2001 Ron Paul 98:1
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. Its impossible to
keep ones eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely
understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking,
its the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates
the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its
location remain vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam
and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our
policies were confused and contradictory. Today our policies relating
to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory;
however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone.
Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately
targeted or vanquished.
2001 Ron Paul 98:2
The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the
"mob"or some
international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it
the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with
bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of
Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.
2001 Ron Paul 98:3
Ulterior motives have always played a part in the
foreign policy of almost every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic
expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often
drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we
have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for
hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn,
incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The
target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.
2001 Ron Paul 98:4
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. Theyre all dead. So those
most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If
one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along
with others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is
possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance
is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an
individual to perform such a heinous act.
2001 Ron Paul 98:5
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are
not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning
and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly
involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans
thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have
done it. But theres no way thousands of people knew and participated
in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support
expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different
matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit
are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and
wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or
sin.
2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was
Saudi Arabian. Yet
for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation
from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing
blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The
Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so
are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a
supporter of the Talibans rise to power, and as recently as August of
2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.
2001 Ron Paul 98:7
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:8
It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S.
company, has been
anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has
not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should
not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to
"nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of
this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this
project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we
dont 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:9
Former FBI Deputy Director John ONeill resigned in
July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. ONeill
then took a job as head of the World Trade Center security and
ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these
authors in their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and
congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the historical
record.
2001 Ron Paul 98:10
To understand world sentiment on this subject, one
might note a comment in The Hindu,
Indias national newspaper- not necessarily to agree with the papers
sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about
us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five
major TV news networks.
2001 Ron Paul 98:11
This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram
Yechury on October 13, 2001:
2001 Ron Paul 98:12
The world today is being asked to side with the U.S.
in a fight
against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being
asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to
strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will
it be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with
the terrorists nor with the United States.
2001 Ron Paul 98:13
The need to define our target is ever so necessary
if were going to avoid letting this war get out of control.
2001 Ron Paul 98:14
Its important to note that in the same article, the
author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview
on Radio Free Europe:
"We (the U.S.) view oil as a security
consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary,
regardless of other considerations, other values." This, of course, was
a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country
was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and
his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on.
2001 Ron Paul 98:15
For various reasons, the enemy with whom were 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
were not precise in identifying our enemy, its sure going to be hard
to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war
will spread and be needlessly prolonged.
2001 Ron Paul 98:16
Why is this definition so crucial? Because without
it, the special interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive
militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60
countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that,
at most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy-
terrorism- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building-
only a more sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this.
This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the
current hostilities.
2001 Ron Paul 98:17
It was said that our efforts were to be directed
toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and
instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already
we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward
building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if
bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to
happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with
occupying troops. It seems that would be an easy target for the likes
of al Qaeda.
2001 Ron Paul 98:18
Since we dont know in which cave or even in which
country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next
villain — Saddam Hussein — guilty or not. On the short list of countries
to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just
for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The
war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.
2001 Ron Paul 98:19
The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder
every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the
charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, made it clear:
"We are going to continue pursuing the entire
al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan."
Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the
pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray
that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want
us to take on Iraq.
2001 Ron Paul 98:20
The argument that we need to do so because Hussein
is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely
doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction.
However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those
countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries
like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been
uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of
western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and
Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will
greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred
toward the United States, and its all so unnecessary.
2001 Ron Paul 98:21
Its just so hard for many Americans to understand
how we inadvertently provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and Im not talking about
the likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. Im talking about the
Arab/Muslim masses.
2001 Ron Paul 98:22
In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq
and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question:
"We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against
Iraq). Is the price worth it?"
Albrights response was
"We think the
price is worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was
rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some
still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world!
2001 Ron Paul 98:23
Former President George W. Bush has been criticized
for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and
stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was
ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power — there were
strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it.
But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad
was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known
they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal
of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the
continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq — a source of much hatred
directed toward the United States.
2001 Ron Paul 98:24
But placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim
holy land in Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was
trying to avoid- the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung
together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and
religious Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has
intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of
every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait.
2001 Ron Paul 98:25
Many of the same advisors from the first Bush
presidency are now urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every
reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true
today- if not more so.
2001 Ron Paul 98:26
It has been argued that we needed to maintain a
presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from
Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to
justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were
"our" oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence
in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and
to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.
2001 Ron Paul 98:27
Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may
well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and
throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment
and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an
unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this
move.
2001 Ron Paul 98:28
It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is
the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the
business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the
next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an
idea it is. If this really is an issue, why dont we insist that our
friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose
our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight
wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no
cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract
us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We
need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.
