Richards, The Moral Standing of the United States in the World of Nations

A view widely held in the United States by government officials, political leaders, policy consultants, media pundits, religious leaders, academicians, and the larger public is that the United States has the moral right to be the dominant leader in the world of nations. As the dominant world leader, it is assumed it has the right to dictate to other nations, to intervene in both their international and domestic affairs, and to use whatever means – economic, political, diplomatic, or military – it deems necessary to insure compliance with its wishes.

Those who are committed to this view ground it in one or more of several lines of thinking and believing.

One is the belief that this right to rule has been granted to the United States by God, the Supreme Creator and Ruler of the universe. In the thinking of George W. Bush and a number of his cohorts and junior officers, and especially in the thinking of his religious fundamentalist political base, it is a matter of divine manifest destiny. Multiple versions of theological manifest destiny have emerged in this country. They all are tainted with exceptionalism, exclusiveness, and triumphalism, and also exhibit theocratic tendencies, all tied to the presumed destiny of the United States to be the leader of the world. In its current rendition, as this world leader, the United States is spreading the gospel of freedom and liberty, carrying out God’s wishes and doing God’s work, with President Bush as God’s prophet.1

Two is the belief that this right to be the dominant world leader has been earned by the U.S., having taken upon itself the leadership of the world after WW II, rebuilding Germany and Japan, deterring of the Soviet threat, winning of the Cold War, providing massive amounts of foreign aid to other nations, and engaging in humanitarian interventions around the world in the interests of justice and peace.

Three is the belief that, although both of these other lines of reasoning may be supportive of this assumed leadership role, the U.S. has the right to rule the world because it is the only remaining world superpower that has the economic, diplomatic, and military resources to rule the world. Not to rule the world would be a serious inexcusable abdication of its calling and responsibility.

This third line of thinking and believing comes in both extreme and moderate packages. In its more extreme forms it is fairly close if not identical to a variation on the “might equals right” theory of political authority. “We have the right to rule the world because we have the power to do so.” This imperialist line has been promulgated, at least in western culture, from the time of the ancient Athenian imperialist experiments on through the age of pax Romana, through the colonial periods of Dutch and English imperialism and up to the present day of the imperialist talk about Pax Americana in this, the so-called American Century.

Eerily enough, this third line of thinking has dominated the thinking of the major actors in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy for at least the past couple of decades, and has been one of the main motivations behind the wars against Iraq. Two sources should suffice here to document this claim. (1) A key point in the first draft of the 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999” is that the three main U.S. objectives in the 21st century should be to prevent the emergence of a rival superpower, “to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values,” and to be prepared to take unilateral action in pursuing global goals.”2 (2) The September 2002 presidential report, “the National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” asserts the right of the United States to engage in preemptive military strikes against other nations to make sure, among other things, that no other nation threatens its status as the lone remaining superpower in the world.3

Since my purpose is to examine the claim that the U.S. has the moral right to assume the leadership role among the nations of the world, then this third view falls by the wayside. A twelve year old child has enough rational acumen to see that power doesn’t make for right. All the economic and military power in the world doesn’t translate into a moral right.

It seems to me that the only plausible ground for a nation to possess a moral right to assume a leadership role among the nations of the world is that it has earned this right by virtue of its actions, that it has achieved what I would call “moral standing.” A nation achieves “moral standing” through consistent and sustained domestic and international behavior that, in general, promotes the common good, pursues justice, and establishes peace. Also, this moral standing doesn’t yield the right to dictate to the other nations of the world, but the right to be listened to, to be consulted, and to be supported in cooperative mutually beneficial efforts. The concept of leadership advanced by this view is that of a leader as an example or model.

Ethical Assumptions [top]

To talk about moral standing or status is to introduce into our thinking and assessments the basic concepts of ethics, concepts like right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, fair and unfair. And so, let me offer a few words by way of a brief explication. Initially and primarily, ethical concepts relate to the ways in which we as human beings interact with one another, and by extension can include, and probably should include, ourselves, other non-human living beings, and the larger world in which we live, and move, and have our being.

This outlook assumes there are certain ways of relating to other human beings that are good, right, just, or fair, and other ways that are evil, wrong, unjust, or unfair. Thoughts, attitudes, words, actions in the latter category cause harm to others, and thoughts, attitudes, words, and actions in the former category do not cause harm, protect others from harm, and/or promote the well-being of others.

Most forms of harm are forms of violence, if we define violence in such a way as to include physical, psychological, and institutional (or structural) forms. If we understand pacifism to cover a major portion of the sphere of nonviolence, and if we include positive as well as negative dimensions to pacifism, then the principle of nonviolence applies to a broad spectrum of the total range of human behavior. The principle of nonviolence is at the heart or core of morality and ethics. The burden of proof, from this moral standpoint, falls upon those who would engage in and/or advocate engaging in violent action and behavior.

This moral outlook is inclusive, universal, and egalitarian. No human beings are outside the pale of its applicability. It applies equally to all human beings.

This outlook on morality presupposes a complex understanding of human beings which steers a course between highly optimistic, romantic, and naïve views of human nature, and thoroughly pessimistic views. A balanced approach does not ignore but takes careful cognizance of the darker, negative, and destructive actions and possibilities among human beings. But it also recognizes the rational, moral, and spiritual possibilities of individual and collective human behavior, and marvels at its positive and constructive achievements. It is, in part, this recognition of human accomplishments and possibilities that yields a sense of the value and worth of human beings. And this sense in turn generates a respect or regard for them. And respect calls for nonviolence in relating to them, even if in some situations, often in situations of extreme conflict, we must relate to them as they could be or should be rather than as they are at the time being and acting.

Achieving Moral Standing [top]

Since the leadership concept required for moral standing is that of an example or model, a nation’s domestic record is relevant and important. If the way a nation governs its own citizens is seriously tarnished, it cannot be effective in spreading important values to other nations. It may champion through the speeches and policy statements of its leaders values like democracy, human rights, human equality, and freedom in its many forms, but such talk falls on deaf ears if its domestic practice doesn’t reflect these values. The hypocrisy and inconsistency will be readily detected, widely criticized, and even denounced. “Do as I say, not as I do” will not work.

So my question becomes: What kinds of sustained and consistent actions, domestic and international, would (should) count as criteria, both necessary and desirable, that could be used to determine whether a nation deserves moral standing among the nations of the world?

