President Bush revealed this week that he has authorized the American military in Iraq to capture or kill Iranian operatives who are engaged in activities that are killing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians or helping Iraqi militias in doing the same. It appears that along with fighting American and Iraqi government forces themselves, the Iranians have been providing terrorist groups and militias with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IED’s, which have accounted for approximately seventy percent of US military casualties.
President Bush has made the correct choice in deciding to take strong and decisive action against these Iranian operatives. Iran’s leaders, specifically President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, must be taught a lesson: Iran will not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors by sowing chaos in an attempt to become the regional power. If executed correctly, this new policy in Iraq could have longer reaching effects than simply saving American and Iraqi lives; it will give the United States a stronger diplomatic hand in dealing with Iran in regards to its nuclear ambitions. This increased diplomatic weight will be especially important considering reports are now surfacing that Iran has authorized the installation of 3,00 centrifuges, which are necessary for enriching uranium for nuclear devices.
Iran has become increasingly brazen and ambitious with its nuclear plans and UN sanctions against it are set to expire in about a month, with no accomplishments to be seen. Although UN sanctions are hardly ever effective, some in the US have criticized Bush’s new policy. They contend that killing and capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq could provoke Iran to strike back against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are two points that must be understood here.
First of all, Iran can not be provoked in this situation. Quite contrary, Iran has actually provoked the United States. By actively supporting terrorist groups and undermining the legitimate Iraqi government, Iran has forced the US to respond in this manner. Could anyone reasonably expect the US to stand by idly as its troops are killed and resources drained by an active but semi-clandestine aggressor?
Secondly, Iran can respond in one of at least two ways to this new policy. It can either increase the amount of operatives it has in Iraq or pursue a more open and militaristic campaign against the United States. Both are highly unlikely, however. The former is unlikely because it is within Iran’s interest to be undermining the US as much as possible. This means that Iran is most likely already utilizing the majority of its available resources to get this done in Iraq. It seems improbable that Iran would contribute many more troops or resources to its operations in Iraq, because it should already be doing so.
Iran’s second possible response seems even less likely than the first for several strategic reasons. Iran is bordered on two sides by Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US maintains large military garrisons. In the event that Iran did decide to take up open arms against the US, it would be facing an immediate two front war. Likewise, the US has increased its naval presence in the Persian Gulf in recent weeks. On top of this large and domineering American military presence, the majority of Middle Eastern nations are opposed to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and a number of other Sunni-dominated countries might not take up open arms against an Iranian aggressor, but they would certainly do everything else they could to aid in its defeat.
It appears then that Iran is in between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the military ability or allies to take up open arms against the US and it is perhaps one of the few nations in the world who have even less credibility on the world stage than the US. Despite these truths though, Iran still poses as one of the greatest threats to American and Middle Eastern interests in the world. Its very real and burgeoning nuclear ambitions and capabilities are a real trouble spot.
Because of this, the US should be doing even more to combat Iran’s influence. The US should be networking with dissident religious and political groups within Iran who are opposed to Ahmadinejad’s radical rule. If these groups can be provided with the knowledge and resources to either overthrow Ahmadinejad, weaken his power or defeat him in election, his ability to undermine the US in Iraq will be weakened. While UN sanctions will never amount to anything substantial, it is important to pursue as tough of sanctions as possible because as Iran refuses to follow them, it continues to lose credibility with member nations. As Iran loses credibility, it becomes easier for the US to mount a case against it.
President Bush has made the correct decision in capturing and killing Iranian operatives, but he should take this policy one step further, and actively undermine Iran. It is the only way to better the chances of American success in Iraq, create long-term stability in the region and lessen the chances of more conflict in the future.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
First Muslim Congressman to be Sworn in on Koran
Keith Ellison is one of the newest members of Congress, and will also be the first Muslim to serve in that body. He hasn’t been sworn in, yet already he is causing controversy. As the result of his Islamic background, Ellison has opted to be sworn in to Congress using the Koran, or Islam’s bible, rather than the Christian Bible, which is used by nearly every other congressmen.
