The American Wisdom Series

Presents
Pamphlet #608

      Text of speech from the House floor by Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican,
      September 25, 2001

      Mr. Speaker:

      Last week was a bad week for all Americans. The best we can say is that the
      events have rallied the American spirit of shared love and generosity.
      Partisanship was put on hold, as it well should have been. We now, as a free
      people, must deal with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and
      prevention is mandatory. We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at
      the hand of an irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to
      restore normalcy is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy
      not yet identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.

      Mr. Speaker, I returned to Congress 5 years ago out of deep concern about
      our foreign policy of international interventionism, and a monetary and
      fiscal policy I believed would lead to a financial and dollar crisis. Over
      the past 5 years I have frequently expressed my views on these issues and
      why I believed our policies should be changed.

      This deep concern prompted me to seek and receive seats on the Financial
      Services and International Relations Committees. I sought to thwart some of
      the dangers I saw coming, but as the horrific attacks show, these efforts
      were to no avail. As concerned as I was, the enormity of the two-prong
      crisis that we now face came with a ferocity no one ever wanted to imagine.
      But now we must deal with what we have and do our best to restore our
      country to a more normal status.

      I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our
      eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis.
      We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders
      in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish
      the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by
      killing innocent non-combatants and further radicalizing Muslim peoples.

      It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous
      enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing
      on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and
      our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for
      national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US
      Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence
      led to our neglect of these responsibilities.

      Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in Pakistan
      held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU
      ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not
      ignore the message.

      Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing
      we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because we are free
      and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot
      wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must
      understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not other western
      countries.

      In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion that war
      is most often fought for economic reasons. But economic wars are driven by
      moral and emotional overtones.

      Our own revolution was fought to escape from excessive taxation but was
      inspired and driven by our desire to protect our God-given right to liberty.

      The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless
      inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that
      drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did
      between 1861 and 1865.

      Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring the
      importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the root
      causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely accepting the
      explanation that they terrorize us out of jealously.

      It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a "holy
      war"- a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are beyond
      comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic issues since
      they have no regard even for their own lives. But an economic issue does
      exist in this war: OIL!

      When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we
      helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated:
      "This is the beginning of the war for oil." Our crisis today is part of this
      long lasting war over oil.

      Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join American-
      sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He received financial
      assistance, weapons and training from our CIA, just as his allies in Kosovo
      continue to receive the same from us today.

      Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into
      Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion is,
      not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never have
      started it in the first place.

      It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically,
      with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn't until 1991 during what we
      refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United
      States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst
      in him.

      Of course, it isn't our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other
      Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is
      what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The
      continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and
      contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that
      protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help
      drive the holy war.

      Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which
      inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has
      been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at
      our own peril.

      The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf
      of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian
      Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the USS
      Cole was a warning we ignored.

      Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab
      countries is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their
      region than they want. There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by
      the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long lasting Middle
      East conflict add to the distrust and hatred of America.

      The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and
      military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred is
      now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most part are not even
      aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity toward a people they
      hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been driven by the commercial
      interests of a few. And now the innocent suffer.

      I am hopeful that shedding light on the truth will be helpful in resolving
      this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. Without some
      understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle East and the
      Persian Gulf we cannot expect to punish the evildoers without expanding the
      nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the world.

      Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our
      country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But
      extricating ourselves from a holy war that we don't understand is also
      necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals. Let us all hope
      and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we
      all desire.

      We did a poor job in providing the security that all Americans should
      expect. This is our foremost responsibility. Some members have been quick to
      point out the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA and the FAA and claim more
      money will rectify the situation. I'm not so sure. Bureaucracies by nature
      are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses
      computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely provides
      timely intelligence. The FAA's idea of security against hijackers is asking
      all passengers who packed their bag.

      The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. But,
      remember, important industries like as our chemical plants and refineries do
      not depend on government agencies for security. They build fences and hire
      guards with guns. The airlines have not been allowed to do the same thing.
      There was a time when airline pilots were allowed and did carry weapons, and
      yet this has been prohibited by government regulation set to go into effect
      in November.

      If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they
      may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial
      sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give
      airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be
      passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a
      prohibition on pilots being armed.

      We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have taken for
      granted for so long. But it can be done. Destroying the evildoers while
      extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no small challenge. The
      job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled with venomous snakes. The
      sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately threaten us, the sooner we can
      get safely away. If we're not careful though, we'll breed more snakes and
      they'll come out of every nook and cranny from around the world and little
      will be resolved.

