People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people.
#
Teresa Hampton & Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue –
Where Big Brother Snoops on Americans 24/7 – Total Information
Awareness (TIA) is alive and well and living at
3701 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, Virginia. Funded through a
“black-bag” account. [claire] [End the War on Freedom]
This isn’t really news. I linked to a similar story months ago.
Heart of Darkness. Three weeks isn’t much time in most places. In that time, in no particular order I witnessed a car bombing next to my hotel, started work for TIME Magazine, watched an interim government unveiled, interviewed a vice president, been mortared more times than I can count, missed two other car bombs by a few minutes, pined for New York and tentatively fell in love with Baghdad. [Back to Iraq 3.0]
A grim look at life in Baghdad.
#
KeepAndBearArms.com –
KABA has a new poll in their left-hand column. Have a look. I know
who they’re talking about, but I promised not to tell. [kaba] [End the War on Freedom]
The poll is talking about Reagan. I wonder how many Republican partisans with short memories will assume it’s some Democratic politician?
From smith2004:
bq.
“If you were in prison and you had a 50% choice of lethal injection, a
45% chance of going to the electric chair and only a 5% chance of
escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is
your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats or
the Republicans, you are committing political suicide.” — Michael
Badnarik
and:
bq.
“NAFTA and GATT have about as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act
has to do with liberty.” — Michael Badnarik
[End the War on Freedom]
Here’s the text of a speech by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik on the war in Iraq, as posted to one of the mailing lists I subscribe to:
bq. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Badnarik, and I’m seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president of the United States.
As a Libertarian candidate I feel compelled to speak to the American people in every forum where my voice can be heard. Libertarian ideas are sound and consistent, but until the American people have HEARD our ideas, they have no chance of ADOPTING them. The students of Washington University are the future leaders our country. You have the power to choose which administration will lead this country. You also have the power to prevent other administrations from destroying it. That is why it is reasonable for me to talk to you today about American foreign policy.
Before I do, I would like to give you some insight about who I am, and what my values are. Members of the Libertarian Party and I have the CRAZY IDEA that the Constitution actually MEANS something. We believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights establish limitations on the government’s authority. I believe that these limitations were deliberately misinterpreted at first, and now they are being completely ignored.
The Bill of Rights does not GRANT you freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. The Bill of Rights simply ENUMERATES these rights, as further warnings to government agents not to infringe on these rights. Because these warnings and limitations are being ignored, your rights are being trampled on a daily basis. How can the United States be a beacon of freedom overseas, if the freedom of our own Citizens is in jeopardy here at home? How can Americans DEFEND their rights, when they have no clue what Constitution says? I doubt that one American in a thousand knows what the Sixth Amendment is about, or even knows the number of articles contained the Constitution.
Three years ago, long before I started my campaign for president, I developed an eight-hour class on the Constitution that I have been teaching ever since. The most important concept in that class is the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.
Suppose I walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth, across my land anytime I want without asking anyone’s permission. Walking across my land is a RIGHT. Now suppose I want to walk to the store located on the other side of your land. Can I walk back and forth across your land anytime I want to? Certainly not. Not without your permission. It is a PRIVILEGE to walk across your land. Assuming that we’ve been neighbors for awhile, it is possible that you’re response would be, “Sure you can take the shortcut, Mike. What are friends for?” So on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I walk to the store making my way across your land. Let us now assume that something unpleasant happens to you. You misplace a winning lottery ticket, or your significant other leaves you for your best friend. You wake up Thursday morning in a terrible mood, looking for an opportunity to vent your frustrations. As I begin to make my way across your land you shout, “Hey, mister! Walk around! That’s what fences are for!” The important concept here is that privileges are granted, and they can be revoked at any time for any reason. Once again, RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE OPPOSITES!
None the less, no single issue requires our attention more, at this particular point in time, than US foreign policy. And no political party or candidate, with the exception of the Libertarian Party and myself, has shown any inclination to address that foreign policy seriously and with reference to principle, history, and fact.
Make no mistake about it. The war on Iraq is based on lies and deception. It is a crime against another nation. I say it IS a crime because I do not live under the illusion that that war has ended, in spite of what the syndicated news agencies are reporting.
This crime continues to drain American blood into hostile sand. And, like the Republican president, the Democratic candidates seem unwilling to come to grips with the issue. Howard Dean began as a firm “anti-war” candidate. Now his position seems to be that since we’re in Iraq, we have to “finish the job.” I totally agree. However our job ends only when every American military man and woman in Iraq has returned safely to American soil.
It is not the job of the American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine to bleed and die in defense of a lie and a crime. It is not the job of the American warrior to dictate the political makeup of the Middle East, or to hold Europe together, or to maintain a presence on the Pacific Rim. The obligation of the American military is specified in their oath of enlistment: the DEFENSE of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Like all wars waged by the United States since 1945, the war in Iraq is being waged because of an unconstitutional abdication of responsibility by the Congress, and an unconstitutional usurpation of authority by the President. The Constitution gives CONGRESS the authority to declare war. It has not done so. Its “resolution authorizing force” specifically STATED that it was not doing so. If Congress has not DECLARED war, then it is unconstitutional for the president to WAGE war.
As a presidential candidate, I want to extricate the United States from the mess that George W. Bush created. I will do that by bringing our troops home. Not when some theoretical job is done. Not when Iraq has put together a government that is to my liking. I will bring them home IMMEDIATELY.
In 1947, the British government finally came to grips with the fact that it had failed to achieve its goals in Palestine, which it had exercised dominion over for 30 years. At that point, the British informed the United Nations that it would be leaving Palestine, permanently and completely, as of May, 1948.
