Is it too late for outrage?

Erik Prince does NOT get really challenged by Congress. 

Michael Mukasey says the president is not bound by some laws and yet will be confirmed overwhelmingly

Despite Dodd's noble threat to filibuster, the horrid bill agreed to by the likes of Jay Rockefellar will probably be approved

The Treasury Department intervenes to bail out Citibank's multibillion dollar exposure because of really bad decisions

The FCC is moving to give media conglomerates even more ability to concentrate ownership

And all that is the tip of the iceberg, because EVERYTHING is being privatized.  You should have watched Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers last night.  I did, and hence this diary.
Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise Of The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is now a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute. He has shared the Polk award for investigative journalism.  And last night Bill Moyers devoted 45 minutes to a conversation with Scahill.  If you did not see the show (shame on you) you can read the transcript.

Perhaps my own outrage is almost exhausted at this point. I see an abandonment of any commitment to a liberal democracy, and I am no longer sure why anyone acts surprised at the latest outrages.  If Mukasey is confirmed after what he said on Thursday, then what is the point of fighting for Democratic control of a Congress which will not stand up for the Constitution? 

Watching Moyers and Scahill last night was a weird experience.  There was not that much that was new to me, but there was some.  I found myself cycling rapidly among the emotions of outrage, anger, and despair. 

Let me offer a few quotes from Jeremy Scahill that contributed to that cycle of emotions:

in Iraq, you're talking about an occupation of a country. And without these private sector forces, without companies like as Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Dyncorp, the occupation wouldn't be tenable.

So if we do not have sufficient military forces, under the rules of the UCMJ, it is okay to use mercenaries to accomplish a goal with which the American people do not agree? 

There are over 170 mercenary companies like Blackwater operating in Iraq right now. That's almost as many nations as are registered at the UN. And I think this isn't just about Iraq. It's also looting the US treasury.

I think we're in the midst of the most radical privatization agenda in our nation's history. We of course see it in schools. We see it in the health care system, in prisons. And now, we're seeing it full blown in the war machine. What I ultimately see as the real threat here is that the system of the very existence of the nation state I think is at stake here.  Because you have companies now that have been funded with billions of dollars in public money using that money to then build up the infrastructure of private armies some of which could take out a small national military. And the old model used to be if a company wants to go into Nigeria for instance and exploit oil, they have to work with the juntas forces in order to do that. Now, you can just bring in your own private military force.

The very existence of the nation state may be at stake.  And yet did Congress come prepared for the hearing?  Read the following exchange between Scahill and Moyers, and note what I bold besides their names:

JEREMY SCAHILL: I think that Blackwater has made a-- a very serious strategic error in how they've handled their publicity for years. And now, we're seeing the company go on the offensive. I think Erik Prince held his own in front of the Congress. And I-- and I attribute it largely to the fact that it appeared as though the Democrats didn't really do their homework on him. I mean, here you have the man who owns the company providing the largest private army on the US government payroll in Iraq. A billion dollars in contracts. Twenty-seven of his men killed in Iraq. We don't know how many people he killed. No private actor in the occupation of Iraq has had more of a devastating impact on events in Iraq than Blackwater. And I just felt watching that hearing-- and I went down for it-- that many of the Democrats hadn't done their homework.

BILL MOYERS: Well, they-- well, they were reading the report at the time that he was testifying, right?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. And you see them flipping through the pages. And it appeared as though a lot of the members were just sort of paging through it while Erik Prince was testifying.

And consider the next two quotes from Scahill that I will offer:

I think it's really scary. I mean, I think that the U.S. government right now is in the midst of its most radical privatization agenda. Seventy percent of the national intelligence budget is farmed out to the private sector. We have more contractors than soldiers occupying Iraq. I think that what this does is it takes-- it sanitizes it also for the American people. There's not a draft.

There's been, you know, almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; we don't know how many private contractors. But that's a relatively small number compared to Vietnam, for instance, where we talked about 65,000 body bags coming home. And already, people are outraged at it. And I see this as a real subversion of democratic processes in this country and a subversion of sovereignty of nations around the world.

What I see in the bigger picture here is what the real revolution is in terms of U.S. politics is that they're taking billions of dollars in public money. And they're privatizing it.

You know, the Pentagon can't give campaign contributions. The State Department can't give campaign contributions. Blackwater's executives can give contributions. DynCore's, Ratheon, Northrop Grumman. And so what they're doing is, they're taking billions of dollars. And it's making its way back into the campaign coffers of the very politicians that make the meteoric ascent of these companies possible. I really view this through the lens of it tearing away at the fabric of American democracy as well.

Read that again: "tearing away at the fabric of American democracy" and yet the Congress could not do its homework before the hearing, nor did most of the media to whom Erik Prince turned after the hearings do much better. 

Bill Moyers asked an important question:

The thought was, you know, suppose we had a national emergency. Suppose the terrorists struck again. And a President, President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama declared marshal law in order to try to deal with this threat. And there was a private army of twenty thousand soldiers that I could call upon to throw a ring around the capital and make sure that the Congress didn't leave town or didn't get back to the capital if-- how far fetched is that?

The use of such forces has been greatly expanded by Bush, but as Scahill points out, the Clinton administration did a lot of privatization as well, and Halliburton got many contracts in the 1990s.  Further, the public relations firm to which Blackwater turned to help in their pushback in the media is headed by Hillary's political advisor Mark Penn.  And the use of such public relations firms to drive American policy on behalf of private entities is not the worst example.  Foreign governments use them. We have seen Robert Livingston lobbying on behalf of Turkey.  Hill and Knowlton put together the false testimony by a young lady whom only later did we know was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, testimony that inflamed American public opinion with tales of babies being ripped from respirators in Kuwait City by Iraqi soldiers.

