|
There
is No War On Terror
June 19, 2002
By Adrian Johansson
As each day seems to bring a new reason to be afraid of the
threats this country is facing, I forced myself to stop and
think objectively about what is happening to our nation and
our way of life. No I am not talking about terrorist threats,
suicide bombers, box cutter-wielding "Islamists" or dirty
bomb plots that somebody might be thinking about possibly
looking into planning. No, I am talking about the perceived
loss of rights (civil and human) that we all should fear,
if just a little bit.
First off, I am a Democrat, and a proud one at that. I would
have voted for Bill Clinton for a third term if at all possible,
so this tells the freepers to go ahead and stop reading if
you don't believe that I can be at all objective. What has
gotten me thinking about where we are headed, is that my first
child was born in December, and I don't want her to have to
live in a nation that fears terrorism, but I also don't want
her to live under a dictatorship or a government that tramples
upon the basic civil and human rights that we were once guaranteed.
The thought process begins, in my case, on September 11th,
2001. I, along with the rest of he world, watched in horror
at what was happening, not really able to accept it as real
as the scale of the devastation was so immense. In the following
days, Numbness turned to anger, and I found myself actually
respecting the words and actions coming from our president.
I felt that we needed to act swiftly and decisively, America
needed to strike out at the terrorist network(s) behind the
attacks on our country.
We began to see some wavering on the Bush Doctrine though.
We weren't hearing about swift and decisive anymore, we were
hearing words like "protracted" and "indefinite" when the
administration was polled on the projections of how long the
American people could expect our soldiers, sailors and airmen
to be in harm's way.
But, still in the short term aftermath of 9/11, the American
people gave the administration some leeway, because it seemed
to be the right thing to do. Eventually, the administration
decided that our military (The military that we were told
was "decimated" by the Clinton administration) was ready to
go into Afghanistan to root out the "evildoers". We sent our
troops into the mountains and caves where the Taliban and
Al Qaeda we known to be hiding. We captured the enemy troops
and their sympathizers, we blew up the caves that were used
as safe havens and kept on the trail of bin laden and his
band of thugs.
The combatants that we captured were taken into custody in
an Afghan prison and questioned and debriefed. We packed up
the ones who seemed to be most valuable in terms of information,
and sent them to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There they were treated
not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, because the
administration said that it didn't apply, but were locked
in cages and questioned with no rights to counsel or against
self-incrimination.
At the same time, hundreds of "material witnesses" were being
rounded up and confined, with no contact to the outside world,
all in the name of national security. Public perceptions started
to change, somewhat, and people started to ask questions.
In response to these questions, the administration marched
out Attorney General Ashcroft, his job was to remind people
that as Americans it was our patriotic duty to keep quiet
and support the "war" effort, to do otherwise could be construed
as unpatriotic.
Nine months hence, we still haven't captured bin Laden or
Mullah Omar (the main objectives in the early days of the
War On Terror). We haven't yet shut down Al Qaeda, either,
if the constant warnings from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security
and Attorney General are any indication. These warnings, usually
unsubstantiated and conflicting with one another (depending
on the agency releasing them) seem be nothing more that a
rallying cry whenever tough questions about the administrations
handling of pre-9/11 warnings, foreign policy or domestic
issues.
A report was starting to gain momentum last week that the
White House staff was being given Cipro (the anthrax battling
antibiotic) in September of last year, even before the first
anthrax letter was even sent. This was last Monday morning,
and immediately thereafter, Ashcroft held a press conference
form Moscow, of all places, to tell us that the FBI had arrested
a terrorist operative (in May, mind you) that was planning
to use a so called "dirty bomb" in Washington DC.
The next day we heard that Ashcroft had overstated the progress
that the dirty bomber had made, and he was only suspected
of being in the very early, preliminary stages of plotting
the possible use of some sort of dirty bomb, and had not acquired
any materials to do so, and made no plans. But the FBI and
Attorney General felt that he was at least thinking about
doing it.
Ashcroft simply had him labeled as an "enemy combatant" and
shipped him off to Charleston Navy Yard to be put into the
brig, indefinitely. I am by no means defending Mr. Padilla
-- he certainly doesn't sound like a very savory character
-- but if the thought of being able to lock people up, without
trial, indefinitely, does not scare this country into questioning
what our "elected" government is doing to its citizens, then
we may as well all plan on giving up all of our rights.
How does the government keep this up? How can they get away
with violating the rights of those that should be considered
innocent until proven guilty? In a word -- patriotism. The
administration has done its best to whip the nation into a
patriotic frenzy to get us behind the "war effort."
Let us not fool ourselves, there is no War On Terror. The
administration is going after the evildoers in a half-hearted,
half-assed manner. The president and his administration have
told us that they "Don't govern by polls" -- I say they are
poll junkies. Every perceived threat that the president stares
down, every "terrorist" that he arrests keeps up the numbers
and keeps him happy.
Karl Rove has suggested that the GOP use the war as a campaign
issue, and use it they are. They wave flags, talk about Homeland
Security, and ominously warn that "you are either with us
or against us." For a student of history, this is a wonderful
way to see what it would have been like if World War II had
ended differently.
In the end, after trying to think objectively about the state
of the nation, I realize that, as a Democrat, I was being
objective all along -- the current administration, if left
unchecked, will destroy the way of life that we have come
to enjoy for generations and generations. I fear for my daughter
and the country that she has to look forward to growing up
in.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to
whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism
is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood,
just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have
reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the
rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with
fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their
rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this
is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar.
Adrian Johansson is a Democrat living in Republican-occupied
Florida.
|
