What are we trying to secure (physically) in the homeland? ~Borders When it comes to physically securing our borders in the United States, we must have a system with clear and measurable goals. This system must be monitored, and must be updated based upon the results in obtaining these goals over time. Since the materials required for causing any type of terrorist attack clearly already exist within the physical borders of the United States, what we must primarily be concerned with are the agents of these attacks. These individuals must be prevented from entering our country for Homeland Security to function. Can we create a system that is capable of preventing terrorists from entering our country? It is the opinion of this author that we cannot, nor can any nation. For one thing, the United States of America is not physically contiguous. Any theoretical system for protecting the continental U.S. in this capacity could not physically protect Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, United States Land exists within every foreign country on earth in the form of United States Embassies and military vessels at sea. Further than the security already in place in these facilities, nothing can be done to prevent terrorist attacks on their physical structure from the outside (foreign soil or waters). Looking at the border between the United States and Mexico only, it is easy to see that the United States is a long way from absolute security. This border is the most heavily patrolled border to the United States, and yet illegal immigration occurs along this border every single day of the calendar year .The Canadian border is easily crossed in many places without scrutiny. In addition vessels freely pass into and out of harbors on our eastern and western coasts. Finally, any nation that wanted to send in a small force of attackers could easily do so legally through the use of diplomatic appointments. It is the opinion of this author, that the best way to secure our homeland against terrorists, is to make it impossible for them to exist within our country outside of the mainstream. This can be accomplished simply by enforcing laws already in place that require businesses to hire U.S. citizens, and to prove that they do so. By making it impossible for anyone to live in America for any significant length of time without integrating into the citizenship (and becoming an interested party in the safety of the United States), it will become impossible for anyone to dedicate the time and resources needed to carry out a terrorist attack on a large scale without becoming a United States citizen and subjecting themselves to the rule of our laws. Once a person is a citizen and subject to our laws, they cease being a 'terrorist' and become a 'criminal', prosecutable under the law. Current immigration laws allow for exceptions, (in the form of Student Visas, and diplomatic authority)and these exceptions should be dutifully monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, if this office is to have any responsibility at all outside of oversight. Let it be clearly stated that it is the responsibility of the United States of America,as outlined in; our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, to allow citizenship to persons regardless of their race or religion. It is our creed to take in those in need of help and shelter, and to allow them a chance at a new life within our system of Government. If we weigh these important ideas in our decision making process in establishing and enforcing Homeland Security within our borders, and we discontinue our attempts to manipulate governance outside of our borders, physical security of our homeland might then be assured. ~Safety of Citizens As citizens of the United States, we realize that it is impossible for our Government to completely assure our physical safety at all times. Car accidents, natural disasters, etc. will continue to provide dangers to the citizenry at large. We do, however, expect our Government to assure us against the threat of attack from foreign nations, and from the corruption of our rights as citizens. In this light, we expect to have a strong military, capable of the defense of our nation and prepared to do so. We also must expect for our military not to be used in an offensive capacity, as such use will no doubt result in military retaliation, and thereby endanger the homeland. We must further expect our military to be prepared to offer domestic and foreign aid. Domestically, this will allow our nation the ability to quickly and effectively recover from events such as those occurring on September 11, 2001, or during the destruction caused by hurricanes; Katrina and Rita. Abroad, offering such assistance will encourage the peaceful cooperation of our military and administration with those around the globe. All of us would rather our soldiers met on fields of peace as opposed to fields of war. If war is necessary, it should only be in the defense of the rights of the citizens of our nation. Such a war should not necessitate that our citizens waive those rights, even temporarily. This would be an affront to our safety and more importantly our freedom. The so called Patriot Act should be dismissed as such an affront. ~Continuity of Government The continuity of the system of government in the United States of America has been guaranteed for the duration of the existence of the citizens within this union, and does not require a Department of Homeland Security to assure it. Not only have physical measures been taken to ensure the continued existence of our government (such as NORAD, and other subterranean facilities), but the union itself guarantees this. The United States of America is a democracy, the laws within it and the governance of such laws are subject to the collective will of its citizens. Because of this, our unions governance will always reflect the collective will of its citizens, regardless of attacks against the homeland from abroad. The citizens of this democracy therefore have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that their government is providing them with their constitutional rights, and to repel such laws and actions as would seek to restrict these rights coming from the government itself. Under the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, citizens are given the right to bear arms in the defense of our constitutional freedoms should legal opposition prove effective. ~Ability of Government to Enforce the Constitution One thing that the events of September the 11th failed to influence, is the ability of the U.S. Government to enforce the Constitution. The Constitution is still the law of our land, and this author submits that it will remain so as long as the citizens of this nation will it so. Neither foreign attack, nor domestic terrorism has the power to re-write the laws of our country. As long as the citizens give the government this power, the constitution will be enforced. _________________________________________________________________ What are we trying to secure (legally) in the homeland? ~Rights of Citizens It is interesting to me, that in considering how best to prevent further terror attacks, the current administration has decided to restrict (read: remove) the rights of citizens. Citizens' rights are indeed what the government has been tasked with protecting. The Constitution spells this out clearly in it's first three articles. Restricting these rights is not permitted under the laws of our country. The Legislative Branch is not authorized to make laws restricting Citizens rights, nor can the Judicial Branch recognize such laws in congruence with the Constitution. Finally, the Executive Branch is strictly limited in it's power to those tasks set forth in Article II. In summary, Legally, the Rights of Citizens are assured under the U.S. Constitution, and have been for over two hundred years. All laws , including the Patriot Act, which seek to restrict citizens rights are therefore unconstitutional and can not be recognized by the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. Nor should these laws be recognized by the citizens of the United States of America. ~Representative Government Also untouched has been our right to representation in our government. Every State is still entitled to it's federal and state legislative representatives. This system cannot be changed through violence short of the complete destruction of our union. The Homeland Security department has no authority to continue or discontinue the system of representation currently in place. This power is reserved for the people, through their legislative representatives. _________________________________________________________________ What are we trying to prevent from happening in the homeland? ~Terrorist Attacks After examining what Homeland Security should be, regardless of foreign or domestic threats, we must take a moment to review what brought about our Countrys newfound interest in Homeland Security in the first place. In short, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was enacted as a reactionary measure in response to the events of September 11th, 2001. This measure was shortsighted, and provided no effective methods of eliminating the original problem, namely terrorist attacks on domestic soil. There is an answer to this problem, if you look for it. As a citizen of New York City, I eventually saw through the anger I felt that day and found the answer by dissecting the problem. I understand how difficult it can be to realize that the policies of your own country can be so wrong. I will tell you what I have learned. The first problem in the prescription of Homeland Security for this national malady, is that it treats the healthy cells of the system with medicine, instead of targeting the unhealthy cells. The healthy cells of this system are the American citizens, and in this case the medicine is bad. Restricting and eliminating citizens rights, as has been done under the Patriot Act and others like it, is not disabling terrorists. It cannot do this, the technique is incapable of such results. The unhealthy cells of the system, the terrorists are a national malady, and like a physical illness, they are a signal to our collective brain that something is wrong with one of our systems. Once we have recognized this malady, it must be diagnosed for what it is. What are terrorists? It is the opinion of this author, as a human being, that a terrorist is: a human being who is without representation, under siege, and out of options. Further, they are willing to die or inflict death upon other human beings to amend their plight. As diagnosed, this malady can be treated. Its causes can be removed. America, as a country, instead of creating a federal department to perform espionage on its own, can: provide representation to, withdraw siege, and provide options to terrorists. Further, America is obligated to do these things. It is not just the policy of our republic, it is the reason that we were once looked up to by other nations. It can be that reason again. -How can this best be accomplished? ~Altering US Foreign Policy Towards Iraq As of the date of this publication (January 2006), the United States currently occupies a foreign sovereign nation, called Iraq. In response to this occupation, Iraqi nationals have undertaken a resistance movement and have enlisted foreign aid. The current executive administration in the United States has consistently labeled this group terrorists. It is the personal opinion of this author that there is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary for independence (I believe our founding fathers would agree with this assessment), however this view aside, altering US foreign policy towards the sovereign nation of Iraq by the immediate