Most of the obituaries refer to him as a father figure – to technology, to his employees, and to his own children, and many of them cover some of his nastiest traits, like swindling his business partner out of 83% of his share of their first profits, or committing perjury to avoid paternity claims.  He was notorious for berating subordinates, and even chasing them down at home at all hours to get what he wanted.  The New York Times writes of his “public” battle with cancer, but the truth is, he lied and hid the disease, leading to ethics investigations and feverish speculation over his health and its effects on his company’s stock price.  He aggressively sued journalists for covering his company and brutally punished leakers inside Apple.  Everything about the company – not just products but information –  was considered proprietary, and he used his power to squash information rather than free it.  Meanwhile, ad campaigns painting his company as the underdog and celebrating “thinking different” aligned him in the public imagination with ideals that were the opposite of his business practices.  He ended corporate philanthropy upon his return to Apple from exile and his products upended the principles of an open internet by walling off information and locking it up for ransom.

Jobs was a perfect symbol of our era: a brutal dictator who wielded his immense power to give the public exactly what we wanted and he was beloved for it.  His authoritarian practices were hidden by brilliant showmanship, marketing, and by delivering products that dazzled with their technological advances and design fetishism. Jobs turned us all into subservient consumers, subjects eagerly awaiting the next aha! moment and willing to trade our money and our values for the perfect object of futuristic fantasy.

I have never used a computer that wasn’t a Mac, and I will be pre-ordering the iPhone 4S tomorrow.  I wish I could think different.  The King is dead.  Long live the King!

Your faithful servant.

Before September 11, 2001, the idea of American Justice stood as a symbol to all the world for the rule of law.  Our founding fathers were radicals, students of monarchy and tyranny, who designed a political system which has at its heart a dispersion of power, inefficient governance to be sure, but designed to make ironclad the idea that the law was the only king.  A legal framework was carefully constructed to give rights to the accused, making transparent all charges, evidence and testimony, and placing judgement in the hands of the people.  This safeguarded liberty by preventing any one person or power from controlling the entire process, and inhibit the emotions of heinous acts to get in the way of justice.  This was not only considered reasonable and rational, but also moral.

Unfortunately, after the attacks on the United States, Congress passed a 342-page bill called The USA PATRIOT Act, which many lawmakers admitted to not reading.  It curtailed our liberties and consolidated our government’s power in the name of making us safer.  Our Vice President told us that we had to work through “the dark side” in this new era of terror.  New powers were claimed by our executive branch, and a system of military law was set up that followed neither established military law, ratified international treaties (which are binding American law), or our constitution.  Both President Bush and President Obama have presided over a regime of indefinite detentions and targeted assassinations, in which one branch of the government acts as officer, judge and jury, and unilaterally decides the fate of those poor souls unlucky enough to be caught up in their net.

I lived in New York City on September 11, 2001, and I share the grief of a city and a nation for the horrific loss that occurred that day. The painful memories for me are tied up in the horrifying odor seared into my brain, which will remain with me for the rest of my life. I celebrate the honor of the first-responders who risked their lives and I honor the memory of the victims who lost their lives.  Ten years later, however, my grief has changed into permanent sadness at the idea that Bin Laden’s attack on the United States may have successfully destroyed our democracy.

To be sure, Osama Bin Laden was guilty of planning and financing the attacks upon us, and proclaimed it on video to tell the world.  Bin Laden declared war on the United States and rules of war certainly allow for killing.  And the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force makes this action legal, unlike our military actions in Libya, Iraq or Yemen.  But when President Obama proclaimed last night that “justice has been done,” our constitutional lawyer-turned-Commander in Chief was terribly mistaken.  Surely we feel a sense of relief, but revenge is not the same as justice.

I owe you an apology.  I said some pretty mean things in the heat of your Presidency, and now that I’ve had some time to cool off, I want to tell you that I’m sorry and how much I’ve changed.  I said some pretty awful things: I called you “the worst President ever,” a “war criminal,” and linked your Presidency to the end of democracy.  But I now know, it wasn’t you, it was me.

I didn’t realize that starting wars in the Arab world didn’t even need Congressional authorization!  You went above and beyond the call of law by getting authorization to use military force to spread democracy and liberate people from their evil dictators who we used to prop up.

You used signing statements to let Congress know which of its laws you planned to ignore.  Sure President Clinton used them first, but only a few times.  But now that President Obama has used them dozens of times, to specifically set aside any Congressional oversight, I realize that it is the prerogative of the Commander in Chief to decide what laws should be enforced and which laws should be ignored.  At the time I laughed at you for proclaiming yourself “the decider,” but now I realize you were just being honest.

Your illegal wiretapping scheme really made me mad.  Imagine the thought of the government being able to listen in on my phone calls, emails, text messages, any communication you want, just say it’s in connection with a “terrorism” investigation and it’s yours.  Of course I thought that seemed wrong at the time, and so did Senator Obama during the brief period of time he was campaigning to people like me, riled up and angry partisans.  But now that he is President he is keeping and extending all of your eavesdropping programs, and blocking any meaningful attempts at oversight.

You used Guantanamo Bay to imprison people you kidnapped from foreign countries and hold them outside of any established legal framework.  You invented an extra-judicial legal system to hold show trials so that the American values that we are supposedly at war to protect could never be applied to a new class of persons you called “enemy combatants.”  But after vowing to change all of that in a heated campaign, President Obama has reversed himself and is continuing to keep the prison open. He’s even going farther than you are and re-writing our laws to enable “indefinite detention” and do things that our founding fathers specifically designed our constitution to prevent.

Then there was the torture. You spent a great deal of energy at a high level of government deciding how much simulated drowning was too much, which positions hurt the most, and how much sleep deprivation would break someone but all the while being (mostly) careful not to kill anyone.  But President Obama has continued your policies, even applying them to PFC Bradley Manning, a US Citizen just like me, whose conditions of imprisonment are so objectionable that Amnesty International, The UN, and hundreds of leading American law professors have tried to get his torture to stop.  When Hillary Clinton’s spokesman was caught on the record objecting to Manning’s treatment, he was summarily fired, which means that Obama and Clinton seem to think the torture regime you came up with was a pretty good idea, President Bush.  I don’t know why I got so upset before.

One of the reasons your Presidency seemed so upsetting was because all of the thing you were doing were shrouded in Secrecy.  Even when you were sued by the ACLU you claimed broad privileges not to provide certain evidence, citing “state secrets.”  But President Obama obviously thinks you had good reason to do so, because he has expanded his use of state secrets privilege, not only using it to hide evidence but as grounds to dismiss entire cases because the people cannot know about what is being done in our name.

What little the public knew about the things you were doing came from leaks in your administration.  Although you made a lot of noise about prosecuting leakers, you never went as far as President Obama in actively prosecuting leak cases and making clear that the wrongdoing that is exposed by whistleblowers pales in comparison to the crime of speaking to the press.  Sorry again.

Of course there were also the tax cuts.  I thought you were so awful when you took the $237 billion dollar surplus we had in 2000 and got rid of it in one fell swoop by giving it away to the already-rich.  What a conniving, awful, and very Republican thing to do!  Until of course, President Obama made it a priority to use the final hours of a Democratic Congress to extend your tax cuts to the very wealthiest.  I know the country is broke fighting all of those wars, but obviously you were on the right track by making sure the wealthy keep their money so that it could trickle down to the rest of the population.  Very smart policy!  I now realize I was so wrong to object to your bi-partisan wisdom.

You made a lot of noise about the Social Security crisis — apparently it’s going to run out of money somewhere around 2040.  But even though you claimed a mandate to hand over my retirement to the salivating Wall Street bankers, you were never able to touch it.  I hated you for wanting to dismantle one of the crowning achievements of our liberal democracy.  But now that President Obama is soberly devoted to doing the same thing, I realize you were just a visionary, trying to do the right thing years ahead of your time.

In fact, I don’t really remember why I thought you were so awful at all, Mr. President.  It seems that with very few exceptions, President Obama has continued with all of your policies and priorities.  He does have a way of making me feel like he’s really smart and knows more than I do about stuff in a way that you, Mr. Bush, always made me wonder if you really knew what you were doing.  But it turns out you did!  You knew exactly what you were doing, because it was the same as this smart man who we all love, who really has his hands tied.  You must have had a hard time, President Bush — no wonder you were always so annoyed by reporters who asked you questions.

I don’t mean to insult you by saying that there’s no difference between you and President Obama.  I’m sure you know there are some very important differences.  And the blind partisan supporters of both of you will magnify the differences and will be very angry at the comparison, because to acknowledge the truth would make everything they worked for and believed in seem meaningless.  But the reasons that I hated you above all others from your party, the reasons that I thought you were singularly awful, those have been rendered meaningless and silly in the two short years since you’ve been gone.  In those most important ways, you’re no different than your successor, and we just don’t seem able to get all that worked up about it when he does it.

So please accept my sincerest apologies. I hope you’re having a great time in Dallas, or wherever you moved to after the photo ops at your “ranch” in Crawford were no longer needed.  Say hi to Laura, she always seemed to get the short end of the stick. (Is she considering a run for Senate now?)  And if you’re up for having a beer sometime, let me know.

Yours in citizenship,

Jon Marcus

Eisenhower first thanks the broadcast networks for the opportunity to address the nation, ever mindful that the air time they gave him took away from Dobie Gillis and Ozzie and Harriet, which surely cost them money.  Then he makes clear that the United States is under very real threat, and although he never uses the word communist, no one listening to the speech was uncertain about his meaning:

We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration.

What the speech is truly about is holding fast to our values during a crisis, and not hoping for some miraculous or sweeping change to save us from the perils that our nation will face.  At a time like now when each fresh news report or disaster brings sweeping calls for new laws that might have protected us against each crisis, it is striking to hear his words:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties…

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future.

In the wake of the BP Gulf oil spill, it is worth listening Ike say

As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.

And of course, the armaments industry:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations…

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

As the 50th anniversary of this speech falls on Martin Luther King, Jr Day, just days after a member of the Defense Department suggested that Martin Luther King, Jr, would have understood and approved of our military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But just six years after Eisenhower’s farewell speech, Dr King said,

I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.

We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.

These commemorations come at a time when our Vice President has called Julian Assange a “high-tech terrorist,” for publishing documents alongside The New York Times that contribute to what Eisenhower called “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.”

These commemorations come at a time when a Member of our Congress lies in a hospital room with half of her skull sawed off, recovering from a bullet wound that every talking head on TV refuses to link to the anti-government speech of one of our political parties, or to the armaments industry that Eisenhower warned us of.

It comes at a time when birds are falling out of the sky and fish are washing up on shores with mysterious illnesses, and scientists point to “indigestion” and “stress,” as possible causes but never dare to bring up the toxic dispersant used to clean up the BP oil spill that is known to cause disfigurement and death to marine and human life.

As we mark this occasion today, let us honor Dr. King’s legacy and heed President Eisenhower’s warning.  We must recognize that our struggles are the same as they were fifty years ago, and while many things are better, many things are also worse.  We must not allow Eisenhower’s or King’s words to be oversimplified, taken out of context and obscured.  And we must remember to demand that our core American values, now marginalized as “far-left,” were once so pervasive as to be embraced by the Right.

Read/Listen to the speeches:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, January 17, 1961

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence, April 4, 1967

In the current attacks on Julian Assange and Wikileaks, we are witnessing the next step in the process of transforming a democracy into a totalitarian regime.  The full power of the American government is engaged in discrediting Assange and shutting down Wikileaks. Voices on the right are calling him a terrorist, while Democrats use measured terms to convey his dangerousness without explicitly labeling him or describing the harm he has caused.  Most significantly, few political figures are defending him or the principles for which he stands.  Tellingly, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has called for the laws to be changed in order to successfully prosecute Assange.  (What do you call a system of government that changes the laws in a particular case in order to get the outcome it desires?)

It is important to keep sight of a couple of facts in this debate.  Julian Assange, whatever you think of him or the disclosures, is not a terrorist, in any sense of the word that we have ever used before.  Although the word “terrorist” is a by nature a politically loaded term, and there is not even a definition that is widely accepted, we have always reserved it for people who cause death or serious injury.  Wikileaks has not injured a single person; Wikileaks uses information, not weapons.  Assange has written and spoken widely about his values and ethics, and believes he is helping democracy and providing a valuable and ethical service to inform the citizens of free nations all over the world.  His own words defending his work are well-worth reading, especially if you have not heard anyone else make his case.  Can you think of another “terrorist” who has stated values that are enshrined in our constitution?  It is also vital to remember that Wikileaks acts in concert with mainstream news organizations all over the globe, and all of the “damaging” material it has leaked has been co-published with The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and other international establishment news organizations. What rational argument is there to charge Wikileaks with “crimes” that are not also leveled on its co-publishers?

And that’s where we run into serious problems.  Whether you consider Julian Assange a terrorist, or just think he must be forcibly stopped, you are endorsing a radical transformation of constitutional protections in the United States.  If terrorists are not entitled to due process, and if terrorists are people who are acting on unpopular ideas, anyone with unpopular ideas can be designated a terrorist at any time and imprisoned or killed, on the government’s say-so.  And if you don’t think Assange should be jailed, but merely stopped, you are enforcing government-dictated limits on the already-timid press, whose unrestricted freedom is the only means by which a democracy can function. Both of these outcomes are conditions of a totalitarian state.

We are on the brink of allowing centuries of iron-clad rights and freedoms to be turned into privileges accorded only to some.  There is very little we can do to halt the radical assault on our rights, other than using the blunt-force instrument of the ballot box, and even that has had little effect on the theft of our country.  But in this case, there is one very clear and very simple action that a concerned citizen of a free country can take that sends a powerful message.  Donate $25 to Wikileaks.  This show of nominal support sends the clear message that we are against the destruction of our democracy and we are for free speech and freedom of the press.  You can donate here. It is one of the only concrete acts you can perform to halt the attacks on our freedom, and the more people who do it right now, the better chance both Wikileaks and our democracy have for survival.

UPDATE:

Mastercard, Visa and Paypal have all suspended transactions to Wikileaks.  You can still use the link above to find out how to mail a check to Wikileaks or make donations via bank wire transfer.  However, two other sites currently allow electronic payments. Xipwire allows donations to Wikileaks (you can donate $10 just by sending the  TEXT MESSAGE “WL” to 56624).  And Flattr, which uses Paypal or your credit card to fund your account, may be suspended in the future, but is currently allowing this workaround.

Xipwire

Flattr

CORRECTION:

This post has been updated to correctly reflect Senator Mitch McConnell’s title.