Ideally, domestic and international criteria should be applied, not only to the United States, but also to the other nations of the world, leading to a rank ordering of the nations in moral standing. But nations differ so widely in significant areas — size, geography, population; ethnic, racial, tribal, cultural, religious, social makeup; type of government (tribal, monarchical. autocratic, democratic, socialist); economic structure, and wealth – the best we can do is to rank nations in general groupings like poor, average, good, better, and best, with those ranked in general above average “awarded” the moral right to be consulted by other nations on serious world problems, as well as the moral responsibility to use their knowledge, wisdom, insight, and resources as means of help and support. Where comparative data is available, we also can profitably rank nations on specific matters, for example, on medical care, child nutrition, or education, and this data can be factored into our overall general rankings. My purpose in this paper is the more limited one of applying some crucial domestic and international criteria to the United States to see if we can gather enough information to determine whether the widely held assumption, that the United States is the moral leader of the world and should be acknowledged as such, is justified.

Here are lists of suggested domestic and international criteria.

Domestic Criteria [top]

1. A functioning constitutional democracy

a. committed to the rule of law

b. an advocate, supporter, and protector of human rights

c. has a humane system of justice: fair and equitable; no cruel and unusual punishment; emphasis on restitution, reformation, and restoration; low levels of crime and numbers of persons incarcerated.

d. an informed and engaged citizenry

(1) commitment to education

(2) an independent media (freedom of the press)

(3) supporting the right of dissent

(4) open dialog, discussion, and debate

(5) freedoms of speech, assembly, and movement

e. trustworthy and competent government officials

(1) honest and truthful

(2) qualified for their jobs and assignments

2. meeting the basic needs of its citizens

a. health care, nutritious food, clean air, fresh water

b. jobs, job security, living wages, safe working conditions, adequate benefits, equitable economic system

c. social security, retirement benefits, care for the disabled and elderly

d. security: police and fire protection; disaster preparedness and relief

e. affordable, safe housing

f. education, job training, professional training

International Criteria [top]

1. honoring existing commitments in the world of nations

a. the United Nations

b. treaties and regional agreements

c. the World Court and other international courts

2. positive, cooperative, constructive attitudes and actions

a. committed to world peace

b. engagement in diplomatic discussions and dialogues

c. committed to the resolution of international conflicts in fair, just, equitable, and nonviolent ways

d. trustworthy and competent government officials

3. taking a lead in dealing with the main problems facing the world in the 21st century

a. the environment: global warming; uses of oil, coal, and natural gas

b. nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, nuclear power

c. energy issues (oil, coal, etc.)

d. war and violence

e. nonviolent humanitarian intervention (Africa, AIDS, etc.)

These lists could profitably be added to, but as they stand they include the major criteria necessary for achieving and deserving moral standing among the nations of the world. I will select from these lists criteria I consider to be extremely important and apply them to the United States.

Applying Domestic Criteria [top]

From domestic criteria, I have selected the criterion of a functioning constitutional democracy and its subcategories of commitment to the rule of law, and support and protection of the right of dissent.

The Rule of Law

Although President Bush, when he took office in 2001 and again in 2005, solemnly swore to execute his office and to “... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States...,” a number of his actions, and/or the actions of his chief officers, cast doubt on the integrity and truthfulness of this oath. These actions seem to be designed to subvert the rule of law. I am going to return to these and related actions later in the paper. For now, I will mention a few examples. Among them are such things as: (1) the firing of eight U.S. attorneys apparently due to their being disloyal or not loyal enough to White House policies;4 (2) the widespread use of “signing statements” which, for all practical purposes, enables the president to disregard laws passed by Congress;5 (3) the authorization of indefinite detentions without due process and judicial review that have resulted in the torture, arbitrary detention, and “extraordinary rendition” of thousands of persons;6 and (4) the initiation, conduct, and continuation of the Iraq War. This war was justified by false and intentionally misleading statements that deceived Congress and the American people, undermining the authority of Congress and the right of the American people to make an informed choice [p. 43, Articles of Impeachment].7 In addition, the Iraq War violated the United Nations Charter that requires the approval of the Security Council to engage in warfare only for the purpose of self-defense against actual or imminent attack, and never on preemptive grounds. I will expand on these and related matters later in the paper.

The Right of Dissent

The United States was founded by dissenters. In the words of Henry Steele Commager, “... America was born in revolt, flourished on dissent….”.8 But over time, with the rush to expand the territory of the United States, aided and abetted by the development of the theory of manifest destiny, dissent against government policies and actions was muted and condemned. In the words of Lewis H. Lapham,

The expanding sense of national purpose associated with the waging of both the Mexican and Civil Wars muffled the expression of dissent in the more popular assumption that America was destined to become, in the words of a characteristic speech delivered in Covington, Kentucky on July 4, 1850, by William Evans Arthur, apprentice congressman and judge, “the ark of safety, the anointed civilizer, the only visible source of light and heat and repose in a dark and discordant and troubled world.”9

Abraham Lincoln, as a young congressman, opposed the theory of manifest destiny that was being used to justify the invasion of Mexico because it gave to the president of the United States an inordinate amount of power in relation to Congress and threatened the constitutional balance of power.10

But yet Lincoln, as President during the Civil War, writes Lapham,

... occasionally suspended the right of habeas corpus and ordered the imprisonment of several thousand civilians suspected of making careless, offhand remarks critical of his policy. Not surprisingly, the Civil War fostered the suppression of disagreeable opinion in every area of American politics, in the chambers of Congress as well as in newspapers... .11

With the continuation of imperial tendencies among government leaders after the Civil War, especially in the McKinley and Wilson administrations, the suppressing of dissent became more pronounced. This suppression invariably occurred during times of domestic discontent and war, war with Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico in McKinley’s administration, and with Germany in Wilson’s administration. This suppression, as it was applied in these administrations, and as it found legal expression and application in such federal laws as the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act, could be seen as setting precedents for the suppression of dissent by the Bush administration.

Dissent and its suppression continued from time to time through the Depression, World War II, the Cold War, on up to the present time.

The history of dissent in the United States is a history of struggle against forces in the country that want to suppress the expression of opinion, squash open dialog and discussion, and place limits on freedoms of the press, assembly and movement. These forces are social, political, and/or ideological in nature. But they find expression in the laws and actions of the federal government. Such suppression invariably occurs during times of actual, perceived, or fabricated crises, especially during wartime. Usually always, it is helped along by fear-mongers and conspiracy theorists in government and in the larger public.

