ZGram - 12/3/2001 - "Keep your eye on the target" - Part II

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

December 3, 2001

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Herewith Part II of the extraordinary summary of what has happened to
America and where our world is heading, according to one (!) concerned
Congressman, Ron Paul:

[START]

 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.

[END]

=====

TOMORROW:  CONCLUSION

=====

Thought for the Day:

"The Web is not a debating society. It's there for marketing and
advertising. We need to apply pre-Net rules: create a policy and stick to it."

-- Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in
a presentation at the Virginia Bar Association Annual Meeting on January
14, 2000.