You Can't Handle the Truth
Charles Homans begins his article with a discussion about the excessive secrecy of the Bush administration. He is spot on. I call it the "Jack Nicholson style" of government. You remember it, from the movie A Few Good Men, when Nicholson, as Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup, pressed in court by the Tom Cruise-playing JAG officer about his role in ordering the "hazing" of a young Marine--leading to his death-- and then covering it up, yells at Cruise: "You can't handle the truth" He goes on to explain, "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."
It's my sense that the senior folks in the current administration believed that only they really understood what needed to be done after the attacks of 9/11. They did not think that others, whether in their own administration, in Congress, or in the American public, could handle "the truth" as they saw it. It was principally this fear-- that the Congress and the public would not agree with their tactics, rather than a concern about protecting classified information, that led to the excessive secrecy that permeated this Administration and proved to be so damaging.
The bottom line is that the Jack Nicholson approach is not acceptable in a democracy. Ironically for an Administration that made "democracy-promotion" a cornerstone, this approach to governing actually reflects a lack of faith in democracy, which is premised on the power and responsibility of an informed electorate to keep the nation on track. Thomas Jefferson understood that there is "no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
The imperative to trust an informed public can be challenging when it comes to national security, because classified information is often involved. However, it is in this context that a robust public discussion and debate is most important. Justice Stewart explained in the Pentagon Papers case that, "In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
Greater transparency, particularly with regard to policies in the national security arena, is essential for the new Administration. Most important will be bringing that transparency to actions going forward. But it will also be important to shine some light on what went before. Lessons-learned will be essential for making wise decisions -- and those lessons need to be learned by the American public as well as by government officials.
The question being debated in this forum is what is the best way to achieve that objective. Charles calls for the establishment of an independent "9/12 Commission." I have written elsewhere about the dangers of being "Stuck in a September 12 Mindset" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/september11.usforeignpolicy), unable or unwilling to understand the lessons we've learned over the years since those terrible early days after the attacks of 9/11. So while I believe it is important to understand what has happened in key areas, I share the concerns of others about getting mired in all of the debates of the past when there is so much to do going forward. I'm not yet ready to sign off on the idea of a wide-ranging commission to investigate all of "the Bush administration's excesses."
Having said that, I have long advocated for both Congress and the Executive branch to undertake a comprehensive review of all domestic intelligence activities undertaken since 9/11. President-elect Obama indicated at the time of his vote on the FISA amendments that he planned to ask his Attorney General "to conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future." My sense is that this review should go forward, along with a comprehensive review by Congress.
These reviews should be done with an eye toward the future but informed by the past and present. Understanding how the system operates in times of crisis and stress is key to understanding how it might need to be strengthened or adjusted to meet national security imperatives in ways that will protect against future abuse.
I understand the problems pointed out by Charles' article with regard to relying upon either the Congress or the new Administration to do this kind of review. Having served as Executive Director for two different Congressionally-mandated commissions (on terrorism and WMD), I also understand the value of having an independent commission tackle politically awkward issues. But I have seen how difficult it can be to translate lessons learned by a bunch of independent commissioners into actions taken by elected government officials who do not feel any ownership of those lessons. Congress and the Executive branch have the responsibility to understand what has happened and use those lessons to inform policy. A commission can provide a different perspective, and may also make a valuable contribution, but it cannot replace this responsibility of government.
I disagree with your premise that this was about shielding folks from 'truth they couldn't handle' rather this was about out and out lies and deception to take our nation to war for the interests of the military/industrial complex and big oil.
For us to have been shield would mean we would have needed to be in danger from those we attacked and we weren't.
November 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. This wasn't even about the most generous interpretation -- that they believed people wouldn't understand what needed to be done.
It was a power grab, pure and simple.
November 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good analysis, cutting to the chase, etc. I read the article without remembering, as you did, the real facts and context behind it.
I also disagree that it is up to the government to police the government. How does a government police itself? I can tell you how it does it - it covers up mistakes, malfeasance, misfeasance, and outright crimes, and looks for further ways to transfer money to the wealthy backers of the government.
November 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ whiterosebuddy:
well - depends, as always, on how you define your terms. "Shield" can be used defensively, as you suggest, or offensively, as Ms. Spaulding uses it. "Can't handle the truth" meant, to Cheney et al., "won't support our analysis."
November 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a pretty premise but you are wrong on this one simple fact.
They were secretive from the start, not post 11th September, when it came to items on their agenda. Remember the first energy policy? We still have no clue how that came together.
But they did think they knew best. And still do.
November 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of the basic error involved in this issue (and in many, many others as well) can be explained by the core fallacy that 'SECRECY' is generally a good thing.
In my opinion (and even MORE importantly in my life-experience), the opposite tends to be true: A good decison, or a good choice, or a proper activity can almost always stand-up to the light of day, and normally tends to be made even BETTER by that revelation and interchange, and by the certain anticipation ahead of time that that will happen. Even in competitive sports, the 'secrecy' element is highly overrated: Many of the best coaches routinely hold public practices, and regularly teach their techniques willingly in public forums. They understand that you win by developing better players, working harder and smarter, and by executing your plans better. You can't 'fool' high-level opponents into losing.
