By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
September 18, 2001
Almost exactly 200 years ago, President Thomas Jefferson was having a very similar problem to the one now confronting President George W. Bush. A group of terrorists were harassing American ships. And the terrorists were basically from the same part of the world - the Arab world - only then they were called the Barbary pirates. They were from the lands now called Libya and Tunisia.
President Jefferson, faced with a huge economic problem as England, and then the Barbary State pirates seized American ships and cargo, sent warships to the Mediterranean, blockaded the small nation of Tripoli. (in what is today's Libya). He made an unsuccessful effort to promote a palace coup in Tripoli, which was perhaps the first government sanctioned covert operation in American history.
The U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, which outlines the powers of the U.S. Congress, states that Congress has the power "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offences against the laws of nations." Both Jefferson, and Bush, have had constitutional authority to take action against foreign nationals and nations who kill our people and destroy free trade.
Yet, I'm getting a whole lot of e-mail from people and organizations who seem to agree with Bill Clinton's approach to international terrorism - do nothing or very little. Some would like to convince me that this terrorism is somehow a legitimate protest against "globalism" and "free trade" which, they claim, only benefits powerful nations like America.
This is remarkably similar to the arguments of the English and the Barbary pirates of 1800. Jefferson, who was a Democrat, was philosophically opposed the strong Federal government notions of the Federalists however one of his first moves was to take strong federal action against the Barbary pirates who were demanding tribute from American merchant ships. Almost immediately after being inaugurated in 1801, Jefferson sent the tiny American Navy to the Mediterranean to blockade Tripoli (now the capitol of Gaddafi's Libya). He forced the pirates to respect the American flag.
In his second administration, the British navy, which previously had been occupied in Britain's war with Napoleon, began seizing American ships with cargoes bound for Europe and forcing American sailors into the Royal Navy. The problem partly stemmed from the practice of British sailors jumping ship to join U.S. merchant vessels. Thousands of such deserters were considered fair game to the British navy even if they were just American seaman, and not deserters.
Then in the summer of 1807, the British warship "Leopard" fired on the American naval frigate "Chesapeake," killing three Americans when the ship refused boarding orders. Cries for war erupted throughout the nation.
Jefferson was determined to avoid war, so he banned all British ships from U.S. ports, ordered state governors to prepare to call up 100,000 militiamen, and suspended trade with all of Europe. This, of course, led to a sharp drop in American exports from $108 million to $22 million, causing what we would call an economic recession of major proportions.. In the final months of his presidency, Jefferson and Congress replaced the Embargo Act with the Non-Intercourse Act, which banned trade with England and France but allowed it with all other countries. Eventually, the trade war would push America into a fighting war in 1812 with England during the administration of Jefferson's successor, James Madison.
Based on the e-mail barrage I'm getting which is blaming the World Trade Center bombing on just about everyone, there's a large contingent who believe that "Any use of force by the US will probably be illegal in international law and counter-productive as well. America cannot buy security for its own people by making life more insecure for people elsewhere" as one person put it.
If, upon full investigation, we have clear evidence that this most recent pirating of airplanes terrorist act, which has taken the lives of thousands of people, not all of whom are Americans, and possibly a billion dollars in property damage, was caused by Osama bin Laden and his operatives, that clearly falls under the provisions of the 8th Section of the First Article of the U.S. Constitution. We also have the precedent of President Jefferson's actions against piracy, which is merely terrorism at sea.
Life needs to be made more insecure for those who are using terrorism to advance their cause. And, in my opinion, that includes those who use Molotov cocktails when supposedly "demonstrating." Throwing petrol bombs is not demonstrating. That's terrorism. The only difference in a Molotov cocktail thrown at a policeman and killing thousands of people by hijacking an airplane and flying it into a building with 55,000 people is the size of the explosion.
There is no "right" in the U.S. Constitution that allows people to commit violence while exercising their right to assemble. In fact, the First Amendment to the US Constitution only protects the right to "peaceably assemble." It does not protect the "right" to riot, such as we saw in World Trade meeting in Seattle, the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy and elsewhere among the anti-globalists.
There is, however, under the Constitution amble authority for President Bush and the U.S. Congress to take the actions they have taken to stop Worldwide terrorism.
This is not Vietnam. This was an attack on the United States of America and we have every right to defend our country.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com