Voting Against the War
Statement of Rep. Barbara Lee

House of Representatives War Resolution Passed by Senate and House

Rule of Law vs. Rule of War
by Jeff Cohen

The West Shares the Blame
by Baltasar Garzon

excerpted from the book

September 11 and the U.S. War

Beyond the Curtain of Smoke

Edited by Roger Burbach and Ben Clarke

City Lights Books, 2002

p123

Voting Against the War
Statement of Rep. Barbara Lee, House of Representatives War Resolution Passed by Senate and House

"The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. "

Text of the statement of Rep. Barbara Lee on the floor of the House of Representatives, Sept. 14, 2001:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions across the world.

This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.

September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.

I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage a war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today-let us more fully understand its consequences.

We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multi-faceted.

We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire.

Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslims, Southeast Asians, or any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to "take all necessary measures" to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam.

At that time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States.... I believe that within the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake."

Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences.

I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."

p139

Rule of Law vs. Rule of War
by Jeff Cohen

Many media voices are enlisting in the push toward war. CBS anchor Dan Rather seemed more soldier than reporter on the Letterman show when he endorsed the war drive and added: "George Bush is the President." Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

It's worth remembering that a similar push followed the last dreadful act of terrorism against America on our soil, Oklahoma City. Many in the mass media immediately began goading us toward retaliation against a presumed Arab, Islamic enemy. Columnist Mike Royko called for the overseas bombing of civilian infrastructures: "If it happens to be the wrong country, well, too bad."

The bellicose rhetoric came to a stunning halt as soon as it was learned that the anti-American terrorists were not from the Mideast. In fact, one was from the Midwest-Michigan. The leader was Timothy McVeigh, who went to his death believing himself to be at war against the U.S.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Oklahoma City is that our country did not take the bait. The U.S. did not declare war on McVeigh and his network of extremist fellow-travelers. The Bill of Rights and civil liberties were not trampled on the path to increased security.

Instead, McVeigh and his accomplices were dealt with as a democracy deals with mass murderers. They were apprehended, prosecuted and punished after being given trials, lawyers, the right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence. The armed fanatics who sympathized with McVeigh were not all hunted down and destroyed, but they've certainly been quieted. Many of us abhor the death penalty that was given to McVeigh, but the rule of law prevailed.

The terrorists behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are more numerous, perhaps more dangerous and better protected than McVeigh and friends. Still, it's appalling how little mainstream media have discussed relying on the rule of law-international law-to pursue the foreign terrorists.

Few news reports have pointed out that there is one body under international law that can authorize military action: the United Nations Security Council. If the U.S. has strong evidence against Osama bin Laden and associates, and Afghanistan continues to refuse extradition to the U.S., the two countries could negotiate surrender of the suspects to a neutral country for trial (as happened with Libyan agents tried for the Lockerbie explosion). If that approach fails, the U.S. could present its case to the Security Council, which could authorize the equivalent of an international arrest warrant.

That the United States of America should uphold and adhere to international law is seen as preposterous, un-American and weak. In a piece titled, "To War, Not to Court," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong."

Fox News Channel offered a rare interview with an actual expert in international law, Francis Boyle of University of Illinois, who offered a step-by-step legal process for pursuing the terrorists-which provoked an indignant Bill O'Reilly to decry "empowering the UN." Days later on his show, one of the most watched on cable news, O'Reilly advocated bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructures of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by attacks on Libya.

Listening to the Krauthammers and O'Reillys and leaping into unilateral action does more than undermine the rule of law. It isolates the U.S. instead of isolating the terrorists. Much of the world will see an excessive or misdirected U.S. military action as a tragic rerun of adventures that have callously injured innocent civilians from Panama to Iraq to Sudan.

And a new misstep will breed ever more anti-American terrorists.

Jeff Cohen is the founder of the media watch group FAIR, the co-author of Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News, and a weekly panelist on the national "Fox NewsWatch" TV program. He has been a syndicated columnist, television commentator and co-host of CNN's "Crossfire." This essay was written on September 19, 2001.

p146

The West Shares the Blame
by Baltasar Garzon

Judge Baltasar Garz6n of Spain who issued the warrant that lead to the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet in England in 1998 is also the leading anti terrorist judge in Spain. His own life has been threatened by terrorists and he is forced to live surrounded by bodyguards.

