Hard lesson about endangering lives
For all of those hypocrites intent on ferreting out traitors
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2006
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government." --Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), regarding an intelligence leak that has endangered national security.
The leak, Schumer said, has "undermined our national security," and if the facts are true, "it is clear that a crime has been committed."
Schumer was not alone. Other senators, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), lined up to demand that the Bush administration, Congress and Dick Tracy's crime stoppers ferret out the traitor and hand him over for caning. Because of this kind of leak, they warned, someone could die.
But the leak that drew their foregoing ire wasn't the one about the warrantless wiretapping of people in America who chat with Al Qaeda. It was directed at whoever disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an alleged White House conspiracy to damage the reputations of the opponents of the Iraq war. Among the many things this might tell us is that Schumer doesn't regard preventing another terrorist
attack to be as important as a Plame outing.
This kind of hypocrisy and selective outrage isn't new to either party: Republicans didn't like special prosecutors, independent counsels and the like when they were probing Republican scandals, such as Watergate and Iran-contra. Some decided they liked them after all when they went after President Bill Clinton. Now they don't like them again. And vice versa for Democrats.
But one party's hypocrisy doesn't cancel another's. Any leak that breaks the law and endangers national security is grievously wrong. I said so in an October 2003 column criticizing the Bush administration for stalling an investigation of the Plame leak. But now a strange silence has overcome Democrats and much of the media. From them there are no more, as far as I can tell, passionate denunciations of this leak. No more letters to the U.S. attorney general urging an investigation; no more calls for congressional hearings; no more berating journalists for being stooges of leakers; no more allegations of criminality. The only calls to be heard from Democrats are for congressional hearings on the surveillance program, hearings that our enemies will find useful.
From this, we must assume that they are more worried about risking the life of one CIA agent than of a couple of hundred million Americans.
Among them is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who put on one whale of an arm-waving portrayal of Foghorn Leghorn on the Senate floor. In a statement later, Byrd slipped out of his comic role by irresponsibly accusing President Bush of assuming "unchecked power" that is "reserved only for kings and potentates."
Other Democrats routinely refer to the surveillance as if it were randomly directed at "Americans," without mentioning that the surveillance, as far as we know, is of people who are confabbing with Al Qaeda. This crucial omission is the result of either ignorance or demagoguery. Some in the media, in turn, routinely allow Democrats to get away with this. Or grotesquely compare wiretapping with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Or praise the New York Times for its wonderful "scoop," forgetting all about the thousands of stories they did casting a dark shadow on Bush for the Plame leak.
The hysteria generated by partisans and media has overcome reason, facts and the law. Never mind that John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Clinton, explained in an informative Chicago Tribune op-ed piece why Bush has the legal and constitutional authority to approve the taps. That "every president since FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] passage has asserted that he retained the power to go beyond the act's terms." Never mind that other legal scholars, on a non-partisan basis, have said that whatever FISA says, the president retains that power under the Constitution. That four federal appeals courts have upheld the president's power to wiretap to gain foreign intelligence--which the present case is about--without warrant.
Reputable scholars, lawyers and judges all agree that this issue is complex, with finely tuned arguments and complicated precedents on both sides. None of them is so reckless as the Byrds and media commentators who state, without reflection and with partisan purpose, that such wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Intelligent Design and Science
What's so scary about intelligent design?
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005
Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?
Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?
It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:
People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?
Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.
Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.
The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.
Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.
This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.
We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.
To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.
Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)