In general, I think it is correct to say that the tendency of the Bush administration has been and continues to be in the direction of control, not only of actions, but also of thoughts or, at least, of the expression of thoughts in disagreement or dissent, “You are either with us or against us” could be seen as its mantra, the original statement being, as it was delivered to the United Nations (November 10, 2001), “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This meant, or came to mean, that anything said or done, by way of speeches, editorials, articles, letters to editors, news commentary, books, demonstrations, or public displays, in disagreement with the U.S. administration, is un-American, un-patriotic, and traitorous.

The suppression of dissent in attempts to supposedly thwart the encouragement of attacks by terrorists against the U.S. is frightening enough in and of itself. But add to the mix of motivations the imperial ambitions of the administration, its sense of doing God’s will, and its desire to retain control of political power, and the resulting cocktail comes close to meaning the death knell for the human and civil rights of U.S. citizens and citizens of other nations in the world. There is a fundamental contradiction between the freedom of persons in a constitutional democracy and the overweening, arrogant, presumptuous ambitions of empire.

Key legal documents rushed into law in the past few years contain sections that can be and have been interpreted to increase the power of surveillance by the U.S. government of both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. They are the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the revised guidelines and priorities for the FBI as expressed and explained in the document, Terrorism Enterprise Investigations.

The intent of the administration in all these laws and guidelines, as well as in related documents, is epitomized in the words of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, talking about the changes in the FBI guidelines, spoke of the need for a new understanding of the word “protection” in view of potential terrorist attacks. For him, this new understanding calls for relaxing the regulations that have controlled the FBI for several decades. In Ashcroft’s words, these old regulations, “... mistakenly combined timeless objectives — the enforcement of the law and respect for civil rights and liberties – with outdated means.”13 Ashcroft did not say explicitly what he meant by outdated means. Lewis Lapham suggests it could “be taken to refer to any paragraph in every article of the Constitution,”14 especially given the above-and-beyond-the-law stance of the Bush administration.

There are many variations on the nature and extent of the actions by the government, as well as by private groups and organizations desiring to support and assist the government, to suppress and control the thoughts and actions of U.S. citizens in the name of security from the attacks of terrorists. The following are just a few examples to give you some sense of the range, reach, and significance of these actions.

1. FBI searches of street demonstrations for “anarchists” and “extreme elements” and the random arrest of any participants considered to be suspect.15

2. the setting up by the Secret Service of “free-speech areas” often behind chain-link fences at some convenient distance from presidential motorcades.16

3. the control by nine conglomerates of 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment industries, and by three corporations of 50% of Internet traffic, almost all in varying degrees in collusion with business and advertising interests as well as with government.17

4. an FBI bulletin on Christmas Eve 2003 advising 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the country to keep an eye out for people carrying almanacs, and to be especially cautious of persons carrying almanacs “annotated in suspicious ways.”18

5. the publication of a guide to acceptable forms of free speech by ACTA (the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, whose leaders and supporters include Lynne V. Cheney, the wife of vice-president Cheney, Irving Kristol, and William Bennett) titled Defending Civilization, in which the authors charged that the nation’s universities did not respond to September 11, 2001, with an appropriate degree of “anger, patriotism and support of military intervention.”19 To support its allegations, the guide listed 115 of what it considered to be subversive remarks culled from college newspapers or overheard by informants between September 14 and November 4, 2001.20 Among the sentiments considered to be treasonable by the council, are the following:

“We have to learn to use courage for peace instead of war” (professor of religious studies, Pomona College); “[I]ntolerance breeds hate, hate breeds violence and violence breeds death, destruction and heartache” (student, University of Oklahoma); “[We should] build bridges and relationships, not simply bombs and walls”(speaker at Harvard Law school); “Our grief is not a call for war” (poster at New York University).21

Applying International Criteria [top]

From international criteria, I have selected for review the honoring of existing commitments in the world of nations, and taking a lead in addressing the global problems related to warfare, particularly the militarization of society, and the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In general, the U.S. record in honoring existing international commitments and adding its name to resolutions and guidelines widely supported by other nations is rather pathetic. Whether it is a matter of signing the Kyoto Protocols, or agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of the World Court, or signing the document regulating the production and use of land mines, the U.S. has refused to cooperate.

The most egregious failures of the U.S. in complying with international norms have to do with breaking laws protecting the sovereignty, political autonomy, and territorial integrity of other nations The epitome of such failures is the U.S. military attack against Iraq. The initiation of the war violated the United Nations charter, and the conduct of the war violated the Geneva Conventions, the Laws of Land Warfare of the U.S. Military, as well as the U.S. Constitution.

A careful review of the recent military aggressiveness of the United States uncovers a frightening phenomenon – the phenomenon of a militarized nation, a nation dominated by the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, with its tentacles reaching out from the “House of War” (James Carroll’s name for the Pentagon) into all dimensions of our society – other departments of government, industry, business, finance, education – as a massive dominating complex. What has happened since the end of the Second World War is the realization of the nightmare President Dwight D. Eisenhower feared and warned against in his farewell address of January 17, 1961, when he said,

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.22

James Carroll, commenting of Eisenhower’s statement, says that the aspect of intricate connecting of civilian life with the military was new but the sentiment was not. Carroll then quotes President George Washington: “Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty.”23

What has been created in the U.S. and, by extension and influence, the rest of the world, is a culture of death, and at the heart of the culture of death is a culture of war, with its production and proliferation of the weapons of war, the instruments of death, and at the top of the list of these weapons of war and death are nuclear weapons.

A Domestic and International Criterion: Trustworthy Government Leaders [top]

There is one more criterion I want to apply to the U.S. before I draw conclusions about the assumption that the United States is the moral leader of the world and should be acknowledged as such. This is the criterion, found in both the domestic and international categories, of having trustworthy and competent government leaders, with my focus being placed on trustworthiness.

On the matter of trustworthiness, the case against the Bush administration is rather strong. The Bush administration has lied time and again, not only about domestic matters (for example, on the long-term impact of tax cuts for the very rich, or on the viability of Social Security, or on the health care needs of the country) but also about the most important matters of international relations, especially about matters of war and peace.

The major sub-set of lies relating to war and peace revolve around the war against Iraq, starting with the lies about why the war was needed in the first place continuing on through to the present day to the lies about the nature and extent of the destructiveness of the war, the illegal means used in the war, and the ongoing “successfulness” and purposes of the war.

