back to Niagara Falls Reporter archive
When politicians see problems they crave solutions, and writing new laws is what's most often foisted upon the public as the "solution."
So we usually end up with the appearance of a solution or solutions far removed from the problem.
For instance, let's look at America's newest law, the auspiciously titled Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, aka the anti-terrorism bill.
Now, mind you, the person who came up with that ridiculous acronym was some six-figure-salaried congressional staffer on paid leave popping Cipro, while postal workers continued to work without benefit of the anthrax antibiotic.
But the cheap theatrics of the acronym served a purpose. Only one Senator and a handful of House members had the courage and nerve to vote against the hastily drafted legislation.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the noble Senate dissenter, complained of the "relentless" pressure to pass the bill in a hurry "without deliberation and debate."
When there's no debate in Congress, watch out. The new measure has some very dangerous provisions that trample on civil rights, disdain the rule of law, give unprecedented powers to government in detaining people indefinitely without charges, and does little or nothing to combat terrorism.
The measure does offer an appearance that comforts and covers for the politicians, and dupes the gullible media and public. As Sen. Feingold said, "Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society."
Critics say the measure goes well beyond what's needed to fight terrorism. Laura Murphy, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, who, unlike most members of Congress, has actually read the legislation, notes, "Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans."
Let's look at the problem first. We face a bunch of murderous fanatics willing to kill themselves and thousands of others in the name of their cause. They hate America for perceived, and perhaps in some cases real, injustices, and in the quest to punish us infidels they will stop at nothing.
They took advantage of incredibly lax security at U.S. airports and unbelievable rules which actually permitted passengers to carry knives with blades shorter than four inches onto airplanes .
Then we have the nearly total failure of international and domestic intelligence to provide vital information about what terrorist groups are planning and thinking.
Oh yeah, the CIA did get a tip about Mohammad Atta, the guy who flew the plane into the World Trade Center's north tower and is considered the top dog among the now-departed hounds from hell.
The CIA passed the information on to the FBI, indicating Atta was a dangerous dude and probably up to no good. The Federal Bureau of Ineptness then fumbled an opportunity to thwart terror, save lives and change history.
After bungling a cursory effort for a search warrant, the Bureau simply dropped the case. You didn't even need a warrant to do the simplest visual surveillance of Atta and his pals. If even one agent took off his blue suit, left his air-conditioned office and checked out Atta, he might have noticed that he and his buddies were spending a lot of time at the Venice, Fla. airport.
Why are these guys learning to fly? And what do they do, anyhow? They don't work but they have money. What's their immigration status? Are they students or what?
At that point, the comatose FBI might have notified a sister agency in the Justice Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS is supposed to keep track of resident aliens and make sure people here on visas are legitimate. That never happened.
By the way, here's another sorry episode about the man named for the FBI as a suspected terrorist. When he purchased his ticket for the doomed flight he used his real name, Mohammad Atta. It would have been nice if the FBI had shared its information about him.
The INS, U.S. Customs and the Border Patrol are busy anyhow, spending much of their efforts trying to keep Mexicans from crossing our southern border, getting jobs and keeping the economies of Southern California and Texas afloat.
Those same federal agencies are also committed to carrying out the "war on drugs," the costly, ineffective, absurd and impossible folly that charlatans tell the American people is important public policy.
I'd much rather see the Feds tracking down potential terrorists than trying to stop the drug trade with, again, solutions far removed from the problem.
The new anti-terrorism law increases sentences for acts of terrorism, including financing or harboring terrorists. When people are willing to kill themselves for their cause, does any reasonable person actually believe the threat of a tougher sentence will stop them? The problem is catching terrorists before they act, not the level of punishment inflicted after the fact.
The law permits broad new authority for the federal government in roving wiretaps, search warrants and monitoring computers. There are dangerous provisions in all these areas that were barely discussed or considered as Congress rushed to grandstand.
The detention section of the new law should give everyone chills. Attorney General Ashcroft wanted the authority to detain indefinitely and without charges immigrants suspected of involvement with terrorism.
Congress balked at that, at least in its blatant form. The law will now allow detention for seven days, but here's the curve ball. Under some circumstances detentions can be repeatedly extended for six-month periods.
And who decided this? Up until now in our history, a judge of some kind would be involved in that process. No longer. Simply by certifying it, the Attorney General can lock up someone indefinitely and the individual has no appeal.
This is unprecedented. Never in 225 years as a nation have we granted unilateral authority to detain solely on an executive order. It's dangerous and wrong.
The British government's behavior in dealing with terrorism offers some chilling lessons about what happens when people are detained indefinitely.
Run, don't walk, to the nearest video store and rent "In the Name of the Father." It's an excellent film that tells the true and tragic story of seven people, Irish Catholics, who were imprisoned for a terrible act of terrorism they had nothing to do with. In its zeal to show the public how terrorism was being fought, the police made up a case, prosecuted the innocent and destroyed lives.
One of the most disturbing sentences I've read in a long time appeared in the Oct. 20 edition of the New York Times. "After 40 days of the most aggressive criminal investigation in American history, federal law enforcement officials have arrested 830 people but have failed to develop evidence that ANYONE (emphasis added) now in custody was a coconspirator in the Sept. 11 terror attacks."
It's now 50 days and the number of people arrested tops 1100, and not one linked to the attacks. This happened without the new anti-terrorism law.
As a democratic nation, we cannot become like those who despise and wish to destroy us. We need to deal with terrorism by seeking solutions that address the problem, not by enacting dangerous, hastily conceived new laws.
British parliamentarian Edmund Burke understood this when he said, "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny."