Friday, August 29, 2008
The Protection Provided by Gold
by Jacob G. Hornberger
A case before the Six Circuit federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati demonstrates how our American ancestors relied on gold to protect themselves from U.S. officials.
The case involves a long-term lease entered into in 1912 requiring the tenant to pay the agreed-upon rent in gold coins. This type of gold clause was common in both contracts and bonds issued during the 1800s and early 1900s. Their purpose was to protect the landlord or creditor against the risk of constantly depreciating paper money issued by federal officials in the future.
During the 1930s, in one of the most infamous acts in U.S. history, the Franklin Roosevelt regime nationalized the gold holdings of the American people, made gold ownership a federal criminal offense, and nullified gold contracts in both contracts and debt instruments. The Supreme Court upheld the nullification of gold clauses in private contracts and instruments, enabling tenants and debtors to pay their obligations in debased paper money.
In the 1970s, however, Congress repealed the ban on owning gold and allowed private parties to once again include gold clauses in their contracts.
The tenant in the Six Circuit case assumed the 1912 lease in 1982 and has been paying the sum of $35,000 a year in rent ever since. The landlord claimed that the gold clause in the original lease was fully enforceable and that the tenant had voluntarily assumed that obligation when it took over the lease. The landlord was demanding payment of the gold coins required in the original 1912 lease.
Overturning the decision of the district court, the appellate court agreed with the landlord and upheld the gold clause. According to an attorney for the landlord, “The amount of gold that is due and owing is 1,693 ounces. If the price was about $900 an ounce, that would be approximately $1.5 million annually.”
What better picture of what government has done to our money since 1912 than that?
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Dangers of Paternalism
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Americans have long been taught to view the federal government as a parent. While the government is sometimes abusive to American child-adults (e.g., IRS, DEA, torture, Waco, etc.), Americans know that that’s a trait that is common to many parents. What matters in life under a paternalistic regime is people’s unwavering faith in the government to watch over them and take care of them, just as parents do with their children.
This is the idea behind such paternalistic welfare-state programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, corporate subsidies, and education grants. The parent — the federal government — takes care of the child-adult and ensures that no harm will befall him.
In return, the child-adult can be counted on to support the government in times of crisis or trouble, without asking too many questions as to the causes or consequences of the crises. Not only is the child ordinarily too frightened to challenge a parent who has life-or-death power over him, there is also a tremendous amount of loyalty and devotion that arises from this type of co-dependent relationship.
The co-dependency between the child-adult and his paternalistic government encourages the child-adult to feel that everything is okay because the government — his parent — is in charge of things. A good example of this phenomenon occurs here in the United States with respect to the banking system.
As I indicated in blog entries last month (July 14 and July 25), Americans have been taught to believe that the federal government is insuring the money they keep in banks. As most everyone knows, the federal agency responsible for this “insurance” is the FDIC. As I indicated in those blog entries, as long as it’s just a few banks that fail, no problem. The FDIC simply takes its “insurance” reserves and pays off the depositors.
But as I asked in last month’s blog entries, what happens if there is an industry-wide banking collapse? What then? The average American child-adult would rather not think about that. After all, what child wants to think about the frightening possibility that his parents are going to be unable to take care of him or that they’ve misled him.
Anyway, what are the chances of that happening? Everyone knows that the federal government has more than enough money to take care of all its obligations, right? Iraq. Afghanistan. Georgia. Overseas military bases and hundreds more here in the U.S. An ever-growing welfare system and warfare system. Wars on terrorism, drugs, immigrants, and poverty. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, and subsidies. And on and on.
What’s the problem, right? Well, consider this report issued this morning on MSNBC.com that indicates that the FDIC “insurance” fund is nearly broke and that the FDIC might have to “borrow” money from the Treasury (which gets its money from some place) to cover future losses of depositors’ money:
“Those [9 bank] failures have depleted the insurance fund, which now stands at $45 billion — less than the FDIC is supposed to have on hand, according to Daniel Alpert, an investment banker at Westwood Capital. ‘You’re talking about roughly $45 billion of reserves insuring $4.5 trillion of deposits,’ he said. ‘And you’re in an environment right now where non-current loans, delinquent loans are increasing at a faster pace than banks putting aside reserves. That’s not a good thing.’”
Now, MSNBC goes out of its way to alleviate concerns among people, reminding them that the FDIC provides them with “insurance” that protects up to $100,000 in deposits, an amount that has steadily increased over the years.
But I repeat the question I asked in last month’s blog posts on this subject: What if there is an industry-wide banking collapse? Where does the federal government get the money to pay off all the depositors in all the banks? It’s a question that no co-dependent child-adult living in a paternalistic welfare-warfare state wishes to ask, much less think about it. That’s the job of the government. That’s the job of the parent.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Melding of Welfare and Warfare
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In a move that is certain to leave American anti-militarist liberals (i.e., leftists) in a quandary, the Pentagon has sent a U.S. Navy destroyer to Georgia to deliver “humanitarian aid” in the form of such things as baby food and bottled water.
After all, don’t liberals believe that the primary mission of government is to help the poor, needy, and disadvantaged with welfare? And isn’t that what that U.S. Navy destroyer in Georgia is doing?
Why, one can easily imagine both liberals and conservatives holding hands, cheering the U.S. destroyer’s delivery of welfare to Georgian officials, and together singing kumbaya.
The warship’s actions should cause Americans to ask themselves some fundamental moral questions.
Who exactly are the humanitarians in this process? The Navy commander? The ship’s crew? Pentagon officials? President Bush? American taxpayers? American voters? American citizens?
In other words, should I be patting myself on the back because a U.S. Navy destroyer has delivered baby food and bottled water to people in Georgia? Is this what being a Christian is all about? Is this what my church means when it says to help the poor? Is God pleased with me because of the Pentagon’s delivery of welfare to government officials in Georgia? Have I done something good here?
