The Bush Appointments

Part 1

Many people decided which of the presidential candidates to vote for based on their anticipation of the kind of people he might appoint. Given the common belief that George W. Bush will rely heavily on his cabinet, Americans in general and Muslims in particular should be looking closely at his first appointments to that body: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Ashcroft.

General Powell's appointment as Secretary of State was no surprise. Everyone expected Bush to make that appointment as an easy way of rebutting the innuendo of racism that was spewed in his direction during the presidential campaign. Powell is extremely popular, and the unpalatability of his views favoring affirmative action is less important to some conservatives than his unquestionable patriotism. African Americans, of course, are delighted to see a brother appointed to such a high cabinet position for the first time.

For Muslims, there can be no doubt that Powell is a step in the right direction when compared to his predecessor, Madeline Albright. His involvement in the war against Iraq was simply the case of a man doing his job against his better judgment. He possessed enough insight to have reservations about the entire situation, and appears to have been instrumental in preventing George Bush, Sr. from going further than merely making an ill-fated call for Saddam Hussein's overthrow in his foolish attempt to intervene in Iraq's internal politics.

In his autobiography (1995), Powell demonstrates an understanding of the subtleties of Middle Eastern politics that has evaded his predecessors. He describes how Casper Weinberger's questioning of the wisdom of putting U.S. Marines between the Lebanese army and Shi`a fighters did not prevail against hawkish Bud McFarlane and George Schulz. McFarlane persuaded President Reagan to bomb the villages of the Shouf Mountains, which resulted in the humiliating retaliatory bombing of the Marines at the airport. Writes Powell, "I was developing a strong distaste for the antiseptic phrases coined by State Department officials for foreign interventions which usually had bloody consequences for the military – words like 'presence,' 'symbol,' 'signal,' option on the table, establishment of credibility. Their use was fine if beneath them lay a solid mission. But too often these words were used to give the appearance of clarity to mud."

Condoleeza Rice, however, is more difficult to evaluate. On the one hand, she was on the National Security Council team that was on watch when April Glaspy gave Saddam the green light for the invasion of Kuwait, and then initiated both the military operations to undo the occupation and the subsequent sanctions that have killed so many Iraqis without budging Saddam an inch out of office. 

On the other hand, as an academic and an expert in the former Soviet Union, one hopes that she will make a break from Clinton's Russia policy that tacitly accepted the genocide in Chechnya. Rice has already made statements that indicate that she recognizes the significance of the Kremlin corruption. Whether that means that she will see through the Russian characterization of the Chechnyan resistance as "terrorism" remains to be seen. If she can understand the true nature of the war against Chechnya, it is possible that she will also see through the analogous propaganda that paints Algerian democrats and Palestinian children as terrorists.

While the appointment of Powell is encouraging and the jury is still out on Rice, the appointment of Ashcroft as Attorney General is ominous. The media is attacking Ashcroft for his anti-abortion stand and his antipathy towards affirmative action; however, these are typical positions for a conservative, and it is clear that Bush appointed Ashcroft to pacify his conservative flank. The question for Muslims is what kind of conservative is Ashcroft? Is he one of the good, old-fashioned "paleoconservatives" who places America's interests first, or one of the interventionist "neoconservatives" who places Israel's interests first? Is he a libertarian conservative who will abjure secret evidence and help to repeal the act that made its use possible, or a "big-government" conservative in the mold of George Will? While Ashcroft has not yet answered this question, in so many words, his record is not promising.

First, there is his background, which is so strongly tied to the Evangelical movement that Christian Zionist anti-religious freedom zealot Pat Robertson contributed to Ashcroft's failed Presidential bid. Then, too, Ashcroft is on record as not only defending laws that violate civil liberties, but as actually attempting to make them even more Draconian. Consider the civil forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize the property of persons who are merely accused of criminal activity. For example, in 1999, Ashcroft introduced S. 486, a bill with provisions that, according to Bob Garr (R-GA), are an attack on the Fourth Amendment protections against unjust search and seizure. These provisions, Garr says, “would dramatically weaken citizens' ability to contest a search and seizure under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. These provisions, commonly known as "sneak and peek," are being slipped into different bills by other Members in an effort to pass them without full and fair debate. These provisions, sought by the FBI and the Department of Justice, would dramatically change the manner in which searches and seizures are carried out. If these measures are enacted into law, no longer would federal agents be required to give notice before conducting a search of a home or business, as they are now required to do in all but a few cases. The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies would be able to "sneak" into a person's home or business and search the premises; "peek" at what they want; seize evidence; and then wait 90 days to give notice that they were ever there. It also allows law enforcement agencies to "seize" intangible property such as computer files, without ever leaving an inventory of what was seized; again, contrary to current law requiring an inventory be given to the person from whose property evidence was seized” (Weissman, 2000).

Although this particular bill was intended for use in drug enforcement, one expects that Ashcroft would be similarly eager to violate civil liberties in the name of Israel's security. His devotion to the latter can be seen in his attempt to amend the foreign aid bill to prohibit aid to the Palestinian Broadcasting Company (PBC). Along with 26 other pro-Israeli senators, he signed a letter addressed to Madeline Albright that characterized the PBC as unworthy because it had been “engaging in a campaign in support of violence and hatred against the U.S., our ally Israel, and the goal of peace in the Middle East” (MacArthur, 1998).

Presidential candidate Bush promised the repeal of secret evidence laws. Will he be dissuaded from that commitment by an attorney general who shares the Christian Zionists' apocalyptic visions in which all critics of the Israeli occupation are terrorist agents of the Anti-Christ? I sincerely hope that this is not Mr. Ashcroft's agenda. 

Those Muslims who claim to have access to Mr. Bush need to use that access now to make sure this is not the case. If they are unable to secure tangible assurance in the form of Mr. Ashcroft's commitment to lobby for the repeal of the secret evidence clauses of the so-called "anti-Terrorism Act" (or better yet, repeal of the Act itself), then we have cause to be very afraid.

Sources:

1- Colin L. Powell with Joseph E. Persico, 1995, My American Journey: An Autobiography (New York: Random House), pp. 280-281.

2- Shirl MacArthur, 1998, "Congressional Hearings Put Politics Above Country," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Oct./Nov.), p. 25.

3- Kim Weissman, 2000, "Congress Action," http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ca06252000.html; posted 6/25/2000, accessed 12/26/2000.

Minaret of Freedom Institute