warped logic, the
usual cost and benefit analysis is eschewed on the grounds
that the stakes are too catastrophic. In other words, as
its proponents would argue, we must do whatever is necessary
in order to prevent deadly terrorist attacks and fight the
people who commit them. Decisions to take action are the
result of a warped calculation based on hunches, driven by
suspicion and hysteria, and rife with abuse.
But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the
preventive paradigm is its disdain for the rule of law. The
legal process, both domestic and international, is viewed
not merely as passé and an inconvenience, but a strategy for
the weak and an anathema. Americans are subjected to illegal
wiretaps. People are held indefinitely, based on questionable
evidence, evidence obtained through torture, or no evidence
at all. They are deemed terrorists because they have a certain
political or religious affiliation, or belong to a certain
racial or ethnic group, or because the president says so.
Supporters of the preventive paradigm cannot
point to any successes as a justification for its coercive
methods and the elimination of the rule of law. The vast
majority of the detainees at Guantanamo (95 percent) are not
members of the Taliban or al Qaeda, and draconian immigration
reforms have not unearthed a single terrorist. And almost
no terrorists have been brought to justice.
However, this misguided strategy has cost the
lives of countless thousands in Iraq, thwarted legitimate
antiterrorism efforts, and encouraged the spread of more terrorism.
The international community distrusts the United States, and
the Muslim world resents and hates America for its interventionism
and aggression in the Mideast, and justifiably so. Meanwhile,
as America embraces antidemocratic principles in the war on
terror, it provides cover to other repressive regimes who
wish to do the same.
The authors propose constructive solutions
to undoing the harm created by preventive war, including the
respect for the rule of law and international human rights
legal principles within U.S. borders, the elimination of overseas
military bases, the use of diplomacy rather than war and coercion,
and international cooperation. Further, the authors call
for the U.S. to embrace the International Criminal Court,
which Bush has sought to undermine by not participating in
it, and seeking to make American citizens immune from prosecution.
Professors Cole and Lobel perform a valuable
service by deconstructing and demystifying one of the most
deplorable chapters in American history, as it is occurring,
and suggesting positive solutions. Less Safe, Less Free
is required reading for critics of the war on terror and the
Iraq War, lovers of civil liberties and human rights, and
those who are concerned about the monster this country has
become.