Ours is a dangerous time. We live in a country that has been ruthlessly attacked by terrorists whose value of human life is reprehensible. Their attack on our country is quite rightly described by our president as “an attack on our way of life.” Indeed, the terrorists despise the freedoms that we enjoy, and they seek to destroy them. We must all be on alert to see to it that they do not succeed.
The fact that we must defend our way of life is obvious. What is not so obvious to students is exactly what we should do. What we do know is that our leaders have taken two actions in defense of our way of life: a war against terrorism and the Taliban regime, as well as investigations seeking to capture suspected terrorists.
Yet when an Israeli Parliament member was killed by a terrorist organization last week, we did not seek out that terrorist group. So why do we only pursue those terrorists (and their harborers) who have directly damaged our way of life?
Why is it that we do not pursue those terrorist groups who have been committing such atrocious acts on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian war? Why do we not pursue any other terrorist organizations? Should a particular evil only be important to us if it directly involves us? As students, we must ask ourselves if that is the right approach to be taking.
Our leaders are also telling us that the campaign has been, up to this point, successful. They believe that eventually the Taliban regime will fold from within; that the people will either defect or construct a just regime under new leadership. To that end, we are providing the people of Afghanistan with humanitarian aid while bombing Taliban forces. This might, in the end, work.
Last Friday we learned that an opposition leader was captured and executed by Taliban forces. The American government was aiding this leader, who was on a mission to recruit defectors from the Taliban. He had all of the attributes of one who could rally dissenters within Afghanistan against the Taliban. He was a hero among many Afghanis because of his leadership in a successful campaign against the Soviets, and he despised the Taliban because they had killed members of his family. This fact was, no doubt, not lost upon our government when he went into Afghanistan to recruit defectors.
Yet there is no denying that after over 20 days of bombing, he is dead, and the number of defectors is minimal. The Northern Alliance, the main opposition group, has progressed no further, members of our delicate coalition face serious domestic threats due to their support of the long-term bombing, and, most importantly, we have not captured Osama bin Laden.
That is to say nothing of the civilian casualties. We must seek to destroy the Taliban and the terrorists they harbor, but as students, we are compelled to ask whether the current strategy will be successful in the end.
Last week also marked the signing of new anti-terrorism legislation. In their nationalism, many legislators dubbed this bill “Patriot.” It gives law-enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, including significantly lower standards for wiretapping and other searches. It also gives them the ability to continue searching an individual or group even after the suspicion is deemed unwarranted.
Most striking about the legislation is that it passed both houses of Congress under internal rules that did not allow amendment. Other provisions further blur the lines of checks and balances, allowing agencies to get around independent judicial oversight.
It seems that in a time of war, many of our legislators believe the best way to protect our freedoms and liberties is to inhibit them. I am, unfortunately, reminded of the Korematsu case during World War II, when basic rights were tossed aside with a similar justification.
America is a land where people are free to pursue their happiness through liberty. That is what makes it great. If we wish for that way of life to be preserved, we must continue to defend those freedoms and liberties. We must not be afraid to question our representatives when they say that this is an outright war on terrorism, and that it has been successful thus far.
Most importantly, we must question whether a large sacrifice of rights is currently warranted. To be honest, what bothers me most is not the particular scope, strategy, or legislation involving our war on terrorism. It is the fact that so few students are actually debating these important, specific issues.
As students, we must exercise our right to question our leaders, whether we agree with their decisions or not. We must not give in to those self-described patriots who, like David Horowitz, argue that dissenting only helps the terrorists. It is Horowitz, and all those students who refuse to ask difficult questions, who are contributing to the terrorists’ goals.
For, if we are to truly defend those freedoms that the terrorists attacked, we must avidly use and protect those freedoms. If we do not, the terrorists will have destroyed the American way of life.
Paul Temple ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.