In mid-November 2001 he indicted eight men in Spain for participating in a clandestine terror cell that may have been involved in preparing the attacks of September 11. He has stated that these suspects will not be extradited to the United States particularly to the military tribunals established by Bush. His actions as a judge along with the statement below (published in early October 2001 just before the U.S. air attacks began in Afghanistan) make it clear that justice can be brought to bear against al Qaeda and international terrorists without violating the rule of law and using massive military force.

By the time this article is published, the armed assault on Afghanistan, the Taliban regime, Osama bin Laden or his followers may have already begun. For some, it seems, they are all the same. But not to speak out against this is either a serious mistake or guilty acquiescence of the bellicose plans proclaimed repeatedly by U.S. leaders.

The West's quiet acceptance, particularly among European countries, pains me. It should fill all of us with despair. Yes, there are big speeches and important agreements are signed. But ultimately, the West accepts-and even takes part in-the violent response. That the U.S. was going to react as it says it will should come as no surprise. But the submission of other nations was difficult to foresee. It is alarming that countries such as France and Spain have not raised their voices to say "no": to reject the violent solution as the only available option; to uncover the big lie of a "final solution" against terrorism.

I live in a country that has been fighting terrorism for 30 years and that daily clamors for the rule of law as the best means to confront it. What is not possible is that Spain should now put on a military helmet and pledge unlimited support for the hypothetical bombardment of nothing for the massacre of poverty; and for a breach of the most fundamental logic, which proves that violence begets violence. The spiral of terrorism is fed by the number of dead counted among its victims. It has been said of terrorism, particularly the Islamic or fundamentalist kind, that it is a widespread threat. But it is a phenomenon that has been helped by the West's rejection of all that is different from its own culture or "civilized religion".

The West and its political, military, social and economic hierarchies have been more preoccupied with the abusive and shameful march of production, speculation and profit than with an adequate redistribution of wealth. It has favored a policy of social exclusion over integration and progressive immigration. And it has insisted on maintaining-and insisted on payment of-external debt instead of using those funds in the same countries it is now asking for help and understanding. For all those conscious mistakes, the West is suffering the terrible consequences of fanatical religious violence.

Lasting peace and freedom can be achieved only with legality, justice, respect for diversity, defense of human rights and measured and fair responses. It is impossible to build peace on foundations of misery. Above all, it should not be forgotten that there will come a time when justice is demanded of those responsible for these mistakes and the loss of a historic opportunity to make the world more just.

I am not thinking here about the justice demanded of those who masterminded and carried out the tragic events of September 11. That is the remit of national or international justice, as well as the intelligence and police services that have to compile the evidence. This is necessary if a fair trial is to take place. It is not sufficient to say: "I have the evidence but I cannot make it public for fear of endangering my sources." That is not a serious approach-it is simply illegal. Of course, everyone has already established the guilt of Osama bin Laden and, as the indisputable leader of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, he probably is guilty. We should not forget that we are dealing with a horrible crime-but the response nevertheless requires due process. In its haste to eliminate Mr. bin Laden, the West seems to have forgotten this fact. And that is serious.

The justice I am talking about is that which should be brought to bear not only on the Taliban for its brutal and oppressive regime but also on the leaders of Western countries, who, irresponsibly and through the media, have generated panic among the Afghan people. Faced with the prospect of imminent invasion, this panic has forced them to flee towards supposed security and freedom. In reality, however, it merely drives them toward what is certain to be a human catastrophe. Who will answer for these deaths? Who will answer for the forced migrations? In all probability, the death of a few thousand Afghans will be of no interest to these leaders because, for all the grand speeches, their fate is already sealed.

The response that I seek is not military. It is one based on law, through the immediate approval of an international convention on terrorism. Such a convention should, among other things, include: rules governing cooperation between police and the judiciary; rules that enable investigations to take place in tax havens; the urgent ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal; and the definition of terrorism as a crime against humanity. The time has come to look at the principles of territorial sovereignty, human rights, security, co-operation and universal criminal justice through the same lens. That, and that alone, should be the aim of the coalition of countries against terrorism.

Baltasar Garzon is Spain s leading anti-terrorist judge. A version of this article first appeared in El Pais.

September 11 and U.S. War

Index of Website

Home Page