Recent past presidents have lied about matters of war and peace, especially Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan. But there seems to be, not only a quantitative, but also a qualitative difference about the lying of the Bush administration. President Bush and his officers have exhibited a cavalier attitude toward truthfulness that has become, in Eric Altman’s phrase, “... the administration’s modus operandi.”24 President Bush does not seem to be concerned about appearing to be speaking truthfully;25 he declares his right to lie if he considers it necessary;26 his falsehoods are explained away by saying or implying he is not a “fact checker”27 or a “statistician”28; he gives the impression he has more important things to talk about; he is unimpressed by contradictory evidence; and he (and his officers) do not appear to show any remorse for any clearly misleading or false statements.29 On this last point, Eric Alterman writes,

If any top members of the Bush administration , including the president and the vice-president, feel any remorse for the falsehoods, either deliberate or unintentional, with which they deceived the nation to make their misleading case for war, the evidence to demonstrate as much is remarkably thin.30

The creation of this culture of lying did not happen in a vacuum. The president’s deception of the nation was helped along by the media’s deference, collusion, gullibility, credulity, and “delicate treatment”31 of administrative claims. As a result, Altman writes, “The virtue of truth in the American presidency had, for all practical purposes, become entirely operational.”32

The cost of this pervasive lying has taken its toll on the president’s popularity ratings but,

... more critically for the nation and the future security of the planet ... Bush’s untrustworthiness profoundly undermined the credibility of the administration abroad, its ability to do business in the world on the basis of its good word, and the value of U.S. intelligence.33

On the basis of my application to the United States of several essential domestic and international criteria for establishing moral standing, I conclude that the United States does not qualify to be a moral leader among the nations of the world. The task now is to consider ways in which the U.S. might be able to establish at least an equal moral standing with other nations in cooperating together to further international well-being in the establishment of justice and peace.

Establishing or Reconstituting U.S. Moral Standing [top]

There are at least three fundamental steps the U.S. must take to restore or to establish its moral standing. One is to withdraw from Iraq, two is to restore a functional constitutional democracy, and three is to demilitarize of our society. These three steps are interrelated and should be worked on simultaneously. However, it is unlikely that the U.S. can or will withdraw from Iraq and then go on to the work of demilitarization without restoring constitutional democracy and placing strict constitutional limits on the President, Vice President and other high ranking officials.

Restoring Constitutional Democracy [top]

To accomplish this restoration will require the introduction of impeachment proceedings in Congress against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high-ranking administration officers.

We can get a sense of the nature and extent of the violations of the Constitution by Bush, Cheney, and other high-ranking officials that would justify impeachment proceedings by looking at a couple of the several published lists of “articles of impeachment” that are available to the public in books and articles, or on the Internet. One example is the list of twenty “articles of impeachment” drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, published on-line under the title “Impeach Bush” found at www.VotetoImpeach.org. Here is a partial list of these articles (nine of the twenty), describing the actions of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high-ranking officials purported to be “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

• “Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U. N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.”

• “Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U. N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war"

• “Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian causalities were unavoidable.”

• “Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.”

• “Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners ... and violating ... the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

• “Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the “Supreme Law of the land” under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and others ... .”

• “Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, order indefinite detention of civilians, without access to council, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an “enemy combatant.”

• “Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.”

• “Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of [rescinding] the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court...”

Another example, containing four multi-faceted “articles of impeachment,” is the volume Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush published by the Center for Constitutional Rights published in 2006 by Melville House Publishers in Hoboken, New Jersey.34 The articles deal with many facets of the Bush administration’s constitutional violations in four areas: illegal electronic surveillance; illegal initiation and continuation of the Iraq War; violating the constitutional and international rights of citizens and other nationals; and the violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers in the U.S. government.

It is thought by many persons that introduction of impeachment proceedings against the Bush administration would be divisive and counterproductive. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, says again and again, “Impeachment is not on the table.” The alternative of the Democratic leadership is to do what can be done between now and January 2009 to curb the exercise of excessive executive power as much as possible and hope and work for a change in leadership in the 2008 elections. With a change in leadership, changes can be brought about by the new administration that will restore a balance of power in the federal government, put war-making powers and the Pentagon under the control of Congress, and bring an end to the war in Iraq.

The main problem with this approach is that in the 13 months between now and the 2008 election, any number of actions can be taken by the Bush administration that will further exacerbate the serious problems in Iraq, possibly instigate a war with Iran, make it increasingly difficult to extricate the U.S. from Iraq, cause the death and wounding of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Iraqis, and squander billions more dollars in war that will be needed not only for the reconstruction of Iraq, but also for the relief of pressing domestic needs.

Another problem with this approach would be the continued deadening of the desire of Americans to be freed from excessive and unconstitutional executive power, as well as the potential weakening of the wills and the resolve of the new administration in 2009 to restrict the abusive powers of the presidency and to restore our constitutional democracy.

Also lost would be the importance of the message impeachment would send to the world: “we take our constitutional democracy seriously so that no persons, even the President and his high-ranking officers, are above the law.” One implication of this message would be that if in his exercise of power as president, George W. Bush has committed “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” against other peoples and nations, as well as against the citizens of the U.S., the United States will do its best to rectify these violations of human rights and well-being, and help to restore or establish international justice and peace.

This implied message, then, contains within itself the germs of a process that begins with the United States taking legal and moral responsibility for its international actions, and moves on to the acknowledgement of wrong-doing when wrong-doing has occurred, to public apology for this wrong-doing, to changing our thinking about the way we act in the world of nations, to making restitution for our wrong-doing, and to helping to bring about peace, justice, and reconciliation among alienated communities, peoples, and nations. If the United States cannot assume this kind of legal and moral responsibility, it is unreasonable (and even hypocritical) to expect other communities, peoples, and nations to take steps leading to constructive change in the direction of eventual peace and reconciliation. To assume legal and moral responsibility for international actions, the people of the United States would be taking steps to becoming “honest patriots,” patriots who love their country, but love it enough to remember its misdeeds and to have the courage to acknowledge them and to do something constructive and positive about them.35

In addition, in taking legal and moral responsibility for international actions, the people of the United States would be making a statement about the importance of restoring integrity to the highest levels of government.

Given that the modus operandi of the Bush administration is lying and deception, and that this has created an environment in which lying and deception are accepted and even expected, the restoration of integrity will require the concerted efforts of the people of the nation as a whole.

