|
 ow,
Saudi Arabia will prove whether it is worthy to be an ally of the
United States. The U.S. defended Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded
Kuwait. The U.S. even acceded to Saudi demands to prevent American
soldiers from exercising their freedom of religion while they were
on Saudi soil, defending the Saudis from Saddam Hussein. Will Saudi
Arabia exercise its immense influence with the Taliban, to ensure
that bin Laden and his cohorts are immediately turned over to the
Americans? If the Saudis will not support us in our time of gravest
need, they are no allies.
 Those
who demand that CIA spending be increased ought to disclose what
the CIA is currently spending, and why it is inadequate. Currently,
the CIA
budget is completely secret. While there are good reasons to
keep CIA line items secret, the national-security justification
for keeping the total budget secret is very weak. Canada, Britain,
and even Israel make their intelligence budgets public.
The Constitution
mandates that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts
and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time
to time." There are no exceptions. During World War II, Congress
and the president adhered to the Constitution, by making public
the budget of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor
to the CIA. Former CIA Directors Turner, Gates, and Deutch, as well
as the unanimous members of the 1996
Brown-Aspin Commission, agree that there is no national security
risk from disclosing the total CIA budget.
The CIA, having
already lost two billion dollars by misplacing it, is hardly underfunded.
Perhaps what the CIA needs isn't more money, but better leadership.
As
surely as sleazy lawyers gather at the scene of a car crash, the
lobbyists for big government will rush to exploit Tuesday's acts
of war in order to demand more power for intrusive and unconstitutional
government. Rather than recognizing that the crackdown on lawful
travelers following the TWA Flight 800 disaster failed to protect
us, they will demand more of the same failed non-solutions.
We should remember
that, as in the years after Pearl Harbor, not every call for more
government will really make us safer, and some will make us much
worse off. The internment
of American citizens of Japanese descent; wage and price controls;
and "emergency" rent controls in New York City
(which are still in effect) are only a few of the examples of how
American freedom and strength were harmed by the destructive expansion
of government.
The main source
of our strength is our freedom and open society. The United States
already has the most powerful military in the world. We don't need
the symbolic jaw, jaw, jaw of more laws, but the will to use our
existing war power. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation,
aptly wrote: "The truth is that if we further emasculate our
Constitution the terrorists will have achieved the greatest victory
imaginable. Their triumph won't just be the thousands of people
they killed, the triumph will be if they see our democratic institutions
crumble. If President Bush can navigate a responsible course where
we make an appropriate response to those who have perpetrated these
unspeakable crimes while at the same time protecting our essential
freedoms in the process he will end up being the greatest President
of the modern age."
To prevent
future attacks, the perpetrators of Tuesday's infamies must be utterly
destroyed, even if that means infringing the territorial sovereignty
of nations which harbor these war criminals. Offending world opinion
should be of little concern. Le Monde didn't launch the attacks,
so whether Le Monde and The Guardian agree with the
American response is much less important than whether every terrorist
in the world understands that an attack on America will be a death
sentence for himself and his entire organization.
As
the failure of "gun free school zones" demonstrates, bans
on the lawful possession of weapons simply embolden evildoers by
providing them with criminal safe zones. It is scandalous that a
few hijackers with knives were able to hold scores of airline
passengers at bay. As a good first step towards making commercial
airplanes dangerous for hijackers, pilots should be issued handguns.
Historian Clayton Cramer asks, "If you don't trust an airline
pilot with a handgun, why would you trust them with the controls
of the airplane?"
The training
to shoot an attacker at very close range can be accomplished in
a weekend. Ammunition and handgun models can be selected which have
high frangibility and low penetrability — meaning a low risk
of the bullet penetrating the steel walls of the airplane, and or
of over-penetrating a hijacker and hitting a passenger. In any case,
the risks of hijackers facing resistance are much lower than the
risks of hijackers able to act with impunity.
Cabin stewards
who wish to carry concealed weapons should likewise be authorized
to do so.
And passengers?
Forty years ago, sportsmen routinely stowed their shotguns in overhead
luggage compartments. There were no laws against bringing guns onto
planes. Whatever the benefits that have resulted from the last three
decades of laws against passengers carrying lawfully owned firearms
onto planes, they have been far outweighed by a single day's deaths
which are the direct result of turning planes into safe zones for
terrorists.
And readers,
if you should ever be on a hijacked plane, remember that it is better
for you to die like a hero, as you lead your fellow passengers to
overcome the hijackers, then for you to passively allow your plane
to be used to destroy thousands of other innocents.
From
the 1970s until not long ago, it was conventional wisdom that the
world's terrorists avoided acts within the United States, because
they knew that terrorism in the U.S. would lead to the destruction
of their training centers, and the destruction of themselves. Yesterday's
acts show that that deterrent was no longer credible. What kind
of responses has the United States had to terrorism? Bombing an
aspirin factory in the Sudan in order to distract public attention
from the DNA on Monica Lewinsky's dress? A single
raid on Tripoli during the Reagan administration, which didn't
even kill Qaddafi? The men who hijack planes may have the Hell-bound
courage of kamikaze pilots, but their cowardly masters do not. When
terrorist masters and their hosts learn that an attack on the United
States is a death warrant for themselves, then we will see the end
of the war on the United States of America.
|
