[Congressional Record: November 29, 2001 (House)]
[Page H8649-H8654]
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. 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 is impossible to keep one's eye on a target and hit it if we do not
precisely understand it and identify it.
In pursuing any military undertaking, it is the responsibility of
Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike
any time in our history, the enemy and its location remains 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 terrorists are no more an entity than the
Mob or some international criminal gang, such as the Mafia. It is
certainly not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is
obviously a strong sympathizer of 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 policies of
almost every Nation throughout history. Economic gain and a geographic
expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often
drives the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years,
we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desires
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 elusive 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 are 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 from 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
that 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 100 could have done
it; but there is no way thousands of people knew and participated in
the planning and carried out the attacks.
Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a
different matter and difficult to determine. Those who enjoyed seeing
the United States 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 the 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 this year, we
talked 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 UniCal, 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
U.N. 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 do not 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 in our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the
World Trade Center's security and, ironically, was killed in the 9-11
attack.
The charges made by these authors in this recent publication deserves
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 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
United States 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 are going to
avoid letting this war get out of control. It is 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. He
said, "We, the United States, view oil as a security consideration,
and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other
considerations, other values."
{time} 1915
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 are 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 are not precise in identifying our enemy, it is 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 expanded 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
without weapons and U.N. nation-building. Only a 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 towards the terrorists responsible for
the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not
to be part of the agenda.
[[Page H8650]]
Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted
it toward building a pro-Western, U.N.-sanctioned government in
Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and Washington,
D.C., what should one expect to happen once the U.S. and the U.N.
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 do not know in which cave or 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 drum beat for attacking
Baghdad grows louder every day with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol,
Richard Perle and Bill Bennett leading the charge.
In a recent interview, the U.S. Deputy of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
made it clear, "We are going to continue pursuing this 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 he has developed significant weapons of
mass destruction.
However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all the
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 U.N. world order, and remains independent of
Western control of its oil reserve, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and
Britain.
Mr. Speaker, 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 on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
In 1996 after 5 years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent
bombing, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our ambassador to the U.N.,
Madeleine Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that half a
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 related 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 Bush has been criticized for not marching on
to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then and stands
by its explanation today a superb answer as to 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 U.N. only authorized the removal of
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The U.N. has never sanctioned the continued
U.S. and British bombing of Iraq, a source of much hatred directed
towards the United States.
The 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 to
Kuwait.
Many of the same advisers from the first Bush administration 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 argue 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 from overthrowing his regime. Expanding
the war by taking on Iraq at this time may please some allies, but it
will lead to chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will
incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater
danger. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster.
Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move, nor will our
European allies. 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 of an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why not 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 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 effort 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 may be more powerful in death than 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, and oil and Arab infidels are the source of all of 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. Hardly are we
the same Nation we were in 1941. Today we are anything but a sleeping
giant. There is no contest for our status as the only world's only
economic, political and military superpower. 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 U.N. and NATO since World War II inspired and have now awakened a
long-forgotten sleeping giant, Islamic fundamentalism. Let us hope for
all of our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this very 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 are
an arrogant Nation, they will 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
[[Page H8651]]
West and under U.N. control. The persuasive arguments as always is
money. We were able to gain Pakistan's support, although it continually
waivers in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in
the Congress to rebuild all that we destroyed in Afghanistan and then
some, even before the bombing has stopped.
"Rumsfeld's plan," as reported and quoted 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 norther
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 thing, this plan it to divvy up
wealth in the land of Kurds is hardly a surprise.
It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign
interventions continuously 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.
{time} 1930
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 thinking about bombing Athens; that is, Iraq.
If a corrupt city or State government does business with a drug
cartel or organized crime and violence results, we do not bomb city
hall or the State capital. We limit the target 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 were just slightly more than the deaths that occur
on our Nation's highways every 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 do not add up to the proper response.
If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the
tragedy of 9-11 will 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.
Mr. Speaker, 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 of all Americans.
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, many have seen the
crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws 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 the 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 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 million of
dollars of al- Qaida 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 terrorist 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 efforts of anti-gun fanatics who jump at
every chance to undermine the second amendment. When crimes are
committed with the use of guns, it is argued that we must remove guns
from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy
them. The counterargument made by the second amendment supporters
correctly explained that this would only undermine the freedom of law-
abiding citizens, and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the
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 attack.
The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are
illegal, will still be able to circumvent antiterrorist laws. To
believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain. That is what I
believe the Congress has done.
We know from the ongoing drug war that Federal drug police not
infrequently 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 and a "need to
know" had 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 fourth amendment
protections of the people's privacy.
He argues his case by absurdly claiming that 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.
[[Page H8652]]
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a
consequence of the 9-11 attacks, yet their names and charges are not
available, and, according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once
again, he uses the argument he is protecting their privacy.
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 are 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
longtime 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 antiterrorism 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 all businesses will be
required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with a
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 service 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 these 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 antiterrorism legislation, and they are not pleased. It is 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 World
Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was
conceived at a time of great crisis. The founders intended its
provisions to place severe restriction on the Federal Government, even
in times of great distress.
America must guard against current calls for the government to
sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement. The
antiterrorism legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how
well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in the rush to
respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully
studied by Congress, nor was a sufficient time taken to debate the
bill, despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy
experts or from other fields outside of law enforcement. Normal
congressional committee hearings 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's 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 the CIA now can tap telephones 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 they
bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are
greatly expanded, while checks and balances on governments 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 powers 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 strike 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 11 attack, 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
terrorists.
{time} 1945
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 being 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 5 years. If so, what would have been its justification? The
argument that FDR did it and, therefore, it must be okay is a rather
weak argument. 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 8 saboteurs into our country. Convictions were
unanimous, not by two-thirds of the panel, and appeals were permitted.
That is not what is being offered today. Besides, the previous military
tribunal expired when the war as over. Since this war will go on
indefinitely, so too will these 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 is not "kinda cool," as one member of the previous
administration bragged. It is 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
[[Page H8653]]
States is scary. With no appeals available and no defense attorneys of
choice being permitted should compel us to reject such a system
outright.
Those who favor these trials claim that 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 only
represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government
becomes more secretive, it is more likely this too 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 judicial
system, it is intended that we visualize that these infractions of the
law and the Constitution will apply only to the 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 the 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 the national
approach to all policing activities. 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 principles that have 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 and forcing them to fight an enemy they do not even
know in a country they cannot even identify.
Now it is 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 2 years of his life to his country. Let
us hope the American people do not fall for this need-to-serve
argument. The Congress should refuse even to 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 now demands that the draft be
reinstated should be drafted first; the 18-year-olds last. Since the
Pentagon says they do not 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 am 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 this 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 interests 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 of our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the
best formula for giving us peace and prosperity 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."
[[Page H8654]]
Mr. Speaker, this message is one we should all ponder.
____________________