Pubdate: Wed, 31 Oct 2001
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: C12
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author:  Judy Mann
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?203 (Terrorism)

SPEECHES AND SYMBOLISM DO LITTLE TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS

War on two fronts is not calculated to be an easy business, but the 
suspicion is growing that following hard-core Republican doctrine and 
making speeches to schoolchildren isn't coming to grips with the deadly 
problems of terrorism and economic decline that confront the country.

The Republican answer to the gathering economic storm has been more than 
$100 billion in handouts to the big airlines and to such needy corporations 
as IBM ($1.4 billion), General Motors ($800 million) and General Electric 
($670 million,) while offering little to displaced workers beyond pious 
exhortations to go on a spending spree to stimulate the economy. It may 
come as a rude shock to the fat-cat philosophers of Bush & Co., but people 
who are looking for jobs are not simultaneously shopping for new 
refrigerators. I'm certainly not in the mood to buy a new car right now.

Nor has the administration's slow start on the anthrax threat inspired 
great confidence, and the spectacle of members of the House running for the 
hills was an embarrassment that is sure to give fresh ammunition to the 
religious nuts who wish us ill.

And excuse me, I know former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, our new czar 
of domestic security, is a good man, but I thought our gold-plated defense 
establishment, the FBI and the CIA and all the other costly security 
agencies we support had a handle on keeping us safe. Is Czar Ridge going to 
sack any high-level incompetents, or even knock a few suety bureaucratic 
heads? We'll see, but to date he seems to be mostly into the exhortation 
business, just like his boss. Let us fervently hope that Ridge is not the 
dismal failure that a succession of drug-war czars have proved to be.

The war against terrorism is not going to be won by symbolism and catchy 
phrases, but we're sure as heck getting them. The Office of Homeland 
Security sounds like something out of "The Wizard of Oz." Congress was not 
to be outdone. Its collective spine stiffened by withering criticism of the 
House's retreat, Congress returned in time to pass and send to the 
president a misbegotten paste-up of cop-thought called the Uniting and 
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 
and Obstruct Terrorism bill. Recognizing that most people couldn't get out 
that mouthful, Congress gave it an acronym: It's to be known as the USA 
Patriot Act.

Critics say it gives law enforcement far more investigative and detention 
powers than it needs, at a substantial cost to civil liberties, 
particularly those of immigrants. For example, it broadens the abilities of 
government agencies to run secret searches in both anti-terrorism and 
routine criminal investigations, allowing them to enter homes without 
presenting a search warrant. It grants the FBI broader access to financial 
and health records of individuals without having to show evidence of a 
crime or obtaining a court order. It makes paying membership dues to a 
political organization an offense that can be punished by deportation. It 
allows searches of personal financial records without notice.

The law reeks of hard-core law-enforcement-at-any-cost mentality, the same 
mind-set that brought us the war on drugs, which also seriously undermined 
civil liberties. But again, as with the war on drugs, politicians go with 
the flow out of fear that they will be pilloried for being "soft" on drug 
offenders or, now even worse, "soft" on terrorists. Only one senator, Russ 
Feingold (D-Wis.) voted against it. He voiced the fears that many civil 
libertarians voiced in the days immediately after the Sept. 11 attack, 
namely, that we would respond in ways that subvert civil liberties just as 
we did with the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and the 
internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.

In the House, members showed a greater willingness to dissent, with 62 
Democrats, including the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, 
and three Republicans voting against the bill, as did Vermont independent 
Bernie Sanders.

The law is aimed at domestic as well as foreign terrorism, which means law 
enforcement will have more tools to go after abortion clinic terrorists who 
have clearly been emboldened by the anthrax letters.

Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which has a 
long-running clinic protection project, said that more than 250 clinics 
have received letters containing powdery substances and anthrax threats in 
the past weeks. Many have been signed the "Army of God." This is a 
clandestine organization that has claimed credit for numerous violent 
incidents involving abortion clinics and abortion providers.

The letters have been turned over to the FBI, and so far none have tested 
positive for anthrax spores. Smeal worries that domestic terrorists who 
have targeted abortion clinics will get anthrax spores now that they know 
the terror tool is doable.

The public is getting a taste of the threats that abortion clinics have 
been living with for years. It's not a pleasant way to live. I don't like 
having to worry when I open up my mail. I don't like the prospect of having 
to live with the kind of security that is installed at abortion clinics. 
But at least terrorist attacks are now being taken seriously.

Smeal is right when she says it is not normal to live with threats of 
anthrax in the mail or terrorists storming health clinics. We should not 
have to live with such threats. Congress and the administration are taking 
steps to address serious problems, and the public has been surprisingly 
united and patient. But a legitimate question to be asked now is: Are 
Congress and the administration doing everything possible to shore up our 
democracy?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth