A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - Part IV

“Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act.”

How can we call what we have been doing an “offensive”? None of the measures that have been taken at the airports have been anything more than fluff. Making people take off their shoes only increases the likely spread of tinea fungal infections. Making a mother sip her own breast milk out of a bottle to verify the contents only embarrasses the mother and the idiots that made the policy. Preventing customers from bringing along a pen knife, jack knife or fingernail file does not make the world we live in any safer. Our safety has not been improved by spying on our citizens en masse. Our train stations, subway stations, bus stations, truck stops, highways and other modes of transportation are still at high risk… and remain ignored. Freight trains, nuclear power plants, and fuel depots are not any safer than they were before the vents of 9-11. Nothing in the Patriot Act has made us any safer. If there were things in the Patriot Act that actually worked, the powers that be would be touting the success across the country in ads that directly contradicted the critics of the Bush administration.

There is a bottom line. No matter how we prepare, no matter what we do, terror exists in our world. The best we can do is be as observant as possible, put proven security measures to work, and be prepared to respond when something happens. We would be a safer nation if more money were spent on civil defense, improving our existing infrastructure, and stopped wasting time by having the FBI chase down hundreds of false leads that only serve to violate civil liberties.

“It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”

No surveillance system would have been able to track so few phone calls without first casting a wide net on all calls leaving the country. It is a ludicrous idea, and unworkable plan and an immense waste of time, money and manpower, not to mention illegal. No matter how many times the Bush camp shouts that there is legal precedent for his surveillance program, the Constitution does not provide such authority. Congress did not authorize such action. In a letter to Attorney General Gonzalez, Senator Arlen Specter calls the Bush administration to task on just some of the issues that are clearly improper, illegal and unauthorized. In his letter, Specter asks fifteen questions that clearly point to a president that has overreached his authority and gone astray of the Constitution, as well as the National Security Act. In my own writings, there are at least 12 federal laws, and hundreds of court precedents that appear to have been breached by this program.

There is no evidence that any of the provisions of the surveillance program, project Talon (which has just recently been disclosed) or the Patriot Act have actually prevented a terrorist attack. And there is no evidence that ordinary security measures wouldn’t have done the same. As a person with security expertise (a former member of ASIS), I know a thing or two about security measures. None of the measures the Bush administration has taken are effective.

If we needed proof of our lack of effectiveness or preparedness, we need look no further than the destruction caused by Katrina and Rita. Our federal government knew of the potential damage that would be caused by a hurricane of the force that Katrina brought ashore. Federal officials even produced a PowerPoint presentation on the anticipated damage. FEMA failed in part because a crony was in charge and in part because it did not have its mission fully focused. For decades the Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that the infrastructure of our waterways needed attention, improvement and reconstruction. Are we to believe that our homeland security officials are any better at preventing terrorist actions? Seriously?

Even as this post is being written, WGN News (Chicago) is reporting on the failures of security that have occurred at O’Hare International Airport, the failure of the TSA security measures and the lawsuits that have been filed. Logan International Airport (Boston) has failed numerous security checks. Washington’s (DC) airports have proven unsafe on numerous occasions. If we are failing on mechanical security measures, what makes us so sure that we can trust the government with other, more vaguely defined, security measures? Is there anyone in America that truly buys the “Trust me, I’m your president,” line?

“In all these areas -- from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions -- we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”

But we are losing the respect our allies—citizens of these countries if not the governments themselves—around the world. We are losing their respect because we are compromising our fundamental principles and demonstrating that our government is just as capable of behaving in a fascist manner as those nations our government has condemned for religious persecutions, theocratic entanglements, infringements on free speech, the use of secret police, torture and imprisonment without trials, etc. We are losing support around the world because we are acting in hypocritical ways.

Does anyone see a bit of a problem with the statement that there is only one alternative to American leadership in the world? Couldn’t another superpower emerge in the future? Couldn’t the world get a bit smarter and develop a system of international law that actually works? Couldn't there be other alternatives, including a stronger United Nations? While I am fully supportive of the role we Americans play in the world, I am not so egocentric and nationalistic that I cannot see other alternatives. Neither can I support a government that is so entrenched in its world view that only one alternative exists. Even if we recognize that the SOTU address is merely an opportunity for the president to spin the perceptions of the American public, there is just something inherently wrong in a view that excludes all other options.

“Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom. Here at home, America also has a great opportunity: We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.”

Our trade deficits are at an all-time high. The war and other military actions in which we have engaged are taking their toll on us, and we are losing ground on paying off our debts because the current administration and congress insist upon continuing tax cuts and preferential tax treatment for the top one to five percent of the most wealthiest among us. We all want fiscally sound taxation. But while we are reaping the benefits of tax cuts, we are losing services, efficiency and our debt is growing exponentially.

“Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined. Even in the face of higher energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.”

General Motors just announced that it is outsourcing $15 billion of its business operations. Ford is downsizing its workforce, closing plants and is so hard up for sales that it has instituted a policy of not letting employees that do not drive Fords park on their grounds. Daimler-Chrysler has just announced significant downsizing as well. Have we forgotten the past where job numbers were over-stated?

“The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.”

If we are so dependent upon immigrant labor, why don’t we protect them better? Why don’t we monitor compliance with wage and benefit laws for the migrant workers and their families? Why are we continuously seeing reports on the neglect of their children’s educational needs, housing, sanitation and medical care? Somehow these words do not ring true.

Who are these protectionists? What protectionist policies are being implemented? What protectionist policies are making it past congress and receiving the president’s signature? Answer: No one… none… and none. Why are we being led down this path? What is it that George W. is trying to tell us? As for the larger role the government has in directing the economy, the current pro-business environment is causing downsizing, outsourcing and elimination of pensions, health insurance and benefits… all while many companies are posting record profits. Need we mention the unprecedented corporate scandals like Enron, PG&E, Tyco, World Com, Adelphia, etc.? All occurring on George W.’s watch.