What took place afterwards was the creation of Israel and 55 years of intermittent war between Israel and the Arab states. More importantly, not a single British soldier has died attempting to assert Britain’s authority over Palestine since 1948. Not one. The duty of the British government is to the British people, not to the Israelis or the Palestinians. Every society has plenty of problems of its own without trying to solve the problems of others.
To many of us, the war in Viet Nam appeared that it would last forever. Eventually American soldiers abandoned our embassy in defeat. Sooner or later, the United States will leave Iraq. We have no way of knowing what will happen politically in Iraq after our troops have left the scene. It really doesn’t matter. We can leave Iraq tomorrow, or several decades from now. We can leave before the next soldier dies, or after 50,000 body bags have been flown from Baghdad to Dover, carrying the bodies of our American dead. Either way, we are not responsible for what happens in other countries, and we are lying to ourselves if we believe that we can change the mindset of cultures that have developed over thousands of years.
As a candidate for the presidency, I am not willing to watch idly as the death toll climbs in Iraq. I am not willing to stand aside as young Americans die, one at a time, for no discernible purpose, and without a legitimate national interest.
If I am elected president of the United States, one of my first actions will be to announce that, immediately following my inauguration, the United States will begin evacuating its military presence from Iraq, and every OTHER country where we are currently acting as the world’s policeman. Will it be easy to bring our troops home? Probably not. However it is the moral thing to do.
It is also the practical thing to do. Americans would never tolerate foreign troops marching through our cities, confiscating weapons in door to door searches. We would develop a deep hatred for any foreign country that had the audacity to influence our lives and government. Are we na
Malaysia rejects the US desire to hunt terrorist networks targeting the straights of Malacca. [John Robb’s Weblog]
It’s nice to see another country standing up to the Feds. Note that the hypothetical threat of terrorists is insignificant compared to the very real threat of pirates, who have been a serious problem in the Malacca Strait for at least 600 years. The piracy problem is actually easy to solve, but unfortunately merchant ships suffer from a form of global gun-control that prevents their being armed. All it would take is a .50 machine gun or a rocket launcher on each merchant, but that will never happen because all the world’s governments would rather see the crews murdered and their ships and cargo stolen rather than set the dangerous (for them) precendent of allowing civilians to defend themselves.
Bush Loses Lott on Stem Cells. From the Boston Globe:bq. A majority of the US Senate has signed a letter asking President Bush to lift the government’s funding restrictions on embryonic stem cells, increasing the pressure to change a policy critics say is holding back potentially lifesaving medical research.
The letter, which is still being circulated for signatures and has not yet been released, says the United States is falling behind in research into diseases “that affect more than 100 million Americans” and calls on the president to “expand” the current policy. It has been signed by 56 senators, including conservatives Trent Lott of Mississippi, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, and 10 other Republicans.
…..
The Senate letter, which mirrors one released by the House of Representatives two months ago, is a sign of how the political terrain has changed since Bush issued his policy in August 2001.
Since then, groups representing victims of diseases that might be helped by the research — such as Parkinson’s or juvenile diabetes — have been aggressively lobbying Congress. This campaign has included pleading visits from children who have diabetes, as well as a powerful speech from former first lady Nancy Reagan. Though many legislators remain firmly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, the campaign has taken some of the partisan edge off the debate and given the president a measure of political cover should he decide to alter the policy.
……
Backers of the Senate letter want more signatures because they are still short of the 60 senators whose approval would be needed to force a vote on a controversial topic.
The letter raises the prospect that the ban could be lifted with new legislation, but even critics of Bush’s policy consider that unlikely. It would be hard to find the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress needed to overturn a presidential veto, Soler conceded. Instead, the senators offer to work with Bush to forge a new policy. [Hit & Run]
bq. I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison
That truth is simply this: it isn’t the Moslems who came to the west to push us around, steal our resources, sneer at our customs and beliefs, depose our leaders and replace them with puppets, reshape our political institutions, or redraw our national borders to suit their own foul purposes. No, that’s what we Europeanoids have been doing to them.
L. Neil Smith
Padilla Perplex. Everybody’s favorite alleged dirty bomber is back in the news. The feds have (finally) (publicly) outlined their case against Jose Padilla, who’s accused of scheming with Al Qaeda to plant nuclear devices and blow up other buildings.
That knowledge, says the feds, comes from interrogations of him and associates over the past two years while Padilla has been in custody.
Why is the government talking about Padilla now? The most likely reason is that the Supreme Court is about to rule on whether it’s legal to keep citizens incarcerated indefinitely as “enemy combatants.” From one news account:
bq. With the Justice Department under pressure to explain its indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant,” [Deputy Attorney General James] Comey outlined a series of alleged admissions made by Padilla. He asserted that if Padilla had been handled by the more conventional criminal justice system, he could have stayed silent and “would likely have ended up a free man.”
The Supreme Court is considering Padilla’s challenge to the government’s authority to designate U.S. citizens enemy combatants and deny them quick access to lawyers or courts.
Padilla’s lawyer, Andrew Patel, said the government once again is saying “bad things about” about Padilla without offering a “forum for him to defend himself.” He accused the government of making “an opening statement without a trial.” [Hit & Run]
The Feds’ case sounds an awful lot like they tortured Padilla until he confessed to whatever they wanted him to.
A glimpse of the Baghdad art scene. The Baghdad art scene is thriving despite a lack of security and sense of fear. [Back to Iraq 3.0]
This is the first article I can remember reading about art in (modern) Baghdad.