IP: Molly Ivins checks in

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Molly Ivins, best-selling author and widely syndicated political columnist 
for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram


> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> [Note:  This item comes from reader Mike Cheponis.  DLH]
>
> At 23:37 -0800 11/1/01, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> > From: Mike Cheponis <mac () wireless com>
> > Subject: Molly Ivins checks in
> > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:37:17 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >                          Dropping bombs, slashing freedom
> >
> > BY MOLLY IVINS
> >
> > IT now looks, with 20-20 hindsight, as though he should have taken a few 
> > more deep breaths before smacking that tar-baby that is Afghanistan. 
> > We're running out of time for three reasons -- winter, Ramadan and the 
> > prospect of millions of people starving to death.
> >
> > We've run out of time to set up a bridge or coalition government and so, 
> > of necessity, are throwing our lot with the Northern Alliance. According 
> > to the Afghan women's organization, the Northern Alliance is as bad as 
> > the Taliban.
> >
> > We seem to have bombed everything bombable, including the Red Cross 
> > twice. At this point, it seems to me, we can give it another month and 
> > call the war for the season, which is what the Afghans do, and wait 'til 
> > next year without any disgrace. What would be worse than disgraceful is 
> > causing mass starvation. The humanitarian aid folks are getting frantic 
> > about this, and we need to stop and figure out what we can do about it.
> >
> > The trick to smiting back those who smote us is to first figure out where 
> > they are. This means using creative diplomacy and plain police work. We 
> > need to hit them without killing the innocents around them. If it takes 
> > years, it takes years.
> >
> > The administration is in some danger of sacrificing one of its most 
> > important assets, which is the trust of the American people. The problem 
> > is not that everyone isn't singing off the same page, but that some 
> > parties are being less than frank. There is no point in telling us our 
> > ``surgical, precision bombing'' doesn't kill civilians -- we're 
> > grown-ups, we know.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back on the home front, Congress is engaged in criminal folly. 
> > Not only has the House passed a sickening bundle of tax cuts to benefit 
> > IBM, General Motors and General Electric, but they're telling us that to 
> > defend freedom, we must surrender freedom. In the name of democracy, we 
> > must abandon democracy.
> >
> > There are 51 emergency anti-terrorism bills packaged under the 
> > meretricious title ``Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 
> > and Obstruct Terrorism Act'' -- stands for patriot; cute, eh? Among the 
> > more staggering proposals, the act authorizes indefinite detention of 
> > anyone ``suspected'' of any terrorist connection. The definition of 
> > ``terrorist activity'' is left largely to the FBI and the CIA, which have 
> > had difficulty grasping democratic principles in the past.
> >
> > Legislators have already passed much of this garbage and proudly claim 
> > that the most controversial surveillance sections will expire in 2005. In 
> > fact, the 2005 expiration date applies only to a tiny portion of the 
> > sprawling bill. The police will have permanent ability to conduct 
> > Internet surveillance without a court order, and secretly search homes 
> > and offices -- the CIA will have cosmetic authority. It's an abomination.
> >
> > As though this weren't bad enough, the CIA wants the power to assassinate 
> > people, just like terrorists. And the FBI, according to a Walter Pincus 
> > article in the Washington Post, is seeking power to ``pressure'' 
> > uncooperative prisoners by using drugs or ``Israeli-style'' methods. Why 
> > not just crack out the bastinado and the rack?
> >
> > There is not the slightest evidence that any of the measures will do dog 
> > to stop terrorism. From what we know of how Sept. 11 happened, we have a 
> > visa system so full of holes it's a disgrace and a problem with airport 
> > security. There really is no inverse relationship between freedom and 
> > security -- we can't make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free.
> >
> > We also have an obligation to consider what kind of society we're making 
> > in unseemly haste and leaving to our children and future generations. We 
> > urgently need a serious national dialogue about these issues, but all 
> > we're getting from television is 24-hour exploitation of the anthrax scare.


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/