FEAR OF TERRORISM SHUTS DOWN U.S. LEGISLATURE

Federation of States, October 17, 2001 - After the attack of September 11, 2001 upon the United States President Bush called for a War on Terrorism, but to his credit Bush wanted authorization from Congress to prosecute the War. But Congress, which is riddled with weak liberal police-state type thinking coupled with decades of experience of stupid “Police Actions” such as Korea and Viet Nam, were unable to muster the courage to Constitutionally DECLARE WAR ON THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN. Instead, on September 15, 2001 Congress weakly authorized the President to use whatever military force that might be needed to destroy the terrorists who were linked to the September 11^th attack. This nearly amounted to a Declaration of War, but fell short by failing to identify the State to be attacked and by failing to call it a Declaration of War. (Even the conservatives failed to have the courage to legally Declare War. Perhaps Congress hasn’t read the Constitution well enough*).

Since then it appears that some Anthrax contamination of a couple of offices of the Senate has occurred. This news caused the inept and cowardly Legislature to flee their posts in mass even though no evidence of contamination has been reported in the Legislative Office Building. Yet they have our servicemen risking their lives daily in combat over Afghanistan. But, the U. S. Senate, to their credit, refused to abandon their posts and remained in session today and shall be in session again tomorrow in spite of some actual contamination in their building.

Meanwhile, absent an actualDeclaration of War, there has been some consternation among our commanders as to whether they could legally attack and kill an individual Taliban or al Qaeda leader. Had War been officially and correctly declared, a whole barrage of laws and practices would have come into play; Presidential Executive Orders would be more acceptable to the public and our military commanders would have less hesitancy to act.

It has been reported that weakness and appeasement exist among some in the Pentagon and worse, among some of the National Security Council advisors to the President. It has been reported that Secretary of State Powell has been among those holding back on the war effort while stretching tippy-toe diplomacy to the extreme approaching appeasement with States that have clearly been backing the very terrorist network we are now fighting. Some diplomacy was necessary, of course, to gain access to air routes to Afghanistan, but the military has been held back from sufficiently supporting the opposition Northern Alliance (United Front) who has the support of the King of Afghanistan Just today, in the face of many questions concerning this apparent battlefield appeasement, a few token sorties of air support were flown in support of the Northern Alliance, mainly in Mazare i Sherif. We need the airbase there to prosecute the war and reduce our perceived dependence upon Pakistan.

This diplomatic appeasement has shown up, for example, in our unwillingness to come down on Saudi Arabia who has been the main country financing Osama bin Laden because of the sentiments of some of the royal family. This diplomatic appeasement has further surfaced in our turning our heads away from the anti American demonstrations in Pakistan which are being led by some 300 Pakistani pro-Taliban clerics (terrorists hiding in clerics cloaks) and this taken with the knowledge that Pakistan is principally responsible for the building up of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the first place should alert us to the probable unreliability of Pakistan as an ally.

The resulting pressure of these anti-American demonstrations upon the Government of Pakistan may be causing Pakistan to lobby the United States against support for the Northern Alliance whom the pro-Taliban clerics and a minority of pro-Taliban populations in Pakistan oppose. In other words this pressure is an excuse for appeasement on the part of Pakistan. This is not a valid excuse for the United States, however. Since we are nearly in a Declared War, appeasement should not be tolerated at home or abroad as it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which approaches treason. ** Pakistan is a nation who has heavily backed the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. Pakistan has allowed use of their air space in exchange for certain financial payoffs by the United States. Let us not forget that India, who hates the Taliban, also has offered us use of their air space, thus we are not held hostage so to speak by Pakistan nor should our diplomats bend in appeasement because of the many anti-American and pro-Taliban riots in Pakistan.

This type of tippy-toe diplomatic appeasement is now surfacing more boldly in suggesting that some of these criminal Taliban clerics should be allowed to participate in the new government of Afghanistan. Such suggestions are being parroted by certain news media as well. It must be remembered that the Taliban was given ample warning and time prior to the U. S. air strikes to dismantle the terrorist training camps, turn over Osama bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leaders and they refused. To put some of these Taliban leaders in a new provisional government of Afghanistan would be the same having certain high command Nazi SS 0fficers to participate in the post War government of Germany. If Taliban leaders are allowed to participate in the new government, we must suspiciously look closely for the lucrative heroin link that might benefit some of our appeasing bureaucrats. In fact, such suggestion of that action of putting Taliban leaders into the future government of Afghanistan would either amount to propaganda trickery against the Taliban or “Diplomatic Terrorism” on the part of the suggesting bureaucrats.

Another way of considering this ridiculous idea is to compare the Taliban with a group of drug dealer bank robbers who killed dozens of people in a bank robbery. All such robbers involved would be criminally guilty and would need to be brought to justice. Yet in spite of that, what if certain important people stepped forward insisting that some of the robbers involved were “more moderate killers” and therefore should not be treated as criminals? And instead of being brought to justice they should be allowed to help guard the bank in the future. Such thinking would be either insane or treasonous.

Clamoring for a few moderate Taliban leaders to be allowed to take part in a new government headed by the King of Afghanistan who is currently working to put together a provisional government is at least criminal appeasement. And what should we do about those 300 pro-Taliban clerics living in Pakistan leading anti-American riots? Should they not be brought to justice as well? They are all part of the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden that must be destroyed. And this as much for the sake of preservation of the mainstream Moslem religion throughout the world as it is for the United States in its War on Terrorism. Islam will be as much the winner with these terrorist networks removed as will the United States.

All of the Taliban leaders, including the moderates, are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism and of given safe harbor to the terrorists and are therefore as guilty under our laws as the terrorists themselves. In fact, the Taliban are terrorists themselves hiding in cleric’s cloaks. If there are moderate Taliban leaders who help the United States in the destruction of the Taliban regime, some leniency might be reasonable, but any moderates who hold out until the end must be prosecuted as war criminals along with the hard liners. Furthermore, charges should be brought against Americans who clamor for clemency for the Taliban and for inclusion of them in the new government of Afghanistan. There is no valid excuse for treasonous appeasement which we have so often seen by some bureaucrats in the past in Washington even under the veil of diplomacy (tippy-toe or not).

As for our inept Congress who has been unable to pass an airline safety bill in 5 weeks following the attack upon the American people, their panicked abdication of their duty in the face of perceived threats may actually be beneficial to the American people since they are so inept in the face of emergency anyhow. Their abdication simply offers the opportunity and the need for rapid and responsible executive orders by the President to shore up airline security measures for the protection of the flying public.

Once the Congressmen do return to their offices, a first order of business for them should be to pass a bill of clarification which defines their bill passed on September 15, 2001 as a Declaration of War against the Taliban Government of Afghanistan and the various terrorist networks involved in the September 11^th attack on the United States. This action would also later allow for a peace treaty to be signed with a new provisional government of Afghanistan to be installed, perhaps under King Mohammed Zahir Shah.

As for President Bush, once he returns from China, his first order of business should be to issue an Executive Order outlining and enforcing a complete airline safety program. Congress can be expected to delay such a bill for many weeks more, squabbling amongst themselves. Such an executive order could be issued on a 120 day basis allowing Congress the opportunity to pass such legislation making the further continuance of such airline safety executive order unnecessary.