Now that the 9-11 anniversary remembrances have occurred, after the heart wrenching stories have been told, we are told that we Americans have a duty, on behalf of those who were killed, to bring those killers justice. The act of bringing those murderers justice has been dubbed "The War On Terror".

But it is not as simple as, "go to country X, and kill everybody". This war will have a lot of covert enemies as well as overt. And some of those enemies are pretty close to home.

But war fever, macho jingoism, and waving flags is not the be all and end all of 9-11. There is much more that we must do to honor the 9-11 casualties than catching, trying, and killing their killers. If we are to truly honor those who died, we have a duty to honor them, by living our lives as they lived theirs. And if we are willing to go 180 degrees around the globe to thwart terrorists, then we need to eliminate them on our own soil as well.

Why did those people die?

Most of the people who died at the World Trade Center were engaged in the commerce of the United States, and the commerce of the world. They were engaged in profit. Making money. Promoting the trading of goods, and with it a higher standard of living for all world traders. In other words, free enterprise.

Nobody says this. There is the contention that these people were in the proverbial "wrong place at the wrong time". Nothing could be further from the truth. The 9-11 attackers knew what building they were striking. It wasn't the welfare office, the post office, the tourism office, the Israeli embassy, or even for that matter the United Nations. And they were not just striking a "symbol" of capitalism. They could have done that on a late night flight when the building was empty. If they wanted to attack "symbols" they could have attacked the Statue of Liberty. No. They intentionally struck a building full of people they knew full well were engaged in free enterprise.

So let me repeat that, and sear it into your brain. Most of the people who died at the World Trade Center died because they were engaging in free enterprise.

And this is to say nothing of the passengers of all four planes, most of whom were also engaged in free enterprise, and the reasons most of the passengers were flying that morning were business related.

Moreover, firefighters and police officers specifically present to conduct a rescue, died when the towers fell on them. These people died serving their community. Whatever wrong you might think police officers do in the course of their business, on this day, they were not serving illegal warrants, or writing traffic tickets, or beating up a suspect, or confiscating someone's guns. This day, they were doing their sworn constitutional duty. And they died because of it.

Accordingly, if we are to honor the 9-11 casualties, we should also respect and support firefighters and law enforcement officers doing their constitutional duty. But only when they are doing their constitutional duty. More on that later.

The attack on the Pentagon killed everyday soldiers serving their country. I don't care what you think of the politicians who often wage war for economic cause instead of national defense. I don't care whether you think the military brass is corrupt. This wasn't the brass for the most part. These were the rank and file military, and they died because they were serving in the United States military and for no other reason.

Flight 93 and the dreaded "M" word

Additionally, those who died on Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania, were engaged in another form of patriotism. According to reports, when these brave souls had heard through communications from the outside that it was likely their hijacked plane was to be used as a guided missile against some undefined American target, they banded together and formed an unorganized militia unit.

Yes, I said the M word. Militia. Which is not a bunch of rednecks in cammies in the wilderness doing survivalist training... not that there's anything WRONG with that... no, the Militia, as George Mason stated, and the founders concurred, is "the whole of the people". That's everybody, armed and unarmed, attack force, surveillance and support. This spontaneously formed militia, formed at that moment and for specific purpose, the purpose being to retake the plane, succeeded in at least thwarting the successful bombing of some unidentified but important target, even though they were unable to save the plane and themselves.

These people on Flight 93 were in reality the second military casualties of the War on Terror. Yes, military casualties. As far as I'm concerned, they should be awarded full military honors and have a plaque dedicated to them at Arlington National Cemetery. Because they performed the first military response to this modern day Pearl Harbor. No, they weren't sworn servicemen, as were the Pearl Harbor personnel and the Pentagon victims. But they served the same purpose, in the same position, being attacked, along with their nation being attacked, having to react suddenly, and doing so, as bravely as any soldier or minuteman who ever walked. They never "called" themselves the militia. They never registered with the governor, or engaged in any formal training. Heck, they didn't even have guns. They weren't allowed. But they served as a militia just the same.

How do you honor these people?