Apparently this minor gesture has riled several conservative commentators, most notably Dennis Prager, a columnist and talk radio show host. In a controversial article on Townhall.com, Prager argues, “He [Keith Ellison] should not be allowed to do so [be sworn in on the Koran]…because the act undermines American civilization.” He goes on to say that, “…America is interested in only one book, the Bible” and even ends his article by saying that if Keith Ellison is allowed to be sworn in on the Koran, he will “…be doing more damage to the unity of America…than the terrorists of 9-11.”
Prager’s shocking comments are not only out of line but completely ill-advised. He seems to lack an understanding of basic American ideals and appears to be driven more by a disdain for Islam and the Koran than any logical or acceptable philosophical argument. In the true spirit of America, Keith Ellison should not only be allowed to be sworn in on the Bible, but should do so proudly as he continues a long American heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.
Prager’s contentions seem to be based upon the presumption that America is not only a Christian nation now, but was founded on Christian ideals. The mere fact that most Americans are Christian does not make America itself Christian. The majority of Americans are also white, but we do not say that America itself is a white nation. In reality, America was not founded on Christian ideals either, but on the philosophical products of the Enlightenment. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau influenced the establishment of America more than Jesus and St. Peter.
We can not ignore the fact that the Founders believed in unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator”, but we also can not take this statement and similar ones to extremes, and believe that the Founder’s philosophical and political inspiration was Christian in nature. The idea of rights to life, liberty and property did not come from some letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but rather from the mind of John Locke.
Prager’s second idea regarding American unity is so radically ridiculous that it borders on the laughable. Massive tragedies like9-11 act as unifying forces. People are drawn together out of patriotism and a common idea of fraternity. 9-11 did not damage America’s unity. In fact, it did more to unify America than any event since Pearl Harbor. After 9-11, every house had an American flag on it, and the entire country wanted to strike back at Al Qaeda. The fact is that President Bush’s controversial tactics for fighting terrorism and questionable rationale for war have served as the greatest harbinger of disunity for America. Ellison’s swearing in will do nothing to affect this unity.
Dennis Prager writes, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress.” Apparently he feels it is necessary to put our elected officials under a religious test in order for them to serve in office. Unfortunately the American people do not elect Bishops of the Church, in which case it would make perfect sense to put them under a religious test. Instead, we elect public officials who represent all of their constituents, not just small homogenous parts. Interestingly, this concept is in direct violation of the Constitution, of which Article Six reads, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Keith Ellison should take his oath of office on the Koran, and all of us should be proud when he does. To force a person to swear an oath on a religious text that they do not believe in is un-American. When this country’s earliest settlers began the creation of a new nation, they did not do so as Puritans, but as the victims of religious discrimination under a tyrannical King of England. Ellison’s swearing in is merely another step in America’s expanding and progressive religious tolerance.
Apparently this minor gesture has riled several conservative commentators, most notably Dennis Prager, a columnist and talk radio show host. In a controversial article on Townhall.com, Prager argues, “He [Keith Ellison] should not be allowed to do so [be sworn in on the Koran]…because the act undermines American civilization.” He goes on to say that, “…America is interested in only one book, the Bible” and even ends his article by saying that if Keith Ellison is allowed to be sworn in on the Koran, he will “…be doing more damage to the unity of America…than the terrorists of 9-11.”
Prager’s shocking comments are not only out of line but completely ill-advised. He seems to lack an understanding of basic American ideals and appears to be driven more by a disdain for Islam and the Koran than any logical or acceptable philosophical argument. In the true spirit of America, Keith Ellison should not only be allowed to be sworn in on the Bible, but should do so proudly as he continues a long American heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.