A step toward this restoration at the highest levels of government would be for government officials to be able to realize that lying (presidential, vice-presidential, and otherwise) results in undesirable consequences for them as individuals. If a sense of propriety, if a pricking and prodding of conscience, if a sense of what is right and good, if a perception of the serious harms caused by lying, if a sense of one’s vowed responsibility to honor the Constitution will not generate truthfulness, hopefully a sense of self-preservation might. In the concluding section of his When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences, Eric Alterman writes,

If the accounts told in this book teach us anything, it is that presidents cannot lie about major political events that have potential serious ramifications – particularly those relating to war and peace – with impunity. These lies invariably turn into monsters that strangle their creators... .36

Then, after writing about the negative effects of the lying of several past presidents, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan, Alterman concludes,

In a better world, future U.S. presidents would learn the obvious lessons from the experiences of their predecessors: Protect genuine secrets by refusing to answer certain questions, certainly. Put the best face on your own actions and those of the politicians you support, of course. Create a zone of privacy for yourself and your family that is declared off-limits to all public inquiry. But do not, under any circumstances, lie.37

It seems that with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high ranking administrative officers, the only viable action that might precipitate the functioning of this instinct of self-preservation is the formal institution of impeachment proceedings. Such action might lead to appropriate resignations, which would get persons into office who can immediately begin to restore constitutional democracy to the U.S., to initiate the withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq, and to begin the demilitarization of our society.

If actions short of impeachment might precipitate resignations, then they should be considered. One stimulant of resignations (or prelude to impeachment) could be a general strike. Another would be an official announcement or resolution by Congress to this effect: “We believe that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others deserve to be impeached, the democratic nature of our republic requires it, and the resolution of our constitutional crisis demands it. However, we think the best way to deal with this issue is to keep before the country the horrendous facts and outrageous policies that call for impeachment. We will in the interim work to bring about a change in the control of the executive and legislative branches of government as the first necessary step to restore the rule of law, the importance of the Constitution, and the checks and balances of the U.S. system of government.” But should alternatives not precipitate the resignation of appropriate government administrators, then impeachment proceedings should be implemented.

Although impeachment proceedings may stir up passionate feelings on all sides of the political spectrum, they need not be pursued out of hatred or a desire for vengeance or ill-will, but calmly, coolly, and incisively, out of a sense of obligation and genuine love of country, It is part of the genius of the Constitution that it provides this avenue for the rational and nonviolent redress of serious grievances. Nor should those who pursue impeachment fear a negative backlash from the public that will destroy their chances for victory in the 2008 elections. The evidence of past impeachments indicates otherwise.38

Out of Iraq [top]

Among the serious efforts at setting forth a plan for ending the Iraq debacle, there are at least two that merit serious attention: The Iraq Study Group Report by James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs of the Study Group,39 and Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now, by George McGovern and William R. Polk,40 both published in 2006.

Both reports are thoroughly researched and carefully written, and worthy of careful analysis, evaluation, and critique. The Study Group report provides an assessment of the current situation in Iraq and offers a new approach (from the Bush administration approach) to responding to it. It provides 79 recommendations, 18 on “Building an International Consensus” and 61 on “Helping Iraqis Help themselves.” Out of Iraq contains several background chapters providing information on how the United States got into war with Iraq, a brief history of Iraq, the effects on Iraq of the U.S. invasion and occupation, the effects of the war on America, and the possible consequences if we do not get out of Iraq as soon as possible. In a chapter titled “How to Get Out of Iraq,” McGovern and Polk set forth recommendations in 24 sections, each section containing multiple recommendations. Many of the recommendations in the two books overlap and compliment each other. Both reports acknowledge their limitations and seek input, dialogue, debate, and criticism in order to achieve the best possible comprehensive plan for bringing this unfortunate chapter in the history of U.S. international relations to an end. Any serious efforts to do this should give serious attention to both sets of recommendations. For my purposes in this paper, I will focus upon the McGovern/Polk book.

McGovern and Polk tie the restoration of the moral standing of the U.S. to a rapid withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq. They write:

Only if America respects the fundamental right of people in Iraq to determine their own future can America’s reputation in the world community, so grievously harmed by the Iraq war, be reconstituted. Reconstituting America’s good name and standing in the world will require blending political, moral, and financial remedies; only thus can we – and the Iraqis – effect the best possible outcome of a bad and deteriorating situation. Consequently, it is crucial to the security of the United States – and to the health of still-feeble moves toward freedom and democracy in Iraq – that America finds means to exit the war in Iraq speedily, intelligently, and in ways that will replenish, or at least not further drain, ... the “reservoir of good will.” That almost universal affection for our country has been America’s greatest strength. So, as Jefferson said, “ let us hasten to retrace out steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”41

For McGovern and Polk, staying in Iraq is not an option. Withdrawal is a necessity. But, for them, we are obligated to improve the social, economic, and political conditions to ease the transition between occupation and independence. Here are their recommendations:

First-tier Policies: Essential for Iraqi Recovery and Government Effectiveness

1. That Iraq request the services of an international police force from Arab or Muslim countries for about two years during and after the U.S. withdrawal, paid for by the U.S. directly to the Iraqi government. Suitable military equipment (transport, communications, light arms) could be turned over to this force.42

2. If requested, the U.S. should assist Iraq in creating, training, and equipping, mainly by financial assistance, a permanent police force to replace the temporary international force.43

3. “America should release all prisoners of war its holds and close its detention centers.”44

4. The U.S. should stop its encouragement of the growth and heavy armament of an Iraqi army. Soldiers already recruited could be transferred to a national police force or a national reconstruction corps.45

5. The U.S. could assist the creation and training of a national reconstruction corps to rebuild infrastructure with a substantial financial allocation.46

6. Withdrawal “must include immediate [cessation] of work on U.S. military bases” and their closing as soon as possible, including the so-called “enduring bases” now under construction. These bases are expensive, would be redundant, would symbolize a hated occupation, and would prevent the independence of the Iraqi government.47

7. The U.S. should withdraw from the Green Zone and turn it over to the Iraqi government by December 31, 2007.48

8. “Before the turnover, the U.S. should buy, rent, or build a “normal” embassy for a much-reduced complement of U.S. officials. Symbolically, the embassy should not be in the Green Zone, the seat of the occupational government ... .”49

9. Mercenaries “must be withdrawn rapidly and completely” by, if necessary, stopping the payments we make to them. These 25,000 or more armed men are provided by a new industry of “security” firms and are the “loose cannons” of the Iraqi war, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi justice systems.50

10. Land mines and unexploded ordnance should be dug up and destroyed, and depleted uranium in artillery shells and their targets should be cleaned up. Surveys, planning, and removal should be funded by the U.S.51

Second-tier Policies: Beneficial to a Safe and Livable Environment in Iraq and to Restoring U.S. Standing

11. The U.S. should contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq, with property damage estimated at between $100 billion and $200 billion, the work being done by Iraqis with the hope that funds will be distributed to villages, towns, and city councils by the Iraqi government.52

12. Concrete blast walls, wire barriers, and other “ugly monuments of warfare” and “relics of the occupation” should be demolished by U.S. financial help.53

13. Historic cultural archaeological sites damaged by U.S. troops should be restored with a substantial financial contribution by the U.S. and the administration of recognized international museums.54

14. Independent auditing of Iraqi funds should be immediately conducted by an international firm paid for by the U.S. Funds misused or misappropriated by U.S. officials should be repaid to Iraq. Funds misappropriated by independents contractors should be returned to the U.S. government.55

15. “The United States should make reparations to Iraqi civilians for loss of life and property it caused.”56 Especially important is compensation to heirs or victims for deaths and serious wounds. Estimates of killed and wounded civilians run from 30,000 to 100,000 killed , with “an unknown number seriously wounded or incapacitated.”57 A compensation of at least $10,000 per person is suggested. It needs to be clearly understood, say McGovern and Polk, that “... complete restitution can never be made for the lives lost or bodies damaged ... .” But “... the United States should make every effort – and act in such a way that its good intent is patent – to make amends for the inadvertent pain it caused these peoples.”58 The project should be carried out by a quasi-independent body of Iraqis and foreigners “operating under the umbrella of an internationally recognized organization ... .”59

16. The U.S. should offer financial incentives and support through international organizations to assist in the growth of civic institutions, which would include fellowships for the training of lawyers, judges, journalists, social workers, and civil affairs workers.60

17. The status of prisoners held by the U.S. (some 14,000 to 16,000) needs to be determined. They need to be turned over to the Iraqi authorities, released, or provided with a safe place of exile, depending upon the nature of the charges, if any, made against them.61 In addition, an NGO “should be appointed to process claims of and pay compensation to those who have been tortured ... or who have suffered ling-term imprisonment.”62 Torture should be understood “... as defined by the Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions (as stipulated by Directive 23-10 and the U.S. Army Field Manuel 27-10 on the Law of Land Warfare)... .”63 About 4,000 persons have suffered imprisonment in violation of the right to habeas corpus. Political and moral issues should be involved in determining proper compensation, even if the legal issues may be unclear. For McGovern and Polk, “The very act of assessing damages would itself ... be a part of the healing process,” “[p]erhaps somewhat along the lines of the South African Truth Commission.”64

18. “The United States should not object to the Iraqi government voiding all oil contracts for petroleum exploration, development, and marketing made during the American occupation, so that these can be renegotiated or thrown open to fair bidding.”65 Otherwise, Iraq will lose around $200 billion over the terms of the contracts.66 It is especially important that this be done, given the perception of most Iraqis that the U.S. is in Iraq for its oil.67 For McGovern and Polk,

Once the attempt to create American-controlled monopolies or unfair contracts is abandoned, investment could take place in a rapid and orderly manner. So we anticipate no cost to the American government connected to this reform.68

19. The U.S. should encourage, with substantial financial support, appropriate U. N. agencies and NGO’s to rebuild the Iraqi health system, including the training of doctors, nurses, and technicians, over a five-year period.69 Although the cost would be substantial, for McGovern and Polk, “It is sobering to think that the total cost of rebuilding the public health system of Iraq amounts to less than the cost of eight days of occupation, about $1.7 billion.”70

20. “Finally,” McGovern and Polk write,

America should express its condolences for the large number of Iraqis killed, incapacitated, incarcerated, and/or tortured... . A simple gesture of conciliation would go far to shift our relationship from occupation to friendship. It is a gesture without cost but of immense value. Failing to recognize the pain the Iraqi people have suffered, could, and we believe, would leave a festering wound.71

For those concerned about the cost of this comprehensive program of withdrawal from Iraq and its rehabilitation, McGovern and Polk write:

... the monetary cost of the basic program ... might total roughly $7.75 billion. The “second tier” programs cannot be accurately forecast, but the planning and some implementation is likely to cost about $5.5 billion. Assuming that these programs save two years of occupation, they would offset expenditures of at least $350 billion and more likely $400-$500 billion.72

And lest it be thought that McGovern and Polk are relatively unconcerned about the U.S. men and women who served and are serving in the military in Iraq, they write:

The nation owes a debt of comprehensive benefits to the young men and women called to military service in Iraq... . The veterans of the war in Iraq especially need and deserve a comprehensive rehabilitation – physically, mentally, educationally, and economically, including the highly successful offerings of the World War II G.I. Bill of Rights.73

The Demilitarization of American Society [top]

The third necessary task required to restore or establish the moral standing of the United States in the world of nations is the demilitarization of American society. I already have sketched out briefly my concern about the militarization of our society and the dominance of the Pentagon in the halls of government, in our society, and in the world. To put my point here succinctly, it is necessary for the Department of Defense to be brought under the strict control of the Constitution, Congress, and the American people, essentially for the “House of War” to be dismantled.

The goals of a process of demilitarization would include:

1. The abolition of nuclear weapons and other WMD, biological and chemical. The U.S. should take the lead in this global effort and take both unilateral and multilateral steps to achieve this goal.

The irony and the tragedy is that, although Iraq was attacked, Iran may be attacked, and North Korea has been put on notice allegedly to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, Carroll writes that

... when it comes to nuclear danger Washington is by far the graver problem, beginning with its post-Cold War refusal to significantly downsize its own nuclear arsenal; continuing through its early-1990s failure to fully secure “loose nukes” in Russia; to the Pentagon’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, which kept a sizable nuclear arsenal as a “hedge”; to the Senate’s 1996 refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; to the Bush administration’s 2003 repudiation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the 2004 deployment of missile defense, which motivated Russia and China to add “hair” to the hair trigger; to the Bush administration’s stated – and unprecedented – readiness to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.74

To these facts should be added the Pentagon’s proposed “project of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons,”75 some of which would be “mini-nukes” or “conventionalized” nukes to be used in war along with conventional weapons. Accompanying these plans was the Bush administration’s reviling of the U.S. tradition of arms control as “wishful thinking” and “irresponsible passivity” in the words of John Bolton, appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005.76 In the words of James Carroll, “Bolton was the living icon of the two most dismaying facts of global politics today: nuclear arms control is dead; America killed it.”77

The effect of these actions by the Bush administration “... is to legitimize nuclear-based power politics”78 giving other nations reason to develop nuclear weapons. In brief summation, “The Pentagon has become the engine of [nuclear] proliferation.”79

2. the abolition of all indiscriminate weapons, including “uranium-depleted” weapons, land mines, and cluster bombs. Indiscriminate weapons cause unnecessary destruction and noncombatant deaths and injuries, and often death and injury long after the end of armed hostilities.

