Keep Your Eye on the Target
Ron
Paul's Speech of 11/29/01
Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29,
2001
Keep Your
Eye on the Target
Mr. Speaker:
We have been told on
numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is
not necessary if one can identify the target- the enemy- and
then stay focused on that target. It's impossible to keep one's
eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand
it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it's
the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it
appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history,
the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the
undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and
clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and
contradictory. Today our policies relating to the growth of
terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the
precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until
the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately
targeted or vanquished.
The terrorist enemy is
no more an entity than the "mob"or some international criminal
gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan
people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin
Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government
of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.
Ulterior motives have
always played a part in the foreign policy of almost every
nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic
expansion, or even just the desires for more political power,
too often drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in
recent years, we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic
interests, desire for hegemony, and influential allies affect
our policies and they, in turn, incite mob attacks against us,
they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be illusive
and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.
We do know a lot about
the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent
civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they
have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most
responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of.
If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life
along with others without the help of anyone else, no further
punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised
under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we
change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a
heinous act.
The terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are
similar. These attacks required funding, planning and
inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly
involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the
plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a
hundred could have done it. But there's no way thousands of
people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of
this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our
policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to
discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous
to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war
against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or
sin.
The predominant
nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for
political and economic reasons, even with the lack of
cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that
country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to
deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to
bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the
Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's
rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil
pipeline politics with them.
The recent French
publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed
our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in
collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors,
the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down
and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban.
It has been known for
years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a
pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been
possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should
not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN
to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important
consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those
interested in this project an excuse to replace the government
of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in
Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of
him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect
by many.
Former FBI Deputy
Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings
with the Taliban and our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job
as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was
killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in
their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and
congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the
historical record.
To understand world
sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in The
Hindu, India's national newspaper- not necessarily to agree
with the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand
what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to
the spin put on the war by our five major TV news networks.
This quote comes from an
article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13, 2001:
The world today is being
asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against global terrorism.
This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, in
reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its
economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be
allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither
with the terrorists nor with the United States.
The need to define our
target is ever so necessary if we're going to avoid letting this
war get out of control.
It's important to note
that in the same article, the author quoted Michael Klare, an
expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio
Free Europe: "We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration
and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of
other considerations, other values." This, of course, was a
clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our
country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam
Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the
issue later on.
For various reasons, the
enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague and illusive.
Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with
a rifle or hemlock- not with vague declarations, with some
claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries.
If we're not precise in identifying our enemy, it's sure going
to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this
identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged.
Why is this definition
so crucial? Because without it, the special interests and the
ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive militarism.
Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries
against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at
most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and
indefinable enemy- terrorism- cannot be conquered with weapons
and UN nation building- only a more sensible pro-American
foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are
to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities.
It was said that our
efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible
for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new
governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have
clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward
building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan.
But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one
expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in
Afghanistan with occupying troops. It seems that would be an
easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.
Since we don't know in
which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear
the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain- Saddam
Hussein- guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be
attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan,
just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and
dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this
manner.
The drumbeat for
attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz,
Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the
charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue
pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries,
not just Afghanistan." Fortunately, President Bush and Colin
Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into
other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to
the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on
Iraq.
The argument that we
need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass
destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt
that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction.
However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all
those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build
them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and
India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and
remains independent of western control of its oil reserves,
unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed
steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that
in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided
that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the
attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then
for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and
dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred
toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary.
It's just so hard for
many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the
Arab/Muslim people, and I'm not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I'm talking about the Arab/Muslim
masses.
In 1996, after five
years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS
reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard
that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our
policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?" Albright's
response was "We think the price is worth it." Although this
interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but
widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why
America is despised in this region of the world!
Former President George
W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at
the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his
explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to
attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power- there were
strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments
against it. But the important and clinching argument against
annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no
uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it.
Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein
from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and
British bombing of Iraq- a source of much hatred directed toward
the United States.
But placing of U.S.
troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia seems
to have done exactly what the former President was trying to
avoid- the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung
together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular
and religious Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries
has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the
overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Many of the same
advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging the
current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason
given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true
today- if not more so.
It has been argued that
we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the
Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi
attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to
justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared
were "our" oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our
expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep
King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi
fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.
Expanding the war by
taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it
will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the
world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and
expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an
unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with
this move.
It is not our job to
remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It
is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of
the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next
government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an
idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don't we insist that
our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as
well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere
thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country
6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should
insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of
an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep
our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.
Assume for a minute that
bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military
efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would be
related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.
Assume for a minute that
bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal
disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by
provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many
Muslims as possible?
Remember, to bin Laden,
martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful
in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq would
please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any
moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United
States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good,
that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims'
problems.
We have recently been
reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened a
sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom
of that comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an
analogy between the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade
Center attack. We are hardly the same nation we were in 1941.
Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant. There's no contest
for our status as the world's only economic, political and
military super power. A "sleeping giant" would not have troops
in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every
conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.
The fear I have is that
our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO
since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a
long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism.
Let's hope for all our
sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war.
The President, in the
2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and
he was right to do so. He also said, "If we're an arrogant
nation, they'll resent us." He wisely argued for humility and a
policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war
against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing
of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote
peace.
As we continue our
bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new
government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The
persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain
Pakistan's support, although it continually wavers, in this
manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the
Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then
some- even before the bombing has stopped.
Rumsfeld's plan, as
reported in Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the
plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey's support is crucial,
so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk
field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running
from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a
generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the
Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to
divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise.
It seems that Washington
never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continually get
us into more trouble than we have bargained for- and the
spending is endless. I am not optimistic that this Congress will
anytime soon come to its senses. I am afraid that we will never
treat the taxpayers with respect. National bankruptcy is a more
likely scenario than Congress adopting a frugal and wise
spending policy.
Mr. Speaker, we must
make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and
keep our eye on it.
It is safe to assume
that the number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks
is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now
talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to
terrorism.
One commentator pointed
out that when the mafia commits violence, no one suggests we
bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only
bombing "Sicily," but are thinking about bombing "Athens"
(Iraq).
If a corrupt city or
state government does business with a drug cartel or organized
crime and violence results, we don't bomb city hall or the state
capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and
punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples?
It is difficult for
everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective,
because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the
utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember,
though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center
attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our
nation's highways each month. Could it be that the sense of
personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting
out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the
attacks? Otherwise, the numbers don't add up to the proper
response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden
the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the death and
destruction that could lie ahead.
As members of Congress,
we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide
security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the
people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of
narrow political and economic special interests. The price is
too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus
on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for
ourselves.
We have not done any
better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the home front
than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in
picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in
the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has sadly been
the liberties all Americans enjoy. With all the new power we
have given to the administration, none has truly improved the
chances of catching the terrorists who were responsible for the
9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the consequences of
this new legislation.
Just as the crisis
provided an opportunity for some to promote a special-interest
agenda in our foreign policy efforts, many have seen the crisis
as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws, changes
which, up until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to
American citizens.
Granting bailouts is not
new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many
takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large
constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason,
and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial
complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is
pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to
increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a
bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which
detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in
Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax
dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new
powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our
citizens. "Extremists" who talk of the Constitution, promote
right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in
non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much
more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws
recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just
terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are
known and identified, existing laws would have been quite
adequate to deal with them.
Even before the passage
of the recent draconian legislation, hundreds had already been
arrested under suspicion, and millions of dollars of al Qaeda
funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with
uncooperative foreign entities like the Saudi government, which
chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who
financed the terrorists' operations. Unfortunately, the laws
will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to
thwart terrorism.
The laws recently passed
in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared
to the effort by anti-gun fanatics, who jump at every chance to
undermine the Second Amendment. When crimes are committed with
the use of guns, it's argued that we must remove guns from
society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy
them. The counter argument made by Second Amendment supporters
correctly explains that this would only undermine the freedom of
law-abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals or to reduce crime.
Now we hear a similar
argument that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty
of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out
possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being
lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist act. The
criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are
illegal, will still be able to circumvent anti-terrorist laws.
To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain, but that
is what I believe the Congress has done.
We know from the ongoing
drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes,
break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of
seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will
encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement
agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the
United States was supposed to be a state and local government
responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal
government's policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in
scope and authority through both new legislation and executive
orders.
Before the 9-11 attack,
Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding
privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it
much more difficult for researchers to gain access to
presidential documents from previous administrations, now a
"need to know" has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at
efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for
analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft's position is that
presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an
administration has left office. He argues that government
deserves privacy while ignoring the 4th Amendment
protections of the people's privacy. He argues his case by
absurdly claiming he must "protect"the privacy of the
individuals who might be involved- a non-problem that could
easily be resolved without closing public records to the public.
It is estimated that
approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of
9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and
according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again,
he uses the argument that he's protecting the privacy of those
charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been
denied. Secret government is winning out over open government.
