From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #468 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, September 22 2001 Volume 02 : Number 468 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:51:38 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Your gov at work: Surely they will be better at war !! http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=783 Safe Travel by Jay Chris Robbins and Jamie Beckett [Posted September 20, 2001] New regulations that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has handed down in the wake of last Tuesday's murderous attack include several that are arbitrary, burdensome, and unlikely to make our airplanes or airports any safer. Some of these rules have left pilots, passengers, and security experts scratching their heads. Abolishing curbside check-in. Firing most of the nation's skycaps and doing away with fast and efficient check-in will likely hurt, not help, airport security. It will result in longer lines and greater confusion inside. Bags checked at the curb are typically subject to the same X-ray and inspection facilities inside the airport. The real issue, therefore, is strengthening security and realizing production-line efficiencies after bags hit airport conveyor belts. Even without such improvements, it is important to remember that there have been no reported instances of terrorists blowing up planes after sneaking past any one of the nation's 25,000 skycaps. Many of these workers will lose their jobs. It is also a blow to consumer convenience, one that will particular affect elderly Americans. Elimination of mail and cargo. For airlines, mail and cargo is often cream off the top. Since boxes and envelopes can be subject to even more rigorous searches than people's bodies and baggage, they pose no greater risk. If we want our airlines to survive this incident and our fares to remain reasonable, the ban must be lifted. Keeping cars 300 feet from airport gates. Dozens of airports nationwide lost thousands of prime, revenue-generating parking spaces that did not conform to the 300-feet rule. Yet when was the last time a plane was hijacked with a car bomb? Because cars can still drop off and pick up luggage and passengers mere yards from jetliners, the FAA rule will have no more effect than an aspirin on a brain hemorrhage. Ban on VFR flights. To date, the FAA has banned VFR flights except in Alaska. The rule has grounded most of the country's 288,000 private pilots. This prohibition is also decimating the $8.6 billion private aviation business and serves no purpose. Most small planes carry less than 60 gallons of fuel and weigh under 3,000 pounds. They pose no threat to national security. In fact, private pilots across the nation aid law enforcement with surveillance and search and rescue in all fifty states. The ban must be lifted immediately. By contrast, there are several proposals that enjoy support by pilots and experts that the FAA should consider: Side arms. Arming the cockpit crew with side arms is a must. The pilot in command, like a captain at sea, should have superior arms commensurate with his authority. In the future, pilots, many who have prior military training, will not think twice about facing terrorists with box-cutters and plastic knives. In addition, airline employees should be permitted to carry stun guns and a variety of other weapons. The FAA's decision, undertaken decades ago, to either forbid or heavily discourage these from being carried by pilots and crew has left airlines vulnerable to the most malicious passengers. You can' t screen for malice; you have to deter it with force. Tighter restrictions on access. Only authorized personnel should be permitted access to certain secured areas in the airport. Access-card technology currently exists that could limit access to ramps, gates, fuel facilities, and other sensitive areas. Cockpit access. Parts of the plane should also be off limits. Cockpits are the "holy of holies." They should be physically inaccessible to everyone except flight crew. Lightweight, bulletproof Kevlar doors, favored by most pilots, can provide added security. Some of these measures would be undertaken by airline companies themselves, provided they can be released from onerous federal restrictions. After all, no institution has a greater incentive to increase airline security than the airlines themselves, who have both property and paying customers to protect. Americans deserve the most secure airports, aircraft, and airspace system that can be devised. Nevertheless, even in times of crisis, administrative agencies like the FAA must ensure that there is adequate cause and effect between its rules and the results that follow. The initial round of regulations does not give grounds for optimism. - -------- Jamie Beckett holds a commercial pilot's license. He is also a flight instructor and certified mechanic. Jay Chris Robbins is a Miami-based writer. He has soloed and logged sixty hours flight time in small planes. You can contact them at jcr@jcrobbins.com. Subscribe or Unsubscribe Join the Mises Institute Online Texts for Austrians Home | About | Email List | Search | Contact Us | Periodicals | Articles Coming Events | News | Resources | Catalog | Shopping Basket | Contributions C 2001 Mises.org - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Articles and "Infinite Justice" Quickly scanned your material. Comments inline. > >Is it possible