A warmongering Admiral secretly building warships with private security forces. Preemptive war. Terrorism. Suicide bombers. Blind revenge. So, that new Star Trek movie, eh?
Great science fiction invariably deals with the human condition and current events. This is where Star Trek has excelled from day one. Wrapped in futuristic technobabble and spaceships, the stories are detached enough to be fiction, but often carry the weight of meaningful social commentary. These have been hallmarks of the franchise since its inception in the late 1960s. The original series tackled racism, sexism, the counterculture, the Cold War, and of course, the technological spirit of the age. The movies continued this with message movies about exploration, facing death, conservation and environmentalism, and finally, detente.
The later movies steered away from this, embracing more action-adventure stories, including a zombie movie. The 2009 movie had little in the way of social commentary, but that was alright because the movie was nothing more than a vehicle for relaunching the franchise. But as you may or may not be aware, we live in very interesting times – and much different times than the Cold War – so I was very very happy to see that STiD dove head-first into contemporary political issues.
And yet, the allegory didn’t quite fit for me. Perhaps I was distracted, but the terrorism plot line was missing something, a tangible quality that accurately reflected the mood of the last decade. After giving it some thought, I think what is missing was time. The events of the movie take place over a calendar year. But we never get a sense of how Earth itself was affected. We see Kirk and Spock and everyone dealing with the issues, but where were the scenes of Earth going on lockdown and IDs being checked at every street corner? Where were the suspects being rounded up and locked away to be “interrogated”? (And before you say these couldn’t have been worked in naturally, you’re wrong. Add in a line here and there, an extra uniform holding a gun (like they did in the lobby scene). Have Admiral Robocop mention that suspects are being held and “questioned”. There are ways to do it. Just as there are ways to tell a Star Trek story without a fan reference every third word, but I digress…)
In reality, our nation has responded with increased global warfare, increased intelligence gathering, increased privacy violations, increased executive authority, black interrogation sites, decreased civil liberties, and a political culture that is solely focused on strength, security, and secrecy at the expense of the very ideals this nation was founded upon (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, freedom of privacy, freedom of presumed innocence, etc.). We have been dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 for over a decade, and with no end in sight. Or is there?
In May, President Obama gave a remarkable speech at the National Defense University where he spoke rather bluntly about the post-9/11 landscape. Among other issues, Obama acknowledged that he needs to close the torture interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, an issue that he has practically ignored, much to the ire of civil libertarians. He also took on the Authorization for Use of Military Forces, the quasi-declaration of war on everyone remotely affiliated with 9/11 and everyone they might have ever known. Recognizing that the world of 2013 looks nothing like the world of 2001, President Obama said:
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.
Dealing with the subject of targeting killings, Obama even tacitly admitted he had too much authority in its use and application.
Going forward, I’ve asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested — the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch — avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. But despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight.
I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy — because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.
Will the speech matter? Will the words become reality? When it comes to expanding the war on terror and the civil liberty violations therein, President Obama has actually been worse than President Bush. Bush didn’t have the drone capability Obama has, but the targeted killing policy Obama has implemented spits in the face of the words “due process” and “lawful conduct.” Obama was elected in 2008 to be the anti-Bush. In fact, he’s more of Bush 2.0 than anything else. Obama’s rhetorical abilities have never been in question. No, the real question is whether Obama will act on his words this time or fall into his old pattern of saying one thing and doing another. Will the end of the Obama Era bring the War on Terror to a close? Or will it just be another stop in America’s descent into darkness?
In the words of James T. Kirk: “There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that’s not who we are…”