Posted on 03/25/2003 3:55:19 PM PST by TLBSHOW
The Foreign Menace & Civil Liberties (Speech Transcript)
By Joseph J. Sabia
The following is the transcript of a speech I delivered to students at Ithaca High School on Monday, March 24, 2003.
Thank you very much for the invitation to return to Ithaca High School. I last spoke here in 1999, when I was invited to give a lecture on conservative media at Cornell University. I recall that we had a spirited discussion that ended with a girl bursting into tears and screaming at me. So, basically, the experience was like every first date I’ve ever had. But I thank the organizers for inviting me back and giving me another opportunity to enrage you. I hope that my words will embolden those of you who agree with me, change the minds of those of you that disagree with me, and—above all—annoy your liberal teachers and administrators.
Let me start off by saying that some of my remarks today will be critical of our government. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to deliver a speech such as this with our military fighting a war in Iraq. Hence, I want to start of by saying that I am in complete support of our Commander-in-Chief and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most importantly, I am in complete support of the brave men and women in uniform who are fighting to protect and defend my right to be here with you today to criticize my government. God has truly blessed all of us to be living in this great nation.
The public debate over civil liberties in the post-9/11 period is almost universally framed in the following way:
There is a tradeoff between American citizens’ personal liberties and our national security. In order to enhance our national security, we must give up some of our liberties.
This sort of hogwash is being foisted upon us by a politically correct mob of politicians who want to enhance the growth of the federal government over every aspect of our lives. The problem in America is not that we have too much liberty, but that we have too little of it.
As disconcerting as this is, it is nothing new. Big government advocates have spent the last 70 years infringing on our property rights, using the power of government to destroy liberty in the promotion of their collectivist goals. Now, with our country threatened by international terrorism, many in Washington are using the occasion to expand the role of the federal government.
How are the politicians able to get away with the passage of the Patriot Act, the nationalizing of airport security, and the creation of a new, gargantuan federal agency, The Department of Homeland Security? Simple. The vast majority of the American people support all of these policies. These policies make Americans feel safer. They make Americans feel as if their government is doing something—anything—to make them safer. No liberty-loving politician ever gave a credible alternative to the standard “We must tradeoff our liberties to get more security” argument.
Instead, when the Bush Administration proposed these programs, we heard absolutely hysterical claims from America-hating Leftists, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They created crazy cartoon caricatures of John Ashcroft, demonized him as a modern-day SS chief, and claimed that he would go door-to-door, making midnight arrests and torturing people. Not only was this patently false, it was so idiotic that middle America rightly ignored their hysteria.
Patrick Buchanan recently came to Cornell and put the Bush Administration’s alleged infringements on civil liberties in historical perspective. Buchanan reminded his audience that President Lincoln—widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents in our nation’s history—made himself a “virtual dictator” by suspending habeas corpus and blockading the Confederacy, all without even consulting the Congress. When Mr. Lincoln’s dictatorial power was questioned by Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney, Lincoln ordered up arrest papers for him. Lincoln unilaterally and illegally ordered the arrest of Maryland legislators, rather than risk a secession vote going the "wrong" way. Now, whatever you think about President Bush’s actions, at least he has gotten a majority vote in Congress and approval from the Supreme Court for all of his policies.
During World War I, Woodrow Wilson drove through the unconstitutional Espionage and Sedition Acts. He imprisoned socialist political adversary Eugene V. Debbs. During WWII, Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of American citizens of Japanese dissent. During the so-called Camelot period, John Kennedy approved of the illegal monitoring of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
As Pat Buchanan pointed out, all of these incidents are examples of real, horrifying infringements on civil liberty, profound in their scope and breadth. How does John Ashcroft compare to Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and the Kennedy brothers? As Buchanan said, “Ashcroft’s a pussycat next to these fellows.”
The ACLU and extreme Leftists lost their political arguments about the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security for several reasons. Undoubtedly, the chief reason Leftists lost the debate was because they engaged in wild hyperbole.
No one believed their hysteria and no one does today. America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We are not sliding toward Nazism and there is no Gestapo in the streets. We are not the moral equivalent of the Taliban, Hussein’s Iraqi regime, or the evil Soviet Union. Hence, no arguments that rest on this sort of idiocy is going to fly with any thinking American.
A few examples: There has been absolute hysteria over the treatment of captured al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. Nadine Strossen, the president of the ACLU, whined about how the savages down there have been denied lawyers, fair trials, and so forth. This is hogwash. First, the prisoners in Quantanamo Bay are not Prisoners of War. They were not enemy combatants who engaged our soldiers in the battlefield, our airmen in the air, and our naval officers at sea. They were part of a terrorist organization that engaged in a criminal conspiracy to murder innocent American civilians. They have no rights under the Geneva Convention. In fact, under Geneva, they can be shot. Personally, I think we should have shot them. But we decided to give them more privileges than they deserve. And, let me point out, Abdul and Mohammed are living in far better conditions in Guantanamo Bay than they were in Osama’s caves.
As for these secret military tribunals, again, this is more than they deserve. But aside from that, military tribunals are Constitutional. The precedent was set in 1942. Here’s a bit of history:
Prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the German government was violently angered by the United States’ furnishing of war supplies to Great Britain. In response, the Nazi high command—and most likely Adolf Hitler himself—determined that sabotage would be the most effective method to retard the American armaments industry. Following Germany’s declaration of war on the U.S., Lieutenant Walter Kappe was tapped to train terrorists near Berlin. Kappe was an ideal choice as he was a former resident of the United States, an active member of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund, and a former official at the fascist Ausland Institute. Kappe’s students were Germans who had left America to return to their homeland.
According to FBI intelligence, Kappe trained the saboteurs in “chemistry, incendiaries, explosives, timing devices, secret writing, and concealment of identity by blending into an American background.” They were taken to German industrial plants and railways where they were taught the best methods of sabotage.
In May 1942, eight Nazi terrorists were sent to cripple America from within. Fortunately, one of the Nazis, either out of fear or regret—turned himself in to the American government before the terrorist attacks could be undertaken. After some racial profiling of German-American Long Islanders, the rest of the terrorists were rounded up and arrested.
What would America do with captured terrorists? President Roosevelt was clear and decisive—no jury trial. Instead, he ordered a secret military tribunal to judge their guilt. In a memo to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt stated that he wanted the Germans put to death. He got his wish…but not before the Supreme Court had its say. In an 8-0 decision by the Court in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), Chief Justice Harlan Stone wrote for the court:
"We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury."
Hence, contrary to Leftist whining, secret military tribunals for terrorists are Constitutional. Suggesting that these type of proceedings are unprecedented or unfounded is a lie. Furthermore, consider the consequences of having public trials for suspected al Qaeda terrorists. In all likelihood, one of the chief reasons that we captured them was because we have someone on the inside ratting them out—just as we had Iraqis ratting out Saddam Hussein. Are we going to go in open court to reveal our intelligence sources and endanger our nation’s security? Of course not, that’s preposterous.
Leftists have also been screaming about racial profiling as if it were the rough equivalent of child molestation. That’s absurd. When you have limited government resources, you have to assess the threat in an efficient way. If you are waiting in line at an airport and there are three people—an 80-year old black woman with her grandkids, a 14-year old Irish kid with red hair and freckles, and a 25-year old Middle Eastern male speaking Arabic, are you going to throw common sense to the wind and assume that they all have an equal probability of blowing up the plane? Come on, it’s crazy. If an international conspiracy consisting of white, Catholic, conservatives with great hair start blowing up buildings, they can profile me too.
So, the main reason why Leftists lost the political arguments over the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act was because they engaged in hyperbole and hysteria, ignoring the facts and the evidence. Leftists also lost the argument because they never advocated a response to the government’s failures in preventing the 9/11 attacks. Our Constitution states:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence.“
While Leftists find imaginary Constitutional clauses regarding the rights to abortion, welfare, and education, they ignore clauses that are actually written, such as the obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense. On September 11th, we had a breakdown in the government’s provision of national defense. Now, we can’t and ought not cry over spilled milk, but we ought to find out what went wrong and correct it.
One of the things we did wrong was not to confront evil in the world with overwhelming military force. During the Clinton Years and the first part of the Bush Years, we appeased, signed meaningless treaties with, and ignored this nation’s enemies. Since 9/11, we have rectified this. We overthrew the Taliban. We have splintered al Qaeda into a million pieces. We are disarming Iraq and liberating the Iraqi people. And soon, will soon pursue the Red Menace in Korea.
But there is a problem that our politicians have not yet touched. And it is the real issue that is in the shadows of this discussion about personal liberties and national security. We should not be having a debate about American citizens giving up our liberties to enhance our national security. Rather, we should be talking about a true crisis in America—the crisis caused by the immigration of illegal aliens.
Let me quote the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, who has been one of the foremost advocates of radically changing immigration law:
“The terrorism threat is from illegal aliens who are allowed to live in our midst—and this is a failure of our immigration laws and our immigration officials.”
FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted at Congressional hearings that many of the 9/11 hijackers were “out of status.” This means that they had no proper immigration documents. What were these foreigners doing here and why did we allow them in the country? No one in our federal government has ever been held accountable for this. To date, our representatives have taken no action to prevent foreign terrorists from coming into our country in the future.
The history is well documented. The criminals involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1993 CIA Headquarters murders, and the 1998 plot to bomb New York’s subway system were all Middle Eastern aliens who were granted visas that should have never been issued or were on visas that had expired. It is also well known that the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen were carried out by Middle Eastern terrorists.
How is it possible that our nation has reacted to these acts of terrorism by aliens by restricting the rights of American citizens? The source of the problem is lax immigration. According to data provided by the State Department, the United States issues 250,000 visas per year to aliens from the Middle East, which includes states that sponsor terrorism—Iraq, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. In fact, prior to October 31, 2001, State Department regulations stated that neither “mere membership” in a terrorist organization nor “advocacy of terrorism” would result in the denial of a visa!
Conservative estimates by the Census Bureau indicate that we have over eight million illegal aliens running around this country today. Others suggest that the real figure is somewhere closer to 12 million. Some entered illegally and have stayed around so long that no one is looking for them. Others entered legally via, say, student visas, and have remained in this country after their expirations. During the 1990s, an average of 500,000 illegals per year have been flooding in.
As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, “A nation without borders is not a nation.”
Our laws must make a distinction between American citizens and aliens. Aliens are here at American citizens’ pleasure. And as American citizens, it is time that we rise up and say that enough is enough.
While it is true that not all aliens are terrorists, it is true that almost all terrorists are aliens. We must cut out the cancer until the war on terrorism is won.
What sort of immigration reform should be undertaken to enhance our national security? Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado has been a leading advocate of a massive overhaul in immigration law, calling for a one-year moratorium on legal immigration. Senator Kid Bond of Missouri has called on a program of national identification cards for aliens, whose every move will be tracked by government officials.
These reforms are a good start, but just a start. We ought to ban all immigration from many of the countries on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. This ban should hold until these states no longer sponsor terrorism. Furthermore, we ought to unleash our justice department to round up the millions of illegal aliens and expel them immediately. We ought to also expel all those immigrants here legally from states that sponsor terrorism.
