Sneak attack

By Lady Liberty
web posted December 20, 2004 

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in
Hawaii. 2,388 people -- mostly military personnel, but including
civilian men, women, and children -- died. At the same time, the
American Pacific Fleet lost much of its capabilities. President
Franklin Roosevelt, speaking on the airwaves to a shocked
nation, called December 7 a day that would live in infamy and
subsequently set into motion US involvement in World War II.

There are some who say that Roosevelt knew about the attack in
advance and that he let it happen so as to have an inarguable
reason for getting into a war the American public was none too
keen on joining at the time. Perhaps that's just a conspiracy
theory; perhaps it's true. Either way, the public at large was
appalled first by the attack, and then by the discoveries of what
was really happening behind the gates of Adolf Hitler's
concentration camps.

The troops and the American public alike were rallied with
music, posters, movies, and speeches appealing to a patriotic
love for freedom, and the American public responded. Young
men signed up for military service in droves. Women took on a
variety of jobs, many of which were traditionally male provinces,
so that more men could be freed for fighting. All were urged to
help in the war effort by limiting their use of certain products like
those items made with rubber (ask me sometime about my
mother's stories of underwear without elastic) or nylon. No
sacrifice was too great because everyone believed that the
stakes were high and that they were facing the potential loss of
liberty under the boot of tyranny.

Fast forward some 63 years to today, and look at your calendar
for December of 2004. On December 7, you'll see that most
calendars take note of the Pearl Harbor attack which is still
remembered with surprising freshness by many Americans.
That's why I found it especially ironic -- and more than a little
painful -- that Americans were subjected to another sneak attack
on freedom on that very anniversary. December 7, 2004 marks
the moment when the House of Representatives passed
legislation to provide for intelligence reform. The vote tallies were
overwhelming. A day later, and by an even more lopsided
margin, the Senate did the same.

The intelligence bill is just the latest fall-out resulting from the
9/11 attacks. Literally within days of the terrorist attacks in New
York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, another lengthy piece of
legislation was rushed through Congress. Referenced by a
singularly inappropriate acronym, the USA PATRIOT Act was
heralded as necessary for law enforcement to prevent further
attacks on American soil. The PATRIOT Act has been the
subject of controversy ever since, with civil liberties advocates
claiming it infringes mightily on American freedoms, and even
members of Congress scrambling to defend their votes or to talk
of reforms for various provisions of the Act. Of course,
defending affirmative votes for the measure are limited to
rationalizations of general notions rather than specifics. That's
because the text of the USA PATRIOT Act wasn't available to
members of Congress before they voted on it.

At the time, the authorities said that we had to do something right
away to prevent more terrorist attacks, and their conveyed sense
of urgency in combination with the veiled accusations that anyone
voting against the PATRIOT Act wasn't patriotic served to force
some votes. Members of Congress were also promised that the
PATRIOT Act would never be used for anything but terrorist
tracking and prosecution. Of course, that's since turned out to be
untrue with PATRIOT Act-related prosecutions ranging from
suspected drug dealers to embezzlers. (There are those who
believe that the ability of the Department of Justice to put
together such a comprehensive measure in such a short period of
time meant that those measures had long been on a federal
prosecutors' "wish list." They allege that the situation following
9/11 merely presented an opportunity to see those wishes
granted. Although I'm not completely convinced that's the case,
I'll admit I lean that direction myself).

Even some of those matters that could be argued as being
legitimate under the original anti-terrorism explanations of the
PATRIOT Act are problematic for the federal government. An
Oregon lawyer, accused of participating in the train bombings in
Madrid after investigators claimed his fingerprints had been
found on evidence there was reluctantly released after Spanish
authorities conclusively showed the fingerprints belonged to an
Algerian man instead; an Idaho webmaster was acquitted by a
jury who, despite government accusations to the contrary, didn't
believe he should be held responsible for web site content for
which he'd had no responsibility whatsoever.

Hundreds of municipalities and counties, along with four state
legislatures, have passed resolutions in protest of the law that
range from pleas to Congress to review the PATRIOT Act to
outright refusals to participate in any local PATRIOT Act-based
investigations. But these things are all well after the fact and
represent what's likely to be an uphill battle as the Department of
Justice and the Bush administration continue to defend the
PATRIOT Act and all of the powers it gives.