Prager’s contentions seem to be based upon the presumption that America is not only a Christian nation now, but was founded on Christian ideals. The mere fact that most Americans are Christian does not make America itself Christian. The majority of Americans are also white, but we do not say that America itself is a white nation. In reality, America was not founded on Christian ideals either, but on the philosophical products of the Enlightenment. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau influenced the establishment of America more than Jesus and St. Peter.
We can not ignore the fact that the Founders believed in unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator”, but we also can not take this statement and similar ones to extremes, and believe that the Founder’s philosophical and political inspiration was Christian in nature. The idea of rights to life, liberty and property did not come from some letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but rather from the mind of John Locke.
Prager’s second idea regarding American unity is so radically ridiculous that it borders on the laughable. Massive tragedies like9-11 act as unifying forces. People are drawn together out of patriotism and a common idea of fraternity. 9-11 did not damage America’s unity. In fact, it did more to unify America than any event since Pearl Harbor. After 9-11, every house had an American flag on it, and the entire country wanted to strike back at Al Qaeda. The fact is that President Bush’s controversial tactics for fighting terrorism and questionable rationale for war have served as the greatest harbinger of disunity for America. Ellison’s swearing in will do nothing to affect this unity.
Dennis Prager writes, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress.” Apparently he feels it is necessary to put our elected officials under a religious test in order for them to serve in office. Unfortunately the American people do not elect Bishops of the Church, in which case it would make perfect sense to put them under a religious test. Instead, we elect public officials who represent all of their constituents, not just small homogenous parts. Interestingly, this concept is in direct violation of the Constitution, of which Article Six reads, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Keith Ellison should take his oath of office on the Koran, and all of us should be proud when he does. To force a person to swear an oath on a religious text that they do not believe in is un-American. When this country’s earliest settlers began the creation of a new nation, they did not do so as Puritans, but as the victims of religious discrimination under a tyrannical King of England. Ellison’s swearing in is merely another step in America’s expanding and progressive religious tolerance.
Immigration
This Monday, a Los Angeles court will decide whether Jonathan Martinez, 10, who illegally arrived in the US two years ago, will be deported to El Salvador, or allowed to stay with his legal mother in California. Martinez left El Salvador at the age of eight when the aunt he was staying with was hospitalized. Since then, she has left El Salvador and Martinez’s mother contends that he has no one in that country with whom to stay. While his mother has been living and working in Los Angeles legally for several years, a loophole in current immigration law does not allow her to apply for her son’s permanence.
This loophole represents an unfortunate but common example in America’s poorly constructed immigration laws, which are in desperate need of complete revamping. These laws should reflect a strong commitment to the Rule of Law, or the idea that the Law applies equally to everyone, but also give authorities the ability to take in to consideration extenuating circumstances.
Martinez’s case is one of extenuating circumstance. Here we have a ten year old boy (who has more courage than most full grown men in coming so far), whose family has essentially abandoned him and whom if returned to El Salvador would have no home to go to. To send this child back to El Salvador would be terrible judgment on behalf of the court and echo the American tragedy of Elian Gonzalez.
But this issue must be put in the larger context of America’s immigration woes. While massive amounts of illegal immigrants pour over the border every day, the two houses of Congress have failed to reconcile their different bills in defiance of American will and interest. America requires a comprehensive immigration plan that provides a guest worker program and stringent enforcement of our borders. To ignore the need for these is to ignore any far reaching solution to this issue. Radicals on both sides of the aisle provide a disservice to our country when they only support one or the other.
While law and order conservatives oppose any guest worker program, they fail to realize the need for workers who do the jobs that most American citizens won’t. The argument that immigrants steal American jobs is a false one. The current unemployment rate is approximately 4.7%. Any reasonable economist will tell you that this number is as good as zero.
While open border liberals will support nothing but amnesty and bi-lingual education, they fail to realize the need to seriously patrol and enforce our borders. Terrorists, criminals and drug dealers are not stupid. If they can get in to our country via unguarded border rather than through security ridden airports and other legal ports of entry, they will do so. Stringent enforcement of our borders is necessary to protect our homeland.
