A Powerful President Confronts
A Strong People
A speech by
Professor Lawrence Repeta
Omiya Law School
25 April 2007
Japan National Press Club
a judge
a soldier
a housewife
©社団法人 日本記者クラブ
Four years ago, as American troops were
entering Baghdad and our government was
preparing to declare “Mission Accomplished” in
Iraq, public opinion polls show that more than
seventy percent of the American people
supported Bush Administration policy in Iraq.
Today, public opinion polls show the reverse.
Only thirty percent support Bush
Administration policy. About seventy percent
are opposed.
How did this big change take place? Of course,
many things have happened over that four
year period and many people have died. But
the change in overall public opinion also
reflects the thinking and the actions of
individual people who decided to oppose
actions taken by our government. Today I
would like to introduce three such people.
I
South, enforcing separation of blacks and
whites, including separate schools, separate
seating in trains and buses, and separate
restaurants and other facilities. So-called
“Jim Crow” laws and mob violence were critical
tools used to enforce segregation. Many
blacks who sought equal treatment paid a
terrible price, sometimes with their lives.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for
the first time that the system of racially
segregated education practiced in the South
violates the Constitution of the United States.
Many other challenges to segregation, in the
courts and in the streets, followed. Today all
Americans celebrate a national holiday on the
birthday of the greatest leader of the
movement for equality, Martin Luther King.
As you know, the voice of Dr. King was silenced
by an assassin’s bullet in 1969.
Anna Diggs Taylor
Exactly fifty years ago, a young woman
graduated from Yale Law School. Yale is
generally considered the most prestigious law
school in the United States, usually ranked
ahead of a much larger rival school called
Harvard. Despite the prestige of Yale Law
School and the student’s excellent academic
performance there, the young graduate would
not be offered a position by even one private
law firm. For she was not only a woman -which in 1957 was a big strike against her -she was a black woman. No established law
firm would hire a black woman lawyer in those
days.
Fortunately, her excellent credentials did land
her a job in the federal government. She was
hired by one of the first African Americans to
serve in a high-ranking position in the federal
government (J. Ernest Wilkins, an assistant
Secretary for Labor), as a solicitor in the
Department of Labor, and she began her long
career in public service. After three years as a
government lawyer in Washington, she moved
to the northern industrial city of Detroit.
In those early years of her career, racial
segregation existed in much of the American
Five years before that terrible day, in the
summer of 1964, the young woman lawyer
from Detroit traveled to Mississippi to provide
legal assistance to people who challenged
segregation and unequal treatment in the
South. In the words of her biographers, she
helped organize “a massive civil rights agenda
of legal challenges and demonstrations in the
South to win equal rights for
African-Americans in states like Mississippi.”
She arrived in Mississippi on the same day that
three other civil rights activists disappeared.
Seeking justice, she joined a group who went
to the Sheriff’s office to seek help, but they
were quickly surrounded by a hostile white
mob who cursed them and threatened their
lives. The Sheriff provided little help. Sadly,
six weeks later the lifeless bodies of the three
men were found at a local farm.
Fortunately, the young lawyer returned safely
to Detroit and history moved forward. Due to
the courage of that young woman and
thousands like her, the official system of racial
segregation in the South was brought to an
end.
The woman’s name is Anna Diggs Taylor. She
is not young anymore. In 1979, she was
appointed to be a federal judge by President
Jimmy Carter. So she has served as a federal
judge for more than 27 years. Today she is
the chief judge of the federal district for the
state of Michigan.
On August 17, 2006, eight months ago, Judge
Taylor delivered perhaps the most important
decision of any American court since the crash
of those airplanes into the World Trade Center
in New York City in September 2001.
Nearly all commentators say that the Bush
presidency will be judged by the result of the
Iraq War. But whatever the outcome of that
war may be, historians will have to consider
much more when they evaluate George W.
Bush. For example, one item they must
consider is Bush`s decision to secretly use the
National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor
telephone calls and electronic communications
without obtaining court warrants.
Bush issued this order a few months after the
September 11, 2001 attacks. The targets of
this surveillance include not only foreign
persons; they also include U.S. citizens and
others located within the United States. The
existence of this presidential order had been
concealed from public knowledge for nearly
four years, until December 2005, when the
New York Times first reported it.
Within a few days of the Times report, the
President himself confirmed that it was true.
He had in fact authorized warrantless
monitoring of telephone calls and other
communications. He defended his actions as
"crucial to our national security" and said that
the American people expected him to "do
everything in my power, under our laws and
Constitution, to protect them" as long as there
was a "continuing threat" from al-Qaeda.
Legal analysts across the nation were shocked.
Aside from the obvious conflict between the
president`s action and the constitutional
protection against “unreasonable searches” by
the government and the guarantee of free
speech, the president’s action clearly violated
the terms of a law called the “Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA).
Congress passed the FISA law in 1978,
following the resignation of President Richard
Nixon and investigations into wrongdoing by
the Nixon Administration. The specific
purpose of this law was to mandate that the
government obtain approvals from a special
court for wiretapping in espionage and
terrorism investigations. It was intended to
stop the violations of civil liberties that had
taken place before and during the Nixon era
such as the FBI`s illegal eavesdropping on
telephone calls of Martin Luther King and
others the president viewed as his political
opponents. Bush simply ignored this law
when he authorized the monitoring of
telephone calls with no court supervision at all.
One month after the President made his
statement, a small group of individuals and
organizations filed suit, asserting that their
rights had been violated by NSA wiretapping.
The case was filed in federal district court in
Detroit and it was assigned to Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor. Although the legal principles
seem to be clear, this is nonetheless a difficult
case. When the president stands before the
American people and says he took
extraordinary action to protect them during a
time of war, it requires great courage to oppose
him. There are many who would immediately
label such a person a traitor to the United
States. In fact, we know very well that over
the past one hundred years American judges
have repeatedly approved extreme
presidential action and later regretted having
done so. Court decisions in these cases later
became sources of national disgrace. These
extreme actions included the internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II,
widespread suppression of dissent in World
War I, and the McCarthyist prosecution of
alleged Communists during the Cold War.
But Judge Taylor had spent her entire life
preparing for difficult cases like this. Born
Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in
Washington D.C., both of Judge Taylor’s
parents were educators, and her father would
later become the Treasurer of Howard
University, America’s premier historically
African-American University. During her
childhood, Judge Taylor’s parents
enthusiastically encouraged political
discussions and instilled within her strong
moral convictions and an appreciation for the
importance of protecting civil rights. As we
have seen, as a young woman she showed the
courage to face racist violence in the American
South.
Now she did not flinch. On August 17, 2006,
Judge Taylor ruled that Bush`s surveillance
program violated not only the FISA Act, but the
First and Fourth Amendments to the
Constitution as well. In language that would
be repeated on the front pages of newspapers
all over the United States, she declared that “It
was never the intent of the Framers to give the
President such unfettered control… particularly
where his actions blatantly disregard the
parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of
Rights." She did not hesitate to write that
"There are no hereditary kings in America and
no powers not created by the Constitution."
Judge Taylor`s decision is now on appeal.
II
Ehren Watada
Ehren Watada graduated from Kalani High
School in Honolulu in June 1999. He was one
of the stars of his class, not merely a football
player but a four-sport athlete, with good
grades, too. Bursting with pride, his parents
like to repeat stories of his youthful
accomplishments. For example, there is one
about him planning to build an extensive hiking
trail on a hillside above a neighborhood park.
Neighbors scoffed at the idea of the 15-year
old Eagle Scout taking on such a major project
by himself. Today, the trail that took months
to complete zigzags up the hillside and stands
as a source of Watada’s parents’ pride in their
son and a symbol of his resolve.
He would continue on to college in Hawaii,
graduating near the top of his class at Hawaii
Pacific University in 2003. In early September
of 2001, he had just begun his junior year
when two commercial jets destroyed the World
Trade Center in faraway New York and another
crashed into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Incident
and the events to follow would lead to a
dramatic change in the young man's life.
In reaction to the attacks Watada felt a deep
“desire to protect his nation,” so after
graduating in 2003, he volunteered to serve in
the U.S. Army. Watada soon completed
Officer Candidate School and, for his first tour
of duty, was shipped out to South Korea.
There his commanding officers labeled his
performance “exemplary” and wrote that he
had “unlimited potential.” During this period
the young officer supported the launch of the
war in Iraq, which had begun a few months
prior to his enlistment, because he believed
that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction.
Lt. Watada’s stellar performance in Korea
featured a relentless drive to make sure that
he was fully prepared for duty. As an officer,
he was not merely responsible for himself, but
also for the men he commanded. So, in early
2005, when he was sent to Ft. Lewis in
Washington State for an anticipated
deployment to Iraq, his relentless drive to
prepare again took over. He began reading
books and articles covering a wide range of
topics from Iraqi history, culture, and society,
to international law and the U.S. policy and
justification for the invasion and subsequent
occupation.
During this time of intense study his beliefs
about the war in Iraq changed dramatically.
Lt. Watada became convinced that the war was
based on "intentional manipulation of
intelligence" by the Bush administration. This
“All-American” man with a promising future in
the Army concluded that the Bush
Administration had deceived the American
people and that this deception had led his
country to engage in an illegal war which was
causing the deaths of his beloved fellow
soldiers and to innocent Iraqis.
Watada knew that he would soon be ordered to
Iraq. He faced a significant moral dilemma.
