No proof shown to victims, accused

by Steve Skutnik

(U-WIRE) AMES, Iowa – A pertinent yet understated question about our "War on Terrorism" as of late has been, "Where's the proof?" The U.S. government has constantly reassured us that we possess "concrete evidence" of a link between Osama bin Laden and the events of Sept. 11, yet the American people have seen almost none of this in the interests of national security.

In fact it seems that every major party involved in the international dispute with Afghanistan has seen the evidence except for two parties – the victim and the accused.

We are already engaged in a de facto war with Afghanistan, yet the American public has yet to see a shred of evidence that it belongs there.

This is not to say the evidence does not exist, but rather that it is ludicrous to "bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age" without even giving its leaders a chance to respond to the charges set before them.

In essence, America's leaders have asked the Taliban and more importantly the American public to take their actions on "faith"; faith that is, that everyone should simply trust their judgment without further question.

Unfortunately, only places like Iraq, Cuba and the China work like that. America is a nation that works off proof, not faith.

Our system of justice is based on the principle of varying degrees of burden of proof, from the requirements to obtain a search warrant to the criterion for conviction in a court of law. Why, then, should our leaders suddenly expect to overturn this well-established precedent that has worked so well in guaranteeing our liberties?

Critics and members of the government have argued that such disclosure of evidence would compromise the current operations. This argument only works if the actual sources of evidence are disclosed, which is not what skeptics and the media have been asking for.

The public deserves to know how sure we are that we're risking our soldiers’ lives going after the right threat, not letting the real culprits escape in the process. We deserve to know why we must fight a war of attrition, which might spark more terror attacks across our country. We deserve to know how much we actually know about the events of Sept. 11 and how much is speculation.

Critics of liberty argue that media disclosure to the public jeopardizes the safety of our troops. Yet without a well-informed public, our liberty itself is in peril. What kind of victory can these critics expect if we give up exactly what we're fighting for in the name of national security?

Demanding proof from our leaders is not an un-American concept, but rather the most patriotic thing an ordinary citizen can do – provide a constant check upon the infringement of our fundamental rights.

Constant vigilance of our government's actions is a crucial factor in maintaining our liberties – disparaging the people who do this is no better than spitting on our troops who risk their lives for freedom when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Vigilance and rational skepticism are the two greatest safeguards to liberty.

Complacency, trust and blind faith are the most dangerous invitations to tyranny.

"Sitting back and letting the experts do their jobs" was the way the Soviet Union was run. It's not the way America should be.