Of course immigration is a significantly larger and more complex topic whose intricacies can not be dealt with in such a small space, but the Los Angeles court which will be deciding on Martinez’s case on Monday have the opportunity to make a statement: America recognizes the illegality of your being here, but America also has a heart. By allowing this courageous boy to stay in America, the court would also make the statement that America understands what it did to Elian Gonzalez was wrong, and it won’t do it again.
This loophole represents an unfortunate but common example in America’s poorly constructed immigration laws, which are in desperate need of complete revamping. These laws should reflect a strong commitment to the Rule of Law, or the idea that the Law applies equally to everyone, but also give authorities the ability to take in to consideration extenuating circumstances.
Martinez’s case is one of extenuating circumstance. Here we have a ten year old boy (who has more courage than most full grown men in coming so far), whose family has essentially abandoned him and whom if returned to El Salvador would have no home to go to. To send this child back to El Salvador would be terrible judgment on behalf of the court and echo the American tragedy of Elian Gonzalez.
But this issue must be put in the larger context of America’s immigration woes. While massive amounts of illegal immigrants pour over the border every day, the two houses of Congress have failed to reconcile their different bills in defiance of American will and interest. America requires a comprehensive immigration plan that provides a guest worker program and stringent enforcement of our borders. To ignore the need for these is to ignore any far reaching solution to this issue. Radicals on both sides of the aisle provide a disservice to our country when they only support one or the other.
While law and order conservatives oppose any guest worker program, they fail to realize the need for workers who do the jobs that most American citizens won’t. The argument that immigrants steal American jobs is a false one. The current unemployment rate is approximately 4.7%. Any reasonable economist will tell you that this number is as good as zero.
While open border liberals will support nothing but amnesty and bi-lingual education, they fail to realize the need to seriously patrol and enforce our borders. Terrorists, criminals and drug dealers are not stupid. If they can get in to our country via unguarded border rather than through security ridden airports and other legal ports of entry, they will do so. Stringent enforcement of our borders is necessary to protect our homeland.
Of course immigration is a significantly larger and more complex topic whose intricacies can not be dealt with in such a small space, but the Los Angeles court which will be deciding on Martinez’s case on Monday have the opportunity to make a statement: America recognizes the illegality of your being here, but America also has a heart. By allowing this courageous boy to stay in America, the court would also make the statement that America understands what it did to Elian Gonzalez was wrong, and it won’t do it again.
The Netherlands' Burka Ban
This week the Dutch parliament voted to ban the wearing of the burka, a traditional Muslim garb worn by women which covers everything but their eyes, outside of the home. Geert Wilders is the Dutch MP who first suggested the idea. He claims the ban is necessary for two reasons: integration and security. While I am sure Wilders has good intentions, his reasons for this ban are incredulous. The ban is a blatant attack on religious liberty and should be revoked.
Wilders’ first contention that the burka impedes the integration of Muslim communities in to mainstream Holland would be sound if massive amounts of women were wearing the garment and refused to ever take it off. However, this is not the case. According to the BBC, a mere fifty Muslim women wear the burka in Holland, a country of millions of people. If these fifty women are seriously disrupting the cultural integration of Holland then it would appear that country has some very deep problems.
Famala Aslam, a Muslim attorney in Holland, makes the point that many moderate Muslim women, who do not necessarily wear the burka, may start doing so as the result of a perceived attack on their faith. If this is true, the ban would ultimately have the reverse effects it was intended to. Rather than integrate Muslim women in to society, it will create a larger population of burka wearing women who wish to make a political statement.
As to Wilders’ security contention, there seems little true reason within his point, especially considering the amount of women who wear the burka. If these women are going to strap a suicide belt to themselves, they are probably going to detonate it somewhere that security won’t be able to search them. In this case, whether or not they wear a burka is irrelevant. They could wear baggy clothes or even large jackets. They know their chances of smuggling something on to a plane in this post 9-11 world are essentially non-existent. This ban does little to nothing to decrease this likelihood nor does it make any other venue safer.
Wilders’ reasons for this law may be flawed, but there are other serious implications that need to be taken in to account as well. Most notably, this ban is a serious infringement on religious freedom. The burka is very much a religious symbol. It is a visible profession of a woman’s inner faith. While it may seem foreign to many westerners, it is no different than wearing a cross around your neck or wearing a yarmulke, other than the fact that most people in Western culture don’t wear burkas.
If the Dutch government were to ban Christians from wearing crosses on their necks or Jews from wearing skull caps, people would be rioting in the streets and yelling “Fascist! Fascist!” Oddly enough, Geert Wilders is able to say about the burka, “It’s a medieval symbol...” Could you imagine how offended you would be not only as a Muslim, but as any person of minority status if a religious or social practice of yours was referred to as “medieval” by an upper member of government and then outlawed?
If the Dutch government is able to ban burkas, we must wonder what will be next. Will they ban mosques, because these too are medieval? Will they extend bans to target other minorities as well? Interestingly, we need only look a few countries over to see how far European nations are willing to go in their knee jerk reaction to large levels of immigration. In Belgium, not only is the burka banned, but so is the niqab, another traditional form of Muslim dress that only covers the head with a scarf. In 2004, the French government enacted a ban in all of its public schools that bars religious clothing and symbolism of all kinds, including traditional Christian and Jewish crosses and yarmulkes.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that true religious freedom will come back to Europe anytime soon. There was little disagreement over this Dutch ban and even less outrage. We must all keep in mind that while this ban may not affect a large population, it is just as terrible that it affects a small one. It sets a precedent in Holland that if your beliefs and practices clash with the established majority’s, your beliefs and practices will likely not be tolerated. This burka ban does nothing to increase security, does less to promote integration and is a terrible trampling of religious rights. It should be lifted immediately.
Wilders’ first contention that the burka impedes the integration of Muslim communities in to mainstream Holland would be sound if massive amounts of women were wearing the garment and refused to ever take it off. However, this is not the case. According to the BBC, a mere fifty Muslim women wear the burka in Holland, a country of millions of people. If these fifty women are seriously disrupting the cultural integration of Holland then it would appear that country has some very deep problems.
Famala Aslam, a Muslim attorney in Holland, makes the point that many moderate Muslim women, who do not necessarily wear the burka, may start doing so as the result of a perceived attack on their faith. If this is true, the ban would ultimately have the reverse effects it was intended to. Rather than integrate Muslim women in to society, it will create a larger population of burka wearing women who wish to make a political statement.
As to Wilders’ security contention, there seems little true reason within his point, especially considering the amount of women who wear the burka. If these women are going to strap a suicide belt to themselves, they are probably going to detonate it somewhere that security won’t be able to search them. In this case, whether or not they wear a burka is irrelevant. They could wear baggy clothes or even large jackets. They know their chances of smuggling something on to a plane in this post 9-11 world are essentially non-existent. This ban does little to nothing to decrease this likelihood nor does it make any other venue safer.
Wilders’ reasons for this law may be flawed, but there are other serious implications that need to be taken in to account as well. Most notably, this ban is a serious infringement on religious freedom. The burka is very much a religious symbol. It is a visible profession of a woman’s inner faith. While it may seem foreign to many westerners, it is no different than wearing a cross around your neck or wearing a yarmulke, other than the fact that most people in Western culture don’t wear burkas.
If the Dutch government were to ban Christians from wearing crosses on their necks or Jews from wearing skull caps, people would be rioting in the streets and yelling “Fascist! Fascist!” Oddly enough, Geert Wilders is able to say about the burka, “It’s a medieval symbol...” Could you imagine how offended you would be not only as a Muslim, but as any person of minority status if a religious or social practice of yours was referred to as “medieval” by an upper member of government and then outlawed?
