TheAgitator.com
Cognitive Dissonance
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008A blogger named Carson Sasser responded via email to my Fox column with an objection to my suggestion that Obama investigate possible criminal wrongdoing in the Bush administration. Here’s his response:
This is a bad precedent to start. A succeeding administration doesn’t need to be consumed by a witch hunt. It needs to move forward. It needs to worry about its methods, not the methods of the previous administration. If certain individuals have obviously been harmed by Bush (like the two Border Patrol agents), Obama can apply your last suggestion [better use of the pardon power] to fix that.
I replied that part of the problem is that we don’t know the extent to which the Bush administration broke the law, nor do we know the extent of the number or identities of people harmed. So we can’t pardon them or compensate them.
We do know that the vast majorities of Gitmo detainess have no al-Qaeda ties and have never had the intent or proclivity to take up arms against the United States. So how many other innocents have been detained and/or tortured at U.S. black sites and facilities around the world?
His response:
Innocents always get caught up in conflict. Look at all the innocent people killed by our bombing in Germany during WWII. Probably the only way to stop the Somalian piracy is to bomb into oblivion all the ships and ports in Somalia and possibly in Kenya. It’s not good but probably inevitable. People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.
Emphasis mine.
I don’t mean to pick on this guy, but his shift is pretty striking. Note how quickly he goes from arguing that we should “move on” from the Bush administration’s illegal torture, spying, and taking the nation to war under false pretenses, to excusing the possible death, detainment, and torture of innocent people, because “people everywhere” “bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.”
I get the feeling that, like Sasser, a good percentage of the country still holds both of these positions, and doesn’t quite grasp the inherent conflict between them.
“I replied that part of the problem is that we don’t know the extent to which the Bush administration broke the law…”
“If the President does it, that means it’s legal.” Richard Nixon
The President is incapable of breaking the law. The President IS the law.
“L’etat, c’est moi.” Louis XIV
On the day that warrants are issued for the arrests of ANY U.S. executive, I will issue a sphincter-exiting flying monkey alert.
“People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.”
I’ll pick on Sasser too. The above statement is only true in a stateless society. When there is a State, then events are quite out of the control of individuals. In this way, the State washes its individual subjects (slaves) hands of all responsibility.
It’s just stupid, wrong, and evil to assign responsibility to everyone for things that are out of their control, and that some don’t care about. Just by existing doesn’t FORCE responsibility onto yourself. So many people have a major disconnect between liberty and individual. Everything is collectivism, and therefore we all share X Y and Z. Most would call this socialism, “the good of the many” vs “the good of the individual”.
I’m afraid most people wouldn’t know how to stand on their own in life. They must group up like a pack of hyenas, attack any target, and try to get whatever scraps they can from “the kill”. I think my dogs are more evolved and intelligent than most people.
So, by Sasser’s standards, the victims of 9/11 bear some responsibility for their deaths if the terrorists had a grudge against the U.S.?
I get the feeling that, like Sasser, a good percentage of the country still holds both of these positions, and doesn’t quite grasp the inherent conflict between them.
There’s no conflict if you subscribe to American Exceptionalism, either consciously or (more likely) unconsciously. I had a conversation (argument, really) with an old friend not long ago in which he explicitly justified his defense of US foreign policy with American Exceptionalism.
I’m still reeling from the realization that he wasn’t joking.
That does explain why Sasser is opposed to investigating Bush. If Bush is guilty of war crimes, torture, etc., then, according to Carson Sasser, Carson Sasser is guilty as well, as are the rest of us. Apparently societal responsibility is one of those things that’s good enough for Somalia, but not good enough for us. Cognitive dissonance, or blatant hypocrisy?
Good point, B.
Sasser isn’t saying we should move on from the Bush administration’s misdeeds, he’s saying we should move on from the idea of holding them accountable for their actions.
We do? I didn’t think ANYONE other than some special folks in DC knew any of this. Don’t lump us all in there ’cause I for one know nohting of these people.
Dominus providebit!
I used to see the “group responsibility” nonsense on a local conservative blog here, in relation to it being fine to kill any Palestinian Arab or destroy their houses because they allow terrorists to live among them. When I asked the author if it would be fine to destroy his house or his family if I could find a terror cell anywhere in his neighborhood, suddenly things were different. If you think I’m exaggerating, remember that the 9/11 hijackers lived among us for years. (It seems likely that there are other such terror cells in the US now, although I would hope their capacity would have been severely diminished by steps we’ve taken since then.)
