When we declare war on each other by suing one another, the referee (the government) requires that we produce our evidence.
Yet when the nation decides to go to war against another nation, and the people of the United States, in whose name the war is going to be waged, ask to see the evidence supporting why we're going to bomb the living daylights and then invade what's said to be our new enemy, we get no discovery.
What we get is what President Nixon tried to foist off on us, not quite successfully. He wanted to furnish us with summaries of the White House tapes, summaries that wouldn't quite be audible as to the nasty bits, and where the 18-minute gap wouldn't show up. The Special Prosecutor subpena'd the tapes themselves. The Special Prosecutor wanted to see the evidence himself. Make up his own mind. Leon Jaworski. No hearsay for him.
"Executive privilege! National security! Therefore...you can't have them," was the White House response.
"Can too," said the Supremes.
And Nixon resigned the next week.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney said the evidence supports the attack.
The Warrior Princess, Condy Rice, said the evidence supports the attack.
The President said the evidence supports the attack.
Colin Powell, the guy I trusted, said, "I went over to the Pentagon and looked at the evidence and the evidence supports the attack."
Well, hell, if my President says he's seen the evidence and all the President's men including one woman, say they've seen the evidence, including Colin Powell, the guy I trusted to see through anything that wasn't quite kosher, what am I supposed to do?
I support the President. Right? That's what I did, at any rate.
What would you do, not having seen the evidence, call him a liar and oppose him?
Maybe you would, but not me. In life you have to rely on other people to do their job correctly.
Only now it turns out that Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and today the CIA, on whom they were all relying to do the sell job on me and the world, all seem to be letting go of the sinking old-CIA liferaft, as they clamber aboard the newly reconstituted blameless CIA who walked off-stage before his head rolled off-stage. Cheney is still hanging on to the old raft, per last night's debate with John Kerry.
"Well, maybe the evidence wasn't all THAT clear," the Bush-men and one woman all seem to be saying, but we still needed to go to war because Saddam was a bad guy who needed taking out. I could agree with that. I did agree with that. The world needs a policeman as much as any bad city does, only moreso. The average city cutthroat is a retail operator. Saddam was a world class wholesaler. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians.
I don't mind that we stepped up when the rest of the world didn't. Didn't mind it in the Balkans under Clinton and don't mind it elsewhere if we can handle it. Then maybe the world will get wise to deal with some of these things themselves if they don't like the way we do it. I'd like to see more of that.
Then, of course, after the war (this is the peace, mind you) all those WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) turn out to be WOW (Will O'the Wisp). Now you see 'em, now you don't.
Why did we have to take it on faith that the President and the President's men, including one woman, read the evidence correctly, while the CIA was debating what it added up to?
Doesn't Congress get Discovery from the rest of the government it's supposed to be governing as the representative of the people? Don't WE get any Discovery? After all, since it's the people who have to fight the war, die in the war, pay for the war, and take the risk of losing the war and living with the consequences, don't WE get any Discovery?
Why does it have to be just Powell who gets to see the evidence? So he can go before the U.N. and the world, which includes us, to do the moist Ivory Soap bit?
"I have seen the evidence and it is good," he said, to good effect.
Anyone not dead set against the war on Iraq was forced to say, "Okay, if you say so, you're Colin Powell. I read your book."
Great, but the one thing I've learned as a lawyer is not to rely on what someone else says the evidence is worth.
"Show me the evidence."
That's the rule. Otherwise it's hearsay. We went to war on hearsay. Hearsay times n. Pick a number.
An agent told a handler who told his boss who sent it up the levels of the bureaucracy who handed it to the President. And Powell got to look at something, I don't know what. Now if you told me Powell spoke to the agent, I might lighten up a bit. Still hearsay, but maybe thats' one layer of hearsay I have to accept. Or to the handler who received the report from the agent. That's two layers of hearsay. I'm beginning to worry. Because I believe there's a few more layers above those. And now some in the CIA are saying, "Not so fast, there may be less here than meets the eye."
And now I don't know what we're getting.
Why don't they show us the evidence?
Because we need to protect our sources and methods of collection.
Okay, I agree with that. So every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't get to poke around the raw evidence or interview the agent on the ground in Iraq or wherever and start leaking.
But shouldn't Congress, through the proper committee, say one of the ones on Foreign Affairs or Intelligence oversight have the opportunity, make that duty, to look at the evidence that triggers war and say, "We agree, that's the way it is, no mistake about it?"
We do trust Congress, don't we? Those little committees where everyone is properly vetted for security clearance at the highest level? The people who take over in case something happens to the existing government? They're in the loop, right? Not like Harry S Truman not knowing about the A-bomb until after he became president?
Here we've got a war that's going sideways, or maybe it's the peace that's sideways, and we're still arguing over whether it was correct to bomb and invade a thousand American military lives later. That strikes me as putting the cart before the horse.
Next time I expect Congress to get better Discovery out of the Administration, any administration, before telling the world and us, "Here we go, Bombs Away!"
Naive?
Of course.
Nevertheless, that's what I want.
Turns out I'd rather believe someone who's not in the Administration and champing at the bit to go to war than someone who is.
What do you want?