2001 Ron Paul 98:29
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in
Afghanistan. Would any
of our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it
would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.
2001 Ron Paul 98:30
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?
2001 Ron Paul 98:31
Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble
calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion
of Iraq would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops
against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the
United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good,
that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims problems.
2001 Ron Paul 98:32
We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamotos
quote after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened
a sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of
that comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between
the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. We are hardly
the same nation we were in 1941. Today, were anything but a sleeping
giant. Theres no contest for our status as the worlds only economic,
political and military super power. A "sleeping giant" would not have
troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every
conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.
2001 Ron Paul 98:33
The fear I have is that our policies, along with
those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a
long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism.
2001 Ron Paul 98:34
Lets hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made
the target in this complex war.
2001 Ron Paul 98:35
The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign,
argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, "If were an
arrogant nation, theyll 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:36
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 Pakistans
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:37
Rumsfelds plan, as reported in Turkeys Hurriyet
newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkeys 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:38
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:39
Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely
define our target in this war and keep our eye on it.
2001 Ron Paul 98:40
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:41
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).
2001 Ron Paul 98:42
If a corrupt city or state government does business
with a drug
cartel or organized crime and violence results, we dont 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?
2001 Ron Paul 98:43
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 nations 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 dont
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:44
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:45
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:46
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:47
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:48
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:49
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, its 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:50
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:51
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 governments policing
powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through
both new legislation and executive orders.
2001 Ron Paul 98:52
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. Ashcrofts 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 peoples 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:53
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 hes 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
FDRs internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information
regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If
theyre 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:54
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:55
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:56
"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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:57
Only now are the American people hearing about the
onerous portions of the anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased.
2001 Ron Paul 98:58
Its 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:59
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:60
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 users knowledge, and internet
providers can be forced to hand over user information to
law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.
2001 Ron Paul 98:61
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:62
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:63
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most
attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous
to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret.
Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to
carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death
penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial
branches of government and the American public. Since such a process
threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as
a justification for their protection.
2001 Ron Paul 98:65
Some have claimed this military tribunal has been
in the planning stages for five years. If so, what would have been its justification?
2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must
be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the
rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different
from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise
enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country.
Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were
permitted. Thats not whats being offered today. Furthermore, the
previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war
will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.
2001 Ron Paul 98:67
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 its not "kinda cool," as one member of the previous
administration bragged. Its a process that is unacceptable, even in
this professed time of crisis.
2001 Ron Paul 98:68
There are well-documented histories of secret
military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The
fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in
secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available, and
no defense attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel
us to reject such a system outright.
2001 Ron Paul 98:69
Those who favor these trials claim they are
necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be
brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects
must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of
"trial" without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in
contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are
innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head.
2001 Ron Paul 98:70
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 Weavers
family fared no better.
2001 Ron Paul 98:71
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:72
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in
rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly
represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government
becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused.
Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this
barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice
system, its intended that we visualize that these infractions of the
law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never
involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has
to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that
involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be
given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a
totalitarian government.
2001 Ron Paul 98:73
Many throughout the world, especially those in
Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for
military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict
in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against
terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice?
If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.
2001 Ron Paul 98:74
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our
streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go
uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national
approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a
tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous
move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government
assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act
of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out
law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the
United States, the argument being that the military is only used for
this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the
violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution
against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that
time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna
ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so
readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one
occasion in this country.
2001 Ron Paul 98:76
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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:77
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 governments
domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they dont even
know in a country they cant even identity.
2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now its 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:79
The proponents of the draft call it "mandatory
service." Slavery, too, was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that
every 18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country.
Lets hope the American people dont fall for this "need to serve"
argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal.
Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the Selective Service
altogether.
2001 Ron Paul 98:80
However, if we get to the point of returning to the
draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper
editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has
never served in the military and who demands that the draft be
reinstated, should be drafted first — the 18-year olds last. Since the
Pentagon says they dont 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.
2001 Ron Paul 98:81
Im certain that this provision would mute the loud
demands for the return of the military draft.
2001 Ron Paul 98:82
I see good reason for American citizens to be
concerned- not only about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as
the Congress deals with the crisis. Personal freedom is the element of
the human condition that has made America great and unique and
something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice
a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they
are acting in the best interest of freedom and justice. However, good
intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of
liberty.
2001 Ron Paul 98:83
I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of
those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government
solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the
best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of
life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business
overseas.
2001 Ron Paul 98:84
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:
2001 Ron Paul 98:85
"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."