Ultimately, these people place very little value on the lives of the people who are the most direct victims of terrorists - those who live around them. For those who don’t aspire to ignorance but may not know, most of the people in such places, such as the Palestinian Arabs, dare not try to get rid of the terrorists out of fear. I would imagine the same holds in Somalia, where trying to root out the pirates among you would probably just cause your death and little more. We saw the same thing in Iraq.
And, as in Iraq, the people are grateful if you will come in and weed out the crap among them, but - and this is key - only if you do it carefully and methodically and don’t kill innocents in the process. This is difficult.
The only morally justifiable way to deal with this problem is to throw Bush and his cronies in black bags, send them to CIA black sites, have them beaten, tortured, and denied access to basic medical treatment and legal representation until they confess or until the torturers arms get tired. After four or five years of this treatment they can then be tried by a tribunal of people from MoveOn.org and Michael Moore can be assigned as their legal defense and negotiate their confessions.
I mean if the whole process is valid for suspected terrorists then it must be good enough for suspected treasonists. Fair is fair.
“American Exceptionalism”
A natural derivative of Human Exceptionalism.
It’s all about control, every last bit.
A minor correction fixes it:
Foreigners everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing
Now there’s no inconsistency.
Obama said that he would evaluate whether there were crimes committed, with intent, or if the activity was just really dumb and bad policy. I like that nuanced approach.
As a matter of fact, I think it would be a great new Presidential Tradition - investigate the previous administration for crimes. I think that Obama is smart enough to do this right, if he can control it, to prevent it from becoming a witch hunt in future administrations. It would certainly keep the Executive branch on its toes.
Obama has the ability to bring in a new era of a classy president and throw off the stench of Bush, Clinton, Bush. If he were to investigate Bush fairly and honestly and vigorously defend Bush’s right as President to maintain stupid policies and vigorously go after any individual that committed a true criminal act, we could have a Golden Age of open and honest government.
“People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.”
Yes, and that’s why we should investigate Bush, as we are responsible.
quod erat demonstrandum
One other thing - there actually is a notion of “group responsibility” when applied to a state. We bombed all of Germany in WWII, but, all of Germany was at war with us. That is, the entirety of Germany (or at least the majority) was involved in one way or another in waging war.
This cannot be compared to, say, the situation in Somalia, Afghanistan, pre-war Iraq, etc., where a group of thugs had taken over the government and the people were as much the victims as anybody.
Similar reason with similar contradiction seems to be deployed in defense of Bush’s actions that were criminal or violated the Constitution: that he did it to save lives and thus it’s justified.
As though the Constitution is some optional guideline that can be thrown away whenever a person - in this case with pretty terrible judgment - decides it’s necessary to not follow it, or that it would be easier to save lives if we skirted the document.
Yet, at the same time, American soldiers die everyday to defend our Constitution and the freedoms it provides, and this is a celebrated part of our way of life. So if that last part is true - i.e. the constitution is worth dying for - then doesn’t that necessarily solve the dilemna of whether increasing the odds of saving American lives warrants violating the document?
“Obama said that he would evaluate whether there were crimes committed, with intent, or if the activity was just really dumb and bad policy.”
Sooo…..BO will recognize bad policy when he sees it? Such wisdom can only come from a man with years of experience legislating bad policy…..
….and if the change BO has promised means turning this country into a Third World Banana Republic…..press on, Sir. I’m sure your sucessor will gladly prosecute you for all of your bad policy as well……
For a primer on what happens when past administrations are threatened with prosecution for official acts, see Zimbabwe.
Hope sure does spring eternal on this site.
You may have already read it, Radley, but I rather like Glenn Greenwald’s most recent post about the issue of investigating the Bush administration. His biggest worry (which I share), is that Obama choosing to investigate the Bush administration would leave the process looking politicized, and he has ideas about how you might work to avoid that result. We need to investigate the Bush administration, and we need to do it in a way that’s impartial and furthers long-term goals of accountability for the executive.
Sure it can. Even when the thugs are behaving mostly benevolently, as in well functioning and representative states, they’re still thugs.
Not much moral/logical difference between Sasser’s view and what he’d consider terrorists.
Why? Let’s look at two very tall buildings in NYC that were destroyed on a day in September. I believe most of the world (especially East Coast Americans) took exception to “people (in those buildings) have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.”
Until we get past excusing government “leaders” of responsibility AND get past excusing “collateral” damage, we will remain unable to advance as a race.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go and try to convince the IRS not to imprison me and instead focus on moving forward.
“I’ll pick on Sasser too. The above statement is only true in a stateless society. When there is a State, then events are quite out of the control of individuals. In this way, the State washes its individual subjects (slaves) hands of all responsibility.”
In a stateless society, how am I in any way responsible for what the guy down the street does?
In a stateless society, how am I in any way responsible for what the guy down the street does?
Because the meaning of the term “stateless society” depends on whatever the speaker is asserting at the time.
Everything is true about the “stateless society” because the term means whatever it has to mean to make whatever is said true. Q.E.D.
“We do know that the vast majorities of Gitmo detainees have no al-Qaeda ties and have never had the intent or proclivity to take up arms against the United States.”
We do? I didn’t think ANYONE other than some special folks in DC knew any of this.
I think we know this because the vast majority of Gitmo detainees have been released.
Contra libarbarian, I’ll actually have a go at this question:
“In a stateless society, how am I in any way responsible for what the guy down the street does?”
Perhaps I overstepped my thesis a bit. My central point was that under the State, there is no freedom. It is irrational to hold a person who is not free responsible for the actions of others.
In support of this, the State may be defined as an entity that reserves a monopoly of the use of force in a given area. If an individual were responsible for the actions of others, then one must be able to resort to the use of force to conrol their actions. Clearly this is not the case where the State exists. It is the State that usurps responsibility for the actions of others from sovereign individuals.
I’m tempted to go on, but I can see the eyeballs turning white and rolling in their sockets, so I will stop.
… part of the problem is that we don’t know the extent to which the Bush administration broke the law … So we can’t pardon them
Conversely, pardons must specify what it is being pardoned. Hence, we would know what illegal acts were committed.
Somehow, though, I expect the guilty parties will wind up having their cake and eating it too…
@14: I think that a tradition of the next administration investigating its predecessor is a horrible idea, and I say this as someone who thinks that Bush & Cheney and their cronies need to have prosecutors sifting through all of their records to figure out how long they need to rot in prison for.
The problem with such a tradition is that some groups of people are far more partisan than others. I sure as hell wouldn’t want, say, President DeLay (to use a hypothetical) investigating a former President Obama. That power of investigation, when placed in the hands of people with a deeply partisan agenda (however well hidden if they ran for President) can be abused a la Gov. Sieglelman in Alabama: convicted of corruption and bribery in a case where the incident the charges were brought on didn’t result in him keeping a dime of the bribes. We also start getting chicken & egg scenarios with appointments (did he donate because he got the appointment, or did he get the appointment because he said he’d donate?) and a lot of other things like that.
I think this is why we see Obama taking the tack that he is: he recognizes that we need the rule of law to be restored for people to start having faith in the U.S. and what it stands for. However, if he starts going after Bush and his cronies after being sworn in, it looks like a partisan witch hunt to many (including his political enemies). How far into breaking the law do you investigate? What if someone accidentally sent a campaign e-mail or ten from a government account? Does that guy get prosecuted as well as the war criminal? It’s why Ford pardoned Nixon: for whatever reason the last guy left the office, it’s in the past. Mucking around in it too much leaves us blind towards the future and sets a bad precedent.
At least Obama has advocated for a full investigation of what took place, even if no criminal charges take place. It’s still a crappy precedent that people are getting away with crimes, but at least we can get to the bottom of what happened without setting an even worse precedent.
Wow! I express my opinon on a Balko column via e-mail and a couple of hours later I discover that it has been published and under discussion without my knowledge or consent. Way to go Radley. (Traffic on my blog tipped me off.)
It amazes me that so many people read so much into a simple statement of mine. But I admit that what I meant could have been stated a little more clearly: People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing — if they know about it and don’t report it or don’t take some other action against it.
If people are aware of dangerous activity in their midst and don’t do anything about it they are risking being harmed by that activity. But in doing something about it they are also risking harm. It might be a no-win situation.
Anyway, it looks like the little qualifier in front of “responsibility” got little notice.
Here’s my last e-mail to Balko that he didn’t publish:
I didn’t say that we don’t bear some responsibility for what Bush did. I’m saying that if we let it consume us it may impede us from moving ahead. A nation that sets the absolute requirement that it never harms an innocent is a nation that will soon be paralyzed. When you find that a mouse has been in your cupboard you set a trap for any mouse; you don’t worry too much if the mouse you catch is not the offending mouse.
You have written a lot about the shortcomings of our justice system and I agree with you on that. I’m almost convinced that we would do a better job of determining guilt or innocence if we just flipped a coin. But can we afford to just shut it down while we try to craft the perfect system?
Oh hell, this is too complicated. It’s giving me a headache. I guess it’s the cognitive dissonance.
By the way, I’m not as libertarian as you but I enjoy your writing and agree with most of it.
Actually Sasser’s and Obama’s views aren’t really that dissimilar. After all didn’t Obama say that the welfare of others is everyone’s responsibility, that we are indeed not only our borther’s keeper, but everyone else’s keeper as well? Collectivism sucks no matter which way it cuts.
