The jury in the Moussaoui case handed in a life sentence; one less body on the 9/11 heap, and that’s all to the good… particularly since the government wanted so badly to burn this mad Frenchman, throwing every grisly detail of the terror attacks at the jury. Total victory has been elusive in the prosecutorial war on terror. This perhaps explains the administration’s preference for military tribunals and the legal limbo of “enemy combatant” status. All this due process nonsense really gets in the way when you want to get some decent sentencing done. Still, the news isn’t all bad for the Department of (In)Justice. They managed to put Lynne Stewart away for the heinous “crime” of violating an administrative agreement, once again stoking the jury with a stack of evidence from unrelated terror attacks and playing tapes of uncle Osama. Even more outrageously, they’ve convicted an NYU grad student — Mohammad Yousry — because he performed his normal duties as translator for the defense team. (See David Cole’s essay in last week’s Nation for more.) Don’t you feel a whole lot safer now? Okay, how about now?

Most of these cases are built on sand, wholly dependent on an extremely weak guilt-by-association component. That’s why the Lodi, California terror case is a shambles and why they failed to convict Sami Al-Arian on a single charge (though federal prosecutors pulled a fast one on this one at the last minute, agreeing to a plea bargain that would amount to time served and deportation for Al-Arian, then apparently getting Alberto Gonzales to intervene with judge Moody so that he would add 18 months to Al-Arian’s sentence on the basis of testimony thoroughly discredited in court and rejected by the jury — see John Sugg’s piece in Creative Loafing for details). Washington is looking for people to take the blame, whether or not they are demonstrably guilty. There’s a kind of circus show-trial feeling to the proceedings, like the Moussaoui case, the sentencing phase of which degenerated into an “I won,” “No, we won” dispute with a madman. How is it that the press can still report with amazement the stuff that comes out of that guy’s mouth? What do they expect him to say? Here’s a guy who exaggerated his own importance in the 9/11 plot in an effort to get himself executed — a ploy so lacking in credibility that the jury could not send him to the death chamber. It’s as if the TV reporters are saying, “Yes, Tom… he’s still crazy.” 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is continually setting new benchmarks for its own illegal and extra-constitutional behavior. Just this week it was revealed that the president has issued “signing statements” on a large number of laws passed by Congress during his tenure — these documents essentially announcing his administration’s intention to ignore the law or apply it as they see fit. Their reading of the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military is extremely expansive, bordering on banana republic-type “strong man” powers. Russ Feingold’s censure motion is designed to call the president on this arrogation of near-dictatorial power and hold him responsible for breaking the law, but it appears the Senate Democrats haven’t got the belly for it. One would think they might want to make an issue of this for the fall elections — you know, position themselves as the party of the constitution, the party of rights and the rule of law, that sort of thing. I for one am not holding my breath. They feel, I’m sure, that if they defend the rights of the accused, it makes them look “soft on terrorism” or, in pop jargon, “gay.” 

Slogan for the Republicans this fall: We suck. Slogan for the Dems: We suck, only less hard.  

Remembering the Holocaust this week, a prominent New York Rabbi described Iran as an existential threat to Israel and the Jewish people. (Never to be outdone in the overstatement game, our own Senator Charles Schumer declared there to be no difference between Hamas and Nazi Germany… Hamas now being the most powerful military/industrial power in the world, hell-bent on territorial expansion.) It does astonishingly poor service to the memory of the millions killed by Hitler and his crew to use them as part of an effort to whip up war fever. Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons, if they ever shall, and such a capability would only be useful to them as a deterrent. Ahmadenijad may obligingly employ Paleolithic anti-Israeli rhetoric, but I doubt he and the ruling elite of Persia will be ready to commit national suicide any time soon… for that is what the offensive use of nuclear weapons would mean for them, and they know it. The only nations that pose an existential threat to other nations are the major nuclear powers, including Israel (possessed of 200-300 undeclared nuclear weapons ) and, of course, the U.S. with its overwhelming arsenal of potential global destruction. 