Actually, the Pentagon’s delivery of “humanitarian aid” to Georgia is a moral abomination. First, the action is nothing more than an international power play disguised as a humanitarian mission. The real point of the Pentagon’s action is to send a message to the Russians that “our army is bigger than yours.” Second, since the “humanitarian aid” was purchased from money forcibly extracted from U.S. taxpayers, there is no individual goodness involved in this process at all.
The U.S. warship’s humanitarian relief effort is a perfect example of how the welfare mindset of the left melds and integrates with the warfare mindset of the right. Isn’t the socialist point of the welfare state to use the force of government to take money from the rich in order to give it to the poor? Well, in principle what difference does it make which department of the federal government distributes the welfare? Why is the Pentagon’s delivery of welfare any different in principle from a distribution of welfare by some domestic agency of the federal government?
As libertarians have long argued, there is a deep moral degeneracy in both the welfare and the warfare state, which is why both need to be dismantled. It’s not so much that both of them have proven to be utter failures and it’s not so much that they have proven to be so damaging and destructive. What matters most is morality. Neither the welfare state nor the warfare state can be reconciled with basic moral principles.
What would a society look like that is based on moral principles rather than coerced values? The society our American ancestors founded provides a good starting point — one in which people are free to keep their own money (i.e., no income taxation) and decide for themselves what to do with it (i.e., no government welfare) and where government exists solely to protect the exercise of such fundamental individual rights.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Is Iraq a Sovereign and Independent Colony?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
One cannot help but be amused over the negotiations taking place between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki over how long U.S. troops will be permitted to stay in Iraq and whether occupation troops will be subject to Iraqi law in the interim.
My question is: Why is this something that even needs to be negotiated? I thought that Iraq was now a sovereign and independent country. Isn’t that what President Bush and U.S. officials have been telling us ever since U.S. troops invaded and occupied Iraq some six years ago?
Well, if Iraq really is a sovereign and independent country, then why does it have to negotiate anything with the United States, including an exit date for U.S. troops and how criminal offenses committed by U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be handled? Why can’t Iraq simply tell the U.S. government when it is going to leave Iraq and how the actions of its troops are going to be handled as long as they are in Iraq? As a sovereign and independent country, why does Iraq need consent or approval from the U.S. government for how things operate within Iraq? Does the U.S. government need the consent and approval of foreign regimes before taking actions here within the United States?
The negotiations between President Bush and Iraq belie the truth: President Bush and U.S. officials consider Iraq to be a conquered nation and a colony now with the U.S. Empire. That’s why the new U.S. Embassy is slated to be the largest of its kind in the world—the size of Vatican City. It’s also why Bush’s forces have been building permanent military bases during their occupation of the country.
Bush’s problem, however, is that Iraqi officials don’t consider themselves to be a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire. In fact, as we here at FFF have been pointing out for years, the Bush invasion, with the aid of clever political maneuvering by Islamic radical Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, succeeded in installing a radical Islamic regime into power in Iraq. Such a regime, which has even aligned itself with Bush’s arch-enemy Iran, isn’t likely to accede to Bush’s wish for a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, especially given that Iraqi officials know that Bush will soon find himself without political power clearing brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Monday, August 25, 2008
“Red-Lining” in Cuba and Georgia
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In my August 19 blog, I pointed out how President Bush knowingly and intentionally ignored Russian President Putin’s warning that pushing to admit Georgia into NATO would cross Russian “red lines.”
At the urging of the U.S. government, NATO, whose original mission was to defend against a Soviet attack, has already admitted many Soviet-bloc countries as members. U.S. officials have also been pushing for the installation of missile batteries in former Eastern-bloc countries.
The U.S. position, and that of U.S. neo-conservatives, is that the Russians have nothing to be concerned about. The United States is a peaceful, law-abiding country, the argument goes, whose foreign policy is not based on pressure, aggression, and regime change. The Russians are simply suffering a case of paranoia over the NATO encirclement of Russia and the installation of U.S. missile batteries along Russian borders.
Previously, in my August 13 blog, I posited a hypothetical situation in which Russia entered into an agreement with Cuba to install missiles in that country. I suggested that U.S. officials and American neo-cons would go ballistic over such action.
Well, guess what happened! Last Friday, Reuters reported that Russia and Cuba are talking about an alliance in which Russian missiles are installed in Cuba.
And what do you suppose a U.S. Air Force general said in response to such an idea? According to Reuters, the general said that such action would cross a “red line”—yes, the same term that Putin used to express to President Bush Russia’s objection to Georgia’s proposed admission into NATO.
So, the military alliances between the U.S. and former Soviet-bloc countries and the proposed installation of U.S. missiles in such countries is as repugnant to the Russians as military alliances between Russia and Cuba and the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba is to U.S. officials.
How come American neo-cons have a blind spot in understanding this? Indeed, why did Bush persist in crossing one of Russia’s “red lines” when he had to know that Russia’s reaction would be no different from that of the United States if the situation was reversed? What purpose did Bush’s actions serve, other than to produce a new crisis for the United States? Have Bush’s actions made America safer?
Regardless of Bush’s motives, two things are certain: First, thanks to his actions, neo-cons and the Pentagon have a new crisis to exclaim about—the return of the Soviet “communist threat.” Second, thanks to the new crisis the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex now have reason to call for new massive increases in “defense” spending on conventional weaponry to protect against the “communist threat,” on top of all the “defense” weaponry necessary to protect against the “terrorist threat.”
Just another day in the life of the U.S. Empire and its policy of producing perpetual crises in the pursuit of perpetual peace.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Dictatorial Power on War and Treaties
by Jacob G. Hornberger
If anyone still has any doubts about whether President Bush is exercising powers that any self-respecting dictator would relish, all he has to do is consider the military pact that Bush is entering into with Iraq. The pact involves the continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq as well as a date on which U.S. military forces will be expected to exit the country.
Let’s first place things in the context of the U.S. Constitution, the higher law that the American people have enacted that controls the conduct of federal officials, including the president.
One provision of the Constitution requires the president to secure a declaration of war from Congress prior to waging war against another nation. With respect to Iraq, everyone knows that Bush refused to do that. After unsuccessfully exploring the possibility of securing UN approval for his war (which is not in the Constitution), Bush unilaterally decided to wage war on Iraq without first securing the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.
The Constitution also provides that the president shall have the “Power and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
So, is President Bush complying with that provision of the Constitution with respect to his military pact with Iraq?
Why should he? If the Congress and the American people don’t care that he violates one important provision of the Constitution, why should the president care whether he violates other important provisions?
The president’s spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, set forth the president’s position at a recent press conference: “So it’s not a treaty, so it would not require Senate ratification or anything like that. It’s a bilateral agreement that would provide the authorities for our troops to operate in Iraq.”
So, there you have it. We now live in a country in which the ruler has the power to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative and then unilaterally bind the entire nation with a long-term military agreement with the conquered nation without any legislative approval.
If that’s not dictatorial power, what is?
Oh, by the way the Iraqi president is submitting the proposed military agreement with Bush to the Iraqi Parliament, as required by Iraqi law.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Freedom of Speech in China and America
by Jacob G. Hornberger
According to today’s New York Times, two Chinese women, both in their 70s, have been sentenced to reeducation camp. The charge? Applying for a permit to protest, in accordance with rules previously established by Chinese communist authorities. The women wanted to protest the eminent-domain taking of their homes in Beijing for the purpose of economic development (which, of course, brings to mind the Kelo decision which upheld the same sort of thing here in the United States).
The Chinese experience holds three valuable reminders for Americans with respect to freedom of speech and other fundamental rights.
First, if someone has to ask government officials for permission to exercise a “right,” then it really isn’t a right at all. Instead, it’s a privilege bestowed by government, which can be revoked at any time.
As Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, such fundamental rights as life, liberty (which includes freedom of speech), and the pursuit of happiness, do not come from government. They are endowed in people by God and by nature. They preexist government.
Government officials exist as servants to protect, not destroy or infringe upon, people’s fundamental rights. Thus, no one has to be grateful to government officials for free speech or any other fundamental rights
Moreover, these principles are universal. As Jefferson pointed out, all men are endowed with these fundamental rights. That includes the Chinese, Americans, Russians, Cubans, and everyone else.
Second, Americans should bear in mind the reason that our American ancestors insisted on passage of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from infringing on freedom of speech. Our ancestors knew that in the absence of such an express prohibition, U.S. officials would do what the Chinese officials are doing — punishing people for criticizing the government.
When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were those who claimed that it was unnecessary. They argued that since the Constitution set up a government of limited powers, there was no danger that U.S. officials would infringe upon freedom of speech (and other fundamental rights) because no such power was delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Proponents of the Bill of Rights argued that an express enumeration of fundamental rights and guarantees would serve as an insurance policy, just in case federal officials began ignoring the limited-powers doctrine. In retrospect, they proved to be right because in the absence of the Bill of Rights, who doubts that U.S. officials, both in Congress and the executive branch, would be running roughshod over such rights as free speech, gun ownership, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments? After all, look at the things federal officials are doing Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where they argue that U.S. constitutional constraints don’t apply.
The third lesson is important for all Americans, but especially for libertarians. There is a reason that the totalitarian rulers in China shut down protests, demonstrations, dissent, and criticism of government policies. They fully understand the power of ideas, especially ideas on liberty.
The Chinese communist regime is one of the most powerful and omnipotent governments in history. Its political stranglehold on the Chinese citizenry is virtually complete. Chinese citizens don’t own guns (because it’s illegal to do so). There are no free elections. The possibility of violent or peaceful overthrow of the regime seems impossible.
So, why do Chinese officials fear freedom of speech? Why not simply let people have their protests? Because the Chinese authorities know that ideas on liberty are so powerful that they can inspire people thirsting for liberty to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to bring down even omnipotent, totalitarian regimes.
Thank goodness for the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They provide guideposts for people all over the world, including here in the United States, seeking a free and prosperous society.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Lessons for Americans from Welfare-State Failure in Cuba
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Uh, oh! Problems in socialist paradise land. It seems that one of the primary bastions of socialism is considering moving away from its welfare-state principles. According to the Financial Times, “Cuba, one of the world’s surviving Communist states, is looking at watering down the generous social welfare system that has been a cornerstone of its economy for nearly 50 years, according to a senior government official. Alfredo Jam, head of macroeconomic analysis in the economy ministry, told the Financial Times that Cubans had been ‘over-protected’ by a system that subsidised food costs and limited the amount people could earn, prompting labour shortages in important industries.”
Despite changes in Cuba’s socialist economic system, however, the FT points out that “the welfare system has remained almost intact. Under it, all Cubans are entitled to basic foods, including breads, eggs, rice, beans and milk, at much cheaper prices than those elsewhere in the world. Rents and utilities are extremely cheap and education and healthcare are free.”
Does Cuba’s socialist system have any relevance for Americans? Of course! It helps to show Americans that they themselves have been living a life of the lie with respect to their own economic system for their entire lives.
From the first grade Americans are indoctrinated, primarily in public schools but also in government-licensed private schools, into believing that America’s economic system is “capitalist” while Cuba’s socialist system is socialist.
Yet, the reality is that both the Cuban people and American people (libertarians excepted, of course) share the same socialist philosophy. Let’s examine some examples.
