How The Nation Covered 9/11
Por Katrina vanden Heuvel — The Nation » Article
Our phone lines were down. People were weeping. But we got an issue out the door with morality, justice, and nuance.
Smoke from the burning World Trade Center towers fills up the downtown Manhattan skyline after both buildings were attacked by airplanes on September 11, 2001 in New York City.
“On Tuesday morning, a piece was torn out of our world. A patch of blue sky that should not have been there opened up in the New York skyline…. the heavens were raining human beings. Our city was changed forever. Our country was changed forever. Our world was changed forever.” So wrote Jonathan Schell in the first issue of The Nation following September 11.
At The Nation’s office, in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers, like everyone else in America, we watched television horrified, saddened, and angry. People wept, and at the same time took notes and got on the phones. We had an issue closing the next day. We quickly learned that our communications links to the outer world were severed; our phone lines had run under World Trade Center 7. So, in those first days, we had no incoming calls and the office computer links to the internet were down. The facts were sketchy and causes of the attack shrouded in a pall of uncertainty thick as the smoke rising from the demolished World Trade Center. The issue that we assembled and put to bed the next day, Wednesday, September 12, struck a tone and purpose that the magazine has striven to maintain in the weeks since.
Paying respect to the human reactions of anger, hurt, and grief, our editorials in that first week, and in the ones that followed, have made the case for an effective and just response to the horrific terrorist acts. We argued that such a response may include discriminate use of military force, but that the most promising and effective way to halt terrorism lies in bringing those responsible to justice through non-military actions in cooperation with the global community and within a framework of domestic and international law.
As Richard Falk warned in his indispensable essay “A Just Response,” the “justice of the cause” would be “negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends.” As the US military response unfolded in the ensuing days, there seemed to be more questions than answers: Who is Osama bin Laden? What is the involvement of the Taliban? What are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? Did US foreign policy create historic resentments and injustices abroad that spawned the terrible attacks? What is the best way for this country to address the root causes of terrorism? What are the aims of the war on it? What are its limits? What is the potential political and human fallout? Who are our allies? What role should the United Nations play? How to limit civilian casualties and provide humanitarian relief?
As the autumn in New York merged into Ramadan and Afghanistan’s winter, these questions only deepened. It is striking how the essential themes laid out in The Nation in those initial weeks, far from being outrun by events, had gained in resonance. Many of the pieces included in this anthology were conceived with those questions in mind.
One of my roles as editor in these years was to figure out the bridge from personal to political. How do you balance individual grief and anger at the attacks with proportionality, justice, and wisdom in response? How do we reconcile legitimate fear of anthrax and future attacks with protection of civil liberties, and carry on a political debate that doesn’t ignore concerns of economic and social justice? To deal with those complex issues, I was fortunate in being able to call on some of the most respected figures on the progressive left for this anthology. They responded with a series of thoughtful, informed, and provocative essays Among them were scholar-philosopher-activist Edward Said demolishing the clash of civilizations argument; Mary Kaldor on the new wars and civil society’s role in halting terrorism; Michael Klare on Saudi-US relations and the geopolitics of oil; Ellen Willis on homefront conformity; Chalmers Johnson on blowback and the role of US foreign policy; William Greider on war profiteering; Bill Moyers on Americans’ restored faith in government; John le Carré on why this war can’t be won.
The Nation has a long tradition of providing a forum for a broad spectrum of left and progressive views, which sometimes erupt in spirited debates. Christopher Hitchens’s column, “Fascism with an Islamic Face,” which castigated those on the left who drew a causal relationship between US foreign policy in the Middle East and the terrorist acts, provoked a heated exchange with Noam Chomsky. This exchange ran on our website, and drew a raft of comments, with readers almost equally divided. Richard Falk’s article “Defining a Just War” also provoked numerous letters pro and con.
As a fog of national security enveloped official Washington and the war front and the mainstream media enlisted in the Administration’s war-flag logos flying-the need for an independent, critical press seemed never more urgent. The speedy passage of the repressive PATRIOT act, with scarcely a murmur of dissent in Congress, the secret detentions of more than one thousand people, and the establishment of military tribunals were troubling signs that a wartime crackdown on civil liberties was under way and called for vigorous opposition. Criticizing government policy in wartime is not a path to popularity. Our independent stand on the war and criticism of what we called “policy profiteering” by conservative Republicans in Congress—who sought to use the war as a pretext to push through their own agenda—drew virulent attacks by the pundits and publications of the right, who questioned our patriotism and trotted out the old chestnut of the left’s “anti-Americanism.” Such attacks are nothing new. The Nation has always marched to a different drummer, opposing US involvement in the Spanish-American War and World War I and the Vietnam War, while giving all-out support to the US effort in World War II. Former Nation editor Ernest Gruening was one of only two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that led to the Vietnam morass. As Eric Foner wrote in this collection, “at times of crisis the most patriotic act of all is the unyielding defense of civil liberties.”
Also in times of crisis, the enduring concerns of this magazine and progressives take on new relevance: the dangers of American unilateralism, corrosion of civil liberties, authoritarianism in any nation, dependence on Big Oil, military quagmire, and the urgent necessity of international law and institutions.
Between the reemergence of right-wing red-baiting and Donald Trump’s use of the chilling National Security Presidential Memorandum–7 to criminalize left political organizing, we’re seeing McCarthyism reborn before our eyes.
This assault on democracy cannot be ignored or wished away. Resisting it requires bravery in the face of threats and repression, a steadfast commitment to the truth, and the unwavering belief that we can—and will—overcome this darkness.
We must have an independent media that sets the record straight, unearths corruption and abuses of power, and advances a politics of justice and dignity for all if we’re to win this fight.
That’s why I’m writing to you today. This September, The Nation needs to add 100 monthly donors to sustain our progressive journalism. Your contribution makes the next investigative report, the next truth-speaking column, and the next pathbreaking essay all possible.
I hope you’ll support our work with a recurring donation today. If you donate $10 or more a month, we’ll send you a brand new “Hands Off the Free Press!” sticker to recognise your commitment to our cause. Please, donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation, America’s leading source of progressive politics and culture. An expert on international affairs and US politics, she is an award-winning columnist and frequent contributor to The Guardian. Vanden Heuvel is the author of several books, including The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in the Age of Obama, and co-author (with Stephen F. Cohen) of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev’s Reformers.
As the only undergraduate managing a primary campaign in the state, I helped a 26-year-old beat a 42-year incumbent. Here is what Democrats can learn from our win.
/
The president’s social media posts are ludicrous distractions from his policy failures—but they also put his fascistic views on full display.
The Democratic Senate candidate in Texas is reviving a long-neglected tradition of left-leaning American religiosity.
Many GOP candidates in competitive House and Senate races are steering clear of the Dallas event.
Amy Westervelt’s new book, Brought to You By, exposes the deep history of today’s “information pollution.”
Mark Hertsgaard and Covering Climate Now
With energetic campaigning and savvy responses to the media’s Hasan Piker obsession, the Michigan Democrat is maintaining solid poll numbers.
Fonte: The Nation » Article