Should he follow orders and participate in this
illegal war? Or should he stand up for his
beliefs, challenge government leadership and,
inevitably, risk imprisonment?
For the “All-American” from Honolulu, the
answer was clear. On January 25, 2006,
Lieutenant Ehren Watada submitted a letter of
resignation. In that letter, he wrote, “Simply
put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the
continued war in Iraq, the deception used to
wage this war, and the lawlessness that has
pervaded every aspect of our civilian
leadership.” Watada would later say that if he
followed orders, “My participation would make
me party to war crimes."
The United States maintains a regular military
force of nearly one and a half million men and
women at hundreds of military bases located
all over the world. The US government could
not successfully maintain discipline in this
massive army if it allowed young officers like
Watada to just walk out the door. The Army
rejected his request to resign.
Watada was a member of the Third Stryker
Brigade of the Second Infantry Division.
When the Brigade set off for Iraq in June 2006,
Lieutenant Watada was not on the plane. The
U.S. Army responded by charging him with
several crimes under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, including missing a troop
movement, failure to deploy, contempt toward
officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.
The Army has commenced a “court martial” – a
criminal trial - on these charges and he faces a
potential penalty of several years in prison.
Of course, there is more. He faces not only a
criminal prosecution, but also ostracism from
society at large. He has been labeled a traitor
by those who oppose his action. Although
most Americans are now opposed to Bush
Administration policy in Iraq, few would
support the act of a military officer refusing an
order to go to a battlefield.
We must note that the four-sport athlete is not
a pacifist. Nor is he a coward. He has
volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, a war that
he believes to be justified because the Taliban
have been unambiguously connected to the
9/11 attacks.
The young man who joined the Army out of the
patriotic desire to defend his country is now
driven by another, equally patriotic desire: he
seeks to rally fellow citizens and soldiers to
oppose an illegal war. In his words, “They
must know that resisting an authoritarian
government at home is equally important to
fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield.”
Watada has become a public figure, frequently
delivering speeches before groups opposed to
the war. He always stresses individual
responsibility. For example, he says that "It is
the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and
specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality,
the truth behind every order — including the
order to go to war.”
In this regard, Watada’s words reflect a
fundamental element in the American national
identity. His actions and words call to mind
the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the
most influential thinkers in American history.
Emerson’s most famous essay, titled “On
Self-Reliance,” was published in 1841 and has
been read in high school literature courses
throughout the United States ever since.
The essential message of “On Self-Reliance” is
that everyone must make decisions on their
own. In a key passage of his famous essay,
Emerson declared “What I must do is all that
concerns me, not what the people think” and
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of
your own mind.” This individualist philosophy
has had a powerful influence on American
culture.
Following this Emersonian tradition, Ehren
Watada conducted his own study of the Iraq
War and reached his own conclusion. Then, in
an act of great moral courage, he defied his
government. The boy who built that hiking
trail by himself later became the man who
decided that American action in the Iraq war
was wrong and he must stand against it.
Watada summarizes the principled nature of
his message with these words.
“It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the
United States Army to speak out against grave
injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to
the Constitution and not to those who would
issue unlawful orders. I stand before you
today, because it is my job to serve and protect
America's soldiers, its people and innocent
Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion,
as an officer of the Armed Forces, that the war
in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but a horrible
breach of American law.”
After the court’s declaration of a mistrial in
February of this year, the trial of Ehren Watada
is scheduled to resume soon. In a recent
development, attorneys from a major Seattle
law firm with a long history have agreed to
represent him in the court martial.
III
Cindy Sheehan
When George W. Bush and his partners sold
the “Texas Rangers” Major League baseball
team in 1998, Bush’s share of the take was
nearly $ 15 million. He used a portion of this
money to buy a ranch of 1,600 acres located in
central Texas, not far from the city of Waco.
When Bush became president, the ranch was
quickly dubbed the “Western White House.”
The president spends a lot of time there,
including an extended holiday every August.
A White House reporter who follows these trips
calculated that his visit in August 2005 was his
49th trip to the ranch since he became
president in January 2001.
His 49th trip would be different from the others.
A few days after the president’s arrival, an
unscheduled visitor appeared at the gates of
the Bush ranch. The visitor was a 48 year-old
housewife from a small town in California.
She was the mother of four children. In April
2004, one of those children – her 24 year-old
son Casey – had been killed by
rocket-propelled grenades fired by Shiite
militiamen in Baghdad. In a recent speech,
the president had described the Iraq War as a
“noble cause.” The grieving mother had come
to the Bush ranch in order to demand an
explanation of the “noble cause” for which her
son died. Having been turned away, she
pitched a tent by the side of the road and
announced her intention to stay, day and night,
for the full five weeks or until such a meeting is
granted.