So long as there is the threat of attack from hostile foreign powers, Iran will seek a nuclear deterrent. This is a general principle in international relations — one boldly underscored by the Bush administration’s open policy of unprovoked war. Our military forces are on both sides of them, and we have a history of interference in their internal affairs, from World War II through the CIA-sponsored 1953 coup and straight up the present day. Think they’re paranoid? Wouldn’t you be? Hard question for most Americans to answer. We don’t have a history of domination by foreign powers, nor any experience dealing with nations more powerful than we are. What’s more, we seem to have a national incapacity to put ourselves in other people’s shoes — that’s far too “gay” for us. That’s why we treat weighty topics like war with such casualness — we can sit through most of our wars like it’s pay-per view television. Our politicians reflect that distant attitude, advocating the hard line and a very early resort to violence. (See Hillary Clinton.)

With so many willing executioners among us, it doesn’t take much to get us embroiled in some overseas fiasco. Just apply the fear factor. We’re already running down the now familiar checklist with respect to Iran. Nuclear ambitions (or the hysterical accusation thereof)? Check. Semi-unshaven and very ethnic-looking leader whose name may be preceded in print by modifiers like “hard-line” and “extremist”? Check. Inspirational and or material support for groups we identify as terrorist — like the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah — as opposed to practitioners of state terror allied to Uncle Sam? Check. Enough natural resources, such as oil, gas, gold, and other riches, to make Pat Robertson want to invest and Cheney want to rethink his “other priorities”? Double check. Iran gets special bonus points for saying nasty things about Israel and for being provocatively and unrelentingly adjacent to not one but two countries we’ve wanted to invade and many others who live on top of our oil. 

Damning evidence indeed. As our Solomon-like president famously said in the run-up to his Iraq triumph, what else do we need to know?

Iran has nuclear ambitions. We cannot allow them to develop the world’s most destructive weapons. Where have you heard this before? It seems incredible that, with the fire we started in Iraq still burning out of control, we appear to have Iran in the crosshairs. The constant drumbeat of inflammatory rhetoric and hysterical accusations makes open conflict seem more and more inevitable with each passing week. Some say the hostilities have already begun, and there can be little doubt that the more clandestine limbs of our $400+ billion-a-year military octopus are now coiling their way through the Persian hinterlands, just as they did for many years in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. You would think that someone in the administration would understand what a huge mistake such an adventure would be… but it pays to remember that these folks truly believe Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a screaming success. And if today’s Iraq is what “success” looks like, then a bloody, protracted regional war sparked by an attack on Iran will likely be viewed as a great triumph by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld (the never-say-die kid) and Rice. And Hannity and Limbaugh. Did I forget anyone? Good — then we just need six helmets, six rifles, and a flight to Teheran. Let’s get this party started! 

(I’m going to miss Scotty McClellan. Sure
wish I could start missing Rumsfeld, as well.)

Seriously — is there anyone in the U.S.who’s truly convinced by this hokum about Iran? Are we cowering in the shadow ofyet another colossal threat, too enormous to be ignored? As Ross Perot used to say, this is just sad. We seem to be sleepwalking our way into yet another unnecessary war, spurred on by the same kind of transparent exaggerations that brought us to Baghdad. As I’ve mentioned in this column before, the U.S. has now established a very weak standard for invading other countries, and unless we start actively resisting on a grassroots level, this administration and its successors will just do it again and again and again. I’m personally convinced that if there were a draft, resistance to these optional wars would be overwhelming. As long as we can ignore these conflicts, we won’t feel compelled to do anything about them, aside from grumble and perhaps quietly disagree with the policymakers. Not enough to stop a juggernaut. 

Back in February-March 2003 on the eve of Bush’s “shock and awe” campaign, many thousands of Americans took part in candlelight vigils and protests, with turnouts I would have thought inconceivable just a few months before (In my little town of Utica, NY, about 200 people turned out along the main street, and passersby were overwhelmingly supportive). Many thought this might be enough to change a policy long-since decided upon and set in motion. It wasn’t, and I think a lot of people fell into a kind of disillusionment with the process of non-violent resistance. This is where the Iraq war differs most dramatically from Vietnam — during the Vietnam war, most families didn’t have the luxury of simply turning away. You, your child, your sibling, your parent…. perhaps several family members were liable to be sent over there to kill or be killed, so you would tend either to be on the “victory” bandwagon or on the barricades of the anti-war movement. It took a long time even under those circumstances for opposition to build, but eventually it reached a magnitude that deeply troubled policymakers and forced action. Today, the draft would never be tolerated. And the main engine for opposing the Iraq war is resistance by military families, who have been given the full burden to bear on their own. 

When it comes to the actual fighting, this is their war… but when it comes to the ultimate responsibility for ending it, it’s ours.