Still, one positive result of the ongoing controversy surrounding
the USA PATRIOT Act seemed to be the demise of the so-
called PATRIOT II legislation. Apparently not satisfied with the
inroads against the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments
made by the PATRIOT Act itself, the Department of Justice
wanted still more powers to aid in its battles in the War on
Terrorism. Although accusations were later made that provisions
from PATRIOT II were being stealthily added piecemeal to
other bills making their way through the legislative process, much
of the original legislation seemed to have been largely dismantled.
But, as your grandmother might have said, there's more than one
way to skin a cat.

Perhaps it felt stung by the criticism surrounding the USA
PATRIOT Act and its hurried rush to passage and
implementation. More likely, it was simply doing what it thought
would appease public concern. Whatever its reasons, the
administration appointed a Commission to investigate the 9/11
attacks. Primary among the questions to be answered were such
as: Why didn't we know this would happen? Who was at fault
for us not knowing? How can we best make sure we never fail
to know such things again? The 9/11 Commission's report made
a number of suggestions for improvements in intelligence
gathering and dissemination as well as offered ideas for the
interdiction of terrorism within the US. That report ostensibly
formed the basis for the intelligence bill recently passed on
December 7 and 8.

Unfortunately, while it does supposedly address what I
personally think are some issues that did require reform
(communications between at least 14 intelligence agencies, along
with requirements for the review and oversight of the privacy
impact of various programs -- though the latter is suspect as to
any real teeth or even motivation behind it), the legislation also
allegedly contains some extraordinarily anti-freedom measures.
Some of those are said to include the implementation of a de
facto national ID card, rumored measures for widespread and
inclusive Internet surveillance, the effective repeal of prohibitions
to the CIA of spying on Americans in America, and broad
opportunities for abuse by authorities. Further, at least one
politician (Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin) has been on record as
opposing the bill as is because he believes it doesn't address
immigration issues adequately, a matter which many believe is
central to protecting us against another terrorist attack.

You, the astute reader, will doubtless note that I've used such
"weasel" words in the paragraph above as "supposedly,"
"rumored," "allegedly," and "said to." There's a reason for those
"weasel" words, and that reason is this: Once again, Congress
has voted under pressure from the administration on an extensive
bill (I've seen Internet reports that claim the bill is comprised of
anywhere from 600 to 3,000 pages) with even more extensive
implications, and which was not made available to them to
review beforehand!

Do I blame the administration for forcing the issue? Sure. Do I
find fault with the people who wrote this legislation? From what I
know of its likely content, you bet I do. But our supposed
protectors from bad legislation -- the men and women who vote
on it -- are the real villains here. It's one thing to disagree with
what bad legislation might be (there are some in Congress who, I
suspect, favor anything that gets the government more involved
than it should be in citizens' lives and pocketbooks); it's another
entirely to take note of the utter and complete abrogation of
responsibility involved when a Representative or Senator votes
on a bill he or she hasn't read and considered carefully and with
the gravity that is its due.

The votes held on December 7 and 8 were a sneak attack on
American liberty in more ways than one. It seems we don't know
much of what is contained in this new legislation shortly to
become law; it's also readily apparent that those concerns have
no meaning for the many who are glossing over specificities by
calling this bill "necessary to fight the War on Terrorism," a
phrase that's sounding more hollow with every passing day even
as it's becoming more familiar with every passing bill.

December 7, 1941 heralded the beginning of a battle against
forces in Japan, Germany, and Italy that would have established
tyranny across as much of the world as they could conquer.
September 11, 2001 marked an attack that's been compared
any number of times to the one on Pearl Harbor in its shock,
horrific death toll, and impetus to war. But though the declaration
of war resulting from the more recent attack was ostensibly to
fight against terrorism, it seems to me that there's also an ongoing
war in this country between those who value freedom above all
else, and those willing to trade it in any quantity for any
semblance of security, however ephemeral it may be.

For all of the similarities between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11
there's one ironic dissimilarity that stands taller than the World
Trade Center Towers ever did: World War II was fought for
freedom. Our current fight is one in which freedom may prove to
be the ultimate casualty.

Lady Liberty is a graphic designer and pro-freedom activist
currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other
political and educational information is available on her web site,
Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House, at
http://www.ladylibrty.com. E-mail Lady Liberty at
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com