3. the breaking up of the government, military, industrial, business, finance, educational complex.

4. putting the “merchants of death” out of business and converting war industries to peaceful industries.

5. reducing military forces to a minimum, to be used for small-scale, short-term, strictly limited actions that are absolutely necessary, to stop unjust killing or serious harm, as a last resort, as a temporary measure, defensive and not offensive, used reluctantly.

Required by these conditions would be the honoring of the restraints of law and morality, national and international: strictly interpreted just war morality or qualified pacifism, the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Laws of Land, Air, and Sea Warfare. These restraints would require, among other things, the abolition of torture and terrorist activity, and the prohibition of insurgency and counterinsurgency actions.

6. establishing the primacy of nonviolent conflict resolution. The implementation of this goal would require, among other things, the creation of appropriate departments on the federal level for the training of thousands of citizens in the relevant skills necessary for its successful accomplishment.

7. a recognition and acknowledgement of “the moral obsolescence of war” as a viable means for the resolution of human conflicts. This recognition has been dawning in the minds of persons who have not been part of or influenced by nonviolent traditions as they reflect on what war has become during and since the Second World War. Given the increasingly uncontrollable destructiveness of war which had its beginnings in that war, war no longer seems to be a viable instrument of foreign policy, if it ever was, as Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian army officer writing in 1832, argued.

Ironically, in the same week that the Pentagon, (the “House of War”), had its beginnings, in January of 1943, James Carroll points out that three other things had their beginnings that over time have revealed ever more clearly war’s uncontrollable destructiveness, and its inability to resolve international conflicts in long-lasting constructive ways, that have revealed war’s obsolescence. These three things were the creation of the idea of unconditional surrender which pushes wars to the extremes of destructiveness, the Pointblank strategy of the strategic indiscriminate bombing of cities, and the opening of the atomic lab at Los Alamos in New Mexico.80 Yet, at the same time, although the obsolescence of war has shown itself, “the unyielding grip of war”81 has shown itself also. What can we make of this phenomenon?

Lewis H. Lapham, in an essay he titles “Flies in Amber,” also considers war to be obsolete. For him, it is an irrational, unproductive, undesirable, immoral means of resolving conflicts, at least since Hiroshima. But the “die-hards,” those who have a personal stake in the continued relevance of the military option in human affairs, or those who are still stirred by romantic ideas of adventure, honor, and glory in warfare, do not seem to be able to consider the viability of nonviolent alternatives to war. Lapham compares these persons to “flies in amber.” He writes about President Bush’s war on terrorism as possibly

... not an act of criminal stupidity but as the work of a man imprisoned in a past tense. I see the president making speeches against a backdrop of flags at the Naval Academy or among high-ranking uniforms at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and I think of a ten-year-old boy reciting the poetry of Rudyard Kipling, or of the youngest deck officer aboard the U.S. Navy flagship in a 1940s Hollywood movie made with the technical assistance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. When I listen to the debates in Congress about what to do with our army in Iraq, I’m left with a similar impression – of flies preserved in amber, or of Pleistocene vertebrates trapped for 30,000 years in the La Brea Tar Pits ... . Whether for or against the war ... , the tribunes of the people don’t seem to have grasped the fact that war as the heavy-weight instrument of foreign policy didn’t survive, either as a technology or as an idea, its tour of duty in the graves of the twentieth century.82

Prominent contemporary military historians have adopted variations of the obsolescence thesis. John Keegan, in A History of Warfare, arrives at this conclusion:

War, it seems to me, after a lifetime of reading about the subject, mingling with men of war, visiting the sights of war, and observing its effects, may well be ceasing to defend itself to human beings as a desirable or productive, let alone rational, means of reconciling their discontents.83

John Mueller, in Remnants of War, writes:

The central burden of this book is that war is merely an idea. Unlike breathing, eating, or sex, war is not something that is somehow required by the human condition or by the forces of history. Accordingly, war can shrivel up and disappear, and it seems to be in the process of doing so.84

I myself do not as yet see signs of war being in the process of shriveling up and disappearing. But its undesirableness, unproductiveness, irrationality, and immorality are becoming increasingly evident to more and more people. It could be that the combination of these truths and the inability of those committed to military solutions to human conflicts to see any other viable alternatives generates what Carroll calls “the unyielding grip of war” in the minds and hearts of many human beings. Perhaps in this paradoxical phenomenon, we are seeing at least the beginnings of the death throes of warfare as a viable human endeavor.

Conclusion [top]

What are the prospects that the United States will be able to restore or establish moral standing among the nations of the world? The answer depends upon the thoughts, choices, and actions of thousands, of millions, of Americans in the coming months and years. If enough persons in all walks of life have had enough of what we have been doing in the world and in our country in the recent past, and are stimulated to become active, we might see positive and constructive changes beginning to happen. But serious and potentially terminal disease calls for radical, often invasive surgery. So these kinds of changes will not come about easily or rapidly or without sacrifice. We are in dire need of a turning of the tide in this country and in the world. But sea changes in human cultures have occurred in the past. And they can occur again. Positive and constructive changes will not occur unless we do what we can to help bring them about. To do little or nothing is to guarantee that they will not happen. So a qualified hope grounded in creative thinking and pragmatic courageous action is both justified and necessary.

Recent opinion polls indicate, in the words of Jerry W. Sanders, that

Despite the absence of leadership or even media attention on the subject, the American people have somehow grasped the deeper meaning of a rapidly globalizing world and the lessons this new context holds for the pursuit of national interest and security, as well as the place of democracy in the conduct of foreign policy.85

In these polls, a majority, sometimes a substantial majority, of Americans, including a majority of Republicans and Democrats, hold the following views:

1. The low opinion of the United States in the world is due to a foreign policy that causes other nations to see the U.S. as a military threat, and this perception harms national security and isolates America from other nations.

