Laura Rozen, whose blog has telling information about foreign/military policy issues, linked up to a Washington Post piece justifying the paper's use of "classified" information. It provides one of those useful summaries that underline things you know as a general matter:
Thanks to resourceful reporters, we have learned a great deal about the war that the administration apparently never intended to reveal: that the CIA never could assure the White House that Saddam Hussein's Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction; that U.S. forces egregiously abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib; that the United States had a policy of rendering terrorism suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan where torture is commonplace; that the United States established secret prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorism suspects; that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping without warrants on the phone calls of countless Americans, as well as keeping track of whom Americans called from home and work.
And, that is really only a shortened list. It is one of those moments where you remember to honor those who you sometimes take for granted, even scorn (problems in the MSM should not erase its value -- the blogosphere in fact can be seen as a sort of quasi-editorial board). Rozen notes:
[W]hat a unique and troubling moment we're in, where the polarization -- genuine and manufactured -- between right and left and between factions within each camp is at such an extraordinary level, that even reporting about national security issues is spun by some factions as an ideological act; not without its historical precedents, but according to Kaiser, more pronounced now than at any point in the past almost half century.
One thing that stands out for me is the basic lack of respect that the average citizen receives from core parts of the government these days. This robs us of a core aspect of citizenship -- dignity. The term pops up all over the place in constitutional law, including the idea of "death with dignity," both as an Eighth Amendment concept and a general matter respecting privacy rights. A nod to a book I am reading entitled Body Brokers by Annie Cheney (dad, Richard ... no, not that one) concerning the use and misuse of bodies for research purposes. Why does it matter? Contractual and other legal concerns? No, basically our belief in the dignity of our bodies and those of our loved ones.
And, people want to be treated with dignity and respect during their lives as well. This often is a major concern for minority groups, including those not of the racial variety. A certain group does not feel it receives the respect it deserves. It feels the basic indignity of being treated as a sort of second class person. This treatment, even if it is at least in some part only a reflection of what they feel, not truly reality (especially in any concrete sense), has caused lots of problems ... sometimes of a violent variety. Thus, putting aside the concrete real world results of promoting an anti-gay amendment, it sends a basic message that gays are not to be treated with equal dignity. They are so much an "other" that even the possibility of same sex marriage requires a constitutional amendment.*
The government these days just plain does not respect the citizenry at large. The war is a basic example: we do not even deserve a truthful explanation of why our loved ones are being put in harm's way, and when they are, the lying continues. Thus, the changing stories connected to the recent killing of al-Zarqawi (I share those who question using the term "justice" in this context) is but the most recent example.
We apparently do not deserve the basic truths in part because we are too stupid to properly analyze them. A conservative sort in effect admitted this fact in passing once to me, noting that being up front would just provide the other side a means to twist the story. Or, and another conservative sort (who refuses the label) shared this sentiment, feels it is too much of a risk. A nation of cowards, trusting mommy and daddy with truth we cannot handle.
Thus, the need of the media and so forth to provide an outlet. And, to return to last time's theme, another bridge between different groups. Those in power nationally now feign respect of certain groups, but quite often, their actions speak louder than words. The success will come when someone steps forward who we can believe in, who in the past showed enough promise that s/he will in the future have respect in the American public. Will treat us with the equal dignity and respect that should be our birthright.
---
* C-SPAN aired the first half of the NY Court of Appeals argument -- available in full at its own website -- respecting same sex marriage. The difference between civil unions and "marriage" was expressed largely as a matter of equal dignity, since the term in society has a special meaning, even if the legal protections are exactly the same. I think even if the measure gave equal protections in state, "marriage" would in some fashion still protect a couple more (for instance, in a non-DOMA state, it might warrant full protection), but this is a telling argument -- one that popped up in Massachusetts.
Nonetheless, I personally -- though one realizes some will say we have no right to ask them for the leeway -- think the best path here is for the Court to allow the state legislature a year or so to settle the issue. And, when it does, the legislature should probably be given the chance to provide a statewide civil union regime in which same sex couples receive by right all the privileges and immunities of marriage. The term "marriage" has a certain societal meaning that warrants special care, especially as we enter new territory.
I am pragmatic enough to take things a bit slowly, especially when court mandated action is involved. Some, on both sides, suggest it is somehow improper to do something like this. It is illegitimate legislating from the bench or something to take some sort of pragmatic middle path, when in fact it has been done for centuries.
I would add that allowing the public to see/hear the argument is the proper thing to do. It too is an example of respect -- why should not the public have a chance to view oral arguments that would affect them in some major way? And, I did not see (so far) any playing for the cameras or so forth.