|
December 4, 2001
Tariq Ali
The Afghan
King and the Nazis
November 30, 2001
Jordan
Green
Disappeared
in the Southland
Willliam Blum
Rebuilding
Afghanistan?
November 29, 2001
Phillip
Cryan
Defining
Terrorism
Robert Fisk
We Are the
War Criminals Now
November 28, 2001
Tom Turnipseed
A
Continuum of Terror
Patrick Cockburn
Tribal
Council:
Don't Blame It All on Taliban
Robert
Fisk
At
Last, The Truth about the Sabra and Chatila Massacres
Harry Browne
The Bill of
Rights:
They Threw It All Away
Sunil
Sharma
Suffer
Palestine's Children
November 27, 2001
Paul Coggins
Kafka and
the Patriot Act
Tariq
Ali
Tigris
and Euprhates
November 26, 2001
Robert Fisk
Blood and
Tears in Kandahar
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Boeing's
Sweet Deal
CounterPunch Wire
Human
Rights Abuses and
Nuke Waste Shipments
Alexander
Cockburn
Harry
Potter and Terrorism
November 25, 2001
Ralph Nader
The Crisis
in Leadership
Sam Bahour
Israel's
Choice
November 24, 2001
Patrick Cockburn
He Who
Has
the Guns Rules
November 23, 2001
Phyllis
Pollack
Long
Live The Clash
Cockburn/St. Clair
The Press
and
the Patriot Act
November 22, 2001
Oscar
Gonzalez
A
Homeland Thanksgiving
November 21, 2001
CounterPunch Wire
Rep. Chambliss
Calls for Arrest of Every Muslim That Enters Georgia
Tom Turnipseed
Broadcasting
and Bombing
David Price
Academia Under
Attack
Molly
Secours
Modern
Day Witch Trials
Tariq Ali
Killing
Mr. Biswas
November 20, 2001
Sam Bahour
Plain
Truths About Palestine
Michael Ratner
Moving Toward
a
Police State
A Photographic Journal of Life
in an Afghan Refugee Camp
By Judith Mann
November 19, 2001
Edward
Said
Suicidal
Ignorance
November 18, 2001
John Farley
Shame on You,
Chelsea!
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 15, 2001
8-Page Special Issue
War Diary
CIA's Assassination Plan a History of
Torture in US Prisons
bin Laden and Bush
Business Connections
Aisha Ikramuddin on the Hidden Hype
of US Food Bombs
Peter Linebaugh on
Pakistan
Christopher Hitchens' Love for Mrs. Thatcher
Jiang Zemin Tells Bush:
Nuke 'Em
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
December 4,
2001
Keep Your Eye on the Target
By Rep. Ron Paul
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.
Ron Paul
is a libertarian/Republican who represents Texas's 14th congressional
district.
|