stand-down and withdrawal of United States military personnel within Iraqs borders would effect the immediate stand-down and withdrawal of this group of terrorists. This action would necessitate this consequence because it would remove the cause for the resistance movement. Further, it would allow the resistance leaders to resume their peace-time posts as politicians, as our founding fathers once did after the close of the Revolutionary War against England. The British had the wisdom then to recognize our founding fathers for what they were, further the British had the courage to respect us by allowing us our independence. Surely within the leadership of our government there must be such wisdom and courage today. ~Altering US Foreign Policy Towards The United Arab Emirates It has been noted by news outlets throughout the globe, that funding and sponsorship of terrorist activities against the United States of America has been provided by several if not all of the sovereign nations of the United Arab Emirates. The only way to find out why is to ask these nations. The response has been not only clear, but unchanged and resounding. The response has been the same since before September of 2001. The United Arab Emirates seek an end to the foreign occupation of their land by the United States. These nations resent our attempts at establishing democratic capitalist environments on their soil. As Sovereign Nations, independent of the United States, these countries are entitled to this belief, and further have been tasked with the defense of Their soil. The United States should recognize such policies as valid, and respect them. If in the future, democracy rises from within on of these Emirates, the United States may then recognize it and assist it towards capitalism and democratic independence. We cannot seek to institute this policy upon a nation, however, for this would violate said nation's sovereignty, and in so doing would violate our own Constitution's directives and regulations. As a nation, the United States has recognized and incorporated Arab citizens into our system of government and life. It is now our responsibility as a nation to honor those citizens' homeland, and treat them with the same respect and sovereignty that we now extend to our allies around the globe. Only this policy will create a lasting peace between our nations. ~Altering US Foreign Policy Towards Africa While respecting the sovereignty of other nations, the United States is also responsible for safeguarding the human rights of citizens worldwide, through it's participation with the United Nations. In Africa, human rights violations are being committed constantly, one example of this is the genocide in the Congo. One possible goal of a terrorist type attack against our country would be to prompt action by the United States in regulating these violations. If America should reconstitute it's interest in protecting human rights worldwide and honor it's agreement with the United Nations to do so, this aspect of Terror Attacks should never come to fruition. Sadly, as it stands today, this is a viable threat, and should be addressed preemptively by honoring our U.N. obligations. ~Altering US Foreign Policy Towards Asia The United States currently has a favorable foreign policy regarding about half of Asia. There is absolutely no reason that China, India, and North Korea cannot also receive such policy considerations. The United Nations has been established to allow our countries the opportunity to broker such policies. In regards to the nuclear weapons concerns submitted by many members of Congress, one need only examine our current relationships with Japan and Great Britain to see that Nations with nuclear defense capabilities need not necessarily be enemies of the United States, even if said Nation has been a declared enemy of the United States in the past. Neither China, India, nor North Korea has attacked the United States, nor have any of these Nations attacked any of our allies. Considering them hostile at this point in unfounded, regardless of their system of government or defense capabilities. Until any Nation does exhibit an act of war upon the U.S. or it's allies, said Nation should be treated fairly in regards to trade and commerce, United Nations Trade Embargoes notwithstanding. This would appear to be the 'American Way' as it reminds one of how accused citizens in this country are to be treated prior to a crime being proven. ~Altering US Foreign Policy Towards Our Allies In reviewing the policies extended towards our allies over the past five years, a few items stick out as obvious mistakes. The United States has disavowed its obligation to the United Nations by launching a pre-emptive and unsupported war against the sovereign nation of Iraq. The Executive Branch of the United States actually disavowed it's obligation to the Legislative Branch of the United States, in launching this war without returning to the United Nations for approval, as was authorized by Congress. As a result of this mistake, many of our allies have since waned in their support for U.S. Foreign Policy. Our treatment of these countries has been appalling since. Spearheading the U.S. response was an entire political campaign directed against France. In the future, this author recommends listening to our allies when they try to point out our mistakes. The U.S. does make mistakes, and it is the responsibility of our allies to assist us in recognizing when we have done so. In my personal experience, disregarded friends (especially those offering aid) are friends no more. I have observed that relations among countries seem to follow this logic. Losing allies is preventable, and it is our responsibility as a nation, concerned with our own security, to see that this loss is prevented. -Nathan Morrison copywrite January 2006-PowersandMorrison.com This article may be reprinted free of charge. |
