The Dangers of "Wartime Powers"

A few weeks ago at CPAC, a Friday panel was assembled to answer the question: “Does security trump freedom?” Among the panelists were Robert “Skip” Ash, who teaches a course on “national security law” at Regent University, and also serves at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) as their Senior Litigation Counsel for National Security Law. The deck was stacked beforehand: The ACLJ claims to be “focused on National Security issues and waging an effective and constitutional war on terrorism” (Constitutional? What Constitution?), and the debate moderator was Jay Sekulow, who serves as the organization’s Chief Counsel.

In his opening statements to the audience, Ash commented: “[The troops] also wonder why the President of the United States cannot bring himself to admit that the United States is in a long-term war with enemy jihadists, who seek to destroy us.” [Emphasis mine.] Several panelists, including the chief architect of the Patriot Act, went on to defend the PATRIOT Act as a set of wartime powers necessary to protecting freedom; as former Attorney General John Ashcroft had explained earlier in the day, “the purpose of security is to reinforce and enhance freedom.” Or, as George Orwell famously listed as a slogan of “the Party": Freedom is Slavery.

"Commerce and Honest Friendship"

Thomas Jefferson famously said, "I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." If only the foreign policy wonks in Washington had heeded to Mr. Jefferson's advice, the United States would not be trying to starve Iran into submission. Or fight a "War on Terror." Or maintain an empire. Unfortunately, Washington has turned a deaf ear to Jefferson's wisdom. Those listening to Jefferson are not in the marble palaces of DC, but in the Kremlin and Beijing. 

Sanctions do not work. This coming October marks the 50th anniversary of sanctions against Cuba. The Castro family is still having their annual birthday bashes, throwing dissidents in prison, and trampling on the rights of Cubans. Regime change was and still is the goal of the embargo ("The United States cooperated with its European and other allies to assist the difficult transitions from Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Therefore, it is appropriate for those allies to cooperate with United States policy to promote a peaceful transition in Cuba.") However, the "peaceful transition" never came -- nor will it unless a new course is taken.

Congressional Hearing Review: FY 2011

Congress’s Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing today about “U.S. Policies and Programs for Global Development: USAID and the FY 2011 Budget Request.” Needless to say, USAID did not have a budget to request, which was mentioned in Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen’s opening statement. I have come to learn that Washington, D.C. is more of circus entertainment, rather than a conglomeration of competent individuals who actually have to serve the public’s needs and interests.

So, without an actual budget to base the hearing on, the questions were vague, long-winded, and uninformative. Nevertheless, Dr. Shah, Administrator of USAID, stated that “investments for future peace and prosperity” are directly related to “national security.” Seeming as if government uses “national security” as a crutch to explain all of its fiscal bastardization, Chairman Berman reaffirmed that “diplomacy and development” were key attributed to the transforming foreign policy of the new administration. Although the American people have to see this actual transformation, it’s a step somewhere, to say the least.

Eagles We Were, Eagles We Will Be Again

The following article is a response to Thomas Qualtere of The Heritage Foundation’s recent article “Hawks we are, hawks we must remain,” published on the Web site of The Daily Caller.

I rarely become truly angry when reading the opinion of a fellow human being. As should be obvious from my libertarian associations, I understand that free speech is inextricably linked with freedom. However, while I would never advocate for the silencing of one whose opinion I find little to no common ground with, I can still say that Thomas Qualtere of the Heritage Foundation’s recent article concerning the future of both foreign policy and conservatism in our nation deeply saddens me, and reinforces in my mind the importance of helping my fellow Americans gain an accurate understanding of the misguided foreign policy that has led our country into a cycle of perpetual war and violence from which it often seems there is no escape.

Qualtere attempts to address the question of where the youth of today should commit themselves in terms of creating the American foreign policy of tomorrow.  “We are the 9/11 generation,” he writes.  Qualtere states that we are a generation that should understand the cost of not confronting our enemies overseas, and that the lessons of 9/11 should be our call to fight for an American foreign policy that deals with our enemies where they live, rather than lets them come to strike us at home.