The Homeland Security Threat

June 16, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

At the writing of this article, it has been nine months since the attacks of last September. Of great significance is the fact that during this time, not a single life has been lost on American soil at the hands of al Qaeda or any other militant Islamic organization. (Though the vastly overblown anthrax scares were initially attributed to the same forces that perpetrated the 9-11 hijackings, it has since been determined that unrelated domestic "copycats" were the actual culprits.)

In consideration of these facts, one of only two conclusions is possible. Either bin Laden has had a complete change of heart, and no longer wishes harm to the American people, or this nation’s efforts to thwart any further attacks have been enormously effective. Certain success stories, such as the intervention by airline passengers against the "shoe bomber," have resulted from an increased awareness, on the part of average citizens, that quick and decisive action against a sudden and unanticipated threat may be the only hope for survival.

In addition, it cannot be denied that those Federal agencies charged with protection of the American people and prevention of possible future attacks have upheld their responsibilities admirably. In just the past few days, the Justice Department announced that it had thwarted al Qaeda plans to detonate a so-called “dirty bomb,” which uses conventional explosives to disperse toxic radioactive contaminants. Virtually every major public official continually warns of the eventuality of future attacks, but to date none have transpired. It is inarguable that people in the right places are, so far, doing the right things in defense of the America.

During the past week, President Bush announced his intention to elevate the office of “Homeland Security” to the Department level, conferring upon it’s leader the authority of the presidential cabinet. Though the details have not yet been ironed out, public approval for the president’s action has been profound. And this is exactly as it should be. For despite the hysterical reaction of his political opposition to virtually every decision he has made in regard to the September attacks, the president is merely fulfilling one of the truly legitimate responsibilities of the U.S. government.

In the preamble to the United States Constitution, some basic precepts by which the Founders sought to achieve the goal of a “more perfect Union,” were the insurance of “domestic tranquillity” as well as the provision for “the common defense.” While it was certainly not foreseen, at the time of the Constitution’s inception, that domestic tranquillity might be threatened by covert militant Islamic insurgents within the country’s borders, the Founders unquestionably understood the danger posed by hostile foreign entities against whom a common defense was absolutely essential.

President Bush has been wrongly criticized for ostensibly attempting to “blur” the distinction between foreign and domestic concerns ... an action which embodies a very real element of peril to the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding Americans. In reality though, it was the seditious deeds of the terrorists which blurred those lines for the citizens of the United States, as well as the appropriate jurisdiction of any necessary responses.

It should not be presumed however, that President Bush is only receiving criticism from those obsessive "civil libertarians" on the left who only ever express concern for the violated "rights" of captured Taliban and al Qaeda operatives and their like. A significant degree of anxiety has been voiced by conservatives who fear the potential for future abuses of power of the sort which outraged many Americans during the previous presidency. And for such concerns, President Bush must bear some of the blame.

Few Americans would honestly suspect Attorney General John Ashcroft of the sort of unbridled and abusive exercises of governmental power displayed by his predecessor, Janet Reno. Few would anticipate the sort of excesses from George W. Bush, in collaboration with FBI Director Robert Mueller, as were standard operating procedure when that team consisted of Bill Clinton and Louis Freeh. But although this administration has given absolutely no suggestion of indifference or contempt towards its constitutional limitations (as did the previous administration...), neither has it sought to hold those members of the Clinton White House accountable for their innumerable violations of the law.

Charles Rosotti, whom Clinton appointed as IRS commissioner, retains his position despite the fact that he blatantly invoked IRS audits as a weapon of intimidation against Clinton’s adversaries. More than nine hundred FBI files were illegally employed for the sole purpose of exerting political power, yet not one indictment has been handed down for such an outlandish breach of trust. Nor does it appear that any is likely.

The enormity of the Federal government was brought to bear on innocent and decent employees in the White House Travel Office, some kooky religious practitioners in Texas, and against a six year old Cuban boy in Miami. And while the Clinton administration essentially declared itself “above the law” in perpetrating such deeds, it is the unwillingness of President Bush to hold those perpetrators accountable which is the most disturbing aspect of the present situation. For if this administration were to treat such excesses with an appropriately heavy hand, a significant step would be made toward shoring up confidence and trust in the governing institutions of this country. But as long as those who committed governmental abuse during the Clinton years are able to evade accountability, the American people have no guarantee that such abuses won’t resume the moment George W. Bush leaves office.

One shudders to think what overreaching abominations a "President Hillary" might commit in the name of "homeland security," given her propensity to twist and distort words and their meanings. President Bush needs to realize that, once the emotions of the moment have blown over, the standard of ethics which he deems as acceptable will be the determining factor in the citizens’ level of trust in their government.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.