our rhetorical gain control has been set higher with every >administration over the last 20 or so years? > >The guys in Washington have > >http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/galvin3.html > I don't believe that any responsible person is advocating carpet bombing Arab civilians. This guys screed is full of empty rhetorical flourishes and he appears to be jealous of Ann Coulter's larger audience for her screeds. I don't believe that some random businessman from Cincinati and one journalist (Coulter) are by any means a complete data set on what "Washington" is doing. >Ultimately, we can find out if the terrorists are targeting our cultural >ideas or our foreign military and political misadventures. We can either (1) >adopt a policy of non-intervention into the Middle East, or (2) lobotomize >280 million Americans. If you haven't had a lobotomy recently, the choice is >clear. You're losing us here. Total non-intervention in the Middle East is a wild policy swing. Are you suggesting that Americans are going to be instantly lobotomized by some level of pro-intervention propaganda? You appear to be arguing by assertion. Oh. Your paragraph above is a quote from the URL below. I thought it was your writing. Seems nonsensical rhetoric to me. We are very unlikely to abandon our ally in the area (Isreal) or our "friends" Egypt and Saudi, so (1) is never going to happen. Lobotomize 280 million Americans? Propaganda is effective, but not that effective. Always remember: 50% of the population has an IQ below 100, by definition. I'm hearing more sense out of the administration than the news media. ciao, jcurtis >http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski17.html > >"Smoking them out" is not new in the Middle East >http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=94825 > >Guardian articles on Afghanistan >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554371,00.html >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554913,00.html > >Guaradian analysis of Chechan parallel: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554283,00.html >http://www.guardian.co.uk/chechnya/Story/0,2763,553712,00.html > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:50:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Reason Mag on Face Recognition Interesting stuff in Reason on surveillance and increased size of government as a response to terrorism: http://reason.com/rb/rb091901.html http://reason.com/hod/sr090601.html http://www.notbored.org/reich.html (last URL is a piece of poster-performance art performed in front of various surveillance cameras) jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:08:11 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Articles and "Infinite Justice" I think you are absolutely correct: We won't abandon our 'friends', no matter what is good for the US. Because we can't abandon Israel, whose behavior I can't distinguish from South Africa's behavior under Apartheid, we will continue to have terror attacks, and the country will be delivered to our FBI and CIA. (It is quite a common fate for countries to be controlled by their intelligence/security organs, we don't have any guarantees it won't happen here. Can't, in fact, be sure it hasn't already largely happened. Both FBI and CIA are clearly above serious criticism.) It is not possible to WIN a war on terrorism. Nobody has done this where there is significant community support for the terrorists. There is obviously international support for these terrorists. It is not possible to have a growing, modern economy in the face of significant (that is, technological/economic) terrorism. It is probably not possible to have a free society in the face of significant terrorism over a longer term. It is certainly not possible to have a modern, growing economy without a free society. Palestinian terrorism isn't really significant by the standards of the WTC, IMHO. If Palestinians were attacking the economic infrastructure, it would do a lot more damage than killing a few people via suicide bombers. So, our only hope, IMHO and by the logic above, is to stop doing the things which piss off such a large and serious-minded segment of the world's population. Ending the Empire is the only way to do this. Switzerland is simultaneously the richest (per capita) country in the world and the most peaceful. No terrorism problem. Lots of contributions to science nad medicine. Good world citizen, making a better place for us all. The US could be that and more: e.g. the largest contributor of private charity, beloved by all. But, we have to get rid of the empire, get the country back inside the Constitution in order to do so. Start by abolishing all the gun control laws, and increase everyone's security. Lew - -----Original Message----- From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of John Curtis Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:53 AM To: roc@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: Articles and "Infinite Justice" Quickly scanned your material. Comments inline. > >Is it possible our rhetorical gain control has been set higher with every >administration over the last 20 or so years? > >The guys in Washington have > >http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/galvin3.html > I don't believe that any responsible person is advocating carpet bombing Arab civilians. This guys screed is full of empty rhetorical flourishes