If the Dutch government is able to ban burkas, we must wonder what will be next. Will they ban mosques, because these too are medieval? Will they extend bans to target other minorities as well? Interestingly, we need only look a few countries over to see how far European nations are willing to go in their knee jerk reaction to large levels of immigration. In Belgium, not only is the burka banned, but so is the niqab, another traditional form of Muslim dress that only covers the head with a scarf. In 2004, the French government enacted a ban in all of its public schools that bars religious clothing and symbolism of all kinds, including traditional Christian and Jewish crosses and yarmulkes.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that true religious freedom will come back to Europe anytime soon. There was little disagreement over this Dutch ban and even less outrage. We must all keep in mind that while this ban may not affect a large population, it is just as terrible that it affects a small one. It sets a precedent in Holland that if your beliefs and practices clash with the established majority’s, your beliefs and practices will likely not be tolerated. This burka ban does nothing to increase security, does less to promote integration and is a terrible trampling of religious rights. It should be lifted immediately.
The Patriot Act and Our Civil Liberties
In a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed this week that the Bush Administration will cease its practice of using warrantless wiretaps on the communications of people expected of ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Instead, the Administration will go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1970 to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States.
Although surprising, this change in Administration policy is a welcomed and necessary shift. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush secretly approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which allowed law enforcement officials to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and terrorist associates without court order or review. Instead, the President himself reviewed the cases every forty-five days. Although this act was created with the best of intentions (as many controversial programs after large national tragedies seem to be), it was flawed in a number of respects.
First of all, it increased the power of law enforcement and thusly the Executive Branch when it did not need to be increased. The ability to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications in our country quickly has been available since at least 1970, when the FISA Court was established. There is no recorded (or at least public) instance where the FBI or any other federal agency lost valuable information or an actual attack happened as the result of the FISA Court either not being quick enough or denying a request for a warrant. The difference between the FISA Court and the TSP is that the former offers oversight as well as checks and balances while the latter does not.
This leads in to a second and perhaps the most important flaw of the TSP: the opportunity for abuses of power and infringement on civil liberties is too great to let stand. While it may not be the intention of the Bush Administration and Federal Agencies to walk over our civil liberties, good intentions are not sound enough assurance of their protection. We should not expect to give up certain rights either temporarily or in permanence in order to be safe. Fortunately, safety can be attained as we simultaneously enjoy the rights that we have been doing so up to September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, however, the Bush Administration does not seem to believe this. They have persisted in creating programs and practices which have run ruff shod over numerous civil liberties. Their main avenue for such abuses has been the Patriot Act, specifically section 215. This section allows investigators to peer in to the reading and internet habits of suspected terrorists in public libraries. While this may not seem to be as large an offense as warrantless wiretapping, it is none the less warrantless and much more so an invasion of privacy.
Supporters of the program will often say that they do not care if the government sees what they have been reading or looking at on the internet, but I will offer a “what if situation” in response. What if the FBI suspected terrorists were planning an underwater attack on a port or harbor on the West Coast, and so decided to obtain the names and addresses of anyone who had taken out books on diving from public libraries in California? Perhaps this does not sound too egregious, but what if the Government then went one step further and sought the names and addresses of everyone in a particular area who had taken diving lessons or bought scuba gear from local scuba shops? Now the government is not only looking at the records of public institutions but those of private enterprises. Unfortunately this situation is not far fetched, as a very similar one is occurring in California at the moment.
But these particular civil liberty abuses are not the worst of all in comparison to what Vice President Dick Cheney discussed on Fox News Sunday. Cheney attempted to defend the idea that the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people’s rights as they examine the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and other suspects. He said, “The Defense Department gets involved because we’ve got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets.” If worrying about the NSA, FBI and other traditional law enforcement groups spying on us was not enough, we can now add to the list the Defense Department (which traditionally fights Nazis and other foreign armies) and the CIA (which traditionally spies on and disrupts our enemies’ activities overseas).