Although the president refused her request to
meet, Cindy Sheehan would meet many other
people during her trip to Texas. Her
appearance was well-timed. Every August
the White House press corps travels to Texas
with the president and they have little to do.
They are eager for a news story, but they have
very limited access to the president and his
aides.
In 2005, Cindy Sheehan provided the story.
She called the place where she pitched her tent
“Camp Casey” in honor of her departed son.
The story of Camp Casey and her approach to
the gates of the Bush Ranch was picked up by
the national news media, especially cable
television, and soon she was joined by
hundreds and then thousands of supporters,
including actors, musicians and other
celebrities.
Others who were unable to
travel to Texas could participate in the war
protest “virtually” through Internet blogs
hosted by writers at Camp Casey or could
listen to live radio broadcasts from the site.
The New York Times reported that Cindy’s visit
to Texas “invigorated the anti-war movement”
and that her camp had “turned into a daily
stage for interviews and encounters between
the war’s advocates and critics.” Some even
said the grieving mother had touched-off a
“media frenzy.” The war protests at Camp
Casey continued through the end of August,
when the president returned to the White
House and Cindy departed on a cross country
tour headed for a big anti-war rally to be held
in Washington, DC in late September.
Many people compare the U.S. war in Iraq with
the war in Vietnam that ended a little more
than thirty years ago. A Japanese friend has
reminded me that during the Vietnam War
there were massive anti-war protests in
Washington and around the country, and asked
“Why haven’t we seen similar protests this
time?”
Of course, there have been many rallies staged
to protest the Iraq war, but I think my friend is
correct. The anti-war rallies in the 1960s and
1970s were much of a much bigger scale and
they attracted much more attention in the
news media. I suppose there are several
reasons for this, but there is one that clearly
outweighs all of the others. My country sent
a much larger contingent of soldiers to
Vietnam. At the war’s peak, there were more
than 550,000 U.S. military troops in Vietnam.
Even with the recent increase in forces, the
American force in Iraq has never been much
more than 150,000 or so.1
The biggest reason that the antiwar
demonstrations have not reached the great
size of the Vietnam War days is that, for the
great majority of Americans, the Iraq War is
just something they see on television. There
is no longer a military draft in the United States.
Because of the draft and the very large
deployment to Vietnam, nearly every
American family was touched directly by the
Vietnam War. For most people, either a family
member was serving in the military or had
carefully found some reason – valid or not -- to
stay out.
Direct participation in the Iraq War is generally
limited to members of specific segments of
society: working class and poor families, and
families with a strong military tradition.2
1
General Eric Shinseki, like Ehren Watada a native of Hawaii,
served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Army from
1999 to 2003. When he was called to testify before a U.S.
Congressional committee and asked how many troops would
be required to occupy Iraq, he said it would take “something
in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers.” He was
immediately attacked by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for
this comment and later he was fired.
2
Of course, the war is extremely expensive and all
Americans must pay for it. But just as it was launching this
The Bush Ranch provides a fine stage to
showcase the sharp divisions in American
society. Only the wealthiest members of
society are so fortunate as to own a big ranch
where they can escape for long vacations.
The Washington Post began one report with the
words: “President Bush is getting the kind of
break most Americans can only dream of –
nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded
with vacation time.”
In sharp contrast to this image of wealth and
power stood the solitary figure of a grieving
mother, a very powerful symbol of the victims
of war. The New York Times published a letter
from a reader that raised question of divisions
in society this way:
“Cindy Sheehan poses a personal question.
If this war is so important to President Bush,
has he spoken with his own daughters about
serving their country in this war? Has he
encouraged them to enlist in the military? If
not, why not?”
Another Japanese friend once told me, “from
time to time, your government may go too far
in one direction, but then it always swings
back.” I wonder if that is true. If it is true,
then we must ask the question why. Why
does it “swing back”? What makes this great
pendulum move?
If Ralph Waldo Emerson were here, I think I
know what he would say. He would say that
the pendulum doesn’t just swing back. It is
pushed back. It is pushed back by the
collective force of the actions of many
individual people. These are people who
make their own decisions for their own reasons.
And this is the secret that lies at the heart of
democratic government.
Today we have considered the actions of three
war, the Bush Administration was also adopting a series of tax
cuts. Although the tax cuts are especially beneficial to
wealthy Americans, all taxpayers have seen income taxes
decline. And few people care about the large accumulated
fiscal deficits resulting from the combination of reduced tax
collections and increased government spending.
such people. How do we know about these
people? We know about them because their
stories have been covered by the news media
and the voices of the Internet.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak
before such an important gathering today. If I
can give you just one message, it is this: you
must find the stories of individual people with
courage and personal integrity and then make
sure you tell those stories to your readers.
L. Repeta: repeta@omiyalaw.ac.jp