Fail.
@14: I think that a tradition of the next administration investigating its predecessor is a horrible idea, and I say this as someone who thinks that Bush & Cheney and their cronies need to have prosecutors sifting through all of their records to figure out how long they need to rot in prison for.
I disagree. I think spite in politics can help curb excesses.
I think that the knowledge that the next administration won’t be investigating only encourages the current administration to break whatever laws it pleases. Maybe the threat of the being investigated will keep the bastards honest(relatively speaking).
My understanding is that they put the pardon powers of the president into the constitution to prevent the tit for tat criminalizing of political differences that resulted in the fall of the Roman republic.
If you are pretty sure that you are going to end up in jail after you relinquish power it raises the possibility that you just won’t give up power at all. Likely this new administration throwing the Bushies in jail wouldn’t spark the war (even the war of corruption/gerrymandering etc.) but one or two rounds would.
It’s just not worth it.
Count me in the camp that wouldn’t mind erring on the side of presidents spending too much time investigating their predecessors. I’ll grant that it’s a precedent with some potentially dicey consequences…but clearly so is the (long-standing) precedent that your successor isn’t likely to look too hard at your administration, as has already been pointed out.
Besides, if the political class is busy screwing each other, they (theoretically) have less time and energy to devote to screwing the rest of us…
@Steve Verdon: I say that everyone should report illegal activity in their midst and now I’m a socialist? My head is spinning.
My comment has completely lost its original context. All I said is that people living in Somali seaports are probably going to get caught in the crossfire if they don’t do something to stop the piracy or get away from it.
I just heard on Fox News that most of the piracy originates from one clan in a town called Eyl. The town is prospering and mansions are going up along the coast. Sounds like a target to me. If I were a gardener at one of those mansions I’d be looking for employment elsewhere.
I used to be sympathetic to the idea that one “should report illegal activity”- IF the activity met a standard of violence much higher than being “illegal.” There are very few illegal activities that harm anyone. I don’t need to go into the obvious examples.
Now I don’t think I would talk to cops/The State for ANY reason.
When you find that a mouse has been in your cupboard you set a trap for any mouse; you don’t worry too much if the mouse you catch is not the offending mouse.
This analogy might make some kind of sense if human beings were anything like mice.
Unfortunately, we too often consider the civilians of other countries to be as expendable as mice.
“People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing.”
But of course! As Bin Laden put it after all those little Eichmanns died on 9/11, there are no innocent civilians.
#35 Greg C.
It’s easy to say that on a blog, Greg. Such glibness suggests that you don’t understand the reality of crime in our society. Are you saying you wouldn’t dial 911 if you heard shooting in your neighborhood? What if you saw someone breaking into your neighbors home. I know, I know, you are a certifiable bad ass and you’d “handle it” yourself. What if you found a dead body? I suppose you wouldn’t report that until the smell started to harsh your mellow. Who cares if the person died at the hands of another and the offender is still out there. Oh right, its all about you, so there is no need to alert others to the possible danger. And what about fires, Greg. Firefighters work for the dreaded state intoned with so much contempt by some of our fellow Agitator commenters. Until you can “privatize” your F.D., you better put together a bucket brigade tough guy!
Look, it is fine to be judicious about what you report to the police, but it is possible to go too far with this jocular, “anarchist” speak. You have a right to remain silent, but that doesn’t mean it is the best option every single time. I work in public safety, but I would not call the P.D. to report many, many issues, such as voluntary drug use, loud parties, etc.. If I have a problem with something like loud neighbors, odds are I could talk it out. Unfortunately, many people seem to be afraid or lack the capacity to deal with others. This inflates police call loads and takes away from the quality of police work. But, when people are in danger or crime sprees are occurring, it would be the height of irresponsibility to look away. Look at the state of American ghettos (have you ever been to one?) to see what “stop snitchin” leads to (answer: more dead people).
Orwell once commented that if he had to deal with a “bully,” he would much rather deal with a policeman than a gangster. Obviously, this is not a glowing endorsement of England’s police, but Orwell makes a point that some people tend to miss on this blog. The replacement for police in the mythical “anarchist” world would be a hodge podge of campus safety agencies, commercial security guards, neighborhood enforcers (ie. Bloods, Crips, La Cosa Nostra, vigilante rednecks, young republicans etc.) and private actors who would make up “the law” on a whim. Like Orwell, I don’t point this out in order to heap praise upon the contemporary criminal justice system, I simply urge you to consider more practical alternatives before you make rash comments.
[...] hope this is the first of many indictments for the crimes committed by the Bush administration over the last eight years. We lost our respect [...]
“Wow! I express my opinon on a Balko column via e-mail and a couple of hours later I discover that it has been published and under discussion without my knowledge or consent. Way to go Radley. (Traffic on my blog tipped me off.)”
Huh? Are you familiar with how the Intertubes work? Once you send it (even email), it am out there. Did you include a confidentiality footer?
Let’s remember that NOT pursuing Bush for possible crimes ALSO has consequences.
#38 | Helmut O’ Hooligan |
“Orwell once commented that if he had to deal with a “bully,” he would much rather deal with a policeman than a gangster.”
Helmet, that is the rub for me. There isn’t much difference between a modern policeman and gangsters. Modern policemen kill dogs and kill innocent men, women and children all in the name of nonviolent crimes like drug use.
At least gangsters in The Godfather had a code to keep innocent women and children out of the crossfire. Cops don’t. Their only code is a code of silence to protect fellow cops.
So unless is if a violent crime, I am not talking to the cops either.
@Les: Actually human beings are a lot like mice. Take the Somali piracy thing again. It seems to be increasing exponentially. One crew went to the cupboard and gorged themselves. Then another crew ventured forth to share in the bounty. Then three and four and … Now the “innocents” are moving into the pirates’ lair to build and maintain their mansions and provide other services.
I completely agree with you that we should strive to minimize endangerment of innocents. But sometimes it seems to be necessary. Truman believed that if he didn’t drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the loss of life in America would exceed the loss of life that his action caused in Japan. I don’t know if he was right or wrong but I hope we continue to have leaders with the courage to do what they believe has to be done to protect us.
@Kevin Carson: You are kind of making my point for me. Apparently bin Laden believed that he was justified in killing those civilians because they were (in his mind) complicit in formulating the Western policy that he despised. He attacked NYC and DC, not Kansas City. Then, whether he was right or wrong, our leaders felt that they had to attack him and those harboring him even if innocent people would be killed in the process, and they no doubt were. Sometimes it’s not so much about right or wrong but about survival, or perhaps just fear.
@Boyd Durkin: Yes Boyd, I’m familiar with how the “Intertubes” work. I started programming computers in 1964 and started using the internet years before it went public. I was simply pointing out that since Radley and I were e-mailing back and forth he could have easily informed me, as a common courtesy, that he was publishing my comments. If he had I could have started defending my comments a little earlier.
“Let’s remember that NOT pursuing Bush for possible crimes ALSO has consequences.”
Everything we do has consequences. It’s Obama’s job now to weigh the consequences of pursuing Bush’s actions against the consequences of not pursuing them. I believe he will make the right decision because he will be the president then, not campaigning to be president. As president he will have access to a lot more classified information than he had access to as a Senator.
All I said is that people living in Somali seaports are probably going to get caught in the crossfire if they don’t do something to stop the piracy or get away from it.
How did you feel about the people who said the same thing regarding American civilians and their “obligation” to stop their government or become “fair game” for terrorists?
Are you saying you wouldn’t dial 911 if you heard shooting in your neighborhood?
I do not, and I do hear it.
What is gunfire evidence of? Practicing? Hunting? Defense? None of my business? Those all work for me, and I appreciate the same affordance.
And if I don’t I’m now a reasonable target for carpet bombing? That is your implication. And no, holding views that are consistent with some elements of collectivism doesn’t make you a socialist, but your are alot closer to the philosophy than I am.
I’ll try to explain it in a different way. You want people to be responsible for the actions of others, that is a form of collectivism. Collectivism stresses the inter-dependence of people as opposed to individuals. For example, because my neighbors house was robbed I am at least in part responsible for not paying more attention to what was going on on his property. The underlying basis for the collectivist view point is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That is, society is “greater” than the sum of the individuals. This leads to the view that we need to have the state to prevent chaos while ignoring the possibility of spontaneous order. That you put a large enough number of people together you will get a bad outcome and not a good one.
You re-iterate this view point with your use of “innocents” to describe people who work as gardeners and builders for these pirates and that is is acceptable that some of them get killed…it is for the good of society…the collective. Collateral damage and all that I guess.
And lets not get into the issue that in most societyies when people in a community organize to rid themselves of bad elements, even spontaneously, it is itself illegal: vigilantism. Instead we must go through the agency of the state which is an product of the collectivist viewpoint.
I completely agree with you that we should strive to minimize endangerment of innocents.
Considering that you likened them to mice in a metaphor about how “you don’t care which mouse gets killed by the trap” then you obviously have a strange definition of “strive” - one that seems more like “make a minimal, half-assed, effort without really caring if it works or not”.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.