      It's no easy task, but before we fight we'd better be precise about whom we
      are fighting and how many there are and where they are hiding, or we'll
      never know when the war is over and our goals are achieved. Without this
      knowledge the war can go on for a long, long time, and the war for oil has
      already been going on for more than 20 years. To this point, our President
      and his administration have displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a
      positive change from unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in
      past years that only worsened various conflicts.

      If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be
      endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money
      are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and
      others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we
      jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How
      much prosperity will we sacrifice?

      The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the
      difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was
      impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to
      take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not
      recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the
      high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original
      Constitution.

      Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our
      country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances
      was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the
      responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a
      task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the
      task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters.
      This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude
      the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would
      preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain
      like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered
      throughout all of history.

      Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due
      to needless and senseless killing could be prevented. Mr. Speaker, we must
      seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the
      potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an
      unseen target. "Marque and reprisal" demands the enemy be seen and precisely
      targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered and, for
      various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by
      the CIA.

      We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have
      enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response
      to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while
      undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth
      celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to
      undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens.

      As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation to
      invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many years ago,
      tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is now unified
      against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity
      nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient
      military.

      Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired
      goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be
      disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of
      surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing
      government, no matter how well intentioned the motives.

      The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs
      voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or
      theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An
      ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be
      required without any violations of anyone's personal liberty. This delicate
      information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but
      could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other
      information obtained with probable cause and a warrant.

      The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great
      sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great danger to our way
      of life and will provide little help in dealing with our enemies. Efforts of
      this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect on a would-be
      terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just to do something-
      even something harmful.

      Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in the pursuit of
      our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and
      deliberation. Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable. No doubt others
      recognize the difficulty in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the
      principle behind "marque and reprisal" must be given serious consideration.

      In retaliation, an unintended consequence of a policy of wanton destruction
      without benefit to our cause, could result in the overthrow of moderate Arab
      nations by the radicals that support bin Laden. This will not serve our
      interests and will surely exacerbate the threat to all Americans.

      As we search for a solution to the mess we're in, it behooves us to look at
      how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Personally,
      that crisis led to a 5-year tour in the US Air Force for me.

      As horrible and dangerous as the present crisis is, those of us that held
      our breath during some very tense moments that October realized that we were
      on the brink of a world-wide nuclear holocaust. That crisis represented the
      greatest potential danger to the world in all of human history.

      President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the Soviets as he should have
      and the confrontation was resolved. What was not known at the time was the
      reassessment of our policy that placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet's back
      yard, in Turkey. These missiles were quietly removed a few months later and
      the world became a safer place in which to live. Eventually, we won the cold
      war without starting World War III.

      Our enemy today, as formidable as he is, cannot compare to the armed might
      of the Soviet Union in the fall of 1962.

      Wisdom and caution on Kennedy's part in dealing with the crisis was indeed
      "a profile in courage." But his courage was not only in his standing up to
      the Soviets, but his willingness to re-examine our nuclear missile presence
      in Turkey, which if it had been known at the time would have been condemned
      as an act of cowardice.

      President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally courageous and
      wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a catastrophic World War III.
      When the President asks for patience as he and his advisors deliberate,
      seeking a course of action, all Americans should surely heed his request.

      Mr. Speaker, I support President Bush and voted for the authority and the
      money to carry out his responsibility to defend this country, but the degree
      of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be carefully taken
      into consideration.

      It is only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the dollars, the
      troops, the weapons and training provided by US taxpayers that are now being
      used against us. Logic should tell us that intervening in all the wars of
      the world has been detrimental to our self-interest and should be
      reconsidered.

      The efforts of a small minority in Congress to avoid this confrontation by
      voting for the foreign policy of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas
      Jefferson, and all the 19th century presidents went unheeded. The unwise
      policy of supporting so many militants who later became our armed enemies
      makes little sense whether it's bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. A policy
      designed to protect America is wise and frugal and hopefully it will once
      again be considered. George Washington, as we all know, advised strongly, as
      he departed his presidency, that we should avoid all entangling alliances
      with foreign nations.

      The call for a non-interventionist foreign policy over past years has fallen
      on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today may meet the same fate. Yet, if
      truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. In that case something will
      be lost. But, if something is said to be true and it is not and is ignored,
      nothing is lost. My goal is to contribute to the truth and to the security
      of this nation.

      What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in
      Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our
      history or our constitution. It's a policy that has, whenever tried,
      generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing with
      foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood this.
      Since the light of truth shines brightest in the darkness of evil and
      ignorance, we should all strive to shine that light.

      - Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas),