Cato Daily Dispatch for August 1, 2002

Southeast Asia Nations and U.S. Sign Anti-Terror Agreement

Southeast Asia nations signed an anti-terror pact today with Secretary of State Colin Powell ahead of his visit to Indonesia, seen as the weak link in the region's war on terrorism, according to Reuters.

Foreign ministers from the 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United States pledged to share intelligence, block terrorist funds, tighten borders and make it tougher to use forged travel papers.

The ASEAN and the United States view "acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations...as a profound threat to international peace and security, which require concerted action to protect and defend all peoples and the peace and security of the world," the declaration said.

Powell welcomed the pact, saying it would bring Southeast Asia and the United States closer in their bid to counter terrorist networks, but he said it would not open the door to increased U.S. troop levels in Asia.

"Instead of entangling itself in squabbles of limited international significance, Washington should encourage friendly states to better arm themselves and to create cooperative relationships with each other, for example, through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and with reliable outside players, particularly India and Japan," writes Senior Fellow Doug Bandow in "Needless Entanglements: Washington's Expanding Security Ties in Southeast Asia." "The United States should adopt a lower military profile in the region and abandon expensive and risky commitments that no longer serve the interests of the American people."

Experts Say Invasion of Iraq Would Carry Significant Risks

In the first public hearings on the administration's goal of ousting Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi presidency, an array of experts warned a Senate committee yesterday that an invasion of Iraq would carry significant risks ranging from more terrorist attacks against American targets to higher oil prices, according to The New York Times.

Opening a congressional debate that is almost certain to gain momentum into the fall, the witnesses - including former senior military officers and nongovernment experts on Iraq - expressed confidence that American forces would prevail in an invasion. But they said it would be a difficult fight, requiring a major commitment of troops and the support of many allies.

They also offered sharply different prescriptions for dealing with Hussein, with some calling for a swift, large-scale attack to depose him before his biological and nuclear weapons capabilities mature and others arguing instead for a tighter embargo and more aggressive weapons inspections to contain him.

The threat Saddam Hussein poses to U.S. security is overblown and our current policy of trying to overthrow Saddam is futile, writes David Isenberg in "Imperial Overreach: Washington's Dubious Strategy to Overthrow Saddam Hussein." Instead, he recommends that general economic sanctions be replaced with a limited export control process that would restrict Iraq's ability to rearm.

In "U.S. Should Refrain from Attacking Iraq," Cato Chairman William Niskanen outlines why the U.S. should not attack Iraq "unless it presents evidence, at least credible enough for Tony Blair, that Saddam helped finance, organize, or implement the Sept. 11 attacks or that he has supplied weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist group."

Detainees in Cuba Denied Access to U.S. Courts

The 600 suspected terrorists being held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have no right to bring their cases to U.S. courts, a federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday in a decision that allows the government to continue holding the detainees indefinitely, according to The Washington Post.

In a 34-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected efforts by 16 captives to end the government's policy of holding them without charges, access to lawyers or trial dates. It was the first time a U.S. judge had ruled on the merits of that practice.

Kollar-Kotelly ruled that although the men may have "some form of rights under international law," such as the Geneva Convention, their nationalities and their geographic location mean that they do not have the right to press their cases in U.S. courts.

Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, wrote in "Citizen Padilla: Dangerous Precedent" that "the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other."

In "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Protecting Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," Timothy Lynch, associate director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, argues that government officials have typically responded to terrorist attacks by enacting "antiterrorism" legislation designed to assuage public fears by making "the dubious claim that they can prevent terrorism by curtailing the privacy and civil liberties of the people."

Printer Friendly Version