and he appears to be jealous of Ann Coulter's larger audience for her screeds. I don't believe that some random businessman from Cincinati and one journalist (Coulter) are by any means a complete data set on what "Washington" is doing. >Ultimately, we can find out if the terrorists are targeting our cultural >ideas or our foreign military and political misadventures. We can either (1) >adopt a policy of non-intervention into the Middle East, or (2) lobotomize >280 million Americans. If you haven't had a lobotomy recently, the choice is >clear. You're losing us here. Total non-intervention in the Middle East is a wild policy swing. Are you suggesting that Americans are going to be instantly lobotomized by some level of pro-intervention propaganda? You appear to be arguing by assertion. Oh. Your paragraph above is a quote from the URL below. I thought it was your writing. Seems nonsensical rhetoric to me. We are very unlikely to abandon our ally in the area (Isreal) or our "friends" Egypt and Saudi, so (1) is never going to happen. Lobotomize 280 million Americans? Propaganda is effective, but not that effective. Always remember: 50% of the population has an IQ below 100, by definition. I'm hearing more sense out of the administration than the news media. ciao, jcurtis >http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski17.html > >"Smoking them out" is not new in the Middle East >http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=94825 > >Guardian articles on Afghanistan >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554371,00.html >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554913,00.html > >Guaradian analysis of Chechan parallel: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,554283,00.html >http://www.guardian.co.uk/chechnya/Story/0,2763,553712,00.html > > >- > - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:28:21 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Another good Robert Fiske article http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=94254 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:01:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Articles and "Infinite Justice" Comments inline. > >I think you are absolutely correct: We won't abandon our 'friends', no >matter what is good for the US. > >Because we can't abandon Israel, whose behavior I can't distinguish from >South Africa's behavior under Apartheid, we will continue to have terror >attacks, and the country will be delivered to our FBI and CIA. (It is quite >a common fate for countries to be controlled by their intelligence/security >organs, we don't have any guarantees it won't happen here. Can't, in fact, >be sure it hasn't already largely happened. Both FBI and CIA are clearly >above serious criticism.) > I think that the CIA and FBI are living large, in that they finally have a high profile post Cold War mission. I disagree with you on Isreal, I can distinquish them from South Africa they have been living with people who hate them for 50 years now. > >It is not possible to WIN a war on terrorism. Nobody has done this where >there is significant community support for the terrorists. There is >obviously international support for these terrorists. > The miracle here is that the magic curtain of the continental U.S. has been pierced, could have happened 30 years ago. >It is not possible to have a growing, modern economy in the face of >significant (that is, technological/economic) terrorism. > >It is probably not possible to have a free society in the face of >significant terrorism over a longer term. It is certainly not possible to >have a modern, growing economy without a free society. > Agree on the latter. I think that this terrorism battle is not going to have an end. I believe that the reason mag article got it right in that the most likely effect is a ratcheting up of the size of government here. >Palestinian terrorism isn't really significant by the standards of the WTC, >IMHO. If Palestinians were attacking the economic infrastructure, it would >do a lot more damage than killing a few people via suicide bombers. > >So, our only hope, IMHO and by the logic above, is to stop doing the things >which piss off such a large and serious-minded segment of the world's >population. Ending the Empire is the only way to do this. > I disagree in that the fundamentalist hatred isn't grounded in specific U.S. policies -> it really is a pre-modern vs. modern societal conflict. >Switzerland is simultaneously the richest (per capita) country in the world >and the most peaceful. No terrorism problem. Lots of contributions to >science nad medicine. Good world citizen, making a better place for us all. > >The US could be that and more: e.g. the largest contributor of private >charity, beloved by all. But, we have to get rid of the empire, get the >country back inside the Constitution in order to do so. > >Start by abolishing all the gun control laws, and increase everyone's >security. > >Lew > regards, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 18:51:10 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: This just in... (fwd) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:05:55 -0400 From: kurt Subject: This just in... Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of military history. I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Americans." Dear friends and fellow Americans 14 September, 2001 Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II. These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing - - better said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long? In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only "superpower" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent "counter-terrorist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch," (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens. Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear "centers of gravity" to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders. Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but! also less audacious "sand in the gears" tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order. Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our! mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail. Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:31:19 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Articles and "Infinite Justice" I agree about Islamic fundamentalists hating economic and social progress. They get their power from primitive people. Not too different than our own fundamentalists. However, the specific events and conditions that motivate most people are concrete, not at all abstract. Our support of Israel, our embargo of Iraq, our troops in Saudi Arabia, our support of repressive (at least) govs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, ... These all have a serious element of injustice, the fuel that drives extremist actions. As for Israel: A) they have 'death squads' (called by other names, and out in the open, but extra-judicial murder for the convenience of the state) and these death squads kill a lot of civilians -- 'collateral damage'. B) They imprison people without trial. C) They use torture. D) They dis-enfranchise people who should be citizens both by makeing them part of the Palestinian State (called 'bantustans' by SA) and by preventing former citizens of the area from re-entering the country after the war. In SA there were periodic attempts by whites and blacks to marry, and lots of illicit living together. You don't hear of such a thing in Israel, and by this measure both sides are seriously racist. All of this said, and despite the fact that there are no doubt many wonderful people in both groups, and real friendships across the divide, the Palestinians are a pretty primitive people in their political and religious views. (Or, perhaps, our media only filters for the extremist views. Certainly that happened with, for example, the militia movements in the US.) I don't have a solution here, except a 25 year solution of economic development and Internet connections for the Palestinians. (I am NOT proposing another foreign aid program. Yassar Arafat would steal most of it.) The economic development is largely gated by Palestinian willingness to go on with the Intifada, so perhaps there is no solution. If not, I believe the Israelis will have to leave Israel. I think our 'war on terrorism', at which we will be seriously defeated, makes the above more likely, and sooner. Again, we have to stop supporting the injustices that fuel the terrorism. There is no alternative if we are to keep our freedom. One more thought: We each have at least 20 years lower life expectancy because of WWI. That is, medicine is increasing life-expectancy at a rate about 6 months per year, and the rate is increasing. WWI/WWII stopped economic and scientific progress for nearly 40 years. Just one of the unfortunate side-effects of the war that nobody could have forseen. This WOT will have serious side-effects also. Was WWI worth it from your POV? Do you feel confident in making such choices for your great grandchildren? Lew - -----Original Message----- From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of John Curtis Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 6:02 AM To: roc@lists.xmission.com Cc: roc@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: Articles and "Infinite Justice" Comments inline. > >I think you are absolutely correct: We won't abandon our 'friends', no >matter what is good for the US. > >Because we can't abandon Israel, whose behavior I can't distinguish from >South Africa's behavior under Apartheid, we will continue to have terror >attacks, and the country will be delivered to our FBI and CIA. (It is quite >a common fate for countries to be controlled by their intelligence/security >organs, we don't have any guarantees it won't happen here. Can't, in fact, >be sure it hasn't already largely happened. Both FBI and CIA are clearly >above serious criticism.) > I think that the CIA and FBI are living large, in that they finally have a high profile post Cold War mission. I disagree with you on Isreal, I can distinquish them from South Africa they have been living with people who hate them for 50 years now. > >It is not possible to WIN a war on terrorism. Nobody has done this where >there is significant community support for the terrorists. There is >obviously international support for these terrorists. > The miracle here is that the magic curtain of the continental U.S. has been pierced, could have happened 30 years ago. >It is not possible to have a growing, modern economy in the face of >significant (that is, technological/economic) terrorism. > >It is probably not possible to have a free society in the face of >significant terrorism over a longer term. It is certainly not possible to >have a modern, growing economy without a free society. > Agree on the latter. I think that this terrorism battle is not going to have an end. I believe that the reason mag article got it right in that the most likely effect is a ratcheting up of the size of government here. >Palestinian terrorism isn't really significant by the standards of the WTC, >IMHO. If Palestinians were attacking the economic infrastructure, it would >do a lot more damage than killing a few people via suicide bombers. > >So, our only hope, IMHO and by the logic above, is to stop doing the things >which piss off such a large and serious-minded segment of the world's >population. Ending the Empire is the only way to do this. > I disagree in that the fundamentalist hatred isn't grounded in specific U.S. policies -> it really is a pre-modern vs. modern societal conflict. >Switzerland is simultaneously the richest (per capita) country in the world >and the most peaceful. No terrorism problem. Lots of contributions to >science nad medicine. Good world citizen, making a better place for us all. > >The US could be that and more: e.g. the largest contributor of private >charity, beloved by all. But, we have to get rid of the empire, get the >country back inside the Constitution in order to do so. > >Start by abolishing all the gun control laws, and increase everyone's >security. > >Lew > regards, jcurtis - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:52:14 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Terrorism That is, interwoven with social ties, commerce, diplomacy, internal politics, ... The idea that we can win a war on terrorism is so simplistic. Clearly another example of the 'big lie' propaganda technique. Just like the war on drugs, with an equal chance of success. Lew 0000000000000000000000000000000000 Let's Target Irish Terrorists Too By Frederick Forsyth, a novelist. Wall Street Journal http://interactive6.wsj.com/articles/SB1001030017899536000.htm LONDON -- President Bush was pretty explicit. He did not have to mince his words. We are, he said, at war with global terrorism. If there was any ambiguity, it was about the "we." We the Americans or we the Western alliance? For the British this was rapidly cleared up by Tony Blair. We Brits are in this with you, a decision about 90% of Brits agree with totally. But here I have to say -- and readers must imagine a polite cough -- that this leaves us both with a bit of unfinished business. It's called the Irish Republican Army. Let's see how the IRA measures up with the definition of the enemy that Mr. Bush has outlined. That the IRA, either the Provisional or "Real" branch, is a terrorist organization can hardly be doubted. Nothing of course can compare with the sheer scale of the death toll in Manhattan, but the deliberate evil of placing a large bomb in a building or public place swarming with civilians is exactly, exactly the same. Twenty-eight dead, men and women and children, in Omagh, Northern Ireland; more than five times that number in Oklahoma City; a hundred times that in Manhattan. The evil is the same. The following, partial list of IRA bombings or other outrages will mean little to most non-British readers: Guilford (pub); La Mon (restaurant -- napalm in the vent pipes, they fried alive the Ulster Collie-Dog Society that night); Grand Hotel (attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet); Bishopsgate (heart of London); Old Bailey (law court); Downing Street (attempt to murder John Major and his cabinet); Dover barracks (music cadet school); Alders (shopping mall). I guess that qualifies them as terrorists. But that is just the tip. There have been close to 400 attacks in all, and about 2,000 that were intercepted and defused. Death toll? Over 30 years, the IRA has murdered 302 police officers, 651 soldiers and reservists, around 2,000 civilians. As I say, the "score" cannot match Manhattan on a single day, but it shares approximate parity with Hamas and Hezbollah. Next question: Is the IRA truly "global," the president's second qualification? Well, they are trained in Lebanon, Libya and Sudan; they have liaised with every known Mideast terror group. They have killed or attempted to kill in five countries in Western Europe. Some years ago they happily accepted five entire shiploads of arms from Moammar Gadhafi, when he was at the height of his terror-supporting mode. (Four got through, we intercepted the fifth.) Only a few weeks ago, three of their top reps were exchanging bomb-making technology with the FARC in Colombia. Beirut via Dublin to Colombia seems pretty "global." But President Bush went further. Not only would the terrorists themselves be hunted down and put out of business, but also those who supported, armed and funded them. Fine. So where has the main support, funding and weapon-source for the IRA been? I am afraid the answer is the United States. Over here we still recall the oily endorsements of the "Irish struggle" by Sen. Ted Kennedy. We recall the avid backing by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.). We remember the interviews with Martin Galvin of Noraid, the American group through which aid to Northern Irish terrorists is funneled, openly jubilant at every fresh death of a soldier or policeman. And we have reeled at the gullible acceptance by a section of the American public of the lies put out by the IRA and their supporters. There are two things that have to be borne in mind. The first is that Ireland is not a land of easy simplicities; it is an extremely complicated place with an extraordinarily complex history. The six counties that comprise Ulster today are a leftover from the Irish war of independence and the Irish civil war that followed immediately. It is an enclave that chose by a massive majority to remain British upon the arrival of Irish independence 80 years ago. Unfortunately it contains two populations: about a million fiercely British Unionists and some half a million Republicans. The Unionists have made very plain that, having remained utterly loyal to the United Kingdom through two world wars, they do not deserve to be abandoned for absorption into a state of which they do not wish to be citizens. The Republicans have made equally plain that they would like the enclave to be united with the Republic of Ireland. If the proportions were reversed, our course would be easy: referendum, self-determination, the full Monty. But the proportions are not reversed. The second fact is that the IRA has sold a section of the Irish-American community a bill of goods, of which the IRA men themselves believe not a word. This is the myth of a once-and-future Irish Utopia, wall-to-wall leprechauns and shamrocks, with everyone living in brotherly harmony -- prevented by the brutal Brits who insist on keeping them in subjection. For the past 30 years the British presence in Ulster has not been in order to subjugate anyone but to prevent two communities from tearing each others' throats out. As the Americans discovered in Somalia, that is a very dangerous and utterly thankless task. The Republic of Ireland and the U.K. are two democracies. In each country, just as in the U.S., if you want to change the political map, you convince enough of your fellow citizens, you get elected, and then you govern by popular consent. It is no more legitimate to put a Semtex bomb in a shopping mall than it was for Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Despite all this, Irish-Americans have contributed millions of dollars via Noraid to the slaughter pile, and successive administrations, fearful of the power of the Irish vote, have turned a blind eye. Americans must have been offended to see Palestinians and others dancing for joy at America's agony. They can imagine how the British felt as jigs were danced and toasts raised to "the lads" in the bars of Boston when another British Tommy was carried, flag-decked, to his grave. They can also guess at how Brits felt when men we know to have shot our policemen in the back were received at the White House with a warm Clintonian embrace. We are either united in this fight against terrorism -- all terrorism -- or we are not. But you cannot cherry-pick the acceptable killers who shoot Brits and the unacceptable ones who kill Americans. So the next time Mr. Galvin rattles the collecting tin for the IRA, Americans should tell him to take a hike. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:02:16 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: WOT == more violations of the Constitution Strange Views on War Powers Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell Friday, Sept. 20, 2001 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/21/33228.shtml Audaciously, last week White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, confronted for the second time in as many minutes to clarify the president's position on the necessity of a formal declaration of war from Congress, responded rousingly that it's "nice" that Congress is behind the president, but its consent is not needed. The Constitution grants the president, as commander in chief, all the authority he needs. Question for the White House: To which Constitution is the Bush administration referring? Quoting from the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, we read: "The Congress shall have the power ... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal [i.e., letters authorizing U.S. troops to snuff out foreign terrorists], and make rules concerning captures on land and water. (our emphasis) "To raise and support armies. "To provide and maintain a navy. "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. ..." Clear enough. Only Congress can declare war, make military law, call up the Guard and finance the war. As for commander-in-chief powers, we refer President Bush, his advisers and Congress to Federalist 69. Hamilton begins by quoting from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: The President [shall] be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States [via a declaration of war from Congress]. (our emphasis) He then clarifies what commander in chief means: In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. Head general, that's all. Get over it. War on the World? We've previously stated that we unequivocally support a tough military, economic, intelligence, and as needed, domestic response against the perpetrators, sponsors, harborers, and economic backers of last week's attack. Yet we can't help but raise a hue and cry over the fact that President Bush's sidestepping of the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war coincides with his insistence that this act of war was an attack on not just the United States, but "on the world." Or, to take our complaint to the next level, the Bush administration deemed it not just nice but vital that the U.N. surrogate NATO authorized military action (1,500 soldiers from 20 nations), and we suspect, before all is said and done, that the president will give in to China's demands and Russian "advice" that the U.N. Security Council sanction U.S. military action. Truth is, NATO's charter requires it. Maybe you think this laughably insignificant. You do so at the peril of your nation and its Constitution. We should defend America with the authorization of Americans not communists, not socialists, not terrorists, not thugs in U.N. blue. No, not even with the consent of U.N. subsidiary NATO, whose ideological makeup prefers Marx more than Madison. President Bush, Congress and our fellow Americans, we adjure you to fight this war under the U.S. Constitution, and only the U.S. Constitution! Like Father, Like Son? This War on Terrorism is being portrayed as a transformational, defining moment in our history. What does that mean? Here's a hint. In another "defining moment," in August of 1990, President Bush's father, for 48 days, committed our troops to what was then being advertised as the "Mother of All Wars" a war against the supposed awesome military might of Iraq. Bush did so, first by his own will, then with the vital consent of the United Nations Security Council, which came on Nov. 29, 1990, and lastly, as if an afterthought, with the "support" of Congress, which forwarded him a mere we-won't-abandon-our-troops-in-the-field resolution for this fait accompli. This was an unprecedented power grab for both the presidency and the U.N. (1) Bush (Sr.) then sounded just like his son now: "I have the constitutional authority, many attorneys having advised me." (2) Later, before the Texas Republican State Convention in 1992, he arrogantly added: "I didn't have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait." (3) On the campaign trail, we remember, President George W. Bush Jr. rebuked a Republican-controlled Congress for proposing a pullout date for U.S. troops (under NATO) in Kosovo. He didn't want them to "tie his hands." Godsends Looking back again to Bush the father, the historians tell us that the defense of dictatorial, Soviet-backed Kuwait was in our national interest, but why don't they take it from the horse's mouth? Bush Sr. unabashedly declared: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective a new world order can emerge. ... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." (4) In a National Security Strategy document, he enthused: "I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the crucible of the new world order." (5) Will this heinous act of terrorism be exploited as but another "godsend" for the glory of the U.N. and the glory of its bastard child, NATO? Assassinations? OK for the U.N.! These mass murderers must be put to death. Justice shouts it to our souls. And yet we've heard debate over whether or not we should have the authority to "take out" foreign leaders. Ironically, on March 31, 1991, President Bush (Sr.) in his "Pax Universalis" speech at the United Nations, placed our nation on record as favoring a new U.N. power to settle "national passions" within the borders of any nation, and yes, to remove a nation's leader. So why didn't he grant the same authority to the U.S. to take out Saddam? Did the alliance need an enemy to justify a standing army in Iraq? Prediction Prediction: The War on Terrorism will be utilized as another "defining moment" in the progress of the new world order. The greased wheels are already churning. We pray Congress, the president, both political parties, and a vigilant citizenry will prove us wrong. Stand up and Be Counted Legislation That Matters Here's a chance to do just that prove us wrong. Congressman Bob Barr , R-Ga., caring enough about the Constitution and the importance of debate over dictatorship in deciding the life-and-death issue of sending our sons to war, last Thursday introduced House Joint Resolution 62, a formal declaration of war by Congress. The pathetic truth is the resolution went nowhere, accruing only eight co-sponsors. As of this writing, his office informs us, the issue appears dead. Nevertheless, Mr. Barr, appearing Friday on "The Savage Nation." encouraged listeners to contact their representatives and senators and insist they sustain the Constitution. We do the same. Contact your president, senators, and congressman and tell them to support H.J. 62. And while you're at it, remind them that the only consent we need is from our government, not NATO and not the U.N. Security Council. Tell them to co-sponsor Ron Paul's HR Support H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001. Contact Steve & Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com. If you haven't already, read Part 6 of Steve Farrell's Democrats in Drag and Part 9 of Missing the Mark With Religion. Missed a Stiff Right Jab? Visit our NewsMax archives. Footnotes 1. Foreign Affairs, January/February 1991. The Road to War. Return 2. Lewis, Anthony. "Not in a Single Man." New York Times, September 12, 1994. Return 3. McManus, John F. Changing Commands The Betrayal of America's Military. Appleton, Wisc.: The John Birch Society, 1995, p. 32. Return 4. September 11, 1990, televised address by President Bush. Return 5. National Security Strategy of the United States, August 1991, signed by President George Bush (Sr.). Return - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #468 *************************