November 14th, 2002
<br />
Oppose the New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!<br />
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
November 14, 2002
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably,
unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of
authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people
morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense
government “benevolence” in the United States has brought us to the
brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas.
And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash
consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are
unlimited and the benefits negligible.
Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could prove so
destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally could ignite a
worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War III. Nuclear exchanges are
perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle
east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S.
had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry
out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally,
the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result.
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving
few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified
Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is
long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free
elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this
miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.
More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what
anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two
extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best.
There are numerous other possible consequences. Here are a few worth
contemplating:
No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a
spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens
anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation
and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator.
Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming
Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade,
the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the
U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered
from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this
same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training
dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the
training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s
for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S.
“allies.”
Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the
regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed
age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures
and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown
by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea
regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as
well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s
favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to
secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the
region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire
world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance
the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.
The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of
an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks
and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will
precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering
Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will
not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply
concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to
America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed
Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a
while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our
inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second
thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All
of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the
Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil
strife erupting in Turkey.
Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once
the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our
placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the
Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but
nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of
the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to
destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more
stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If
elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and
his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with
military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by
rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.
In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to
move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from
Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or
Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle
against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir
dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems
the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far
exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq
may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first
strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.
Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and
settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s
possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to
intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli
homeland.
If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not
deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution
condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject
to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the
court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry
from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting
neutrality and friendship with all nations.
Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause Saddam
Hussein to use any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don’t
attack him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our own
soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could cause a wave
of well-placed snipers around the United States.
It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from
Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our
government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create
an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not
completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from
an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than
anyone wants to imagine.
Anti Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we
launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and
Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s
“King of the Hill” must be brought down will escalate, especially if
the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.
Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war breaks out.
Membership is already pervasive throughout the world without any centralized
control. We should expect this to continue, with an explosion in membership and
a negative impact around the world. Our attack will confirm to the doubters that
bin Laden was right in assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern
resources and dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel
over the Palestinians.
Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a
costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It
does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much
worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase,
inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices
will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further.
Already we’re hearing demands for a military draft to be instituted for
both men and women. I see that coming, and it will serve as another source of
domestic friction as our economy deteriorates and unemployment rises. Under
these conditions the standard of living for all Americans is destined to go
down.
This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a
Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily
usher in a “regime change” here in the United States. The conditions
may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition
party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal
agenda and socialize the entire economy.
The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming war, will
be that the people of the United States will be less free and much poorer. The
bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
November 14th, 2002
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of “Total Information Awareness.” According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year.
New York Times, Nov. 14, 2002
“YOU ARE A SUSPECT”
(By William Safire)
Washington–If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend–all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as “a virtual, centralized grand database.”
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you–passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance–and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a “Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen.
This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.
Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.
A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, “The buck stops here,” arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.
This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the “Information Awareness Office” in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the “data-mining” power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.
He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic “stovepiping.” And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.
When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person’s medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.
This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O’Harrow of The Washington Post have revealed the extent of Poindexter’s operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.
Political awareness can overcome “Total Information Awareness,” the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.
The Latin motto over Poindexter’s new Pentagon office reads “Scientia Est Potentia” “knowledge is power.” Exactly: the government’s infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. “We’re just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy,” this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
November 13th, 2002
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, known in Washington for his unyielding opposition to big government, was honored yesterday for his defense of civil liberties during the 107th Congress. Paul won the prestigious Thomas S. Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, which is presented annually to individuals who champion the cause of the individual against the growing abusive power of the state. Paul was chosen in particular for his outspoken resistance to the Patriot Act, which grants the federal government unprecedented surveillance powers over American citizens.
An award reception was held at the Cato Foundation, where Paul spoke before an audience of libertarian and conservative activists. Paul described the careless passage of the Patriot Act, the lengthy text of which was never read by the vast majority of Congress. Paul stressed that the unconstitutional police powers granted by the Act had been sought by law enforcement long before the events of September 11th, and that Congress had surrendered far too much authority to the executive branch.
Thomas Szasz is the preeminent defender of individual rights in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Throughout his lengthy career he has remained a steadfast champion of the classical liberal values of voluntary interaction, the rule of law, and an open society. His struggle on behalf of civil liberties has been sustained over a lifetime of brilliant intellectual accomplishment.
“Congressman Paul has been a tireless defender of individual freedom in all spheres during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives,” stated a spokesman for Szasz’s Center for Independent Thought. “While his emphasis has been on economic freedom, such as cutting taxes and promoting a market-based monetary system, he also has battled on behalf of personal privacy and civil liberties. Paul deserves praise for insisting that the prevention of terrorism must not be turned into an excuse for limiting liberty.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
November 13th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, when the process of creating a Department of Homeland Security commenced, Congress was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew from 32 pages to 282 pages- and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion. Now we are prepared to vote on a nearly 500-page bill that increases federal expenditures and raises troubling civil liberties questions. Adding insult to injury, this bill was put together late last night and introduced only this morning. Worst of all, the text of the bill has not been made readily available to most members, meaning this Congress is prepared to create a massive new federal agency without even knowing the details. This is a dangerous and irresponsible practice.
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. However, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed Department of Defense in 1945- two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created that new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedevil the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was passed to deal with problems steaming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.
HR 5710 grants major new powers to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by granting HHS the authority to “administer” the smallpox vaccine to members of the public if the Department unilaterally determines that there is a public health threat posed by smallpox. HHS would not even have to demonstrate an actual threat of a smallpox attack, merely the “potential” of an attack. Thus, this bill grants federal agents the authority to force millions of Americans to be injected with a potentially lethal vaccine based on nothing more than a theoretical potential smallpox incident. Furthermore, this provision continues to restrict access to the smallpox vaccine from those who have made a voluntary choice to accept the risk of the vaccine in order to protect themselves from smallpox. It is hard to think of a more blatant violation of liberty than allowing government officials to force people to receive potentially dangerous vaccines based on hypothetical risks.
While this provision appears to be based on similar provisions granting broad mandatory vaccination and quarantine powers to governors from the controversial “Model Health Emergency Powers Act,” this provision has not been considered by the House. Instead, this provision seems to have been snuck into the bill at the last minute. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, before Congress grants HHS such sweeping powers, we should have an open debate instead of burying the authorization in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a 484 page bill!
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.
Mr. Speaker, HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts: