Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff

Released: September 15, 1998

Fanning the Flames of Terrorism
Clinton’s “Anti-Terrorist Policy” Should Target Governments Not Individuals
By Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Lewis

     The recent attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a bloody reminder of the threat posed by terrorists. Almost all commentators and politicians hailed America’s swift response as a positive step. In fact, however, Clinton’s assault on Osama bin Laden will only encourage the terrorists.
     In recent years, America’s reaction to terrorist acts has been a mixture of cowardly compromise and empty legalistic threats. In the two months prior to the embassy attacks alone, the Clinton Administration made three outstanding concessions. It capitulated to Libya, promising to drop all UN sanctions if it releases the prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. It closed the investigation into TWA 800, leaving forever unresolved the cause of the disaster. It emasculated the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, because evidence emerged linking the bombing to Iran, whose regime Clinton is now courting.
     By promising only trials and international courts, Clinton has made a mockery of the atrocities. Terrorists have no respect for the rule of law; that is why they are called “terrorists.” Administration officials repeatedly assert that we are engaged in a “war against terrorism.” True — and wars are not fought or won in a courtroom.
     The attacks on Osama bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were lauded by many as a welcome change from years of this legalistic claptrap. However, the attacks were deliberately toothless. Clinton aimed at a few peripheral installations, while proudly proclaiming his commitment that no “innocent” working a night shift in the Sudan would die. There are no innocents in a war — and certainly none in a chemical weapons facility. The clear implication is that saving terrorist agents is more important to the President than protecting Americans who will be killed by their weapons. In essence, Clinton has declared “open season” on Americans.
     Most important, Clinton’s attacks diverted attention from the real agents of terrorism. In blaming and targeting a single individual — in insisting that an isolated maniac was responsible and lying to deny that man’s proven connections with Middle East governments — Clinton exonerated all terrorist-sponsoring regimes, including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and others. It is not merely that Clinton wanted to avoid offending the Afghani Taliban and the Sudanese government. He wanted to avoid offending any governments involved in terrorism, despite their proven function as protector and sanctioner of the killers. The result: he showed each and every one of these governments that they are safe to sponsor as many bin Ladens as they want.
     Terrorism is a form of war. Evil men such as bin Laden cannot wage it alone. Although bin Laden certainly deserves to die, his capacity to kill and maim is made possible only by the governments that shelter his kind. Only governments have the power to protect terrorists, sponsor or wink at their training camps, and provide or applaud their weapons, transport and all the other support necessary to enter and exit their target countries. Targeting the individual killer leaves the real mass murderer — the terrorist-loving government — unpunished, secure in the knowledge that their victim is too cowardly to retaliate in kind.
     The inevitable result of this policy is exactly what bin Laden has promised: a continuing war against Americans. The bombing of an American restaurant in South Africa a few days later was only the beginning. From Teheran to Tripoli, the governmental sponsors of terrorism will continue to protect the bin Ladens of this world until and unless they are shown that they themselves will suffer massively for doing so.
     The only way to end terrorism is through a policy of real military strikes against the aggressors. If, as the Clinton Administration tells us repeatedly, we are engaged in a war, then let us see a war, fought not with words, but with the full, untrammeled power of our military, including, as and when necessary, the use of our most potent and destructive weapons against the seat of the governments involved.
     The only alternative is the continued slaughter of Americans by terrorist bombs ignited by the cowardice of American policy-makers.

Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. http://www.aynrand.org

Released: September 12, 2001

Fifty Years of Appeasement Led to Black Tuesday
By Leonard Peikoff Download an image of this author for print publication.)-->

       Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the United States. The inevitable climax was the tens of thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001—the blackest day in our history, so far. The Palestinians, among others, responded by dancing in the streets and handing out candy.
       Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.
       This capitulation was not practical, but philosophical. The Arab dictators were denouncing the wealthy egoistic West. They were crying that the masses of their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew all this by means of ineffable or otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer aloud that Americans, rightfully, were motivated by the selfish desire to pursue personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
       The Arabs embodied in extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities and churches, and our own political Establishment, had long been preaching as the essence of virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent wins.
       After property came liberty. The Iranian dictator Khomeini threatened with death a British author—and with destruction his American publisher—if they exercised their right to free speech. He explained that the book in question offended the religion of his people. The Bush Administration looked the other way.
       After liberty came American life itself—as in Iran's support of the massacre of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the Afghanistan-based assault on our embassies in East Africa. Again, the American response was unbridled appeasement: a Realpolitikisch desire not to "jeopardize relations" with the aggressor country, covered up by a purely rhetorical vow to punish the guilty, along with an occasional pretend bombing. By now, the world knows that we are indeed a paper tiger.
       We have not only appeased terrorists, we have actively created them. The Reagan Administration—holding that Islamic fundamentalists were our ideological allies in the fight against the atheistic Soviets—poured money and expertise into Afghanistan to create an ever-growing band of terrorists recruited from all over the Mideast. Most of these terrorists knew what to do with their American training; their goal was not to save Afghanistan.
       The final guarantee of American impotence is the bipartisan proclamation that a terrorist is an individual alone responsible for his actions, and that "we must try each before a court of law." This is tantamount, while under a Nazi aerial bombardment, to seeking out and trying the pilots involved while ignoring Hitler and Germany.
       Terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of the governments behind them. Their lethal behavior is that of the regimes that make them possible. Their killings are not crimes, but acts of war. The only proper response to such acts is war in self-defense.
       We do not need more evidence to "pinpoint" the perpetrators of any one of these atrocities, including the latest and most egregious—we already have total certainty with regard to the governments primarily responsible for the repeated slaughter of Americans in recent years. We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire. We must wipe out the terrorist training camps or sanctuaries, and eliminate any retaliatory military capability—and thereby terrorize and paralyze all the tyrannies watching, who will now know what is in store for them if they choose in any form to attack the United States. That will be the end of the terrorists.
       Our missiles and occupation troops, however, will be effective only if they are preceded by our President's morally righteous statement that we intend hereafter to defend by every means possible each American's right to his property, his liberty, and his secure enjoyment of life here on earth.
       To those who oppose war, I ask: If not now, when? How many more corpses are necessary before this country should take action?
       The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. President Bush must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who seek to kill them.

Leonard Peikoff is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.     Send Feedback

Yours, you must admit, is a bizarre view. Rights are natural if they exits in absence of any legislation, that has nothing to do with naturalness of the underlying conduct. Besides, even animals have string territorial instincts, so real property rights apply to a naturally occurring behavior. That is probably too long a tangent.

Territorial "rights" are not the same thing as ownership. Yes, animals defend territory but territory is temporary in nature. I don't find my views all that bizarre. They are shared by every native American tribe and virtually all tribal peoples around the world and are not in conflict with libertarian views in my opinion. The libertarian view is founded on one principle: The recognition that the initiation of aggression is wrong.

As I noted in #95, all that is needed to implement property rights is a convention on posting land, or its paper equivalent -- a registry of deeds.

And there is absolutely nothing "natural" about that. Any right which requires a beaurocracy to manage, private or otherwise, is not natural.

If my rights are violated I can justifiably retaliate across the national border if necessary.

Knock yourself out. Just don't do it on my dime.

If you accept that premise, then you should admit that I can also commission my goverment to do the retaliating for me.

No I shouldn't. That would necessarily enlist the resources of people who weren't harmed by the action and who might be put in harms way due to the un-necessary and unlibertarian retaliation by a government on behalf of a "special citizen."

Rights of self defense have nothing to do with national jurisdiction, -- unless you think that the right of self defense is also government-given.

Strawman. The corporation has all the right in the world to defend itself. It simply doesn't get to use my money to do so. That's an anathema to libertarianism. The government is not in place to defend the rights of individuals around the world. It's place is to protect the rights of citzens within its jurisdiction. Arabia is not within its jurisdiction. If a private citizen is harmed in another country, then he can address his grievance with that country and even attempt to obtain the voluntary assistence of his fellow citizens. He may not coerce their support by demanding the government retaliate on his behalf because he is the only person receiving the benefit of such retaliation.

The proper response in this case are letters of Marque. Not military aggression.

I don't know why in the world you think such would be either constitutional or libertarian. It violates many tenets of libertarianism. The military is for the defense of our borders. Period.

I didn't make myself clear in 103, which was made in the context of #100, where I draw certain line at the national border -- but not the same line that you draw.

Let me restate.

Inside the national border my government has a duty to protect me. Outside of the national border my government has no such duty. But if it chooses to protect me, it is justified in using unlimited force.

There are two issues here.

(1) Is retaliatory use of force justified across national border? The answer is clearly yes, regardless of whether the victim retaliates himself, commissions other private parties, or commissions the government.

(2) Is the government justified in acting on a private citizen's request? To answer that we need to look into the nature of the harm done to the citizen, -- there is no single answer. When government inaction would prompt further violence -- as it would if our government doesn't respond to the terrorist attack -- then the government not only may retaliate, but also must retaliate. When the action would be bailing out a private commercial interest -- such as when Exxon's property is nationalized somewhere -- then the government should not use the taxpayers' money and put lives in danger by retaliating, although it still may retaliate. Looking back at the past 50 years I, together with Peikoff, think that the retreat by the West from the imperialist or colonialist positions it once held,-- such as the cedig of the oil interests, -- was a strategic mistake not because it victimized Exxon, but because that retreat planted the seeds of today's misery in Africa and Asia, as well as the Twin Center massacre.

With respect to some Arab countries we may have a situation when a military action is justified because of 9/11. So the dilemma arises: if retaliation is justified by one reason, terrorism, -- can the government take care of another injustice and repossess the oil company properties at the same time? The answer is yes, because the government has the opportunity to retaliate for the acts of terror and repossess the goods at no additional cost.

To answer that we need to look into the nature of the harm done to the citizen, -- there is no single answer.

And yet you go on to equate apples and oranges. It is never ok to retaliate on foreign soil with the taxpayer-funded military for the advantage or protection of a single citizen.

Retaliating on foreign soil with a military action for terrorist acts is debatable regarding its efficacy. But an action which is born from a desire to protect the nation from terrorist acts is not acting merely on the behalf of a private individual.

Going to war because an oil company's property has been confiscated in another country is clearly not based on libertarian values.

Not even close.

If it is OK to punish criminals domestically at taxpayers' expense for the protection of a single citizen, then it is equally OK to retaliate on foreign soil for the same.

No it is not the same. Because everyone in the country pays and expects protection from criminals (not that they get it).

One cannot expect to go abroad and receive protection from the United States and one cannot expect retaliation. Otherwise every mugged American in Paris could bring down war on the Country of France. Absurd.

Furthermore, the only authorization in the Constution for the use of our military is to repel invasions, enforce federal laws and put down insurrection. End of list.

If I get mugged in Paris and the French police fails to defend me, I can ask the US government to retaliate. The retaliation of the US government would be morally justified.

Ridiculous. Commit an act of war in response to a mugging? Surely you cannot be serious.

I don't know why you pretend that this is libertarian. You can't even sue your own government for failing to protect you. Most certainly our government cannot initiate an act of aggression because some other government fails to protect you.

The government's job is not to protect you in such circumstances. You are responsible for your own personal defense and the government has ZERO responsibility to extend your personal protection zone across the sea into another country.

If this were true, then it would be far cheaper (and if your logic is correct this would be an acceptable and reasonable remedy) for our government to send armed military units to accompany you on your travels.

No, you're wrong. Exxon's troubles are Exxon's troubles. Not mine and most certainly not the U.S. government.

You objection is based on the cost of retaliation, or perhaps on the lack of proportion between mugging and war. I agree that it would be ridiculous to retaliate with war for my getting mugged in Paris; but it would be morally justified for our government to retaliate in a commensurate way if the French government for some reason fails to do so. When our government determines that such protection cannot be extended to a particular country, it issues a warning that every American citizen traveling to that country does so on his own risk.

After the "student revolution" in Iran, our embassy was taken hostage, and EDS (Ross Perots' company) employees were taken hostage. Our government responded by sending the helicopters on an ill-fated raid, and Perot responded by successfully freeing his men by force. When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them. All these were justified instances of application of force by our government to protect our citizens abroad. Or do you disagree?

According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere. In the civilized world, our government can delegate that job to other national governments. If a national government fails to protect our citizens, our government is justified in responding; the only remaining question is the degree and manner of response.

perhaps on the lack of proportion between mugging and war.

Yes. It's a basic common law principle. If you come at me with your fists, I may not respond with a gun. (In general)

I agree that it would be ridiculous to retaliate with war for my getting mugged in Paris; but it would be morally justified for our government to retaliate in a commensurate way if the French government for some reason fails to do so.

Again. Not so. The reason being twofold. One, your government is not responsible for you. It is not responsible for keeping you safe. It is only responsible for bringing your attacker to justice. And it can only do this within it's territorial jurisdiction. Two, the act of a government sanctioned retaliation which is not co-operative with the other government in question, is an act of war and thus puts all Americans at risk of an escalated war with the country in question.

When our government determines that such protection cannot be extended to a particular country, it issues a warning that every American citizen traveling to that country does so on his own risk.

This is true always. Any other belief is sheer folly. And these warnings are not about whether or not the U.S. can extend protection they are about our diplomatic relations with these countries. If relations have deteriorated and the government there is non-responsive, the warnings are issued.

Perot's actions were justified. Carter's were not.

When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them.

And this was not a proper use of the military. The military is authorized to protect us from an invasion. It is not the citizen's bodyguard abroad.

According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere.

According to what brand of libertarianism? Can you please provide a cite for this? Because if that's really libertarianism, I need to find myself a new label. Under the libertarianism I have read about and studied, individuals are responsible for themselves and only agree to government for a few things one of which is national defense.

You are not entitled to anything that you aren't willing to provide for yourself. If you hand over your responsibility to some government agency then you have made a bad choice.

The government is responsible for bringing the attackers to justice regardless of national jurisdiction. If the national government (e.g. French, when I've been mugged in Paris) won't do what is expected of it, then our government needs to weigh the need to ensure justice through retaliation against the possibility of an escalated conflict. For trivial offenses suchas muggings in Paris it won't do it, and for serious offenses, such as nationalization of American property, it should at least consider retaliation.

You say that Perot's actions were justified and elsewhere you supported (as I do) the use of letters of marque and reprisal to retaliate. But you say that Carter's action wasn't justified; why? If it is proper for the government to subcontract its warmaking role to private parties, then it is equally proper to just use the regular military.

In some scenarios that we discussed, real and imaginary, a foreign government failed to rectify, or retaliate for, a violation of an American's natural right. In others, a foreign government was itself an offender. So, in all these cases, it is the foreign government that escalates the conflict to an inter-governmental level. For example, Exxon can buy its own fencing and hire bodyguards, but if a national government passes a "law" by which it expropriates Exxon, then Exxon can't provide justice for itself and its relaince on our government is proper.

You may have to look for a political label. Libertarianism opposes initiation of force. Sounds familiar? Libertarianism then allows defensive and retaliatory force.

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force.
Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy."

Libertarianism then believe that

[...] The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force.

(all quotes are from Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy

One major criticism of libertarianism comes from communitarians. Communitarians believe that communities, first of all, nations, have special rights. Libertarians often ignore things like national culture or sovereignty. For a debate on that, see Pursuit of Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism

Many of your statements on this thread, regarding in particular your concern for national borders, is distinctly communitarian, while your general dislike of American profit-seeking abroad is often seen on the left.

libertarian principle that would have a particular government's jurisdiction to protect it's citizens extend worldwide.

