ZGram - 10/16/2004 - "The Worst Way to Fight Terror"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

October 16, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Congressman Ron Paul's voice representing the interests of his 
country's  people is one of the few sane voices left in the corridors 
of power in Washington.  Here he rings the alarm bell once again.  Is 
anybody listening?

  [START]

The Worst Way to Fight Terror

by Rep. Ron Paul

The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (H.R. 10) is yet another 
attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and 
power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in 
this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will 
make us less free. H.R. 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on 
unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress 
should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our 
foreign policy on defending this nation's vital interests, rather 
than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and 
treasure on quixotic crusades to "democratize" the world.

Disturbingly, H.R. 10 creates a de facto national ID card by 
mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued 
drivers licenses and birth certificates and even require including 
biometric identifiers in such documents. State drivers license 
information will be stored in a national database, which will include 
information about an individual's driving record!

Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, 
and linking them together via a national database, creates a national 
ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand 
that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim 
they're merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. 
Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal 
bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID 
itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It is just a 
matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will 
be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel 
restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free 
republics.

The national ID will be used to track the movements of American 
citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to 
surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and 
apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent 
Americans. This is what happened with "suspicious activity reports" 
required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Thanks to BSA mandates, 
federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping 
through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans 
merely because those transactions exceed $10,000.

Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority 
to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of 
identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting 
a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). 
Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow 
government officials to demand identification from individuals who 
are not suspected of any crime.

H.R. 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the 
PATRIOT Act. H.R. 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended "to 
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." 
Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful 
pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label 
the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before 
dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of 
Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican 
administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on 
anti-abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future 
administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this 
bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.

Congress could promote both liberty and security by encouraging 
private property owners to take more responsibility to protect 
themselves and their property. Congress could enhance safety by 
removing the roadblocks thrown up by the misnamed Transportation 
Security Agency that prevent the full implementation of the armed 
pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from 
Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was 
ruled out of order.

I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my 
amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of 
suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the U.S. 
Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater 
privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to 
better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety.

Immediately after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, I introduced several 
pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the 
United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry 
firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism 
investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize 
the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to 
justice those who committed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and other 
similar acts of war planned for the future.

The foreign policy provisions of H.R. 10 are similarly objectionable 
and should be strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the 
serious shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, upon whose report this 
legislation is based. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page 
report there is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign 
policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we 
consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic 
explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we 
will not be safer.

Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is 
a section providing for the United States to increase support for an 
expansion of the United Nations "Democracy Caucus." Worse still, the 
bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into 
our State department. The last thing we should do if we hope to make 
our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the 
United Nations.

This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more 
sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - which will be in the U.S. 
to monitor our elections next month - and other international 
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation 
actually will create an "ambassador-at-large" position solely to work 
with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes 
democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, 
are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no 
popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing 
and doing the opposite.

This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending 
United States' taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign 
media, which inexplicably are referred to as "independent media." 
This is an unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally, does 
anyone believe that citizens of countries where the U.S. subsidizes 
certain media outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? 
How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a 
certain editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We 
cannot refer to foreign media funded by the U.S. government as 
"independent media." The U.S. government should never be in the 
business of funding the media, either at home or abroad.

Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence 
community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, 
the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer 
of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are 
supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government 
that failed us on Sept. 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is 
wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence 
community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever 
since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central 
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have 
nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the 
CIA's overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s, 
and the CIA's training of the mujahedin jihadists in Afghanistan in 
the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have 
actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It 
would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of 
our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning 
intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they 
belong.

For all of these reasons, I vigorously oppose H.R. 10. It represents 
the worst approach to combating terrorism - more federal bureaucracy, 
more foreign intervention, and less liberty for the American people.

[END]