Anti-terrorism or war? - part 2 of debate

National Review, July 10, 1995 by Angelo Codevilla

LIBERALS, led by President Clinton, have been trying to use the American people's loathing of terrorism as a cover for political warfare against conservatives. In the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, the President spoke as if the militia movement, conservative talk-show hosts, and ``anti-government zealots'' in general shared responsibility for the carnage.

Other liberal politicians and journalists have demanded that conservatives ``lower their voices'' -- i.e., moderate their criticism of the arrogance and immorality of modern American government. The Clinton Administration asked Congress for broad new powers to combat terrorism. What is going on here? Liberals have been losing the debate on every topic from economics to family policy to education. Their grip on America is slipping. Apparently some have decided that their last best chance of delegitimizing anti-government sentiment is to argue that lack of reverence for the government, its officials, and its ethos leads to terrorism. The voters may never again trust the liberals with the economy or a host of other things, but perhaps they may be got to trust Bill Clinton to protect them against right-wing kooks. This is a dangerous calculation. A compromise anti-terrorist bill recently passed the Senate. The provisions that deal with foreign terrorists, such as exclusion of members of terrorist groups and faster deportation of suspect aliens, may do little good, but they can do no harm. The requirement that taggants henceforth be added to explosives is a small bother of even smaller worth. Increasing penalties for terrorists and limiting appeals by death-row inmates are probably good in themselves, but unlikely to have any impact on this particular problem. However, the measures designed to combat domestic terrorism are dangerous. None of them could have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing or helped catch its perpetrators. All of them are terribly useful as weapons against domestic political enemies. The requirement for government access keys to private computer cryptography, the loosened guidelines for wiretapping individuals, the increased access to hotel, travel, and even bank records -- all this portends trouble. Especially because the President's rhetoric has made it perfectly clear who, in his view, this country's potential terrorists are, and hence who the targets of the government's attentions will be. The standard developed after Oklahoma City -- namely that possession of literature and frequent expression of opinions similar to those of people involved in violence constitutes a ``link'' to violence -- will enable the Clinton Justice Department to treat a wide variety of conservatives as threats to internal security. Among the tools the government is already using against the enemies on its list is the Internal Revenue Service. The National Rifle Association was recently told to provide offices for IRS auditors, who will be going over its operations with a fine-tooth comb. Government officials and columnists friendly to them make clear that the list does not stop at the NRA. They consider opposition to big government, to abortion, to high taxes, etc., to be the matrix out of which ``right-wing terrorism'' grows. And if the Administration gets its way, the issuance of warrants for wiretapping, infiltration, search of bank and travel records, and physical searches will follow the precedent of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and be lodged in a court that holds secret, ex parte proceedings. Have we seen this sort of thing before? Not quite. Until the 1960s the attorney general publicly listed Communist and other subversive organizations allied with foreign enemies. The U.S. Government excluded the members of these organizations from public employment, maintained surveillance on them, and warned other Americans away from them. Occasionally the FBI sowed discord among them. During this period the reasonable answer to civil libertarians' reasonable objections was that Communists had stepped outside the full protection of the laws by allying themselves with a foreign enemy. The existence of the Soviet Union imposed on us the necessity of criminalizing domestic Communism. After the Soviet Union's disappearance, however, it would be well-nigh impossible to square official discrimination against Communists with the American legal tradition. Recall that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and violated property rights only when enemy armies were in control of 11 states. President Clinton, however, is making a clean break with the American tradition. He is effectively re-establishing the attorney general's list. But those on the new list are enemies not because of any connections with a foreign power, but because of political differences with him and his constituencies. Moreover, the reach of law enforcement is so much broader and harsher than it was in the 1950s that what it can now do to people amounts to war. Today government makes so many rules with so many details (202 volumes, 132,000 pages) that almost anybody can be accused of some violation. ``We can indict a ham sandwich'' is the proud saying among some federal prosecutors. Add the words of informants, and it is possible to fabricate the basis of a warrant against anyone at any time. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's general caution to the contrary notwithstanding, a search warrant today permits armed, masked agents to burst in with guns drawn, and to fire at the discretion of whoever is making the rules that day. And the practice of ``civil forfeiture'' allows officials to seize your computer, your cash, your house, or your farm's tractor without ever filing a charge. These are not ``paranoid fantasies.'' This is the legacy of almost thirty years of the federalization and militarization of American law enforcement. What will happen if this panoply of weapons is put to the service of political passions and bureaucratic self-interest? President Clinton has brushed aside such considerations as impediments to the ``war on terrorism.'' But he is terribly mistaken. The first objective in any battle against domestic terrorism must be to seal it off from domestic politics as completely as possible. Whether or not those who set bombs or fires are connected to the great issues of the day, they are mere criminals and should be treated as such. To move away from the principle that the only people responsible for a crime are the ones who committed it -- and to involve whole political parties and social categories as enemies in blood quarrels with the state -- is the first step down a well-worn path to civil war. Yet President Clinton and many of his followers have already taken this first step, by imputing guilt for the Oklahoma City bombing to people who had nothing to do with it. Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt wrote that the desire to destroy ``valuable institutions'' like welfare, Medicare, and legal abortion is both the objective and the matrix of terrorism. A Time magazine cover story argued that the Oklahoma truck bomb was the result of the phenomenon that turned Democrats out of office in November -- ``angry white men.'' The New York Times's Frank Rich identified the dangerous ones as ``Pat Robertson's militias'' and recommended aggressive law enforcement against the right-to-life movement, the gun lobby, religious fundamentalists, and anti-government activists in general. Such urgings, as well as the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue and plans to turn federal buildings into fortresses, encourage federal law-enforcement officials to think and act not as stewards of impartial law, but as warriors fighting the country's enemies. As they investigate and harass the Administration's least favorite people, resentment will spiral upward, and they will be increasingly likely to kill and be killed. Domestic political warfare has its own logic, which leads to opposing lists of heroes, martyrs, and targets for vengeance. A very bad logic to be shunned with all our powers.