So if you are to rightly honor the casualties of 9-11, you must rightly honor free enterprise, service to community, and armed service to your community and your country, be it the military, or be it the unorganized militia. Moreover, these were free people, operating in a free country, choosing life paths of their own free will. So if you are to honor them, you must also honor freedom, and also civil liberties. This is something that cannot and must not be forgotten.

Let me tell you how you do NOT honor them. You do NOT honor them by assenting to whatever tyranny of the day some noodnik with a government title decides is okay in the name of "Homeland Security". You do not honor them with National ID cards, checkpoints on interstates, harassment and molestation of air travelers, suspension of constitutional rights in the name of security, or suppression of dissent. You do not honor them with expansion of a socialist government, and especially not expansion of a national socialist government. You do not honor them by raising taxes and by supporting the terrorist tendencies of government agencies like the IRS. You do not honor them by looking the other way when a law enforcement official violates the constitution, or by looking away when a judge sets himself up as God and abuses his authority, just because they say they are keeping crime down. You do not honor them by supporting your elected officials, even when they are wrong, even if they are evil.

And by doing all that, and waving flags and claiming to be patriotic, but accepting the transition of the United States into Nazi Germany, you do not honor them. You piss on their graves.

Securitymaniacs

Everyone seems to have what I call "security mania". You hear it all over the media. You hear pliant air travelers on camera willing to accept damned near anything including rape in order to "be safe". And I have only one thing to say to these security obsessed people.

Get the hell out of my country!!!

This country was not crafted to be safe. Our constitution was not crafted as a document to guarantee security. The United States of America was founded to establish not safety, but liberty. And the "security of that free state" was to be entrusted, not to a bunch of soldiers, or a bunch of jackbooted federal agents, or a bunch of cops, and definitely NOT to a bunch of airport security flunkies. It was to be entrusted to "a well-regulated militia", that selfsame "whole of the people" I spoke of earlier. You do NOT honor the 9-11 casualties by being secure. You honor them by being free. And by fighting for that freedom. And by vanquishing whatever tyranny threatens that freedom, no matter the source of that tyranny.

Why limit the War On Terror to Al Qaeda?

But if we are truly committed to the War on Terror, why should we limit it to people half way around the world, and limit it to wearers of the kefiyah or kufi? Why should not "domestic terrorists", and terrorists who wear suits and ties, or jackets and t-shirts, be included as the enemy in the War On Terror.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. When you hear "domestic terror", you think of racist skinheads. Or you think of the Earth Liberation Front. But the vast majority of domestic terror in the U.S. emanates from one source: government.

Consider the sins of the American government and of the state and local governments. From the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver, to the holocaust of the Branch Davidians (who flew a shield of David as their flag), to the fixed federal trials such as the one which probably unjustly convicted Jim Trafficant, to the traffic court rackets, to the stealing of children from happy families by Child Protective Services units, to the everyday activities of the Internal Revenue Service, to the BATF setups of gun owners on unconstitutional charges, to the regular suppression of dissent by the Secret Service, first under Clinton, and now, much more markedly, under Bush. And I could go on and on, to the latest craze of the regular near sexual assault of airline passengers by some of the worst vermin to occupy this country, the airport security personnel who suddenly have been given a mere sniff of absolute power, and have gone stark raving mad.

I'm much more likely to suffer from this variety of government "domestic terror" than I ever am likely to be killed over my ethnicity, or have my property burned down because some radical thinks my farm is endangering species, or thinks I am tyrannizing my free range chickens. I am also much more likely to fall victim to the terrorism of the federal government as a political dissident than I am to be caught in an Osama Bin Laden inspired attack. So tell me once again, so I can get it straight.

Whom should I really be fighting in the War On Terror? What enemy should I be planning to shoot at? What attack should I really be preparing for? Some guys who live half way around the world? Or a federal agent?

The terrorists acts of the United States government

There are so many terrorist acts of the United States government I cannot possibly name them all. But let me give a random sample, which I will try and limit to people who are actually still alive... if I went back to J. Edgar Hoover, I'd be here all day.

The COINTELPRO program
The Ruby Ridge murders
The likely assassination of White House Counsel Vince Foster
The Waco murders
Deliberate withholding of evidence in the Timothy McVeigh trial
The FDA sacrificing AIDS patients for drug company profits
BATF armed terrorist raids of gun shops over technicalities
Cover-up of the Gulf War Syndrome by the government
The abominable treatment our government gives its veterans
The cover up of the TWA800 incident, which was probably a missile shootdown by either terrorists or our own navy
The assassination of Admiral Jeremy Boorda
Government moves to mandate access to encryption keys
The Klamath Basin incident
Apparent FBI indifference to the probability that 7 of the 19 alleged 9-11 hijackers may still be alive
Secret court proceedings with sealed documents after the 9-11 incidents, violating all due process
Current harassment of air travelers by airport security personnel
The PATRIOT act, and several other acts designed directly at chipping away civil liberties
Attempts to eliminate Posse Comitatus, opening up the United States for military takeover
The FDA endorsement of Cipro, an expensive antibiotic manufactured by Bayer, as an anthrax antidote, to the exclusion of more commonly known and effective, but cheaper, antibiotics
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which essentially allows a state to use a health epidemic, real or invented, to suspend not only their constitution and basic civil rights and due process, but also allows for the creation of concentration camps
The federal moves at Point Reyes National Seashore to actually drive residents out and destroy towns
The Financial Action Task Force set up under the auspices of the G7, designed to deny financial privacy worldwide
The unmitigated tyranny of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as concerns private property and states rights
And this is just the tip of the iceberg...

The acts of terrorism by state and local governments

The assassination of four students at Kent State University
The assassination of Donald Scott
The assassination of William Cooper
The oppression by several states of the Christie family and the ongoing attempt to steal their children
Commonplace eminent domain confiscation of homes of the elderly
Commonplace homeowner association harassment and confiscation of homes
Eminent domain confiscation to provide land for private business interests
Harassment of home businesses by municipalities
Conspiracy of municipalities to steal automobiles
The mandatory insurance racket: terrorism by bureaucracy for the benefit of the insurance companies
Again, the tip of the iceberg

So what are we supposed to do with terrorists again?

So if we're supposed to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, and oppose and invade countries who harbor them, what about the domestic terrorists within our own government. What are we supposed to do to them?

Let's put this in its proper perspective. We have a duty to defend free enterprise.

We also have a duty to oppose corporate fraud and corruption, of the variety we have recently witnessed with Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and likely hundreds of other companies.

And we have a duty to support law enforcement when it is doing its constitutional duty. When they do that, we should honor those brave men and women.

However, as much as we have that duty, we also have a duty to oppose law enforcement when it steps out of that role, and instead, engages in criminality or terrorism of its own. And like any other tyranny, we have a responsibility to do more than just bitch and moan. Whether it is through lawsuits, through media coverage, through criminal prosecutions, through elections, or even through what we patriots refer to as the "Time Honored Tradition". Criminality, tyranny and terrorism must be opposed, WHEREVER it is found, WHOEVER is perpetrating it, in order to preserve liberty.

We should also honor politicians who do their constitutional duty. And when I find some who are actually doing their duty and following the constitution, I will let you know so you can honor them. It frankly would be easier to find ten righteous men in Sodom.

Moreover, we should honor our military personnel by paying them a living wage so they don't have to live on food stamps, care for the sick and injured veteran with dignity, and promise to move heaven and earth to return them home when they are captured by the enemy. Our government has failed to do all of this.

And finally, we must also honor "the whole of the people" by entrusting them with the security of the nation and the neighborhood. Gun control, by its very premise, dishonors this "whole of the people", instead, casting a net of suspicion upon all people, all in the name of security. Eternal vigilance means enabling the people to act as the guardians of liberty. It does not mean creating a Snitch Nation, which is what the TIPS program would have done, and is what most of the Fatherland Security proposals do. This criminality, tyranny and terrorism must also be opposed, WHEREVER it is found, WHOEVER is perpetrating it, by any means necessary, in order to preserve liberty.

The questionable motives of the Bush War

Let me say this. I didn't like the Taliban. The Taliban were the worst manner of tyrant on the face of the earth. However, I got the distinct impression that the War On Terror was waged on the Taliban, not because they were "bad guys", or "evildoers" in the Bush lingo. Nor do I see the Taliban having been attacked because they were alleged to have harbored Bin Laden. I was left with the impression that Afghanistan was attacked because the Taliban refuse to share the region's oil with American petroleum companies. Indeed, not six months prior to September 11, the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million dollars. In July, 2001, Osama Bin Laden met with the CIA and walked away. So howcomesit they suddenly turn up as the heavy?

Moreover, Osama Bin Laden used to be a CIA asset. As Saddam Hussein used to be an American ally. And of course, Iraq has oil fields to exploit, too. So one has to ask if the specter of Iraqi nuclear capability is real? Or a staged premise for invasion?

Who helped the 9-11 terrorists?

Which leads many people on both the left and right to come to at least a suspicion that "maybe the government planned it all". Now I don't really think the Bush administration planned 9-11. But I do wonder if the stonewalling of prospective 9-11 investigations is happening just because a few bureaucrats are covering their "assets" because they were caught with their pants down. I wonder if the terrorists actually had American help, and had it not from radical dissidents, or ethnic or religious sympathizers, but had help from within the very agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA, that are ostensibly authorized to watch out for this kind of thing. I do wonder if these agencies "laid down" because they knew they would get increased police powers if they did.

Mohamed Atta and his cousin Marwan Ashehri were actually American citizens, a fact which is probably one of the most heavily suppressed facts about 9-11. Seven of the hijackers also trained at U.S. military schools, another fact conveniently omitted by government and press alike. As early as 1995, evidence had been garnered from associates of Ramzi Youssef detailing Al Qaeda plans to use planes to fell skyscrapers. When FBI agents tried to investigate the alleged "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui this summer, their efforts were quashed from higher ups.

Additionally, one of the flight data recorders actually turned up blank. That just doesn't happen without either someone on the inside making sure it was never turned on, or someone after the fact erasing or replacing the tape. Also, an Arab man arrested in New York as the airports reopened, was wearing a pilot's uniform and in possession of some identification not his own. He also had a reservation on a transcontinental flight that didn't make it into the air on 9-11. Yet the FBI, eager to detain so many and deny common civil rights for detained prisoners to so many, claimed that this man had no links to the terrorist act. And the INS for all intents and purposes has deported not one immigrant from any country under suspicion of harboring Al Qaeda.

So many conspiracy theorists go out on very long limbs to try and explain the 9-11 events, even going so far as to claim the planes weren't really hijacked. But one really doesn't have to go very far to find the facts that point to the possible involvement of the American government.

War on domestic terrorists within our own government?

It is probable that elements of the government of the United States, whether by organized design, or whether by willful failure to transmit intelligence, coconspired to bring about the 9-11 attacks. And if a War On Terror must be fought against the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, then that war must necessarily be fought not only against Al Qaeda cells in far off lands. That war must also be fought against numerous traitors within the United States government. And if we are to say that those far off Al Qaeda cell members deserve to be killed, what excuse do we have to not demand the same justice for members of the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the BATF, the TSA, or any other agency within this country, whether they coconspired with the 9-11 perpetrators, or whether they practice their common everyday terror against Americans.

When we have rooted out, tried, and hanged our own traitors within our own governments, then, and only then, have we the right to pronounce judgment on Osama Bin Laden, and on the likes of Saddam Hussein. If that takes a bloody civil war on American soil, all I have to say is, "Let's Roll".

Liz Michael has formed a committee to run for the U. S. Senate from Arizona in 2004. http://www.lizmchael.org

Copyright, 2002, LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com . Permission to reprint granted so long as the website and the copyright remains referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press entity which reprints.

________________________________

Please rate this article! Knowing what you like will help us provide the content you want.

Bad Poor Average Good Excellent

If there's anything specific you'd like to say about this article, please do so here. Comments may be used in an upcoming Letters to the Editor.