Aug/Sept 2002

Deep Sustainability
Roar Ramesh Bjonnes

Community Owned Enterprise
Ron Phillips

Police State Measures Will Not Make Us Safe
Kayla M. Starr, MPH

Can Democracy Survive Endless War?
Edited by Eli Pariser

A Popular Revolt This November
Ted Glick

Turning the Trolls to Stone: Strategy for the Global Justice Movement
Starhawk

Navigating the Tides of Change
David LaChapelle

Dispelling the Myths About Smallpox
Michael Framson

Observations Of A Medical Revolutionary
Doug Falkner

The Emergence of Mind-Body Medicine
Robert Newman

A Childhood Stolen and Redeemed
John Darling

Healing Hints
Peter Moore, MFCC, CGP

Flax Seed
Rebecca Wood

The Yearly Round
Richard Moeschl

The Movie Mystic: "Beautiful Mind"
Stephen Simon

BACK TO TOP

Can Democracy Survive An Endless War?

Edited by Eli Pariser

“[T]o those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”
- US Attorney General John Ashcroft, December 6, 2001

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin

In December 7, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft accused critics of his sweeping proposed law enforcement package of “living in a dream world.” A day earlier, he had claimed, as quoted above, that civil libertarians aided terrorists. It’s hard to imagine that the framers of the Constitution would have seen things in a similar light.

The framers had lived through and fought in a struggle that was in many ways far more dire than the one we face today. As a cadre of revolutionaries, the signers of the Declaration of Independence faced execution if they failed. They fought a guerilla war against what was, at the time, the most powerful empire in the world. Vastly outnumbered in manpower and supplies, they surely understood the value of secrecy, a strong executive, and counter-intelligence.

Despite this experience, they created the Constitution and its first ten Amendments as a monument to the rights of individuals. Aware of the pressures governments face in times of distress and war, the framers nonetheless guaranteed to citizens the broadest set of liberties the world had ever seen.

In October, Congress passed a bill, the USA Patriot Act, that largely incorporated Ashcroft’s recommendations; in doing so, it nullified large portions of the Bill of Rights. The big question is, “Is it worth it? Is the threat to the United States’ existence great enough to justify the evisceration of our most treasured principles?”

Ashcroft is not alone in his beliefs. Many Democrats and Republicans would also argue that in times of emergency, people must sacrifice some liberties for the sake of security. This is a false dichotomy. The reason that the Constitution has such extensive protections for civil liberties is not only because individuals deserve freedom and fairness, but because in the long run, liberties are a vital check that ensures the government is doing its job.

Here’s how Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described the atmosphere in Washington, D.C. after September 11th: “[T]here is great fear in our great Capitol. …The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. . . . It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote.”

In this climate, Attorney General John Ashcroft pushed Congress to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies sweeping new powers. Any delay in passing this legislation, Ashcroft insinuated, would place the blame for a new terrorist attack on Congress.

These are hardly good circumstances for reasoned debate, and it’s not a surprise that the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” better known as the USA Patriot Act, passed by a large margin: 98-1 in the Senate, and 356-66 in the House. At 342 pages, the final version of the Act was fully understood only by the people who crafted it. The nuts and bolts were worked out in all-night sessions, and the Act passed before Senators or Representatives (or even their staff) could possibly have read it.

Little was ever made of the fact that most of the provisions in the bill had been formulated years, and sometimes decades, in advance of 9/11. Both the Reagan and the first Bush Administration pressed Congress to pass similar legislation. Each time, Congress rejected the proposals on constitutional grounds. Nor did many Congresspeople point out that an alarming number of the provisions have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Many of the new powers granted to the FBI and other agencies in USA Patriot are now available on any federal crime—from mail fraud to fleeing across state lines.

These arguments notwithstanding, the USA Patriot Act will be with us at least until December 31, 2005. (Many, though not all, of the provisions will need to be re-authorized at that time.) Here are a few of the new powers that the Act gives the FBI and other government officials.
• Charge non-violent activists with “domestic terrorism” if they commit a criminal act “dangerous to human life” that appears to be aimed at changing gov-ernment policy.
• Circumvent the Fourth Amendment strictures against “unreasonable search and seizure” if law enforcement agencies can claim that the gathering of foreign intelligence constitutes “a significant purpose” of their investigation. Under this new arrangement, the target of surveillance is only notified of the intrusion if the evidence gathered is used against them in court.
• Do “sneak and peak” searches in which the FBI secretly enters your house while you’re not there and takes, alters, or copies things. They need not tell you that they’ve been there for weeks or months. This new power is available for any federal crime—falsifying a student loan application would count.
• According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, before the Patriot Act, “the FBI could get the credit records of anyone suspected of being an international terrorist. Under the new 2001 legislation, the FBI can get the entire database of the credit card company. It can go into a public library and ask for the records on everybody who ever used the library, or who used it on a certain day, or who checked out certain kinds of books. It can do the same at any bank, any telephone company, any hotel or motel, any hospital, and any university—merely on the claim that the information is ‘sought for’ an investigation to protect against inter-national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
• Spy on the web surfing of innocent Americans—including the monitoring of search engines—as long as the agency tells a judge that the information gathered might be “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. Again, the person spied upon won’t be notified that the spying has occurred.
• Encourage Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to voluntarily give all “non-content” data to law-enforcement officials, without notifying users, i.e. the list of websites each user has visited.
• Add samples to a DNA database for any-one convicted of “any crime of violence.” If you have a fistfight with a federal officer, your DNA would be kept on file.

