La experiencia obrera: contrapunto entre la primera y la segunda ola del marxismo.

The previous arguments have addressed how to maintain a balance between openness and secrecy in American society. The executive cannot hide information from Congress, Congress must be vigilant in oversight and accountability procedures, the American people need to use their numbers to organize and demand openness, the media must provide objective information, and the intelligence community should be demilitarized while eliminating politicization. These suggestions have addressed openness in general; however, I have not addressed what should be done in times of war, when swift and decisive action is necessary. I draw the distinction between times of peace and times of war because historically, all branches of government as well as the American people can agree that times of war are not identical or analogous to times of peace. While there always (it seems) are people or organizations that do pose threats to America, there are very specific instances in which the perception of the American people as well as the government is that America is in a “state of emergency”.. I am referring specifically to times like the Cold War (not including the years of reform and increased openness between 1974- 1981) and 9/11 where fear swept the nation and the overwhelming sentiment was that America

needs to act fast and to place constitutional restrictions on hold in favor of policies more reminiscent of a police state than an open society.

In emergencies, Americans do not have much of a choice other than to trust their

government to effectively handle the situation. However, it does not follow that Americans must also leave it up to their leaders to balance liberty and security over the long term. Michael Ignatieff proposes a solution to the issue of balancing openness and secrecy during times of national emergencies which he refers to as the lesser evil. I subscribe to this view as well. A lesser evil position holds that in a terrorist emergency, neither openness nor secrecy should trump. A democracy is committed to protecting openness as well as security (which may be achieved through necessary secrecy). Within this theory, there are no trump cards: what works is not always right, and what is right does not always work.261 Open societies may be forced to move towards the side of more secrecy; however, there must be sufficient reasons as well as limitations clearly defining how far the government can go in the abridgement of rights.

The war waged after 9/11 puts a strain on democracy itself because it is mostly waged in secret, using means that are both at the edge of law and morality. However, the lesser evil position maintains that so long as the decision for secrecy is not made in secret, secrecy can be controlled.262 Congress can hold hearings on sensitive intelligence matters and judges can demand the justification of secrecy. However, if the American people are not engaged, if the judges simply provide undue deference to the executive decisions and it the government refuses to adhere to open review of its measures then the lesser evil position will not succeed and the balance will not be maintained. Additionally, it is imperative to understand that the lesser evil position is not a perfect solution: choosing a lesser evil may bring a greater evil in the future.263

Essentially bad consequences are not always predictable and choosing the lesser evil does have the potential to be a shot in the dark that simply fails to solve the problem.

The war on terror is not about avoiding evils; the question is can America choose a lesser evil and keep it from becoming a greater one? Ignatieff provides a few starting principles that will help solve the problem. The principles are as follows: the conservative principle

(maintaining the free institutions we have) and the dignity principle (protecting individuals from significant harms).264 With these two principles laid out, the next step is to be predictive- that is, to reason out the consequences of various courses of action, and then, after deliberating, coming to a reasonable judgment of which action will inflict the least damage on the two principles. Once the given course of action is justified, the lesser evil position holds that Americans maintain it even if the price is higher than originally anticipated. However, the position cannot be indefinite- at some point the America must come to the realization that the lesser evil may become the greater. In such instances the only solution is to make a change

In the case of 9/11, it is true that these terrorist attacks may have illuminated alarming shortcomings in America’s national defense system. I have already argued that reform is necessary; however, it is important for government to understand that such attacks, while

immensely devastating, do not threaten America with defeat or collapse. Exaggerating the threat posed by terrorists was not and will never be the proper way to manage the situation. Such fabrication is reminiscent of the Red Scare of 1919- it turned out that Communist radicals did not pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. In any situation of factual uncertainty about risk, we need to “discipline our justified fears with commitments to respect equality and dignity standards and to make the fewest possible changes to our tried and tested standards of due process”.265

The American government must learn from history and make the connection that the roundup of Arab-Americans is analogous to the Palmer Raids of the early twentieth century.

For the lesser evil position to work, the American government must understand that openness requires a limit to the measures and policies implemented lest America finds itself on the side of secrecy (recall the hypothetical line example). Constitutional commitments oblige the government to respect the right of enemies who do not respect us, and to use lawful methods against those who, in reality, may deserve no rights at all.266 Yes terrorism does present a problem and yes it is possible that WMD’s are developed in the future; however, Americans care about an open liberal democracy because the procedures protect the rights of each individual that belongs. The obvious difficulty is living within the constraints of the open society and the values America has. Fear is an appropriate response to events such as 9/11 and dangers in general.267 However, the concern is what happens when fear runs out of control and makes Americans do things that are illogical. If America did not purport to be an open society (which no one can deny is the overwhelming sentiment proposed by the American government), then it would not be a major concern to invade human rights and engage in actions reminiscent of a police state. However, this is not the case and while individual actors may have strong political, moral, ethical, etc. notions as to how to handle terrorism (targeting Arabs, keeping closer tabs on war dissenters, squelching dissenters, fabricating evidence), the openness advanced by America is constraining in what courses of action are appropriate.