Phyllis Schlafly has suggested that we refuse to let any Saudi Arabian airplane land in this country “unless it provides our immigration and customs officials in advance with the names and passport numbers of its passengers.” I would agree with this assessment and expand it to all foreign airlines carrying passengers from the Middle East. She also suggests that we (1) have a moratorium on the issuance of H1-B visas and (2) cut off all federal funding to colleges and universities that offer free tuition, student loans, or in-state tuition rates to aliens. These are all common sense reforms that are constitutional, do not restrict American citizens’ liberty, and will actually make us safer from the threat of foreign terrorist attack.
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States…shall protect each of the States against invasion.” Well, the invasion is on and it is no longer just from the millions of illegal Mexican nationals flooding over our southern border. It is from Middle Eastern terrorists entering via our airports and over our northern border. Our friends to the north in Soviet Canukistan have even more liberal immigration laws than we do and their policies have made it even more dangerous for Americans in the war on terror.
Why are our representatives unwilling to take the steps necessary to end illegal immigration, deport illegals in this country, and bring some common sense to our current immigration law? They are scared to death of being labeled racists, xenophobes, jingoists, and so forth. Whenever anyone in this country demands that we get tougher on illegal immigrants and curb legal immigration, the response from the open borders crowd is always the same: “You’re an evil racist.” That is not an argument. Neither is “This country was built by immigrants.” The fact that Western European immigrants fleeing religious oppression built America does not imply that Middle Eastern terrorists advocating religious oppression would be good for America.
Unfortunately, the fear of being called a “racist” or a “xenophobe” has paralyzed many Americans. And this paralysis is going to get us all killed. In fact, in my mind, it has already gotten 3000 Americans killed. Let me tell you a story, reported by ABC News in June 2002.
Johnelle Bryant—a loan manager at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s farm service agency—had a meeting with a Middle Eastern man just 16 months prior to the September 11th attacks. The man came to Bryant’s office to apply for a $650,000 loan for a crop-duster.
According to Bryant, as their meeting progressed, the Middle Eastern male noticed a locked safe behind her desk. “He asked me what would prevent him from going behind my desk and cutting my throat and making off with the millions of dollars in that safe.”
Next, the man became entranced by an aerial photo of Washington that was hanging on Bryant’s wall. The Pentagon and White House particularly mesmerized him. “He pulled out a wad of cash and started throwing money on my desk. He wanted that picture really bad…[When I refused to sell it to him], he said ‘How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it?’”
The man then mentioned al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, saying that bin Laden would “someday be the world’s greatest leader.”
Finally, the man asked about visiting the World Trade Center and inquired as to the security there.
In response to all of these horrific statements made by the Middle Eastern man, Johnelle Bryant did nothing. She didn’t tell her supervisor. She didn’t call the FBI. She didn’t even write a memo. Less than a year and a half later, we all felt the results of her fateful decision. The Middle Eastern man, as we know now, was 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta.
It looks like Bryant was given a clear picture that this Atta guy was a pretty evil dude. Why didn’t she pick up a phone to tell anyone that some guy was making comments about slitting her throat and blowing up Washington monuments?
Bryant says that she asks herself that question all the time, but has not come up with an answer. Well, I have an answer—she did not tell anyone about it because Atta was a racial minority and an immigrant. She did not want to be accused of racism.
Mohammed Atta and the rest of his hijacking ring had no business in this country. They took advantage of the United States’ lax immigration laws, knowing that a bunch of “useful idiots” here would accuse those who seek reform of xenophobia.
American citizens must never give up our liberty for security. Rather, we must go after the foreign menace—those aliens who pose a clear and present danger to our national security. Law abiding citizens should not be losing our freedoms when foreign terrorists are committing the crimes. American citizens ought to demand that our representatives allocate taxpayers’ dollars a way that (1) preserves citizens’ personal liberties and (2) enhances our national security.
Hence, the way this entire debate has been framed, i.e. “Do citizens have to give up more liberties to enhance national security?” is fundamentally flawed. The real question should be:
“Since American citizens and aliens are fundamentally different entities under U.S. law, should aliens’ privileges be curtailed to enhance national security?”
And the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.