As it becomes more apparent every week that our government is actively and unapologetically spying on an untold number of loyal and patriotic Americans, it becomes difficult not to feel a great sense of unease about living our daily lives- not in fear of Al Qaeda killing us, but our own government keeping tabs on us. We must accept an unwanted fact if we are to recover our civil liberties unabridged: terrorism will never, ever be exterminated. Bush is wrong when he says the war on terrorism will be a long war- it will be a war that outlasts anyone who is reading this editorial. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be people who hate America enough to hurt her and her people. If terrorism will never be completely defeated, are we to live under the ominous shroud of our government forever? We should keep in mind Ben Franklin’s saying, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Although surprising, this change in Administration policy is a welcomed and necessary shift. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush secretly approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which allowed law enforcement officials to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and terrorist associates without court order or review. Instead, the President himself reviewed the cases every forty-five days. Although this act was created with the best of intentions (as many controversial programs after large national tragedies seem to be), it was flawed in a number of respects.
First of all, it increased the power of law enforcement and thusly the Executive Branch when it did not need to be increased. The ability to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications in our country quickly has been available since at least 1970, when the FISA Court was established. There is no recorded (or at least public) instance where the FBI or any other federal agency lost valuable information or an actual attack happened as the result of the FISA Court either not being quick enough or denying a request for a warrant. The difference between the FISA Court and the TSP is that the former offers oversight as well as checks and balances while the latter does not.
This leads in to a second and perhaps the most important flaw of the TSP: the opportunity for abuses of power and infringement on civil liberties is too great to let stand. While it may not be the intention of the Bush Administration and Federal Agencies to walk over our civil liberties, good intentions are not sound enough assurance of their protection. We should not expect to give up certain rights either temporarily or in permanence in order to be safe. Fortunately, safety can be attained as we simultaneously enjoy the rights that we have been doing so up to September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, however, the Bush Administration does not seem to believe this. They have persisted in creating programs and practices which have run ruff shod over numerous civil liberties. Their main avenue for such abuses has been the Patriot Act, specifically section 215. This section allows investigators to peer in to the reading and internet habits of suspected terrorists in public libraries. While this may not seem to be as large an offense as warrantless wiretapping, it is none the less warrantless and much more so an invasion of privacy.
Supporters of the program will often say that they do not care if the government sees what they have been reading or looking at on the internet, but I will offer a “what if situation” in response. What if the FBI suspected terrorists were planning an underwater attack on a port or harbor on the West Coast, and so decided to obtain the names and addresses of anyone who had taken out books on diving from public libraries in California? Perhaps this does not sound too egregious, but what if the Government then went one step further and sought the names and addresses of everyone in a particular area who had taken diving lessons or bought scuba gear from local scuba shops? Now the government is not only looking at the records of public institutions but those of private enterprises. Unfortunately this situation is not far fetched, as a very similar one is occurring in California at the moment.
But these particular civil liberty abuses are not the worst of all in comparison to what Vice President Dick Cheney discussed on Fox News Sunday. Cheney attempted to defend the idea that the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people’s rights as they examine the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and other suspects. He said, “The Defense Department gets involved because we’ve got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets.” If worrying about the NSA, FBI and other traditional law enforcement groups spying on us was not enough, we can now add to the list the Defense Department (which traditionally fights Nazis and other foreign armies) and the CIA (which traditionally spies on and disrupts our enemies’ activities overseas).
As it becomes more apparent every week that our government is actively and unapologetically spying on an untold number of loyal and patriotic Americans, it becomes difficult not to feel a great sense of unease about living our daily lives- not in fear of Al Qaeda killing us, but our own government keeping tabs on us. We must accept an unwanted fact if we are to recover our civil liberties unabridged: terrorism will never, ever be exterminated. Bush is wrong when he says the war on terrorism will be a long war- it will be a war that outlasts anyone who is reading this editorial. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be people who hate America enough to hurt her and her people. If terrorism will never be completely defeated, are we to live under the ominous shroud of our government forever? We should keep in mind Ben Franklin’s saying, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)