Myths of the War on Terrorism

[José]

Myths of the War on Terrorism

Does the truth lie in Michael Chertoff's gut?

Steve Chapman | July 12, 2007

For anyone who has grown complacent about the danger of terrorism, the incidents in London and Glasgow were supposed to provide a jolt of reality. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy put it, "these foiled attacks are best understood as new rounds in a long, global war, provoked by the challenge of radical Islam." Here was proof that the jihadists are still out there, ready to strike at the moment of their choosing.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff clearly agrees. On a visit Tuesday to the Chicago Tribune, he said he has a "gut feeling" an attack may be imminent. "The intent to attack us remains as strong as it was on Sept. 10, 2001," he declared.

Well, no one in that job is ever going to say the danger has been overstated. But the truth is that intent and ability are not the same thing. Though, al Qaeda may—emphasize "may"—still have the capacity to mount the occasional major operation, that doesn't mean terrorism should be treated as an omnipresent, existential threat.

In reality, this fight bears only a faint resemblance to a real war. Only rarely can al Qaeda and its imitators manage a strike against their prime enemies, Britain and the United States, and even more rarely can they succeed. Like the alleged terrorists who planned to attack Fort Dix and JFK International Airport, the perpetrators in Britain were not trained professionals but bumbling amateurs.

On Sept. 12, 2001, it was easy to believe that we would suffer dozens of major attacks on U.S. soil over the next six years, and almost impossible to imagine we would suffer none. Instead of being the opening blitz of a "long, global war," 9/11 was a freak event that may never be replicated.

In a real war, such as the ones we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, many people die, week in and week out. But John Mueller, a national security professor at Ohio State University, notes that in a typical year, no more than a few hundred people are killed worldwide in attacks by al Qaeda and similar groups outside of war zones.

That's too many, but it's not a danger on the order of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or even Saddam Hussein. It's more like organized crime—an ongoing problem demanding unceasing vigilance, a malady that can be contained but never eliminated.

By framing the fight as a global war, we have helped Osama bin Laden and hurt ourselves. Had we treated him and his confederates as the moral equivalent of international drug lords or sex traffickers, the organization might not have the romantic image it has acquired. By exaggerating the potential impact, we also magnified the disruptive effect of any plots, which is just what the terrorists seek.

We do further harm to ourselves by accepting government actions we would never tolerate except in the context of war. Recently, a federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's secret surveillance of phone calls made between the United States and foreign countries.

The judges' reasoning was right out of "Catch-22": You can't sue unless you can prove you've been wiretapped, but you can't prove it because the wiretappers won't tell you. The government abuses its power secretly, in the name of national security, and the secrecy protects it from having to end the abuse.

Crime is a serious national problem that used to be even worse. At the height of the mayhem, more than 24,000 Americans were murdered annually—a Sept. 11, 2001, attack every six weeks. Yet even when the toll was at its worst, we insisted that police respect the constitutional rights of suspected criminals. We maintained the limits on the power of the president and other law enforcement officials to investigate and imprison people. For the most part, we kept our perspective.

After the World Trade Center came down, by contrast, we let ourselves be convinced that many restrictions were an unaffordable luxury. Any concern for civil liberties was met with the retort: "We're at war." And in war, anything goes.

The 9/11 attack was a crisis that has largely passed, but no one in Washington wants to admit it. It's politically safer to depict the danger as undiminished no matter how long we go without an attack. But someday, we will look back and ask if we were acting out of sensible caution or unfounded panic.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121344.html

[Kent McManigal]

My suspicion is that there will be another "terrorist" attack as soon as the US government decides it "needs" one.

[AX-poulpe]

My suspicion is that there will be another "terrorist" attack as soon as the US government decides it "needs" one.

Well…can you seriously believe that the government would set in any way some kind of terrorist attack only to justify its counterfeit laws ? I'm not much into "masterplan" theories, if you see what I mean. I do believe that the governement took advantage of the situation to create anti-liberty laws, but I do not think it can control terrorism just to serve its own interests.

Have I misunderstood your message ? What do you think Kent ?

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Let's be realistic: the US government is Al Qaeda's strongest ally today. Maybe out of stupidity but I do not think that all these people can be that stupid. A form of connivence between Al Qaeda and the US government has been established, you just have to read Al Qaeda's latest warning to the Iranians.

[Kent McManigal]

I don't believe that the US government commits the acts of terrorism like the September 11 attacks (but I could be wrong). I think they allow certain ones to occur when it fits their agenda, in order to keep the population frightened and willing to give up more liberty. I believe that many in high positions in government are evil enough to carry out terrorist bombings and such if they thought they could get away with it. I'm just not convinced it has happened yet. I consider "laws" such as the USA PATRIOT act to be terrorism that the government is directly responsible for, and proud of. They do not even try to hide these treasonous acts.

[AX-poulpe]

I don't believe that the US government commits the acts of terrorism like the September 11 attacks (but I could be wrong). I think they allow certain ones to occur when it fits their agenda, in order to keep the population frightened and willing to give up more liberty. I believe that many in high positions in government are evil enough to carry out terrorist bombings and such if they thought they could get away with it. I'm just not convinced it has happened yet. I consider "laws" such as the USA PATRIOT act to be terrorism that the government is directly responsible for, and proud of. They do not even try to hide these treasonous acts.

I don"t live in America, so I can't say how exactly your politics are. Neither do I know you in person, but I think that in this case your hate of the state may alter your judgement . Maybe I am wrong, maybe what you say IS possible, but I'm not conviced. Everytime I've seen documentaries developping this theory, the arguments and investigation were weak and incomplete. Which eventually made me very careful with what I heard about the US in France.

[Kent McManigal]

your hate of the state may alter your judgement

That is possible. I think my attitude is more in the form of a healthy skepticism than hatred. Perhaps I delude myself.

In my personal experience I have been lied to by government functionaries frequently enough to know that they will lie when it serves their purpose. If they do this on a local level, I fully expect that they also do it on a national level. I also know that government officials routinely cover up the misdeeds of thier own enforcement troops, such as in the "war on drugs", when innocent people are brutally killed in police home invasions to arrest people for drug violations. If they can kill families on a local level, why would they stop short of killing hundreds more people on a national scale? I suppose what I am trying to say is that we already know government kills, we are only debating how many people they kill. When it suits their purpose, of course. I do not pretend to have any love or respect for any state offices, programs, or officials.

[Invité jabial]

Let's be realistic: the US government is Al Qaeda's strongest ally today. Maybe out of stupidity but I do not think that all these people can be that stupid. A form of connivence between Al Qaeda and the US government has been established, you just have to read Al Qaeda's latest warning to the Iranians.

Please quote and explain.

I don't believe that the US government commits the acts of terrorism like the September 11 attacks (but I could be wrong). I think they allow certain ones to occur when it fits their agenda, in order to keep the population frightened and willing to give up more liberty.

I don't think such a thing could happen, because it would mean too many people knowing of a crime, and some of them would sooner or later have an interest in leaking it. What is possible is that certain individuals purposefully ignore some warnings without saying anything to anyone, but currently I don't see how this line of reasoning explains any terrorist attacks on the US. However, I fully agree with you that politicians are evil enough to do this kind of things if they could get away with it; they just can't realistically.

I consider "laws" such as the USA PATRIOT act to be terrorism that the government is directly responsible for, and proud of. They do not even try to hide these treasonous acts.

You can't use words like "terrorism" to qualitfy anything other than physical attacks without looking (to ordinary people you want to convince, which is a problem) like a crackpot. The Patriot Act is an act of treason against everything the US once stood for, but again, it's not the first nor the biggest and in my humble opinion won't be the last nor the worst. The one good thing about this one is that, for the first time in God knows how many decades, one slaver law has a chance to be repealed, because the Reps did it and currently many people hate their guts. But if we want it to, we have to use arguments that look reasonable to the moderate mystics-of-the-state types, and not words like "slavery" and "terror" like you and I just did. Just think about it when you speak live.

[Jesrad]

Please quote and explain.

I think he means this in the sense that the way your opponent fights you can play in your tactical advantage.

[Nick de Cusa]

Let's be realistic: the US government is Al Qaeda's strongest ally today. Maybe out of stupidity but I do not think that all these people can be that stupid. A form of connivence between Al Qaeda and the US government has been established, you just have to read Al Qaeda's latest warning to the Iranians.

Signalé. Complot International. Charte. Sauf à penser qu'une connivance gouvernement US - Al Quaeda ne tombe pas dans cette catégorie, auquel cas je demanderai à voir les définitions des mots

- complot

- international

As long as the forum's charter hasn't been amended on this point, and I for one hope it won't be, this kind of speculation belongs somewhere else. Lucky you, there are thousands of places on the web where you can indulge in this line of thought (using the word loosely).

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Please quote and explain.

Let's take this piece of information, for example:

<a href="http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic…ia-283783-1.xml" target="_blank">http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic…ia-283783-1.xml</a>

The title should be sufficient: "Qaeda group in Iraq threatens to attack Iranians".

Al Qaeda and the US governement have a common enem: Iran. And the US intervention in Iraq has been a great push for Al Qaeda over there.

I don't think such a thing could happen, because it would mean too many people knowing of a crime, and some of them would sooner or later have an interest in leaking it.

What interest would have the people involved in a such a crime to leak information about it, thus breaking the whole purpose of it and also exposing themselves to justice? Please explain.

And I don't know where you have been, but there have been litterally hundreds of testimonies that have shed some doubt on the official explanation.

Signalé. Complot International. Charte. Sauf à penser qu'une connivance gouvernement US - Al Quaeda ne tombe pas dans cette catégorie, auquel cas je demanderai à voir les définitions des mots

- complot

- international

Il me semble que l'achat d'un dictionnaire s'impose.

EDIT: Je ne laisserai pas cette accusation grotesque de "délire paranoïaque" et de "complot international" s'abattre sur moi une seconde fois, sans aucune raison valable. J'ai déjà dit il y a longtemps que je ne m'intéresse pas aux théories du complot et je n'avance que des faits vérifiables. Je ne sais pas s'il y a quelque chose dans la charte qui interdit la diffamation envers un membre du forum, mais s'il faut aller en justice, je le ferai. Te voilà prévenu, Nick de Cusa.

[Nick de Cusa]

Let's be realistic: the US government is Al Qaeda's strongest ally today. Maybe out of stupidity but I do not think that all these people can be that stupid. A form of connivence between Al Qaeda and the US government has been established, you just have to read Al Qaeda's latest warning to the Iranians.

In fact, you see it as intentional that the invasion of Irak has given Al Qaeda more leeway to prepare actions against Iran.

I think you see the intent coming from both sides, but you're not absolutely clear on this particular point.

I don't see how this covert intent could escape the definition of conspiracy on both sides' parts, considering they make repeated public statements that they are each other's deadly ennemy.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

In fact, you see it as intentional that the invasion of Irak has given Al Qaeda more leeway to prepare actions against Iran.

If you had taken the time to read my other messages, you would understand that this is absolutely not what I write.

I am writing that the US governement has some interests in common with Al Qaeda, e.g. keeping Al Qaeda alive, in order to justify the anti-terror war, and a second one: Iran.

I think you see the intent coming from both sides, but you're not absolutely clear on this particular point.

I don't see how this covert intent could escape the definition of conspiracy on both sides' parts, considering they make repeated public statements that they are each other's deadly ennemy.

That is why I used the term "connivence" and not "conspiracy" and also why I tried to take the discussion away from 911.

There have been plenty of examples in history in which deadly enemies were talking to each other and even negotiating in the background. I suggest that you read Seymour Hersh, a renowned and serious journalist, who wrote an article called "the redictection", in which he exposes that the US government has been ecently channeling money to fundamental sunni groups, including some linked to Al Qaeda, in order to reduce the influence of shia and Iran in the Middle-East.

[Nick de Cusa]

Let's take this piece of information, for example:

<a href="http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic…ia-283783-1.xml" target="_blank">http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic…ia-283783-1.xml</a>

The title should be sufficient: "Qaeda group in Iraq threatens to attack Iranians".

Al Qaeda and the US governement have a common enem: Iran. And the US intervention in Iraq has been a great push for Al Qaeda over there.

What interest would have the people involved in a such a crime to leak information about it, thus breaking the whole purpose of it and also exposing themselves to justice? Please explain.

And I don't know where you have been, but there have been litterally hundreds of testimonies that have shed some doubt on the official explanation.

Il me semble que l'achat d'un dictionnaire s'impose.

EDIT: Je ne laisserai pas cette accusation grotesque de "délire paranoïaque" et de "complot international" s'abattre sur moi une seconde fois, sans aucune raison valable. J'ai déjà dit il y a longtemps que je ne m'intéresse pas aux théories du complot et je n'avance que des faits vérifiables. Je ne sais pas s'il y a quelque chose dans la charte qui interdit la diffamation envers un membre du forum, mais s'il faut aller en justice, je le ferai. Te voilà prévenu, Nick de Cusa.

Qui parle de délire paranoïaque? Pas moi. S'il y a planification clandestine contraire aux intentions affirmées des parties en présence, il y a complot. S'il implique des gens aux USA et en Irak, il est de dimension internationale.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Qui parle de délire paranoïaque? Pas moi. S'il y a planification clandestine contraire aux intentions affirmées des parties en présence, il y a complot. S'il implique des gens aux USA et en Irak, il est de dimension internationale.

Tu en parles explicitement quand tu fais référence à la charte. Car le "complot international" n'est qu'un exemple des "délires paranoïaques" (je cite la charte) qui sont interdits ici.

J'ai été bien trop gentil en me laissant traiter de paranoïaque par Kassad la première fois: il ne faudrait pas que ça devienne une habitude.

[Nick de Cusa]

If you had taken the time to read my other messages, you would understand that this is absolutely not what I write.

I am writing that the US governement has some interests in common with Al Qaeda, e.g. keeping Al Qaeda alive, in order to justify the anti-terror war, and a second one: Iran.

That is why I used the term "connivence" and not "conspiracy" and also why I tried to take the discussion away from 911.

There have been plenty of examples in history in which deadly enemies were talking to each other and even negotiating in the background. I suggest that you read Seymour Hersh, a renowned and serious journalist, who wrote an article called "the redictection", in which he exposes that the US government has been ecently channeling money to fundamental sunni groups, including some linked to Al Qaeda, in order to reduce the influence of shia and Iran in the Middle-East.

Connivence made public, or at least not actively dissimulated is not conspiracy, granted. If, on the other hand there is a connivence, and that the two parties go out of their way, not only to hide it, but also to convince the world that they could never in any shape or form co-operate, then you'd have to have a pretty narrow definition of the word conspiracy to not include this.

In any case. If there is a law suit coming, I can't carry on writing to you on this topic any further. I hope it won't go that far, and I think it would be completely without merit, but in the mean time I have to stop participating in this exchange.

Tu en parles explicitement quand tu fais référence à la charte. Car le "complot international" n'est qu'un exemple des "délires paranoïaques" (je cite la charte) qui sont interdits ici.

J'ai été bien trop gentil en me laissant traiter de paranoïaque par Kassad la première fois: il ne faudrait pas que ça devienne une habitude.

Complot international suffit. Le reste n'est qu'extrapolation de ta part.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Connivence made public, or at least not actively dissimulated is not conspiracy, granted. If, on the other hand there is a connivence, and that the two parties go out of their way, not only to hide it, but also to convince the world that they could never in any shape or form co-operate, then you'd have to have a pretty narrow definition of the word conspiracy to not include this.

Not at all. A conspiracy takes place when people secretly organize together some actions in order to reach a common objective. Let's assume that the US governement is funding some islamic sunni groups, including some that are part of Al Qaeda (that is just an assumption, this is most likely not happening now). That would definitely go beyond connivence, but that would still not be a conspiracy, because the US governement would still not be secretly meeting Al Qaeda leaders in order to organize something in common.

n any case. If there is a law suit coming, I can't carry on writing to you on this topic any further. I hope it won't go that far, and I think it would be completely without merit, but in the mean time I have to stop participating in this exchange.

Complot international suffit. Le reste n'est qu'extrapolation de ta part.

Lis la charte, s'il te plait. Un "complot international" qui ne serait pas un "délire paranoïaque" n'est pas interdit (sinon, on s'enlève une bonne partie des sujets de discussion ). Mon avertissement reste valable: cette fois-ci, je ne me laisserai pas traiter de paranoïaque et je rendrai coup pour coup, même si ça doit entraîner mon exclusion.

Cela dit, je te rassure, il en faudra bien plus que même mon exclusion du forum pour que je t'attaque en justice. Il faudrait que ma réputation soit durablement entâchée parmi les gens qui me connaissent (toi y compris) pour que j'envisage d'aller si loin. D'ailleurs, j'ai remarqué que, si tu fais une recherche sur google de mon patronyme (que tu connais, je crois bien), l'un des premiers liens qui apparaît est celui du site de JPP où je démolis la théorie du complot de Meyssan. C'est dire que l'accusation favorite de certains ici, comme quoi je suis un fana des théories du complot, est absurde. Elle ne sera plus acceptée que si elle s'accompagne de l'humour qui lui sied, c'est tout.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Complot international suffit. Le reste n'est qu'extrapolation de ta part.

Non, je crois que l'extrapolation est de ton côté. Ensuite, encore une fois, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait signaler par principe d'éventuelles "théories du complot". A ce train-là, comme le souligne SCM, la moitié des sujets du forum disparaîtrait sans aucune difficulté (et un bon tiers tomberait sous le coup de ceci: "affabulations, propos sexuellement explicites ou pornographiques "). Certaines de ces théories sont fausses, d'autres sont vraies. Au demeurant, et enfin, les complots ont toujours existé dans l'Histoire.

De surcroît, j'ai écrit au moins deux fois sur ce forum que le gouvernement Bush me semblait passible de trois des quatre chefs d'accusation du procès de Nuremberg. Dans les chefs que je retiens, il y a celui de conspiration contre la paix. Pourquoi n'as-tu pas signalé mes messages ?

[h16]

Messieurs, on se calme. Il ne s'agit pas ici de dire s'il y a eu ou pas complot international entre le gvt US et Al Qaida mais simplement de noter que l'intervention des seconds aide bigrement bien les premiers. Il ne s'agit pas non plus de verser dans l'extrême opposé qui consiste à gober tout en criant au scandale de complot dès lors qu'on émet un doute.

Mesure.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Pour ma part, je viens d'aller boire frais du côté de St-Tropez et ça va beaucoup mieux.

[Nick de Cusa]

Tiens, j'ai adopté le même remède.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Tiens, j'ai adopté le même remède.

[AX-poulpe]

Tiens, j'ai adopté le même remède.

Ah mais c'est vrai que tu es à Cassis ou Bandol, non ? Moi j'étais à Bandol pour le 14 Juillet. Qui sait, on s'est peut-être croisé sans le savoir . Que de belges d'ailleurs !

[Nick de Cusa]

Ah mais c'est vrai que tu es à Cassis ou Bandol, non ? Moi j'étais à Bandol pour le 14 Juillet. Qui sait, on s'est peut-être croisé sans le savoir . Que de belges d'ailleurs !

Ah non non. Bruxelles. Mais ça se ressemble, on ne voit pas la différence.

[José]

Gut Feelings and Real Threats

Why civil libertarians shouldn't be cavalier about terrorism.

Cathy Young | July 26, 2007

Ever since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the terrorist threat to the West and to Americans in particular has been the subject of contentious debate. Is there a grave and urgent danger, or is it vastly exaggerated by the media and by politicians out to take advantage of popular fears? Does the real danger, as many civil libertarians argue, lie in the temptation to restrict liberties in response to this threat? Do we, in other words, have nothing to fear but fear itself?

There is little doubt that the terrorist threat has been exploited by politicians—including the Bush administration, which has used the specter of September 11 to justify questionable policies both foreign and domestic. Half-baked plots by incompetent wannabe jihadists are hyped as imminent attacks with devastating consequences. Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff incurred much ridicule when he spoke of his "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack could be imminent.

This situation has led some civil libertarians, most notably Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller, to declare what left-wing enfant terrible Michael Moore was excoriated for writing a few years ago: There is no terrorist threat. In a 2006 essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, Mueller notes that radical Islamic terrorists have not made a major attack on U.S. soil since September 11, and argues that this is unlikely to be due to the vigilance of homeland security. Mueller concludes that the Al Qaeda has been largely defanged and that terrorists are clearly not as determined, effective or ubiquitous as they are made out to be. Thus, he asserts, we may have authorized massive surveillance and detention programs and other restrictive policies in response to a phantom menace.

Yet a new National Intelligence Estimate contradicts Mueller's assessment of the threat level: according to the report, the Al Qaeda has regrouped and is now the strongest it has been since 2001. This is not Bush Administration propaganda. In fact, Bush critics, including The New Republic and New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, were quick to seize on the NIE as an indictment of the administration—for going after Saddam Hussein while failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, and for turning Iraq into a terrorist launching pad and recruiting tool.

This indictment may well be accurate, and quite damning for an administration that has used keeping Americans safe from terrorists as a catchall rationale. But is also a reminder that the terror threat is more than mere hype.

Most of the recent failed terror plots may have been inept exercises in fantasy. But even if one out of a thousand such plots succeeds, it could be a tragedy of horrific proportions, especially if biological weapons or suitcase nukes are involved. Clearly, not all terrorists are inept; besides, even the most inept of bumblers sometimes manage to get lucky. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which did only minor damage, was the work of amateurs of almost comical ineptitude. Eight years later, no one was laughing.

How to deal with this threat is another question. Civil libertarians (and others) have made plenty of legitimate criticisms of specific policies pursued under the umbrella of the War on Terror. We can point out that confiscating baby bottles at the airport does not make us safer; that torture not only debases us all but is quite likely to generate false and misleading information; that we don't have to resort to Kafkaesque indefinite detention of suspects to protect ourselves from terrorists. We can point out that the National Security Agency's post-September 11 monitoring of some telephone calls to foreign countries did not have to be carried out illegally and without minimal judicial safeguards; the administration's insistence on circumventing the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts seems to have been rooted in arrogance rather than necessity.

All these are vital arguments that must be heard. What's not going to help is dismissing the risk of a terrorist attack—an argument that can easily backfire, in a reversal of the story of the boy who cried wolf, if a major strike does happen. An even greater mistake is to is downplay the consequences of such an attack. Thus, in his Foreign Affairs article, Mueller writes, "Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000)."

But this argument ignores the impact of such attacks on the friends and families of the victims—and the psychological impact on the entire nation (not to mention the economic devastation). It is true, as some have pointed out, that even in Mueller's extreme scenario, the annual casualties would still be far below the toll of auto accidents. But that does not mean we are irrational in our response to terrorism. For one, a large-scale disaster, even a natural one, draws more attention and thus elicits far more shock than many small incidents with a higher cumulative death toll. Perhaps more importantly, there are many things one can do to reduce one's risk of dying in a car crash. There is nothing one can do, short of moving into a bomb shelter, to minimize the risk of being killed or maimed in a random terrorist attack.

No society can regard large-scale casualties from terrorist acts as an acceptable risk. An individual can personally prefer a higher risk of death in such an attack over some expansion of government powers, but telling others to make the same choice is not a winning argument.

In the past, wars and other national security threats led to far worse assaults on American liberties than anything being contemplated now. Already, the majority of Americans seem willing to accept at least some curtailment of civil liberties in order to reduce the threat of terrorism. Even one more major attack, let alone three a year, could usher in some very dark days for freedom. If champions of civil liberties want to prevent that, they need to take a different approach: to show that the compromises we are being asked to accept will not make us safer, or that there are ways to make us more secure without sacrificing our bedrock principles. If they want to be heard when they warn about loss of liberty, they cannot afford to sound cavalier when they talk about loss of life.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121614.html

[Hamiltonien]

My suspicion is that there will be another "terrorist" attack as soon as the US government decides it "needs" one.

Right ! Former members of the Reagan Administration warned against danger of a Cheney's coup against the Constitution and drive for war :

Paul Craig Roberts :

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/07/17…t-too-late.html

Bruce Fein :

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/07/25…-timid-and.html