Recent tragedies--the terrorist attack on U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the possible sabotage of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, and the bombing of Centennial Park at the Atlanta Olympics--are only the latest reminders of the serious dangers we as a nation face from terrorism.
On September 9, 1996, President Clinton requested an extra $1.1 billion dollars in spending, ostensibly to combat terrorism. These requests include $123 million to relocate troops in Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Administration has effectively responded to a terrorist attack for which it was unprepared (as confirmed by its own official review just released on September 16, 1996) by cutting and running, at great expense to U.S. credibility and the taxpayer.
In calling for this spending, President Clinton said, "[W]e have to take the fight to the terrorists." However, he has neglected to use funds already provided by Congress for anti-terrorism efforts, and has manifestly not "taken the fight" to the source of terrorism, namely its international patrons.
The 104th Congress has passed the toughest antiterrorism legislation in American history--but only over strong opposition from the President. Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration has recklessly failed to use the tools Congress has provided. Worse yet, the Administration's appeasement of terrorist regimes has made global terrorism a more serious threat to Americans than ever before.
Republican Congress: Tough on Terrorism
The 104th Congress has enacted legislation targeting states that sponsor terrorism, as well as nations doing business with terrorist regimes. Like tough drug laws stigmatiz
The landmark Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act (P.L. 104-114), enacted on March 12, strengthened sanctions on one of the seven states designated by the State Department as leading sponsors of terrorism. It also places sanctions on those who bolster the Castro regime and enables U.S. citizens to sue foreign companies acquiring property expropriated by Castro. The Clinton Administration strenuously opposed the Libertad Act until the Castro regime actually murdered American citizens on February 24, 1996--when Cuban MiGs blasted unarmed civilian aircraft on a humanitarian mission out of the skies in international airspace. Yet on July 16, having already flipped on the Libertad Act, the President flopped back to his original policy of appeasement. He announced that he was delaying the ability of United States citizens to sue foreign companies that are trafficking in their stolen Cuban property, thus neutralizing the secondary sanctions that provided the teeth in the bill.
The Iran Oil Sanctions Act (P.L. 104-172) likewise slaps sanctions on states bolstering Iran, rightly considered the most aggressive sponsor of terrorism in the world. The legislation superseded weaker measures advocated by President Clinton. The bill also tightens sanctions on Libya and places secondary sanctions on foreign companies investing in oil development in Libya or supplying Libya with oil development technology enumerated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 748. Besides making the bill tougher than the Administration wanted, Congress also expanded the menu of sanctions from which the President could choose, required that the President choose two options rather one from that menu, and incorporated a carrot and stick approach to encourage other nations to cooperate with the American sanctions regime.
The 1995 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-107) authorized the President to suspend taxpayer subsidies to Russia if Moscow moves forward with plans to supply the terrorist state of Iran with nuclear materials. Unfortunately, although Russia has not suspended its program, the President nonetheless refused to implement the law and continued the subsidies.
The Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 104-131), passed in April 1996, contains some of the toughest antiterrorism provisions ever enacted. The law strengthens death penalty provisions for terrorist crimes resulting in an American citizen's death, streamlines procedures for the deportation of criminal aliens, and allows U.S. citizens harmed by terrorists to sue nations that sponsor them in federal court. In addition, the bill:
- Empowers the Secretary of State to deny visas and asylum to members and representatives of foreign terrorist organizations who attempt to enter the U.S.
- Authorizes the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations in order to prevent them from accessing assets they may hold in this country.
- Prohibits Americans from knowingly giving any material support, except for medical and religious materials, to foreign terrorist organizations. (This denies designated terrorist organizations the use of U.S. resources to finance terrorist activity.)
- Establishes deportation procedures for aliens engaged in terrorist activity in cases where classified evidence is presented to support the allegation.
- Expands the definition of biological weapons components and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to monitor their transport into and out of the U.S.
- Prohibits American citizens from engaging in financial transactions with countries that have been designated as supporters of international terrorism.
- Requires federal judges to order convicted defendants to pay restitution to their crime victims.
- Prevents convicted terrorists from delaying their punishment for years through meritless, repetitious appeals.
President Clinton and officials at the highest levels of the Clinton Justice Department and White House personally lobbied Congress to gut the very portions of the 1996 bill that can be applied to the Oklahoma City terrorists. Clinton failed--but if he had succeeded, these terrorists, once convicted, might never be executed.
New Resources to Fight Terror--and How Clinton Has Failed to Use Them
Five months after Congress passed the massive 1996 omnibus antiterrorism bill, the President has failed abysmally to use the resources and authority that this Congress has already provided to fight terrorism.
The 104th Congress provided the Department of Justice with more than one-third of a billion dollars--on top of regular spending--specifically to fight terrorism. Of this amount, $239 million was earmarked for the FBI and, as of the beginning of August, less than one-fourth of these funds--only $58 million--had been obligated. According to the Administration, as of August 1996 the FBI had obligated less than a third of the funds--$22,590,000 out of $77,140,000--provided in the Fiscal Year 1995 antiterrorism supplemental passed by Congress over a year ago.
Furthermore, the FBI had on board barely a third--147 of 427--of the counterterrorism positions provided in the FY 1995 antiterrorism supplemental. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 4, 1996 that only now is President Clinton contemplating staffing-up this counterterrorism force--but by transferring 500 FBI agents, at the expense of other Bureau activities.
The Clinton Administration simply hasn't used the weapons Congress provided. By the FBI's own projections, at least $80 million of these FBI funds will still be unobligated at the end of this fiscal year. This assumes a highly optimistic projection for spending due in large part to congressional prodding of the Clinton Administration and the FBI to enhance counterterrorism capabilities.
This was the situation at the beginning of August, when the Clinton Administration "urgently" requested new legislation:
The FBI Counterterrorism Center, authorized last year by the 104th Congress, is not operational. Over $1.7 million of the $2.4 million appropriated for the current year will not be spent. Fully 25 intelligence analyst positions have not been filled.
The FBI Command Center has not been upgraded as directed by law. Eighteen of 22 authorized new personnel have not been hired. Over $18 million of the $21 million earmarked for antiterrorism will not be spent at the end of this year.
The Clinton Administration is woefully behind in hiring over 400 FBI support personnel who are desperately needed to support agents in tactical operations and surveillance activities for counterterrorism investigations. Though authorized, $17 million will not be spent at the end of this year.
The Clinton Administration is lagging in establishing FBI Special Surveillance groups for which Congress provided over $26 million. Though authorized, $8 million will not be spent.
The Clinton Administration has only spent $36 million--or less than half--of the $83 million Congress appropriated for digital telephony equipment, FBI tactical operations equipment, evidence response equipment, forensic equipment, and aviation support.
The Clinton Administration has obligated only $250,000 of the $57 million Congress provided for the construction of a new forensic laboratory critical to the analysis of evidence from terrorist incidents and serious crimes.
The sweeping new counterterrorism authorities provided under the 1996 antiterrorism bill have been untouched by the Clinton Administration. The President has not designated a single terrorist group, frozen any terrorist assets, or deported a single criminal alien. Although he sought new electronic surveillance authority and authority to regulate taggants, his Administration was already behind in implementing the provisions of the 1996 law relating to these very subjects. And although the House passed important new aviation security measures even before the August recess, the Administration adamantly insisted that it was unwilling to accept the bill (or any approach but its own)--even though increased aviation security was the most directly relevant response to the TWA 800 tragedy.
Finally, the Clinton Administration has flagrantly failed to implement the mandate of the 1990 Aviation Security Act, passed after the Lockerbie bombing, to deploy effective antiterrorism equipment and procedures by November 1993.
Clinton's Do-Nothing Approach to Sponsors of International Terror
Even beyond its efforts to sabotage Republican antiterrorism legislation and its failure to use the resources and powers already given it by Congress, the Clinton Administration's most troubling failure is strategic: its neglect of international sources of terrorism. Instead of proactive efforts to disable or deter known terrorist offenders like Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, and Iran--and their enablers, the Russian and Communist Chinese governments--the Administration's approach is to rely merely on passive, technological barriers. This is epitomized by Clinton's decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue to protect the White House from terrorists, while doing nothing to deter the terrorists from making the attack in the first place. This is nothing but a defensive crouch.
Even while the Administration was hectoring Congress for new warrantless wiretapping authority, the Washington Post reported on July 31, 1996 that the President had "decided not to press previous Clinton administration demands for international economic and political sanctions against governments accused of sponsoring terrorism" at the G-7 summit. In doing so, Clinton simply walked away from what his Administration had been describing for months as the cornerstone of their international antiterrorism strategy.
The horrifying Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia also raises questions about Clinton's priorities in his dealings with Syria. The Washington Post reported on July 3, 1996 that Syria knew that the Saudi perpetrators of the U.S. bombing were being trained in Lebanon. Syria, of course, occupies and militarily controls Lebanon. At this very time, nonetheless, the Administration assiduously courted the murderous Syrian dictator Hafez Assad with no less than two dozen visits by Secretary of State Christopher.
As for Iran, which Secretary of State Christopher called in testimony on May 18, 1995 "the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world," the Administration has effectively invited this pariah into the heart of Europe. Now, the same hive of terrorist activity that Iran sustains, with Syrian help, in southern Lebanon is established in Bosnia, where Clinton personally permitted them to ship arms and hundreds of "advisors." Iran has now created in Bosnia the nucleus of a long-term terrorist presence, flying in the face of the President's vaunted Dayton Accords. The Iranian infestation has has not only delayed the arming and training of the Bosnian Muslims and the creation of a stable long-term balance of power, but also created real risks to American and allied troops, U.S. diplomats, and their families. In February 1996, NATO commandos found horrifying evidence of what the Iranians are up to in Bosnia when they stormed an isolated chalet and discovered a terrorist training center equipped with sniper rifles, rocket launchers, and explosives disguised as children's toys.
In the face of all this, the Administration has actually opposed legislation placing sanctions on those who shore up Iran's economy.
The Clinton Administration has also appeased the brutal terrorists in Northern Ireland. In the process, Clinton has severely damaged our relationship with our closest ally in the battle against terrorism--the U.K. By granting a visa to Gerry Adams of the Irish Republican Army, the Administration contradicted longstanding State Department policy regarding terrorists. President Clinton's envoy to Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith, was reportedly reprimanded by Secretary of State Christopher after a State Department inspector general issued a report documenting Smith's improper and possibly illegal conduct. Smith allegedly attempted to destroy the careers of longtime foreign service officers who advised against the short-sighted (and heavily politicized) pro-IRA policy. The Administration subsequently invited Adams to visit the State Department and the White House and even to raise more than $600,000 for the IRA on American soil. And what did the U.S. gain by reversing its 25-year ban on official contacts with Sinn Fein? Adams's IRA compatriots broke the ceasefire with a bombing in London on February 9, 1996 that killed two and injured 100, and a subsequent bombing in Manchester on June 15 that injured over 200.
The State Department's 1995 Terrorism Report lists North Korea as another state sponsor of terrorism. Yet Clinton has delivered aid and light water nuclear reactor technology to North Korea in exchange for a mere promise by the Communists to stop developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms experts Albert Wohlstetter and Gregory Jones have rightly criticized the Clinton Administration's "misleading claims about light water reactors" being less susceptible to diversion from peaceful to military applications. They observed the appalling fact that, "The two big, costly light water reactors we have asked South Korea and Japan to pay for produce less plutonium per thermal watt but, because of their much larger total megawattage, would produce plutonium at a greater rate than the three reactors North Korea has suspended operating or building." This agreement rewarded a terrorist nation for trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction--with technology capable of producing more plutonium than they were working with beforehand.
Not surprisingly, North Korea appears to be continuing to develop nuclear weapons while simultaneously accepting the Clinton bribe. Its burgeoning array of ballistic missiles could be used to launch these nuclear weapons against our allies in Asia, against American troops in South Korea, and even against American citizens in Alaska or Hawaii. Even more likely, these weapons of mass destruction will be used for terrorist blackmail.
The Clinton Administration announced on May 10, 1996 that it would waive the automatic cutoff of aid to Russia triggered by its delivery of light water nuclear reactors to Iran. It also failed to punish Russia for signing a deal with Iraq to develop an oil project in that nation.
Most noticeably, the Administration has made no effort to deter or punish Communist China, a state that has not only aided terrorism but itself tried to smuggle instruments of terrorism into the United States. The PRC has provided the most deadly of weapons to Iran. These have included ballistic missile components, cruise missiles, and ingredients for chemical weapons. The Washington Times reported on July 23, 1996 that the CIA had discovered that Syria's "Scientific Studies and Research Center," which directs Syria's research on weapons of mass destruction and missiles that can deliver them, received a shipment of missile components last month from China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation. The latter company, Communist China's premier firm selling missiles (particularly M-11s) abroad, is a major producer of Syria's weapons of mass destruction and the missiles which can deliver them.
The PRC has served not only as the "sponsor of the sponsors" of terrorism in this fashion, but also as a direct instigator of terrorism in the United States. In May 1996, a federal sting operation caught representatives of firms owned by the Communist Chinese military (Poly Group and NORINCO) trying to smuggle AK-47s, machine guns with silencers, grenades, and even shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles into the U.S. According to the May 21, 1996 criminal complaint filed in U.S. federal court, the Communist Chinese terrorists boasted that the missiles they were trying to sell in the U.S. could "take out a 747." The Clinton Administration did nothing in response to this outrageous conduct by Communist China. Worse, according to press reports, the Clinton Administration went so far as to work to save He Ping, the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping who heads the Poly Group, from being caught in the FBI sting. A formal investigation into this allegation by the Treasury, Justice, and State Departments has begun.
Conclusion
A weaker stance against global terrorism than Clinton's is difficult to imagine. The Clinton Administration is all talk in the wake of the Khobar Towers, Flight 800, and Centennial Olympic Park tragedies. But its rhetoric rings shamelessly hollow in light of its flawed and incompetent record. Though the Executive Branch is charged under our Constitution with the job of law enforcement and national security policy, it is guilty of nonfeasance in failing to use the tools that the Congress has given it to do the job. Clinton's wholesale appeasement of terrorism's patrons has only made future terrorist attacks more likely.
Weakness in the face of terrorism begets more terrorism. It is past time for a fundamental change of policy.