[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Page H5385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMEMBERING WHY WE FIGHT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Harris). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, in the early days of World War II, the
government commissioned director Frank Capra to make a series of films
that would explain the nature of the war to a hastily mobilized Nation.
Over the course of the next 3 years, Capra produced a remarkable
series of films collectively known as ``Why We Fight.'' These films
were instrumental in elevating the war from a fight for land and
resources to a struggle between the ``free world'' of the Allies and
the ``slave world'' of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
As a Nation rooted in an ideology rather than ethnic or geographical
identity, the United States has always looked at its wars as
ideological conflicts between freedom and tyranny. Our national
reluctance to go to war has shaped the prerequisite that when we fight,
we do so for a high moral purpose that honors our principles and
values.
When he addressed the Congress, the Nation and the world in the wake
of the September 11 attacks, President Bush laid out the challenge
posed by terrorism. Al Qaeda and radical Islamists, the President
declared, attacked us because ``they hate our freedoms, our freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and
disagree with each other.''
The moral clarity the President expressed nearly 3 years ago has been
clouded by the administration's ambiguity over whether the rule of law
applied to the prosecution of the war on terrorism or in Iraq. The
abuse at Abu Ghraib and the unreviewable and potentially unlimited
detention of Americans and others as enemy combatants are incompatible
with a Nation born in a struggle against tyranny and caprice.
Last week, three courts in three countries reminded us of what is at
stake in the war on terrorism and in our efforts to rebuild Iraq.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the surviving leaders of his government
were arraigned for their crimes against the Iraqi people and for crimes
against humanity. The sight of the former dictator and his henchmen in
a court of law was a glimmer of hope that chaos and bloodshed will one
day give way to a better life for Iraq's people.
Here in the United States, the Supreme Court circumscribed the
President's power over its own citizens and others when it ordered that
Americans and foreigners held as enemy combatants had a right to
contest their detention before a neutral arbiter. Expressing confidence
that courts would be able to balance individual rights and national
security, Justice O'Connor wrote ``that a state of war is not a blank
check for the President.''
Perhaps the most extraordinary assertion of principle was made in
Jerusalem by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ordered the government to
reroute part of the security fence it is building to prevent
Palestinian suicide bombers from infiltrating into Israel. In reaching
their decision, the Israeli justices conceded that from a military
point of view, the alteration might not make protection against
terrorism easier. ``This is the destiny of a democracy,'' the court
said. ``She does not see all means acceptable, and the ways of her
enemies are not always open before her.''
The ways of our enemies are not open to us. We do not behead our
adversaries on camera for their families to witness in all its gruesome
barbarity. Nonetheless, facing greater foes than we face now, we have
prevailed and we will prevail again. At root, the rule of law is the
source of our strength in war as it is in peace, and the assertion of
the rule of law by courts in Iraq, Israel and here at home is a moving
reminder of why we fight and also how we must fight to win the America
we cherish.
____________________