That't the thing, that libertarians principles all plain ignore national borders. I am sure you are familiar with the libertarian pro-immigration view. What is it based on? On the assumption that borders are immaterial.

I don't know what your views on capitalism are. I mentioned your disdain for profit-seeking abroad. I could have mentioned the notion that real property rights are given by the state. Both views have been used by the left to condemn capitalism in principle.

www.infowars.com

From The Alex Jones Show 10/10/01

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW -- 2ND HOUR OF THIS 3 HOUR MP3 FILE ARCHIVE OF THE ALEX JONES SHOW 10/10/01

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS:

David Shippers: Government Had Prior Knowledge

Key Points:

(1) The FBI knows another terrorist attack is being planned, right now, for somewhere in Oklahoma City (site unknown)

(2) The FBI has been, and still is, prohibiting their agents or local police from taking known terrorists into custody.

(3) An Iraqi terrorist cell was involved in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and is still involved.

(4) Ashcroft and members of Congress are not listening.

(5) Contact your members of Congress and ask them WHY?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

a cite for the libertarian principle

How about from Ayn Rand herself:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent ?rights? of gang rulers. It is not a free nation?s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses (pg. 122).

From Ayn Rand, Collectivized Rights (quoted from here)

You still fail to meet the objective.

France, for instance, is not a dictatorship.

And still, the reason Rand says that a dictatorship is an outlaw among nations has nothing to do with the maltreatment of any individual American corporation or citizen. (And for the sake of brevity we'll assume that the first person country is always the U.S.)

It has to do with the fact that everyone in that nation is a slave to the dictator. How smart is it to do business with such a nation? How much sympathy for that boneheaded capitalist do you think Rand would give?

Because it would be utter nonsense to attempt to do business in a dictatorship. And the suggestion that a nation can go to war for a grievance of a single citizen or corporation throws personal responsibility out on its ear (and libertarianism as well which bases much of its philosophy in the principles of personal responsibility).

I'd say the Founders were even more brilliant than Rand because they imagined a way to get at such rogues using letters of Marque. This limited the possibility of harming citizens or putting them at risk for war because they were voluntary actions of private individuals in retaliation for a harm caused by such a rogue nation. And I endorse that method wholeheartedly because it meets every objective in my estimation that is worthy for such a situation. Consequently the polar opposites of these 4 items are exactly why I oppose a national war effort for such grievances as you have laid out.

1. It costs the taxpayer no money and thus coerces no individual into supporting something he doesn't want to support.

2. It is not a state-executed action and thus limits risk to the nation issuing the letter while at the same time also benefits no one citizen more than another.

3. It can be directed at private individuals.

4. All those acting under letters of Marque are volunteers and because of their bond must act in accordance with the law (other than the fact that they have been issued a license to steal).

If you'll allow a digression, while I might agree with Rand in the quote you present, I think that rescuing the citizens of a dictatorship with a national action is like welfare both figuratively and literally. Those people need to rescue themselves. It's the only way for them to become strong.

Both Rand and I say that the decision to intervene should be based on two facts: (1) that the foreign government does not protect natural rights; and (2) it is in our national interest. If France fails to protect individual natural rights (e.g. by failing to punish the muggers) then, in a therotical extreme, it becomes a rogue nation meeting test 1. If protection of American citizen assets abroad becomes a form of corporate welfare, then our intervention would fail test 2. But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest. So, an equally good argument can be made for intervention in Arabistan just for the oil interests.

Now, of course, we have some retaliating to do for a clear-cut case of mass murder. Any form of military intervention in the countries involved (none has a representative form of government) would meet both Rand's tests.

I will post the article that puts the Rand's quotes in context in a munite. You may want to carry the discussion over there.

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.