This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these
conditions since FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in
a constitutional republic. If they're terrorists or accomplices,
just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But
secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that
professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to
protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.
The administration has
severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in
Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a long-time
tradition in this country. One person or one branch of
government should never control military operations. Our system
of government has always required a shared-power arrangement.
The Anti-Terrorism Bill
did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name
of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things.
Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed
the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined
the liberties of all Americans.
"Know Your Customer"
type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years,
have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will
the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but
also all businesses will be required to file suspicious
transaction reports if cash is used with the total of the
transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to
spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S.
government. Financial services consultants are convinced that
this new regulation will affect literally millions of
law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional
paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is
that the regulations have been sought after by federal
law-enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served
as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American
people.
Only now are the
American people hearing about the onerous portions of the
anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased.
It's easy for elected
officials in Washington to tell the American people that the
government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such
assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to
restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or
to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The
history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our
Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly,
most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began
during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the
Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The
founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on
the federal government, even in times of great distress. America
must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the
Constitution in the name of law enforcement.
The"anti-terrorism"
legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how
well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to
respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully
studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the
bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy
experts or from others fields outside of law enforcement. Normal
congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In
fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available
to Members before the vote! The American public should not
tolerate these political games, especially when our precious
freedoms are at stake.
Almost all of the new
laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign
terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism," for
federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person
could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a
pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life
organization. Legitimate protests against the government could
place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal
surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a
user's knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand
over user information to law-enforcement officials without a
warrant or subpoena.
The bill also greatly
expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including
wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause
standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in
some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be
executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a
court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or
computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal
suspect is using a particular phone or computer.
The biggest problem with
these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little
relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are
greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are
greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by
domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight
terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the
American people. There is no evidence that our previously held
civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or
prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no
showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist
strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised
by this new legislation.
In his speech to the
joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks,
President Bush reminded all of us that the United States
outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last
century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet
Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free
markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive
militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be
vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control
of our society, so that our own government does not become a
greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.
The executive order that
has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that
our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our
liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret.
Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid
to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the
death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and
judicial branches of government and the American public. Since
such a process threatens national security and the Constitution,
it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.
Some have claimed this
military tribunal has been in the planning stages for five
years. If so, what would have been its justification?
The argument that FDR
did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak
justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule
book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite
different from today. There was a declared war by Congress
against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs
into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the
panel, and appeals were permitted. That's not what's being
offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals
expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on
indefinitely, so too will the courts.
The real outrage is that
such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the stroke
of a pen. It may be that we have come to that stage in our
history when an executive order is "the law of the land," but
it's not "kinda cool," as one member of the previous
administration bragged. It's a process that is unacceptable,
even in this professed time of crisis.
There are
well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until
now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact
that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in
secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals
available, and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted,
fairness should compel us to reject such a system outright.
Those who favor these
trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks.
We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these
tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried
and convicted before they are assigned to this type of "trial"
without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in
contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all
are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system
on its head.
One cannot be reassured
by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are
terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery
slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were
"convicted" and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial
system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens.
Randy Weaver's family fared no better.
It has been said that
the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice
and prosperity throughout the world is through example and
persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long
way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad
example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori
Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and
sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of
setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian
dictator.
The ongoing debate
regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals
involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly
represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once
government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool
will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn
a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made
to circumvent the justice system, it's intended that we
visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution
will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S.
citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine
exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all
of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given
in a representative government and is more characteristic of a
totalitarian government.
Many throughout the
world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced
by the secretive process that the real reason for military
courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in
an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war
against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of
American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we
will lose, even if we win.
Congress has a profound
responsibility in all of this and should never concede this
power to a President or an Attorney General. Congressional
oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this
unconstitutional assumption of power.
The planned use of
military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another
challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested.
For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach
to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a
tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a
dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal
government assume this power. This concept was codified in the
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military
from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or
arresting people in the United States, the argument being that
the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police
state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles
that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military
under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from
enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this
prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily
concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one
occasion in this country.
The threats to liberty
seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy.
Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American
citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those
who have argued all along for bigger government.
For instance, the
military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal
liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued
against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its
reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to
the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of
liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All
the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending
them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service
to the country and benefits to the draftees. The
need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given,
after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe
for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of
parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government's
domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don't
even know in a country they can't even identity.
Now it's argued that
since the federal government has taken over the entire job of
homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the
draftees to serve the state, even for those who are
conscientious objectors.
The proponents of the
draft call it "mandatory service." Slavery, too, was mandatory,
but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year
old owes at least two years of his life to his country. Let's
hope the American people don't fall for this "need to serve"
argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a
proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the
Selective Service altogether.
However, if we get to
the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every
news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper
editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65
who has never served in the military and who demands that the
draft be reinstated, should be drafted first- the 18-year olds
last. Since the Pentagon says they don't need draftees, these
new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the
general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust
individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the
rest of the newly formed domestic army. After all, someone
middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old.
I'm certain that this
provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the
military draft.
I see good reason for
American citizens to be concerned- not only about another
terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the
Congress deals with the crisis. Personal freedom is the element
of the human condition that has made America great and unique
and something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to
sacrifice a little freedom for security do it with the firm
conviction that they are acting in the best interest of freedom
and justice. However, good intentions can never suffice for
sound judgment in the defense of liberty.
I do not challenge the
dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom
philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all
our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula
for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is
freedom, limited government, and minding our own business
overseas.
Henry Grady Weaver,
author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human
Progress, years ago warned us that good intentions in
politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the
cause. Weaver stated:
"Most of the major ills
of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored
the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to
themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve
the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their
own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters,
and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted
upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to
set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly
force their views on all others- with the abiding assurance that
the end justifies the means."
This message is one we
should all ponder.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm
========================================================
Police State
Posted Nov. 9, 2001
By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in
the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could
have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of
law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good
intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could
not support."
Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law,
Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they
appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the
sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with
fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen,
"between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation.
Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but
to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the
1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance
laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and
prostitution."
"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as
the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the
provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the
definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad
that it applies far beyond what most people think of as
terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down
the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The
Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British
Parliament, investigators can get information from
Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a
warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law
will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and
public-health purposes.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines
domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts
dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United
States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate
or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of
a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnapping."
The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a
comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the
increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample
of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT
Act. The legislation:
- minimizes judicial
supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance
by law-enforcement authorities.
- expands the ability
of the government to conduct secret searches.
- gives the attorney
general and the secretary of state the power to designate
domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any
noncitizen who belongs to them.
- grants the FBI
broad access to sensitive business records about individuals
without having to show evidence of a crime.
- leads to
large-scale investigations of American citizens for
"intelligence" purposes.
More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal
Investigative Information) allows information gathered in
criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies,
including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics,
creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary
for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from
otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is
not limited to the person being investigated.
Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share
intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with
intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize
the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited
from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations
— in effect, say critics, creating an international political
secret police.
According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third
branch of government. One of the overarching problems that
pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of
judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod
over both of the other branches of government. I find it very
bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread
access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared
with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So,
again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on
Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone on since the
1970s."
Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands
of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the
CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and
opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.
Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end
with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say
critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification
of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and
Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to
"dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill
provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling
information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply
law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person
visits." The police need only certify the information they are
in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has
occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of
whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order
must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a
veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing
exhibitions.
Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have
unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of
e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail
addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement.
To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is
relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses
and disregard the communications.
In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only
interested in who is being communicated with and not what is
said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political
implications they note this is the same FBI that during the
Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds
of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their
way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.
And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While
critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be
terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business
will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and
Internet communications will be recorded and shared among
law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of
making America safe from terrorism.
Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond
forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is
more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency,"
she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis,
and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a
natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some
ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as
much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have
checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why
I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this
one."
Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference
in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving
up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it
will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a
violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in
the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."
For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded
as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether
it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just
about everything to deliver them to an administration that
develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts,
there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and
insufficient respect and love of liberty."
What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think
of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a
revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says
Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild
oppression."
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for
Insight.
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236
save_us08 1:28 PM
bahrelius 1:28 PM
goldengriff99 1:27 PM
maditude_usa 1:21 PM
itsmesunny 1:21 PM
tomjones82 1:21 PM
funkify76 1:19 PM
StoicSentry 1:18 PM
calosa77 10:38 AM
Silas_T 10:31 AM
JSWav3 10:29 AM
Silas_T 10:28 AM
gabeh73 10:25 AM
e-brake 10:20 AM
gabeh73 10:18 AM
ednasilem 10:17 AM
bugnome 10:17 AM
bugnome 10:16 AM
eiramami 10:11 AM
eiramami 10:08 AM
ksgregms 9:43 AM
Robjayne7777 9:41 AM
JohnnyWrath 9:37 AM
futhark985 9:36 AM