"The criticism leveled at President Bush's plan to set a new mega organization in charge of internal US security and counterterrorism strikes an odd note. The accusation is that this an attempt by the White House to deflect attention from the failure of the FBI and the CIA to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. That the opposition Democrats will grab at anything to throw at the Bush administration is par for the course in US politics. The Republicans did the same to Bill Clinton. "
Americans have a right to be critical of their government and even change the government leadership. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Constitution, stated "When a government no longer meets the needs of the people, it is the government's responsibility to accept change." Don't mistake opposition for revolution. We may argue amongst ourselves, but when attacked, we unite instantly. The more we are attacked, the more solidly we unite. The fate of our "next" attacker, their sponsors and supporters will illustrate this concept more clearly.
"But it is not just the Democrats who are saying that it is a diversionary tactic. A large slice of the US media have made the same comment following President Bush's Thursday evening announcement on prime time TV. So have several foreign correspondents. The criticism does not add up. Following the disclosure last month that the president had been briefed of possible plans by Osama Bin Laden to hijack some US planes, there has been a growing barrage of claims that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided. Whether that is so will always be one of the great "ifs" of history."
The US media and the Democratic Party are owned and operated by the same people. There are many military tactics that could have been used to eradicate terrorism prior to September 11th. Speaking of "great ifs", IF we had chased the attackers of the USS Cole and their supporters with equal ferocity as we have applied against Al-Qaeda, the terrorists would have been in retreat and the attack on the WTC and Pentagon would have been unlikely. This indicates that our tolerance, diplomacy, and compassion in the past has not always served us well in your hemisphere. More aggressive pursuit of terrorism since the attack has been effective in averting terrorism in the US. That same logic implies that a more ruthless and dedicated pursuit of terrorists, their conspirators and supporters may eradicate terrorism.
What there can be no doubt about is that the CIA, FBI and other organizations involved in US security totally fouled up and, moreover, continued to do so well after Sept. 11. The approval of visa applications from two of the hijackers by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service a full six months after Sept. 11 shows how stunningly disorganized US security can be. President Bush's proposed new security organization addresses an issue that clearly needs to be addressed. It does not divert attention from the failures of the CIA and others. On the contrary, it focuses attention on their incompetence and inability to process information - to "connect the dots", as it is being put in Washington. It is an admission that they are not up to the job. If they were there would be no need for make changes.
There is also the thought that a terrorist located in the US is more easily tracked, monitored for intelligence, and terminated than a terrorist outside the US. "Hold your friends close, and your enemies closer", is how that could be described. A live terrorist may be a source of information which leads to a thousand, a dead terrorist is merely a corpse, or a martyr, depending on perspective.
"The real issue, however, about President Bush's planned new intelligence organization is not the mythical coverup his opponents allege, but how it will affect and change the US. Will it make it a safer place or just a more isolationist? Visitors to the US already face tough new rules introduced by the immigration service. Those rules are going to get even tougher when the new organization takes over responsibility from the more than 100 existing agencies and coordinates everything from border security and to intelligence processing."
To prevent the US from being "isolationist", Saudis should deal with Saudi terrorists at home, rather than allowing us to deal with them here. I'm sure the Defense Department, alone, could end terrorism in a day, but you probably wouldn't like their style. We are trying to do this peacefully. We have thousands of miles of open borders with Mexico and Canada, which are easily crossed by terrorists. To control access to the US, some fundamental policies must change. Having this control in one US Department will eliminate discrepancies.
"For those of us who are not US citizens but who want to go the US for perfectly legitimate reasons - be it business, pleasure, health care, study or whatever - getting in may very well become quite an unpleasant affair especially if one is an Arab or a Muslim. The US Department of Justice's shocking new proposal requiring Muslim and Middle Eastern visa holders to register and be fingerprinted and photographed, and new arrivals to be fingerprinted on entry is evidently part of the new security regime. In fact the plan, which would effect more than 100,000 students, workers, researchers, and tourists from designated Muslim and Arab countries already in the US is, fortunately, unlikely to become law. It is blatantly discriminatory and has drawn condemnation from across the American political landscape."
It is also discriminatory to fly loaded planes into occupied buildings. This has drawn plenty of well deserved condemnation. The majority of these attackers were visa holding Saudis. Americans are also checked out and hand searched at airports, and we are clearly NOT the attackers. That means EVERYBODY gets to pay for the WTC and Pentagon attacks. WE have lost freedoms and the presumption of innocence, so have you. The 100,000 students, workers, researchers and tourists have a right to leave the US at any time. If all of the legitimate Arabs left the US, we would know that the remainder are the terrorists. After they are dealt with appropriately, we could restore everyone's conveniences.
"But the damage has already been done. Coming after 1,200 Arabs and Muslims have been detained without due process of law, another 8,000 who are legal visa holders questioned, and thousands of cases of individual discrimination, this ill-thought out, squalid little proposal, which can do nothing to actually improve US security because real terrorists will not register, serves only convince Arabs and Muslims that the US is targeting them."
Due process of law in the US is granted by the US Constitution. The document only applies to US Citizens. There is a presumption that a visa and an airline ticket can fly you from a religious fundamentalist regime to the land of freedom. That is not correct. We only protect US Citizens. No discrimination to Arabs, this applies to all foreign people. If we did release these detainees, we could be initiating the next terrorist attack. If Arabs dealt with these terrorists effectively at home, we would not have them in custody.
"Washington may deny it but American officialdom now apparently thinks that Muslims and Arabs are genetically predisposed to violence. It will further injure America's image and interests in the Muslim and Arab world. And for what? There is no doubt that America needs to beef up its security and the new organization should help, but at the cost of discrimination and antagonism? Is that the new security ethos that President Bush really wants?"
The assumption that Arabs are predisposed to violence comes from the daily images of the various hijackings and the September 11th attacks. The images of suicide bombers strapping explosives to their bodies and destroying innocent people might allude that Islamists are predisposed to violence.
- Rob Brixey, 402 12th Avenue Hampton IL 61256