2. The U.S. should not go its own way in international affairs.

3. They reject “... both empire and hegemony as strategies for a global era.”86 They believe the U.S. cannot expect to rule the world, should stop assuming the role of world policeman, do not agree that “... as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems,” prefer multilateral cooperation to solve international problems, and think the U.S. should “think in terms of being a good neighbor” rather than insisting on a leadership role.87

4. This multinational preference in dealing with international problems and crises applies to both the issue of terrorism and the potential threat of Iran, as well as to other matters.88

5. More emphasis should be placed on economic and diplomatic means rather than on military power to combat terrorism, the U.S. should work through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to enforce these laws, and suspected terrorists should be tried by the ICC (International Criminal Council).89

6. They favor antimilitarist means in dealing with Iran.90

7. They hold the view that democracy cannot be successfully spread by military force. Yet, at the same time, they believe that “building democracy in other nations” is important but should be implemented by multilateral cooperation and through the UN.91

8. They reject the myth of American exceptionalism, considering the view that America is superior to other nations and should attempt to reshape them in view of our values is a dangerous point-of-view.92

9. They favor participation in international agreements and institutions – the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto agreement on global warming, and UN peacekeeping forces.93

In spite of these majority views, most of the current 2008 presidential candidates ignore them. It’s time for the majority of Americans to challenge these candidates to discard policies and views that have not worked and which threaten the further demise of the United States in world opinion and influence, and to replace these old strategies with ones that will enable us to begin the restoration of the moral standing of the United States in the world of nations.

Sanders ends his article with the following paragraph:

America’s standing in the world cannot be restored by dusting off old strategies from the past for reuse in a new century. The times require more, and the public deserves better. The presidential candidate who says as much and begins to chart the cartography of “responsible globalism” fitted for the demands of a global era will find a welcoming audience abroad and a receptive constituency at home. He or she will, of course, have to buck the politics of fear and attacks from the peddlers of crisis, as well as the predictable counsels of caution from assorted policy elites and advisers. But this is where real leadership will be sorted out in 2008, and why we are in desperate need of a Great Debate to find it.94

Endnotes [top]

1. See Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (NY, NY: Penguin books, 2007 (2006), pp. 204-217.

2. See www.pbs.org, visited on 10 July 2003.

3. See www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf.

4. Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot (White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007), p. 142.

5. Ibid., p. 144. A “signing statement” in this context in a written pronouncement by President Bush that accompanies or is attached to his signing of a bill into law. The problem with President Bush’s signing statements is that they clearly appear, in the words of a New York Times commentary, “... to make the president the interpreter of the law’s intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.” See Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, for a nine page outlined essay with references and external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29.

6. Center for Constitutional Rights. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush (Hoboken, New Jersey: Melville House Publishing, 2006), p. 63. The term “extraordinary rendition” refers to the U.S. practice of sending suspected terrorists out of the country or out from under U.S. jurisdiction for interrogation by foreign nationals in countries that are lax in the use of techniques of torture. These individuals are secreted out away from U.S. jurisdiction usually under cover of darkness without legal precedent or oversight.

7. Ibid., p. 43.

8. Quoted in Lapham, Lewis H., Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 14.

9. Lapham, ibid., p. 54.

10. See ibid., p. 54.

11. Ibid., p. 55.

12. Ibid., p. 11.

13. Ibid., pp. 82-83.

14. Ibid., p. 80.

15. See ibid., p. 86.

16. See ibid.

17. See ibid., p. 102.

18. Ibid., p. 83.

19. Ibid.

20. See ibid., p. 9.

21. See ibid.

22. James Carroll, House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p. 551.

23. Ibid.

24. Eric Alterman, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), p. 297.

25. See ibid., p. 296.

26. See ibid., p. 206.

27. See ibid., p. 296.

28. See ibid., p. 297.

29. See ibid., p. 302.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., p. 303.

32. Ibid., p. 305.

33. Ibid., pp. 305-06.

34. The four articles of impeachment are found on pp. 17, 43, 61, and 85.

35. On the definition and explication of “honest patriots,” see Donald W. Shriver, Jr., Honest Patriots: Loving a Country Enough to Remember Its Misdeeds (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 3-13.

36. Alterman, ibid., p, 305.

37. Ibid., p. 305.

38. See John Nichols, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism (New York: The New Press, 2006), pp. 16-17, 48-49. 119-120.

39. James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs, The Iraq Study Group Report (New York: Random House, Inc., 2006).

40. George McGovern and William R, Polk, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006).

41. Ibid., p. 95.

42. See ibid., pp. 100-101.

43. See ibid., pp. 101-102.

44. Ibid., p. 103.

45. See ibid., pp. 103-104.

46. See ibid., p. 104.

47. See ibid., pp. 104-105.

48. See ibid., p. 105. Bold italics are mine.

49. See ibid.

50. See ibid., p. 106.

51. See ibid., pp. 106-107.

52. See ibid., pp. 1107-108.

53. See ibid., p. 110.

54. See ibid., p. 111.

55. See ibid., pp. 111-112.

56. Ibid., p. 113.

57. Ibid., p. 114.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. See ibid., pp. 114-115.

61. See ibid., p. 116.

62. Ibid., pp, 116-117.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid., p. 117.

65. Ibid.

66. See ibid., p. 118.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid.

69. See ibid., pp. 118-120.

70. Ibid., p. 120.

71. Ibid., pp. 120-121.

72. Ibid., pp. 121-122.

73. Ibid., p. 122

74. James Carroll, House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p. 500.

75. Ibid., p. 501.

76. See ibid.

77. Ibid., p. 505.

78. Ibid., p. 501.

79. Ibid.

80. See ibid., p. 494.

81. Ibid., p. 495.

82. Lewis H. Lapham, “Flies in Amber,” Harper’s Magazine (Vol. 315, No. 1888, September 2007), pp. 8, 9, 11, 13), p. 8.

83. Ibid., p. 11.

84. Ibid.

85. Jerry W. Sanders, “The Great Debate of 2008,” The Nation, Volume 285, Number 16, November 19, 2007, p. 38. Polls consulted by Sanders were conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, World Public Opinion, Public Agenda, Third Way, and Gallup.

86. Ibid.

87. See ibid.

88. See ibid. pp. 38-39.

89. See Ibid., p. 38.

90. See ibid., pp. 38-39.

91. See ibid., p. 39.

92. See ibid.

93. See ibid.

94. Ibid., p. 39.