For many people, the consequences of such incursions are difficult to imagine. But these new powers present real dangers to everyone, not just those people who are suspected of terrorism. Law enforcement officials have always claimed that they’ll only use their powers to prevent evil, but the Constitution offers protections for civil liberties because government is fallible. In the hands of a single rogue agent, the vast information-collection abilities and lack of judicial oversight afforded by the Patriot Act could be tools for blackmail, extortion, disruption of political activities, or worse.

Another danger is that the vast databases of information that will be assembled under this act could fall into the wrong hands. Government computer security routinely fails audits, and many agencies got a D or F on the last sweep. FBI computers have been compromised by hackers in the past. Given the value of the information the Bureau will be collecting—potentially, the credit records of every American, lists of purchases, library books borrowed, and so forth—the databases are likely to be a prime target. One slip-up, and that information could be made available to the entire world.

From MoveOn.org, resources, news, and action ideas on the political issues that shape our lives. MoveOn engages people in the civic process to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies.
To sign up for the MoveOn Bulletin, go to http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/.

In the 2000 election, thousands of members of MoveOn came together, focused their resources and made a real difference in dozens of congressional campaigns. MoveOn.org PAC highlighted high quality candidates in targeted races, and made online contributions easy. In the end, MoveOn members gave over $2.3 million to candidates who helped change the leadership in Washington. The change made a huge difference in advancing our national goals—environmental sustaina-bility, a sane energy policy, campaign finance reform, and more.

The question is: how many people are willing to support a similar initiative for peace?

When a movement puts its money where its mouth is, Congress pays attention. And in tight races, contributions can mean all the difference in determining whether the hawk or the dove makes it to Washington. In 2000, under $100,000 was given to Congresspeople in the name of a sane foreign policy and a peaceful world—as compared to millions by the defense lobby. So, when the time comes to vote for Star Wars missile defense or limits on arms trading, Congresspeople worry about biting the hand that feeds them.

If each member of our organized movement (9/11Peace) made a small contribution—even $10 or $25—we could easily break the records for political giving in the name of peace. In doing so, we’d deliver a strong rebuttal to the argument that post-9/11 Americans unquestioningly support a war without end. And we’d help to ensure that the next Congress contains leaders who will stand up against warmongers and the defense industry.

Imagine a new generation of Congresspeople who owe their election to the peace lobby! It can happen if enough people are willing to pitch in. Congressman Adam Schiff recognizes the invaluable assistance MoveOn.org PAC provided for his election in 2000. Here’s a letter he sent to us in 2001 describing the difference the MoveOn.org PAC made in his run for Congress:

“ Last year you made history by actively engaging in campaigns across the country using the powerful medium of the Internet, and brought grass-roots campaigning to the 21st Century. When skeptics said you could not influence elections in this unprecedented manner, you proved them wrong. When the right wing claimed your pledges of support were fictional, you proved just how real a financial commitment could be and became an historic powerhouse. In my race against Jim Rogan, the most expensive campaign in U.S. House history, you played a cardinal role by raising more money and providing more individual support than any other single organization.

As a result of your efforts, you replaced a member of Congress who was anti-choice with someone who is now a co-sponsor of legislation to overturn the Bush Administration’s gag rule on international family planning. While Jim Rogan was one of the League of Conservation Voter’s dirty dozen, I am co-sponsoring legislation to prevent oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. You helped defeat someone who wanted to abolish the entire Department of Education, and elected someone who has just introduced a bill to fully fund Head Start.

In particular, and perhaps of most significance to members of Moveon, while Rogan vehemently opposed the McCain-Feingold bill, I have been a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. In fact, my first act in Congress was to co-sponsor the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, the House counterpart to McCain-Feingold. I also joined with Congressman Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, to found “Freshman For Reform,” a group of freshman members who are committed to building bipartisan support for legislation banning soft money in federal campaigns.

Whether it is my work to protect a woman’s right to choose, preserve the environment, strengthen public education or pass campaign finance reform—without your support, none of this would be possible.

Moveon really makes a difference. It sure did for me.”

Visit www.MoveOn.org to learn more about the Peace Campaign, or sign up for this project at http://www.moveon.org/peacepac/index.html.

Together, we can build a peace movement that Congress can’t afford to dismiss.

- Eli Pariser, for MoveOn.org PAC, 9/11 Peace Campaign