Security is important, but so is oversight

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:46:04 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 12, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Security is important, but so is oversight

Expressing concern that details from Oct. 2 intelligence briefings on Capitol Hill found their way into published news articles, the White House announced Friday that briefings on top-secret war information would henceforth be restricted to eight congressional leaders -- the House speaker, House minority leader, Senate majority and minority leaders and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees.

"It's a reflection of the fact that our nation is now at war, and the rules have changed," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Tuesday. Disclosure of information "can literally mean the loss of lives," he said.

Actually, the nation is not at war, though it probably should be. The Constitution envisions such short-circuiting of routine congressional oversight only after the Congress has signed off with a formal war declaration. Thus -- while Congress has indeed authorized funds for the current operations and the requirement for a declaration is widely shrugged off as an anachronism these days -- it's important to recall that by committing armed forces to combat without such a formal declaration of war, the White House has already usurped some measure of congressional discretion, eliminating the constitutional safeguard of a full congressional debate, in public, where difficult questions might be raised about precisely who it is we're at war against, what our war aims are, and so forth.

Some senators are so misguided as to believe the congressional oversight authority amounts to nothing more than an opportunity for cheerleading. ("Sometimes -- Somalia being a recent case in point -- you need the Congress with you to help shore up public support," volunteers Sen. John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee's top Republican, as he pokes about in his hope chest for his pleated skirt and pompoms.)

Others sensibly note that security is a legitimate concern, and that the 525 delegates have never expected to be individually briefed in advance on the details of every covert operation, anyway.

Still, it's not enough to assert that our present administration would never attempt to rule -- or wage war -- by executive fiat, reducing the people's representatives to the role of mere onlookers and cheerleaders, with no practical power to find out what's going on, and then to rein in an overzealous or misguided White House through their control of the purse strings.

Our congressional leaders are right to ask why certain overwrought interests now contend traditional freedoms like the privacy of our e-mails and bank records and our right to travel without showing an "internal passport" (even on a train or a bus!) should now be sacrificed in this "war against terror" -- not only whether such erosions of our liberties are truly necessary to defeat the twisted zealots who committed the murders of Sept. 11, but also whether further excursions down this path will eventually leave us with any freedoms worth defending.

Once such safeguards are abandoned, they can be mighty hard to restore, as the German people discovered in the 1930s and '40s.

It's well to remember that the evening after the Reichstag fire, on Feb. 28, 1933, the aging German president Hindenburg was pressured by Chancellor Hitler into signing an emergency "Decree for the Protection of the People and the State," declaring: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are ... permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Unthinkable that our government would ever tolerate such steps? Isn't President Bush still freezing the funds of more groups and individuals with alleged "terrorist links" ... but without benefit of due process? Isn't the Congress even now considering increased wiretap authority -- in some cases without constitutionally required court warrants? Didn't the White House this week express appreciation for the firm actions of Yasser Arafat's PLO security forces in breaking up pro-bin-Laden demonstrations in Palestine (in order to keep the TV cameras from seeing where the Palestinians really stand) ... beating up more camera crews and killing several demonstrators in the process? Ah, America, that shining beacon of freedom of speech and of the press and of the right to peacefully assemble.

By March 23, back in '33, Hitler had cut a deal with the Catholic Center Party for the 31 non-Nazi votes he needed to pass his Enabling Act, in effect voting democracy out of existence and establishing his legal dictatorship.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures," promised a honey-voiced Herr Hitler. "The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one," Hitler promised, meantime vowing to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

With storm troopers outside, chanting: "Full powers or else! We want the bill ... or fire and murder!" only Otto Wells' 84 Social Democrats stood in opposition, Wells rising to vow, "We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism."

"You are no longer needed," responded an outraged Hitler, rapidly losing his cool as he called for the vote. "The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

The Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, effectively voting itself out of existence, 441-84, whereupon the minority Nazi delegates leapt to their feet and cheered, before breaking into the Hörst Wessel song.

No, America is not yet at that point. But the reason we are not yet at that point is because delegates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (a member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee) are still free to say -- are still willing to shrug off any accusations of "insufficient patriotism" as they say -- "I think it's an overreaction. Certainly members of the Intelligence Committee can be trusted. This is their job. I would urge (the president) to reconsider."

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Islamic Silence
The War on Freedom Marches Ahead
Half-measures in the Klamath Valley
Botach Tactical
A reluctance to embrace real solutions
Soldiers at the Airport
We have a volunteer
Isaac Stern & John Lilly, RIP; Robin Trower, Play That Guitar
Airline Security Today: BOGU
Arm Our Pilots

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair

End the War on Freedom

Security is important, but so is oversight