Terrifying

This blog is generally about things that we have not read, and ways to make us feel bad about not having achieved them, but also good about finally getting through them. One thing that I generally don't do is read enough politically-motivated stuff, for several reasons, most of which boil down to not wanting to have to deal with it. If it's written from a perspective with which I agree I simply get enraged at the horrors; if it's written from an opposite view, I lazily refuse to engage and don't rigorously work out why I believe it's wrong and, most importantly, how I can argue with it. Which is not particularly good for a lawyer.

I've read two books this year on the fallout from 9/11 that are the exceptions that prove the rule, as they stand out against my usual detective fiction. First, The Terror Dream by Susan Faludi. Second, The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith. The Terror Dream has been ably reviewed here; I really am not going to fully analyse it. However, it really engaged me on thoughts of gender and prompted me to consider my own scholarship on the role of war and gender, and how war changes so much and yet so little. My masters thesis studied the advancement of female British scientists in World War II; my conclusion was, essentially, that it was really an empty opportunity, unlike those presented in the factories. Male scientists continued to dominate the field, and the war did very little to change the perceptions of scientists as men - Robert Oppenheimer, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman - all were catapaulted into modern consciousness through their roles, and women were generally used as processors rather than thinkers. Faludi argues that 9/11 prompted a reversion to gender roles supposedly overcome, if not completely, by the rise of feminism and equality: the man as superhero, provider, hunter, fighter, warrior, protector of the helpless female. War is such an incredible lens for gender relations because, despite the increasing number of British women in the armed forces, our portrayals of heroes still seems to limit those things for which women can be considered heroic, helpful or patriotic.

The Terror Presidency was a very different book. It was Jack Goldsmith's account of his time in the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House, which spanned 2003-2004. He provides explanations for the Bush Administration's utter disregard for civil liberties by citing sheer fear, due to terror reports and intelligence, and a view of the Constitution at odds with that of most of the educated and lay public. He is conservative, writes conservatively on international law, and I tend to disagree with him about almost everything. However, the book is utterly compelling; I read almost all of it on the plane between London and New York yesterday. His critique of the Bush Adminstration is not what its aims were, generally, on the policy against terrorism, but its means of achieving them, through the unitary executive theory and the explicit attempts to expand presidential power. I think Goldsmith is disingenuous in certain regards; he utterly fails to deal with the "unlawful enemy combantant" label that the Bush Administration purported, sweeping it under the carpet by simply repeating over and over that the type of situation was unprecedented. That this term is utterly unknown within international law is merely an inconvenience due to lack of experience with these terms. That nations have been dealing with terrorism from within and without for around a century is apparently irrelevant to Goldsmith's analysis. Nonetheless, it is a short and incredibly important read. I'm not sure how much legalese is used - that which I think is easy to understand may not be due to jargon and general familiarity with the concepts. However, the depictions of the power dynamics are an important addition to our knowledge of the response to 9/11 and the damage wrought by this administration. Roll on January 20th!