WaPo Op-Ed

Here is an Op-Ed by Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway from the Washington Post. It discusses current negotiations between the Bush Administration and Iraq over establishing a new status of force agreement. Democrats claim (quite plausibly) that Bush is pushing language that amounts to a security guaranty for the government of Iraq. Democrats claim such an agreement would bind future presidents to continue the current policy of large force occupation. I think the Op-Ed and most debate on this issue is missing something.

Forget about the validity of the claims, and consider how easily a presidential candidate could kneecap such a contract on their own by simply announcing their intentions with respect to Iraq. Put out a statement saying that any promise of a long term security guaranty by Bush isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and that if elected you would on the first day order a bottom up policy review of everything in force. I understand that Iraq policy is toxic waste so long as Bush is in office, but that ends when the new person comes in. Whoever it is, they should not be allowed to blame bad policy on ghosts.

Book Analysis and Notes

I finished reading Bruce Ackerman's Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. My notes are here. The book argues for abandoning war a response to large scale terrorist attacks, and instead declaring an adjusted State of Emergency (SEM). The SEM would permit large scale violations of civil rights, but only for short periods of time on the order of 6 weeks. Congress would have to reauthorize the SEM, with escalating super majorities required to continue it.

Ackerman is correct to discard war as a paradigm, President Bush has spared no effort in demonstrating it's flaws. But Ackerman then adopts a "domestic police action" as the paradigmatic response. That paradigm acknowledges that we face a threat, but not a threat to our survival as a nation. It permits extraordinary powers of detention, but only for a short time until the immediate threat has passed.

The problem is that such an action is temporary, whether it's weeks or months the SEM ends and everything goes back to normal. How reasonable is it to expect terrorists to abandon a proven technique, especially when they see American politicians saying "no problem." Whatever rules or laws are put in place to prevent terrorism have to be permanent in order to be effective.

Ackerman dodges this by assuming attacks will be infrequent, but I think that's overly optimistic. How long would it take for another hijacking if we began allowing box cutters on airplanes and took locks off the cockpit doors? Fine you say, we'll make those rules permanent but everything else like surveillance will be temporary. But if we can afford to make a rule temporary, then it must not be preventing attacks so we don't need it at all.

Ackerman jumped on a big problem, and I give him credit for the attempt. A lot more useful then gazing at Jack Bauer's navel.

Current Reading

I made a run to the library today. First on the list is Bruce Ackerman's Before the Next Attack. It advocates a formal process for granting emergency powers to the President in time of emergency, specifically mass casualty terrorist attacks. I'd recommend it to people based on the first chapter alone, a clear and effective critique of the 'war on terror'.