We've all seen this in job situations: "Don't discuss how much you make!" Why not? Who benefits by that 'secret'? Is there something WRONG with what I'm being paid, relative to someone else? If there is, let's discuss it and see if we can get the discrepancy corrected, so everyone can get on about their REAL business in a healthier frame of mind.
We HIDE what we're doing in Iraq. Why? Don't the people in Iraq know what's happening? Of course they do - the only principle actors not IN on the 'secret' are US.
I could go on and on with this, but I think I've said enough to illustrate my basic point: If excessive secrecy has an implied purpose at all in ANY endeavor, it tends to be to make the powerful confortable in their ignorance and/or malfeasance. It is of little to no use in guiding an informed society to sound judgements and constructive activities. Our antenna should start to wiggle any time we hear the word - trouble is certainly on the way.
November 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding argument. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps one of the things Congress can do that will aid in preventing another crime family from taking over the presidency is to carefully define what can be kept secret from the US public. That list of things should be so short we all know it by heart, and perhaps it should be a blank page.
November 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Secrecy should be kept to a minimum and the costs of secrecy should be fully understood. At a recent Open Source conference sponsored by the DNI, I heard the guy who developed Intellipedia say that the proliferation of new Web tools and technologies will mean the end of secrecy within 15 years (you can about it at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0908/091508wb.htm). His theory is that it will simply be too hard and too costly to keep information secret.
We already know that overclassification is a threat to national security because it prevents information from reaching people who need it to assist in protecting us and who could help inform decision making and the development, as you note, of wiser policies. But the point you make is broader and more fundamental. Whenever government considers trying to keep information secret, it should carefully and thoroughly examine the costs of doing so, not just in terms of resources required to protect the information but the opportunities lost by not sharing the information--particularly if the ability to keep it secret is questionable anyway.
If we are moving toward a future in which keeping secrets will be increasingly expensive and difficult, then government officials--and others--need to start thinking now about how to change our underlying assumptions, strategies, doctrines, etc. to operate in that new environment. Like the coach in your example, rather than counting on secrecy for our competitive advantage against adversaries, we should work harder at gaining that advantage through our ability to act upon information in a way that is more agile, smarter, less predicatable, etc.
A bit off the topic of Charles' article but a point too important to let pass!
November 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no more secrets and you are still stuck in the US v. Them mentality. Where US is right and them is wrong. The fact of the matter is that we (US) have been engaged in empire building. If I had to put a finger on when this started I'd say the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran, circa 1951 ("All the Sha's Men"). With the proliferation of the internet that will never happen again and quite frankly the world is a little more than pissed that it happened in the first place. So let US begin to make ammends for our mistakes by quitting all the cloak and dagger and start dealing with the rest of the world with some, oh how do you say, AUTHENTICITY.
November 27, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suzanne S says:
Look at the way the "democracy promoting" Bush/Cheney gang operated for 8 years, then ask yourself;
How does Bush/Cheney define Democracy?
The Bush brand of Democracy seems to mean the public elects a President who then takes dictatorial powers for himself.
November 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me suggest another reason why an all-out effort to get the full truth and then hold offenders accountable is necessary and urgent. I think it's the heart of the matter, and it's what I call "The Torture Transition."
What's "The Torture transition"?
It's the move of torture from being a shocking anomaly to an accepted precedent.
That's what's at stake if the current gang gets away with it.
Their goal now is impunity. If they achieve it, then the next time a president is seriously tempted to use torture (and such temptations will come, of that you can be sure), he/she will know they can get away with it.
And when our rulers know they can get away with torture, then it will become precedent --a de facto established, readily available tool of US official practice, regardless of what any federal laws, Geneva conventions, executive orders, etc, may say.
All these will become dead letters, like any laws that are not enforced. (They may be left on the books, and talked about pompously in marble halls; but that will just be to fool the rabble, i.e., us.)
When rulers can use torture, that means they can declare a citizen (you or me) outside the law's protection. And when rulers can do that with impunity, the rulers are above the law.
That combination is the key element of tyranny.
I've written more about this in an article, "Torture and Impunity," just published in a national monthly. It's online at:
http://friendsjournal.org/torture-and-impunity
November 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the President-elect doesn't show any enthusiasm for prosecuting Bushies because he understands that Tom Cruise is an actor and "A Few Good Men" was a Tom Cruise formula movie.
There is no such thing as a brilliant son-of-a-legend lawyer, who overcomes his own self doubt to win the impossible case by annoying the bad guy into admitting his own guilt on the stand.
That only happens in movies.
November 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you just ruined my Thanksgiving.
Which seems to be the perfect set-up for a buddy comedy starring me and my loser but lovable friend Seth Rogen!
See, my girl and I just broke up and Seth thinks there's no better time for me to get over it and meet another girl than Thanksgiving because that's where you...
wait for it...
Stuff a Bird!
Which is the slightly offensive but not really title!
November 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we need to get a bunch of distinguished citizens together and write a basic document describing and proscribing how our government works. We would, of course, include requirements that no one can have their home and possessions searched without a judge signing a warrant allowing the search, based on real evidence that there is a compelling reason for the search. And, we would, of course, include a clause stating that all treaties signed and ratified become a part of the laws of the land, that all are bound to obey. I think we would want to also state that the military establishment is not an independent organization, able to do as it pleases, but is under the supervision of the President.
If we had all of that back when GWBush was elected, things sure would have been different.
November 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with the premise of Americans being able to handle the truth about what our politicians do or have done in the past. I mean we have survived finding about Kennedy's affairs and Clinton's hummer in the oval office and other assorted and insundry things about past presidents, I still tend to think that Jack Nicholson's line in A Few Good Men still applies to a lot of us as a country. As a veteran I think a lot of americans don't want to admit that in their deep dark recesses they want to know and need to know that our troops are out there on the wall doing what needs to be done (legally) to protect our country. Note I added the qualifier of legally. I'm not saying that all americans want anyone to be tortured, I'm sure that most don't but there are the scardey cat few who want people tortured for the widely debunked "ticking time bomb" scenario.
November 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there were people in this Administration who did think they were doing the right thing. No one ever discusses Republican elitism
Rodney the loyal left tenant of the guards, runs into the throne room yelling: "The peasants are revolting. The peasants are revolting." The midget King responds: "Of course, everyone knows that. Why do you think we never invite them to social events?"
The American people cannot handle the truth. Why do you think we never heard the truth over the last 8 years? And why does W always sound like he is talking to a bunch of 4th graders as Stewart likes to point out?
Attorneys and politicians are taught that they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Many in this Administration did not read this admonition as others might. They read it to say you must avoid the appearance of impropriety. In other words, do not get caught.
I cannot believe that Cheney was attempting to do the "right thing" when he saw his own company get no-bid contracts worth tens of billions of dollars.
I cannot believe that members of this administration thought they were doing the right thing in failing to turn over incriminating material to Congressional Oversight, because they wanted to protect the country.
But we cannot prove it one way or another without full disclosure to at least Congress. And I am not talking about some info given on the qt to certain members of some committee who are then sworn to secrecy. We, the people, elected the members of Congress and if those members cannot be trusted because their security clearance is not high enough, something is really wrong with how government works.
Now, should there be some sort of exceptions for ongoing, immediate investigations of some terrorist group or a new push in one of our wars?
Sure.
But, in the end, Although there are many exceptions, many people in W's administration were and are only attempting to avoid the appearance of impropriety. They do not want to get caught.
November 26, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, there's secrecy--and then there are lies.
I'm with the people who called BS upthread on the concept that the admin types did what they did because we couldn't handle what they saw as the truth.
I believe they knew that we could handle the actual, factual truth, but that didn't jive with what they wanted to do, so they made up their own, non-factual truth and shoved it down all our throats so hard that almost nobody dared try to choke it up let alone complain out loud.
I also don't get why we "don't want to get mired in debates" about what happened. We just need to understand what they did, how they did it, why it was wrong, and what our new government is going to do to restore ethical behavior in government. Where's the mire?
C'mon, those guys are smart. None of them could have gone to work every day without thinking at some point "You know, all this is really just rationalized thuggery and I am going to hell if there is one."
November 27, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would you have to say to a book like "Warrior Politics" by Robert Kaplan, published just after 9-11? Could you find within that Atlantic writer's ideas a Machiavellian vagueness possibly used as justification for torture? Many on the Defense Policy Council in Rumsfeld's Pentagon lauded the book.
Would you critique that book and its premises in your treatment of your topic? Or leave it out? Have you read it? Every time I've raised that book as an example, there is palpable silence here.
Also, I realize you are using Nicholson's character as an illustration, but Nicholson's character is fictional. You won't find many marine officers like that character. You may be interested to know that one of those disagreeing and going public with the legal approach to Guantanamo was an Army JAG officer who was a former marine reservist. The Nicholson example does an ancillary disservice to marines is all I'm saying.
November 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take your point about the Nicholson example having the potential for presenting a misleading image of Marines--which is why I don't refer to it as the "Col. Jessup" style of governing. For what it's worth, my Dad was a Marine Lt. Col. who died in Vietnam, my mother was a Marine in WWII, and my brother was in the Corps. And to back up your point about the opposition from JAG officers to the excesses of the Administration--which is absolutely accurate-- my brother, now an attorney in private practice, is providing pro bono representation to several G'tmo detainees.
Haven't read "Warrior Politics" but will add it to my list.
December 1, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secrets, in their most basic examination, expose a flawed logic that almost without exception is always accompanied by an undeniable confirmation of the logical error. Live long enough and you recognize this to be a universal truth.
Secrets and truth are the constant antagonists of our lives. Avoiding the former and embracing the latter gives us a chance. For eight years Bush has embraced secrets and lies. Thus, as confirmed, we had no chance.
November 28, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink