FROM THE EDITOR.

GARY BENOIT

Under ordinary circumstances, the American people would never permit the erosion of their freedoms or the creation of a much more powerful government. They would oppose the transfer of powers traditionally handled at the local and state levels to the federal level, just as they would oppose the transfer of power from the U.S. government to the United Nations.

But what if the circumstances are extraordinary? What if the people conclude that their government must be enlarged, and that some of their freedoms must be sacrificed, in order to protect them from the evil that struck this country on September 11th? What if they are also convinced that the crisis is so immense that even a country as rich and powerful as the United States can not act alone but must instead work through the UN and accept its dictates? What then?

The answer, simply, is that the terrorists would have won. Terrorism is not an end in itself but a means to an end. The masterminds behind the international terror network surely recognize that they can not overthrow the U.S. government by waging a war of terror against the American homeland, and for this reason alone the violent overthrow of the U.S. government cannot be their intent. What terrorists can accomplish through their tactics, however, is to create a demand for consolidation of police-state powers in the hands of the U.S. government as well as the submergence of our government in a UN-administered world government. The intent, at least so far as the American people are concerned, would be protection from terrorism. But consolidating police-state powers would also endanger American liberty, since such powers could be abused by those entrusted to exercise them.

This is particularly the case with regard to empowering the United Nations, not only because it lacks constitutional barriers against the abuse of power but because it is a haven for despots and terrorists who view the world body as a vehicle for sustaining and building their own power base. Just weeks after the September 11th attacks, the terrorists won a major victory at the UN when the nations of the world voted overwhelmingly, by secret ballot, to install the terrorist regime of Syria as a new member of the Security Council. The U.S. government did not even voice public disapproval of this audacious action, even though our own State Department officially designates Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism. In the emerging new world order, you see, the U.S. government is willing to align itself with terrorist regimes in order to fight terrorism. As we point out in this special issue of TNA, fighting the terrorist threat by tilting our policy toward terrorist states will only result in the terrorists coming o ut on top (see page 13).

We at THE NEW AMERICAN have struggled to find ways to put the events of September 11th in proper perspective. We are saddened by the magnitude of the tragedy, awestruck by the acts of individual heroism, and dismayed at the speed with which demagogues hostile to freedom are moving to exploit the disaster. We have tried to capture the full truth -- both the heroism and the infamy -- of this momentous episode in American history.

In 1759 Benjamin Franklin cogently stated: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Yet, as this issue also demonstrates, there is no need to "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety" since our present lack of security is largely a tragic consequence of our own making. Specifically, the U.S. government has not only weakened or dismantled the layers of defense that our government should provide in order to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic (page 43), but has actually aided and abetted the terror network (page 4). The proper response to the threat is to reverse those suicidal policies and to put America first. Empowering the UN and giving up essential liberty will only make matters worse.