I ostensibly teach government.  I try to teach how our government is designed to work, and also the reality of how it actually works.  Over time the connection between the two seems to be disappearing.  I am given great flexibility in what I do in my classroom, but I am reaching the point where if I were to talk about what I really perceive, what my own thoughts now are, I would be well outside the bounds of even the great flexibility I am granted. 

What difference does it make to elect Democrats if they will not stand up for what is right?  People worry about Constitutional conflicts, but perhaps the time for such a conflict is overdue.  We survived Watergate.  But had not certain people been willing to risk their careers and their positions, we might have awoken one morning and found our republic gone and replaced by something alien.  Last night on Countdown John Dean acknowledged that the extreme ideas of the unitary presidency,first being espoused during the Reagan administration and upon which people in this administration rely heavily far exceed the wildest imagination of thus under Nixon advocating an imperial presidency.  Think about that for a moment.  We had a great crisis in the 1970s, and yet at its worst it does not in the eyes of an insider of that period come close to what we confront today.  And yet people will not stand up in Congress, at least, not enough. 

Yesterday I wrote a comment in which I placed the following words in bold: By now no one should believe anyone from this administration.  In that comment I noted Bush's remarks on his first visit to DC as president-elect on December 18, 2001:

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator

Lieut. Col. Oliver L. North testified today that William J. Casey, as Director of Central Intelligence, had wanted to use profits from the arms sales to Iran to establish an ''off-the-shelf, self-sustaining, stand-alone'' fund that could pay for intelligence operations outside normal Government control.

Is not that part of the problem?  Too many in the Democratic party are afraid of the blunt language, worrying about how it will be turned against them.  They give NOTHING to the many Americans who want to see someone stand up for what is right.  They back down in the face of pushback from Bush defenders, yet do not stand up forcefully enough when Bush and his supporters attack their patriotism and willingness to defend the American people.

There is nothing to stop the House from passing a Sense of the House resolution condemning the words of the President and anyone in his administration who attempts to demagogue issues of national security or impugns the patriotism of those who disagree with him.  Stark's language was mild as compared to what has been said by Bush supporters about those who oppose the president. 

I am angry.  I despair.  I am outraged.  I am exhausted.  I teach about a government that perhaps no longer exists, one that had three co-equal branches, that had checks and balances, in which the power of the executive was limited, in which governmental functions were done by governmental employees subject to Congressional oversight, in which those who acted militarily on behalf of the United States were subject to the regulations of the UCMJ.  I see major aspirants for the highest office in the land signing on to a resolution declaring a part of a nation's national security apparatus a terrorist organization.  Could not the same appellation be applied to our own CIA, which in its violation of international law through extraordinary rendition, secret prisons where torture occurs, kidnapping people off the streets of Italy, and the like, led to an environment designed to terrorize those who might oppose our actions?  What about our own military commanders rationalizing destroying civilian gatherings upon a hint that there might be "insurgents" present?  What about what our military has done in Abu Ghraib, were not at least some of those actions that fall under the category of terrorism?  Is not much of what is being done a violation not only of international law but also of any standard of human decency?  Where is the outrage over this? Where is the insistence by Democrats and honest Republicans for accountability?  Why is the press so hesitant to fully scrutinize?

This is a personal screed.  My anger is palpable.  And yet my capacity for outrage seems as yet not exhausted.  There are immediate crises that face us.  One is the environment.  We need to take serious action now.  Another is the abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Still another is our abandonment of the idea of a community of nations in favor of the idea of asserting American superiority, even though the latter is not sustainable, and is destructive of the principles upon which we claimed our independence. 

I find myself coming to a dangerous place.  I am no longer willing to vote for someone merely because they are the lesser of two evils.  Time is too short.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If someone wants my support for high office, they will have to stand up for what is right, at the risk if necessary of their political career, even their own life.  This country is desperate for such courageous leadership. 

Hillel was an important figure in Jewish thought.  I want again to apply some of his words from that time:

If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?

I challenge those who say we have to hold our fire in order to elect Democrats because then it will make a difference to answer some questions.  What liberties are you prepared to abandon in order to elect Democrats?  What will you say to the families of Americans killed or devasted (psychologically as well as physically) by our continued debacle in Iraq? How will you justify to the people in Iraq and other countries whose lives we are destroying by not standing up for what is right?  If not now, when?

My heart aches for what I perceive.  I feel impotent as an individual.  My efforts as a citizen and as a teacher now seem almost pointless.  But I will not quietly fade into the background even if the words I offer are ignored.  I demand that people acknowledge one point: 

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still to choose evil.

And if we must make that choice, we have an obligation to acknowledge the evil to which we must acquiesce, and do all in our power to ameliorate the suffering we cause others.  We must be accountable for that which is done on our behalf and in our name.

We cannot depend upon leadership from the top.  WE MUST INSIST UPON IT, even absent highly visible leaders.  And we must be willing to support as we can any small steps in that direction by political leaders, even as we challenge them to go further.

Is it too late for outrage? I began with that question.  My answer now is not quite yet too late for outrage. but getting awfully close.  I will continue to write, to speak, to teach, to try to persuade, to challenge, to listen,to do what is within my limited powers flowing from my incomplete understanding and restricted vision.

What about you?

Comments