POLITICS - The One Percent Doctrine

The following is from a book "The One Percent Doctrine," by Ron Suskind, that was just published and is the subject of "Who's Counting: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine" by John Allen Paulos, ABC News

Suskind describes the Cheney doctrine as follows: "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' as Cheney said. It's about 'our response.' … Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply."

The article states some of the reasoning behind the doctrine. Also, on a PBS Newshour interview, Suskind stated some of the reasoning but also stated the dangers of such a doctrine.

Although the arguments for the doctrine are sound, in my opinion, there are real dangers that Americans need to consider. Essentially the doctrine requires us to trust the government not to abuse the powers such a doctrine imply. This doctrine, according to Suskind, is the real reason why the war in Iraq was started in the first place. If there was even a hint (1%) that Saddam had WMD we act, hence the war.

The problem for Americans is to remember Vietnam, Nixon, and even the atomic bomb tests of the 50's, as just some examples. The American people were mislead in each of these examples. In effect, lied to by the government at the time. In the case of the atomic bomb tests, it was not our ignorance of the effects on people (American troops and others in the test area), it was the hiding of the danger after we knew. It was decades before those exposed at home were officially made aware of what they were exposed to.

Sadly, we should have learned not to wholly trust our government (local, state, federal). We need to monitor just what they are doing to ensure our human and Constitutional freedoms are protected.

Example:

• Under this 1% doctrine, if there is 1% chance that an ordinary American citizen could be an Acadia supporter, the government should spy on him/her without a warrant (which has happened in another context and been exposed lately).
• Really?
• Would you support such actions?
• Is just 1% chance worth giving up your Constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure?

Living in a democracy, with the freedoms we now have, is inherently dangerous. It is the price we should be willing to pay for our freedoms. Absolute protection is a illusion, a lie, and is the reasoning used by totalitarian governments worldwide (see North Kora).