Whose Rights?: Counterterrorism and the Dark Side of American Public Opinion

Notes

157 Notes Introduction 1. according to one set of estimates, the amount spent to date on the war on terror and related wars in iraq and afghanistan is approximately $4 trillion (eisenhower Study Group 2011). 2. another little-known and potentially surprising feature of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks has involved the low representation of muslims as perpetrators relative to population size. according to one recent study (Kurzman 2012), terrorism by muslim americans poses “a minuscule threat to public safety” in the united States. 3. Larry Bartels (2008, chap. 7) provides an instructive example in an analysis of the 2003 abolition of the inheritance tax. deeply unpopular, it survived for a long period of time simply because no significant movement or policy coalition demanded its abolition. the movement against the “death tax,” Bartels argues, succeeded because it activated latent beliefs and dispositions on the part of voters. Chapter 1 1. the hofstadter thesis has been widely debated. one key question is whether these campaigns were driven from above by political elites, threatened by the possibilities of radical mobilization from below, or whether they were populist outbursts emerging primarily from below (for example, Bell 1960; Wolfe 1973; Goldstein 2001). Similarly, the question of whether these campaigns were intertwined with rational interests or were entirely irrational generated considerable scholarly attention (for example, Rogin 1987, chap. 9). Yet hofstadter’s basic insight—that a politics of paranoia has long been an important theme in american political history—appears amply borne out by the historical record. 2. as discussed in the introduction, in 2001 the risk of homicide death (one in 22,000), dying in a traffic accident (one in 8,000), and cancer-related fatalities (one in 540) exceeded the parallel risk of dying from terrorism (mueller and Stewart 2010). 3. the complicated maneuverings of the iran-Contra affair in 1985 and 1986 provided the most flagrant violation of domestic and international law. iranBrooks .indb 157 11/27/2012 9:55:54 AM 158 Notes Contra was a rogue operation approved by the White house, in which arms were first sold to iran and subsequent profits were then channeled to provide support to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. the iran-Contra affair nonetheless suggested to many observers just how entrenched the rights revolution had become. Senior White house officials were forced to testify before Congress, resulting in a number of resignations and criminal investigations. 4. the Geneva Conventions are a set of four international agreements (first signed in 1864, 1906, 1929, and, after World War ii, amended with additional provisions added in 1949, and later packages of amendments in 1977 and 2005). the agreements specify rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, including with respect to the wounded and civilian populations. the accord establishes that prisoners of war cannot be tortured or deliberately injured; they must be treated humanely and provided adequate food, shelter, and access to medical care; and they cannot be incarcerated at the end of hostilities or indefinitely without a fair trial (if war crimes are alleged). the 1949 negotiations were chaired and led by the united States, and the united States closely followed the guidelines during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. 5. other discussions of 24 and its impact can be found in mayer (2008) and Sands (2008). the show appeared to exert so much influence it was feared by some officials to be encouraging excessive enthusiasm among u.S. military personnel for harsh interrogation and the show’s producers were urged to revise the tone accordingly (Buncombe 2007; mayer 2007). the implications of the ticking time bomb have been invoked in many contexts; for example, philosophical debates over morality versus torture (compare allhof 2005; Zizek 2006), or by the prominent legal scholar alan dershowitz (2002), who surprised many in offering a cautious defense of torture (albeit requiring prior court warrant), citing the scenario of the ticking time bomb in his justification . Supreme Court Justice antonin Scalia even declared at an international jurist conference that “Jack Bauer saved Los angeles. . . . he saved hundreds of thousands of lives . . . are you going to convict Jack Bauer? . . . Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? “i don’t think so. . . . So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. and ought we believe in these absolutes” (quoted in Lattman 2007). 6. the presence of John Yoo at the office of Legal Counsel when...