National Security

To understand the question of possible expansion or need we must first understand what National Security truly is. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, we see the meaning of these two words as the following. National: belonging to or maintained by the federal government. Security means the quality or state of being secure, freedom from danger. Now when you combine the two you begin to understand that true National Security cannot exist, in a democratic Republic. For to have true security, or freedom from danger maintained by the federal government we must in effect turn all of our rights over to the Federal Government. It is true that many recent events have led us to feel afraid and to need that blanket of supposed "security." However, nothing can be done outside of removing all individual rights, and blockading borders fully, using walls, minefields, and automatic cannons to prevent potential events from occurring.

According to Jonathan White "To be sure, some violent strains of Islam present a problem for American law enforcement, but they (also) present problems for Islamic governments." Jonathan R. White currently serves as Executive Director of the Homeland Defense Initiative; he has a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice and teaches as well. While his credentials are impeccable, his approach is tantamount to treason when compared to our Constitutional rights; he believes greater security equals greater protection. Directly following the attacks in September 11, Americans were shocked and dismayed by our supposed inability to stop crime of this scale. However, what has not been fully addressed in our press and history because of the attacks is why the "terrorists" chose to do something that seems so heinous. Why would a severely outgunned, outclassed, well-educated terror organization commit to wiping themselves out by attacking a much larger, better equipped, and obviously easily provoked country? Were they simply crazy, or was it that their religion teaches this? Neither is the case, for the leadership of the supposed "super" terrorist groups forming Al Queda is both well educated (in English, American and other foreign schools) as well as well funded. Their religion is as peaceful or warlike as the Christian Bible is. Therefore, there must be other reasons for this action.

Other reasons for actions that are too many of us unconscionable and to others simply the way life is. Americans tend to be self centered, spoiled, and without any actual knowledge of anything outside of their current job or who is America's Next Top Model. As a result, we are patently unaware of many things that are occurring regularly in other countries. For instance, the United States has virtually been at war or a state of general conflict since the Civil War. We as a country have changed governments, and shifted power bases simply to get better pricing on products of all sorts. Obviously many people will state that this thinking is paranoid and delusional however, one must see how many actual conflicts we have been involved in to make a solid decision on their own. According to Richard Grimmett, "Eleven times in its history the US has formally declared war against foreign nations. These eleven US war declarations encompassed five separate wars: the war with Great Britain declared in 1812, the war with Mexico declared in 1846, the War with Spain declared in 1898, the First World War, during which the US declared war with Germany and with Austria-Hungary during 1917, World War II, during which the US declared war against Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941, and against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania in 1942." Simply put we have only been in 11 actual wars; however, we have been in almost 300 conflicts for varying reasons. Again, we see that the wording in front of Congress to keep things on the up and up is usually this way, "to protect US citizens or promote US interests." By promoting U.S. interests we tend to disregard the cultures, societies, and religious intricacies of the various other countries, we have destroyed to protect our "interests." The following bolded instances have been taken from the report by Richard Grimmett.

"1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua."

This expedition destroyed an entire town, for no other reason than the "honor" of an American Minister.

"1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops."

We contributed aid to a government that had a record of killing its people; we did this simply to protect our business interests.

"1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping."

No explanation other than, they were wrong. The sad part is the fighter planes shot down are the equivalent of David to our Goliaths of fighter planes.

"1986 -- Libya. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that US air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya."

No reasons outside of "possible" nuclear armaments being built.

"1989 -- Libya. On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions."

We said, and have never accepted that they may not have been.

"1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option."

This was prior to the first Gulf Conflict, isn't it possible we instigated the First Gulf Conflict through our actions and build-ups?

The list can go on for pages, however, the fact is we have done things and been places that we should not be. Sadly, these actions have led to the eventual retaliatory attacks against our country. The best example is the immediate reactions of millions of Americans (over 80%) directly following the September 11 attacks. We as a nation were outraged and supported hitting the evil, bad, Muslim, terrorists that had "attacked" us. What about those countries and people we have attacked over 250 times since the inception of this country. In the end all that is brought up is that we need to advance our security and raise awareness, as well as enhance border security etc. We do not look at the real problems or reasons for these "terrorists" actions and we deny that anything may be wrong. However, we are quick to assume that by giving the federal government more power we will experience more safety as a result.

We look at interagency cooperation or the lack of this as a negative aspect in our fight against "terrorism." Some of the concerns raised go back to some cases where we have stopped, seen, or even arrested on separate offenses men that were eventually indicted as terrorists. While the ability to track and have instant knowledge regarding potential terrorists is a positive benefit of better, interagency cooperation we must look at the potential risks inherent with a system like this. This country was founded on states rights principles, it was originally meant to have as little oversight from the Federal Government as necessary to function properly. Obviously, this is no longer the case in many areas; however, we still have some individual states rights at this time. One of those is the ability to appoint, vote for and or hire our own law enforcement agencies in the towns and states we live in. If these same law enforcement agencies give over to much control, or "cooperate" we would in effect be releasing the last of our actual constitutional freedoms. After all "The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878" is the act that states NO federal troops, can be used as law enforcement, except when expressly authorized by the Constitution, or an Act of Congress. We must approach the idea that by further unifying our law enforcement under the banner of "National Security" we are in fact giving over control to the Federal Government and denying "The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878." Executive power should not be allowed to expand either. Currently as a direct result of the Patriot Act the president in conjunction with the heads of our various "intelligence" agencies are allowed almost unlimited and virtually unstoppable powers to arrest, convict, and sentence "suspected" terrorists simply based on their definition of what one is. Our Constitution was based on the ability for the common people to defend themselves, and to have rights. This is no longer the case.

Therefore, in conclusion we should not expand nor allow the expansion of executive powers within these United States. No one man is able to make decisions without bias and under the current system; we have checks and balances in place. Neither should we expand intelligence services, in my opinion we should in fact disband every agency except those that directly relate to the actual defense of our Nation and its geographical borders. We must also overturn the Patriot Act as well, immediately and without further delay. Once we stop meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world, we will find that "terrorism" within our countries borders will cease. The question remains, are we as a nation truly ready for or able to live at peace?

Grimmett, Richard (2008) Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2007. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress RL32170

White, J (2005) Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security.

Thomson/Wadsworth, 1, 10