1. Public (i.e., government) schooling. Both American statists (i.e., conservatives and liberals) and Cuban communists believe in this government program, which is the epitome of socialism. It involves government central planning, coerced attendance, taxation, and government-mandated curricula. Indoctrination by government schoolteachers in both countries is the name of the game. In Cuba, for example, students are taught that the CIA is bad while in American schools students are taught that the CIA is good. Both Cuban communists and American statists consider education to be a right. They ardently oppose the libertarian idea of a total free market in education, i.e., a complete separation of school and state.
2. Social Security. Both American statists and Cuban communists strongly embrace this socialist program. In fact, it is the pride and joy of Fidel Castro, just as it was the pride and joy of President Franklin Roosevelt, whose regime brought it into existence here in the U.S. Social Security is based on the Marxian principle of using the government to take money from one person in order to give it to another person.
3. Medicare and Medicaid. In Cuba, health care is free. It is also considered a right, just as it is here in the United States. Here, health care is also mostly free for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and many American statists wish to extend free health care to every American, as Castro has done in Cuba.
4. Income taxation and equalization of wealth. Both Cuban communists and American statists believe in these two principles. That’s the idea behind progressive taxation and the inheritance tax here in the U.S. How many times have we heard American statists complaining about the great inequalities of wealth in America? That’s a sentiment shared by Cuban communists, which is precisely why they confiscated everything from the rich through nationalization when they took power in 1959.
5. Government subsidies. Both American statists and Cuban communists share a common commitment to domestic subsidies, especially in the agricultural field.
6. Paper money and monetary central planning. Both Cuban communists and American statists strongly endorse socialism in the monetary sphere, strongly opposing either a free-market monetary system or one based on precious metals (i.e., gold and silver coins).
Of course, we could also talk about such things as gun control, drug laws, immigration controls, trade restrictions, economic regulations, and the like, but … well, you get my drift.
Despite the fact that Cuban communists have embraced socialism to a greater degree than American statists, no one can really deny that the Cuban people are freer than the American people, at least in a psychological sense. For as the great German thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe pointed out, none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Home-Made Crises
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Yesterday, I wrote about how U.S. foreign policy ignites and engenders a variety of crises, especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Such crises are then used to get the citizenry all worked up and panic-stricken, which then enables the government to increase its power over the citizenry. The current crises dealing with the resurgence of the “communist” threat from Russia and the “terrorist” threat from the Muslims, along with the potential threat from the international drug dealers as a result of the war on drugs, provide good examples of how government policies produce the crises which are then used as the excuse to expand the power of the government.
For example, consider the new “crisis” concerning Russia that America is now facing and over which the neo-con community is now going ballistic. An article in last Sunday’s New York Times details recent events in the rise of that crisis.
A few weeks after Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili asked Bush to admit Georgia into NATO, Bush met with Russian President Putin. Putin confronted Bush directly with an admonition: admitting Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO would cross Russia’s “red lines.”
Now, everyone knows what the color red means, right? For example, the reason that red is used in the U.S. government’s highest ranking of color codes in its “war on terrorism” is because red denotes one thing: danger. Or recall the famous Cold War direct telephone line between the American and Soviet presidents — it was red, again denoting danger.
Thus, when Putin used the term “red lines” in his admonition to Bush, how could Bush have mistaken the import of the message? Putin was obviously telling Bush — this is a line you should not cross because it means danger, as in crisis.
The Times’ article puts an innocent spin on the matter: “It is also a story of how both Democrats and Republicans have misread Russia’s determination to dominate its traditional sphere of influence.”
Or maybe not. Maybe U.S. officials instead saw it as an excellent opportunity to poke the Russian bear in the nose, much as they had poked hornets’ nests in the Middle East, knowing that ultimately such pokes produce an angry and violent reaction, which then produces crises that “confirm” the need for an enormous military and military-industrial complex, along with more military spending, taxation, and infringements on civil liberties.
According to the Times article, Vice President Cheney and his aides and allies “saw Georgia as a role model for their democracy promotion campaign, pushed to sell Georgia more arms, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles, so that it could defend itself against possible Russian aggression.”
For his part, Bush wanted to reward Georgia for its contribution of troops to his Iraq intervention, which was nothing more than a war of aggression waged against a country that had never attacked the United States. The reward was “NATO membership and its accompanying umbrella of American military might.”
Meanwhile, Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post writes as if NATO were some sort of nice, benign organization and that Russia is behaving irrationally by opposing Georgia’s membership in the organization.
Even though NATO’s mission was to protect Europe against an attack against the Soviet Union, according to Hiatt it was perfectly acceptable for NATO to have remained in existence after the Soviet Union disbanded. Hiatt’s rationale? To protect against a Russia that might later change its mind and “seek hegemony” over neighboring countries.
Never mind that NATO is effectively run by the U.S. government, whose foreign policy is based on regime change, assassination, foreign aid, intimidation, meddling, invasions, wars of aggression, and occupations. Russia is apparently supposed to ignore all that and instead believe that the U.S. government’s placement of missiles in Poland and its drive to include Georgia in NATO are part of a benign attempt to bring love, peace, and harmony to the world.
The idea that the entire world, including the United States, Eastern Europe, and Russia, would have been better off with the dismantling of NATO when the Soviet Union dismantled apparently never even occurs to Hiatt. But that’s exactly what should have happened.
Instead, with its interventionist foreign policy the U.S. government has succeeded in stirring up anger and hatred everywhere — in the Middle East, in Russia, and with its drug war in Latin America. Americans would be wise to bring about a radical change in direction before it’s too late.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Monday, August 18, 2008
A New (but Old) Official Enemy
by Jacob G. Hornberger
With the Russian invasion of Georgia, Americans are able to capture a glimpse of another U.S. foreign-policy “success” story.
The most shocking event in the history of the U.S. military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower said was a grave threat to our democratic processes, occurred in 1989. That was the year that the Soviet Empire disintegrated, the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany combined into one Germany, Soviet troops vacated Eastern Europe, and many Soviet republics gained their independence.
The Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex were panic-stricken. What if Americans decided they could now dismantle America’s standing army given that there was no longer any threat of an invasion of America? Imagine: No more defense contractors. No more military lobbyists. No more retired military officials making a bundle of money as consultants. No more troops or bases overseas. No more bases across America. No more exorbitant taxes to pay for the Cold War warfare state.
The aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Empire was a time in which Pentagon officials were practically pleading with Congress to keep the military-industrial complex in existence. New rationales were proposed. We’ll fight the drug war, the Pentagon said. We’ll advance free enterprise by helping American corporations in overseas matters, it said. Perhaps the most desperate rationale was that an enormous standing army was necessary to protect Americans from an unsafe world.
Among the unstated rationales were the threat of communism and the threat of Islam, given that both threats were nonexistent. But that would change over the course of the next decade of U.S. foreign interventions.
U.S. officials embarked on a series of interventions in the Middle East whose consequence would be anger and rage that would ultimately result in terrorist counterstrikes. The interventions included the Persian Gulf War against former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein, the intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage treatment facilities, the brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were “worth it,” the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, the illegal and deadly “no-fly zones” over Iraq, and the continuous, unconditional aid to the Israeli government.
When all these interventions produced the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 (along with the attack on the Pentagon), U.S. officials played the innocent. It was all about hatred for America’s freedom and values, they said. It had nothing to do with U.S. government policies that had been igniting and engendering anger and rage against America.
Unfortunately, their interventions weren’t limited to the Middle East. Even while supposedly celebrating the end of the Cold War, U.S. officials embarked on a course of conduct that over time could have but one result — anger and rage engendered within Russian officials (and the Russian people) against the United States.
Every American needs to ask himself an important question: Why didn’t they disband NATO at the end of the Cold War? Wasn’t the purpose of NATO to protect against a Soviet attack on Europe? Well, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, wouldn’t it have been logical to disintegrate NATO as well?
Instead, year after year U.S. officials have used NATO to provoke and antagonize their old Cold War Official Enemy. For example, while U.S. officials are today claiming outrage over South Ossetia’s attempt to secede from Georgia, NATO forces were used to separate Kosovo from Serbia knowing the humiliation that this would produce for Serbia’s longtime ally Russia.
More important, former Soviet-dominated countries, such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland were made members of NATO, and U.S. officials have been trying desperately to extend NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine. On top of that, U.S. officials have been establishing close ties with officials in former Soviet republics, even establishing bases there, such as in Uzbekistan. In the past few days, U.S. and Polish officials have even agreed to the installation of missile batteries in Poland.
The average American neo-con would say, “Well, what’s wrong with all that?” Well, let’s suppose that in 1990 NATO had been dismantled and that Russian officials all of sudden announced that the Warsaw Pact was being kept in existence and re-modified. New members were to include Cuba, Grenada, Panama, Mexico, and Haiti. Suppose that over the next 18 years, Russian advisors were training troops in those countries and that Warsaw Pact missile batteries were installed there.
Would U.S. neocons be going ballistic? Of course they would. They would be calling for the U.S. government to invade those countries in order to effect regime change.
So, where are we today? We’ve come full circle. The U.S. is now facing a scaled-down version of its old Official Enemy, Russia. We’re again hearing talk of the communist threat and references to America’s old Cold War enemy (and World War II partner) the Soviet Union. No doubt we’ll soon be hearing about how the demise of the Soviet Union was an elaborate communist deception designed to lull the West into false sense of security.
And of course, we’ll hear about how necessary the military industrial complex is to the “freedom” and “security” of the American people, given the twin threats of communism and terrorism now facing us. More “defense” weapons. More “defense” contractors. More “defense” profits. More war for “defense.” More spending for “defense.” More taxes for “defense.”
And if U.S. interventions in Latin America since 1989 pay off with drug-war attacks on U.S. officials similar to those taking place against Mexican officials, they’ll soon have more Official Enemies to justify the existence and expansion of the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.
Whatever else might be said about U.S. officials, they certainly are not dumb. By the skillful use of foreign policy, they’ve not only managed to revive their old Cold War Enemy, they’ve also succeeded in adding new Official Enemies to the batch. Hopefully, Americans are paying attention not only to what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America but especially to foreign policy that has been emanating from Washington for the past 18 years.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Interventionist Hypocrisy
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Referring to Russia’s incursion into Georgia, President Bush says that invading a sovereign country that poses no threat is “unacceptable in the 21st century.” John McCain echoes that sentiment with, “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
What planet do Bush and McCain live on? Have they never heard of Iraq? That’s a sovereign and independent country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Nonetheless, under Bush’s command and with McCain’s support, the U.S. government invaded Iraq, effected regime change, and is still occupying the country.
Perhaps Bush and McCain are upset that Russia did not ask for UN approval before invading Georgia. But Bush himself did not secure UN approval before invading Iraq. In fact, once it became clear that the UN was going to deny Bush’s request, he ordered the invasion anyway.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq have been so brutal that more than a million people have been killed, countless maimed, tortured, and sexually abused, and millions exiled. The entire country has been destroyed. That’s on top of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed as a result of the cruel and brutal pre-invasion sanctions that had been enforced against the Iraqi people for more than a decade.
Let’s also not forget about Afghanistan. In 2001, Bush’s military forces, fully supported by McCain, invaded that sovereign and independent country, effected regime change, and are still occupying the country. Although Bush promised to provide evidence of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the Afghan government, he never did so.
We also should bear in mind that Bush, supported by McCain, never sought or acquired the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan, thereby making the invasions illegal under our form of government.
All this occurred well into the 21st century.
And while we’re on the issue of powerful governments that exercise coercive influence on nearby countries, let’s not forget the following here in the Western hemisphere:
1. The U.S. government effected regime change in Guatemala.
2. The U.S. government supported the regime change operation in Chile and even played an “unfortunate role” in the killing of an American citizen during the operation.
3. The U.S. government has long attempted to effect regime change in Cuba, especially with its cruel and brutal embargo against the Cuban people.
4. The U.S. government intervened in Nicaragua by arming and supplying the Contras and illegally mining Nicaraguan waters.
5. The U.S. government effected regime change in Haiti.
6. The U.S. government invaded Grenada and effected regime change there.
7. The U.S. government, under the guise of the drug war, invaded Panama and effected regime change there.
8. The U.S. government invaded the Dominican Republic and effected regime change there.
That’s just a sampling of U.S. interventions in Latin America. Here is a more complete list.
While it’s true that those interventions took place in the 20th century rather than the 21st century, do you see Bush, McCain, or for that matter Obama, condemning any of them? I wonder what they would have said if Russia, China, or some other country had declared that any of these interventions were “unacceptable.”
U.S. interventionists need to keep in mind that when they point their finger at their interventionist counterparts in other countries and declare that their invasions are unacceptable, there are 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. As the old saying goes, “Physician, heal thyself.” What better way to lead the world?
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
War Crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
by Jacob G. Hornberger
This month marks the 63rd anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
U.S. officials have long justified the nuclear attacks on the rationale that the attacks shortened the war. If the bombs had not been dropped, the argument goes, tens of thousands of U.S. troops would have had to die in an invasion of Japan. Therefore, U.S. officials say, since the dropping of the bombs brought about a quick unconditional surrender from Japan, American lives were saved and, therefore, the bombings were justified.
There are some serious problems with that reasoning, however.
It has long been an established rule of war that it is a war crime for soldiers to intentionally target non-combatants. That’s why Lt. William Calley was charged with a war crime during the Vietnam War. At My Lai, he targeted women, children, and other non-combatants by shooting and killing them.
What if Calley could have shown that his actions contributed to the shortening of the Vietnam War? That would not have considered a legitimate defense at his war-crimes trial. He would nonetheless have been convicted of a war crime of targeting and killing non-combatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with women, children, and other non-combatants. No one seriously contends that these two cities were military targets. They were civilian targets filled with hundreds of thousands of non-combatants.
Does the fact that the people were killed by bombs dropped from airplanes rather than by bullets from a gun make a difference, morally and legally speaking? I don’t see how. Given that it’s a war crime for an infantryman to target and kill non-combatants in war, it would seem that it’s just as much a war crime for a pilot to do so.
Suppose that during World War II one of Gen. George Patton’s subordinates had presented him with a ground-combat situation comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suppose Patton became convinced that by targeting and killing thousands of women, children, old and sick people, and other noncombatants, the war could be brought to a quicker conclusion, thereby saving the lives of thousands of Patton’s men.
What would Patton’s answer have been?
I have no doubt that Patton would have said something like the following to his men: “Soldiers die in war. In the battles we face ahead, a certain percentage of you soldiers will be killed. That’s the way of things sometimes. If you are among those killed, that will be regrettable, but that is what comes with being a soldier and that is what comes with war. We will not kill innocent people, including women and children, in order to save the lives of American soldiers. That would not only be wrong, it would be cowardice.”
Moreover, U.S. officials have long argued that dropping the bombs was the only way to bring the war to a quick conclusion. There are two fundamental flaws in their reasoning, however.
First, as historians have long pointed out, there is strong evidence that Japan was willing to surrender anyway, if the security of their emperor would be guaranteed.
Second, and more important, the underlying assumption of the U.S. position was that there was no alternative to their “unconditional surrender” demand. But that’s sheer nonsense. No one forced the United States to take the “unconditional surrender” position.
Another option — one that had long been used in war — would have been a negotiated peace, one that could have secured everything the U.S. wanted and still given the Japanese what they wanted, i.e., the continuation of the emperor. The U.S. could have weighed whether the negotiated terms were worth the loss of life that would result from an invasion of Japan. The “unconditional surrender” demand precluded the parties from sitting down and determining whether mutually acceptable peace terms could be arrived at.
The targeting of women, children, and other non-combatants in wartime is — and should continue to be — a war crime. William Calley’s actions, in which he killed 109 Vietnamese people, constituted a war crime. So did the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed 220,000 Japanese people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Neo-Con Hypocrisy on Georgia and Iraq
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Amidst the death and destruction in Georgia, the neo-conservative reaction here in the United States is a sight to behold.
Aggression, the neo-cons are screaming. The Russians are waging an unprovoked war of aggression, they’re exclaiming. This is unacceptable, they’re declaring. Something must be done, they’re saying.
Oh?
Where were all those terms when the U.S. government attacked Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so? If there was ever a case in which an illegal and immoral war of aggression was waged against another country, it was Iraq.
Yet, what did the neo-cons say about the Iraq invasion and occupation? Oh, it’s not a war of aggression, they said, but rather a war of liberation, of freedom, of democracy-spreading — well, at least once those infamous WMDs failed to materialize.
But all of a sudden Russia attacks Georgia in response to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s sending of troops into South Ossetia, and all of a sudden the neo-cons experience a gigantic moral awakening in which they see nothing but unlawful, immoral, and arrogant belligerence and aggression.
You see — in the neo-con mind, when the U.S. government attacks countries, that is automatically considered good. When the Russian government attacks countries, that is automatically considered bad.
But let’s give credit where credit is due: Not only did the neo-cons’ poking of hornets’ nests in the Middle East give rise to 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the clever neo-con use of NATO has now helped to poke the Russian hornet’s nest, giving the neo-cons another excuse — “the resurgence of the communist threat” — to take away even more of our freedoms.
Let’s not forget what the purpose of NATO was — to protect Europe from the Soviet communists (who were the former partner of the U.S. government in World War II and to whose control U.S. officials had delivered Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Baltics).
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the obvious step would have been to dismantle NATO, given that its mission was now moot. That’s not what U.S. officials did, however. Instead, they kept NATO in existence and then began using it to take a series of provocative actions against Russia, such as proposing the installation of missiles in Eastern Europe.
U.S. officials also sought to have Georgia, which is a former Soviet republic, join NATO, which would have meant more U.S. missiles on Russia’s border.
Now, the neo-cons are claiming that the Russians are behaving ridiculously in objecting to such actions. They are suggesting that it is Russia’s duty to simply obey the U.S. Empire and comply with its directives. After all, they say, the intentions of the U.S. government are entirely peaceful, defensive, and non-threatening. Everyone knows, they say, that the U.S. government doesn’t attack and wage wars of aggression and occupy other countries or engage in regime-change operations through such actions as assassinations, coups, and bribery. The U.S. government is the embodiment of good, they say. Just trust us and obey us, they say to the Russians.
Now, imagine this: Suppose Russia were to enter into an alliance with Mexico, Cuba, and Grenada in which Russia planned to construct military bases and install missiles in those three countries. Ask yourself: Would not the neo-cons go ballistic? Would they not be calling for invading all three countries and implementing regime change?
Of course they would. They would never allow “the communists” to gain a “foothold” in the Western Hemisphere. After all, who has forgotten the violent regime-change operations in Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, and elsewhere during the Cold War?
Fortunately, the neo-cons are not calling for U.S. military intervention to protect the Georgians from Russian aggression. That’s limited to Third World regimes that lack the military to defend themselves, such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But Americans ought to be thanking their lucky stars that commitment to principle has never been a strong suit within the neo-con community. Better that the neo-cons limit their punitive actions against Russia to canceling its membership in the G8 than risking war with Russia as part of the U.S. government’s self-appointed role as the world’s international policeman.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
A Tyrannical Farce at Gitmo
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In the first trial held in the Pentagon’s “judicial” system at Guantanamo Bay, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was acquitted of conspiracy, convicted of providing “material support” to a U.S.-named terrorist organization, and given a 5 ½ year sentence, with credit for the 5 years of time that Hamdan has already served at the Gitmo prison. That means that he could conceivably be released from custody within 5 months.
Some people are claiming that the verdict and sentence in the Hamdan case prove that the Gitmo “judicial” system is fair and just after all.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
After all, one can never know what an ordinary jury in U.S. federal court would have done following the Federal Rules of Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is entirely possible that such a jury would have acquitted Hamdan not only of the conspiracy charges but also of the material support charge. After all, if a military jury concluded that Hamdan, who has a fourth-grade education, didn’t conspire with bin Laden to commit the 9/11 attacks, it is entirely possible that an ordinary jury might have concluded that Hamdan didn’t know that President Bush had denominated al Qaeda as a terrorist organization.
If a constitutional jury had acquitted Hamdan of all charges, would people still be claiming that 5 ½ years in jail for an innocent man was fair and just?
Ultimately, the fairness of a verdict in a criminal case turns on the fairness of the proceedings by which the accused is tried and convicted. By violating the procedural rights and guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the Gitmo proceedings stink to high heaven.
Secret trials. Secret proceedings. Secret evidence. Secret testimony. The use of evidence acquired by torture and coercion. No right to confront witnesses. The use of hearsay evidence. No right to summon witnesses. No right against self-incrimination. A presumption of guilt. No right to bail. No right to trial by jury. And the power to ignore the verdict of the jury by keeping an acquitted defendant in custody.
Pardon me for being blunt, but isn’t all of this the hallmark of the judicial systems of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Cuba? Who among us would defend the fairness of “judicial” proceedings in those countries?
There’s another important procedural guarantee that was violated in the Hamdan case, one that the mainstream media never bothers to mention: the Eight Amendment’s right to a speedy trial.
Notice how long Hamdan has languished in prison without a trial — five years! That’s right — five years without a trial. Why did it take five years to bring a person in custody to trial?
Did the length of time that Hamdan has been imprisoned have an effect on the tribunal’s verdict? How could it not? The jury was composed of military officials whose career depends on securing favor with the president, the secretary of defense, and the Pentagon.
So, here’s the picture: They arrest a guy and keep him in jail for 5 years, denying him a trial the entire time. They continually tell the world that he is one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists. They tell the military officials on the jury that even if the jury acquits him, they will continue to keep him in prison as a dangerous terrorist.
Under those circumstances, what were the chances that a jury consisting of military officials whose careers were on the line was going to say, “You’re wrong. You’ve kept an innocent man in jail all this time”?
The chances of an acquittal were nonexistent. Hamdan never had a chance of an acquittal of all charges.
Moreover, keep in mind that this was the first Gitmo case to go to trial. How would it have looked to acquit the accused of all charges?
Ask yourself why the Pentagon decided to throw in the “material support for terrorism” charge late in the game. It’s entirely conceivable that they knew that they lacked any credible evidence to establish Hamdan’s guilt on conspiracy charges but needed to give the jury a way to convict and show leniency in such a way as not to embarrass the president and the Pentagon.
In fact, the “material support” charge itself is ridiculous. If the “war on terrorism” is a real war, as U.S. officials have long claimed, then aren’t opposing forces on the battlefield entitled to use drivers? Were drivers who drove Nazi generals around committing war crimes? Why, even Hitler’s driver wasn’t prosecuted at Nuremberg. Neither was his cook or barber.
In fact, providing “material support for terrorism” has never been viewed as a war crime. Instead, what the Pentagon did is simply lift the charge from the federal statute books, which contain the criminal laws that Congress has enacted for prosecution in federal district courts.
So, Hamdan has been convicted of a federal criminal offense that Congress intended to be tried in federal court as a criminal offense and that has instead been arbitrarily converted by the Pentagon into a war crime without the consent of Congress.
Of course, it might be argued that Hamdan wasn’t wearing a uniform. But he wasn’t charged with that. And let’s not forget that in the “war on terrorism,” CIA officials don’t wear uniforms either. Does that make them war criminals in the “war on terrorism”?
The Pentagon’s entire “judicial” system at Gitmo is nothing more than a tyrannical farce. The sooner it’s extinguished, the better off everyone will be.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Bush’s Rebuke in Beijing
by Jacob G. Hornberger
While criticizing Chinese authorities for lack of religious and political freedom, President Bush was caught flat-footed by the rebuke issued by Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, who responded, “We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.”
What could Bush say? Here was a Chinese communist essentially enunciating the founding foreign policy of the United States of America, leaving Bush speechless on the issue.
Bush couldn’t say “I agree — it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of other countries” because he knew that the Chinese would simply point out that he was lying. After all, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is the primary mission of U.S. foreign policy. That’s what the invasion of Iraq was all about, along with the indefinite occupation of the country. It’s what CIA and Pentagon assassinations, coups, foreign aid, regime change, and other such things are all about—interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
Bush also couldn’t say, “I disagree—it is right and proper to interfere in the affairs of other countries” because that would have opened the door to the Chinese officials’ asking Bush to abandon the U.S. government’s commitment to torture, sex abuse, kidnapping, warrantless searches, illegally spying on Americans, waging wars of aggression, the enemy-combatant doctrine, rendition, kangaroo tribunals, and denial of due process of law.
It is both interesting and revealing that Bush chose to criticize the Chinese on religious and political liberty rather than on economic liberty. Undoubtedly, the reason is that Bush and his conservative cohorts, along with American liberals, share the same socialist and paternalist philosophy and programs that the Chinese communists embrace — e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public (i.e., government) schooling, income taxation, occupational licensure, economic regulation, paper money, central banking (i.e., Federal Reserve), gun control, drug laws, trade restrictions, and immigration controls.
Despite China’s massive socialistic welfare state, economic activity continues to soar, unlike here in the United States. Part of the reason for this is that not only does the U.S. government have the burden of financing its enormous welfare state, it also has the burden of financing its imperial warfare state — i.e., troops in more than 100 countries, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and military bases all across the United States.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is a sound one, which is why our American ancestors embraced it. What a shame that it has to be enunciated by Chinese communists to a U.S. president who believes otherwise.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, August 8, 2008
SWAT Team Horror in the War on Drugs
by Jacob G. Hornberger
This past week, Americans have had the opportunity to witness another glorious day in the life of the 35-year-old war on drugs.
A few minutes after the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, Cheye Calvo, returned home from walking his two Labrador retrievers, Prince George’s County drug-war SWAT team bashed his door down and, with guns a’blazing shot both dogs and handcuffed the mayor in his boxing shorts as well his mother in law and forced them to lie next to one of the dead dogs.
The reason? Marijuana. Deliverymen had left a package of the substance on the front steps of Calvo’s house and when he returned from his walk, he picked up the package and took it into his house.
It turns out that the deliverymen were Prince George’s County law-enforcement agents working a sting. More important, it turns out that the package was part of scheme in which drugs are mailed to unknowing recipients and then intercepted. The mayor and his family had nothing to do with the package, which was unopened when the cops barged into the house.
One cannot help but feel bad for the mayor and his family, but, hey, he ought to be counting his lucky stars that it was only the dogs that were killed. People get killed in drug raids. Last November drug gendarmes shot and killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in a botched drug raid.
Unfortunately, despite his family’s horrific ordeal the mayor still doesn’t get it. He’s calling on the feds to investigate the matter. What good is that going to do? The cops had a judicially issued warrant to search the premises. Even though it wasn’t a no-knock warrant, does anyone really think matters would have been different if the cops had knocked and waited for someone to answer the door?
The fact is that the root of the problem is the drug war itself. In the absence of the drug war, cops wouldn’t be knocking down people’s doors, barging into their homes, terrorizing them and killing them and their pets, at least not under the pretense of finding drugs.
How long is it going to take Americans to finally come to the realization that there is one and only one solution to the drug war mess? That solution is simply to end the drug war by legalizing drugs. How many more killings must we endure? How many more drug raids? How much more state-inflicted terror? How many more collateral robberies, thefts, gang wars, murders, corruption, and burglaries?
What is the justification for continuing this immoral and destructive war? That it works? Give me a break. They’ve been waging it for 35 years. All they can point to is a bunch of drug busts, year after year?
In fact, that’s what Prince George’s County Police Department spokesman Sharon Taylor said in response to the raid on Calvo’s house: “We’ve done these kinds of operations over and over again, to the tune of removing billions of dollars of drugs from the community and without people or animals being harmed.”
Okay, but so what? What good has it done to remove all those drugs from the community? Weren’t they simply replaced with new supplies of drugs?
Most important, we need to take notice of the moral issues involved in the Calvo raid.
What was the purpose of the raid? To find a package of marijuana inside the mayor’s house and then to punish the mayor for possessing and using marijuana.
But why isn’t private drug consumption within the privacy of the mayor’s own home his personal business? Under what moral authority do government officials barge into a person’s home and punish him for ingesting drugs? Isn’t that the person’s business? Are state officials the mayor’s daddy? Why do government officials have the legal authority to send an adult to his room in a state or federal penitentiary for ingesting some non-approved substance? Doesn’t being an adult entail the right to make one’s own choices, even if self-destructive? Isn’t that what freedom is all about?
What Calvo and other Americans must finally realize is that what happened in the Calvo raid is simply part and parcel of the war on drugs. Exclaiming against these types of abuses while supporting the war on drugs is like praising lightning while exclaiming against thunder. As long as cops are given the authority to investigate and arrest people for drug offenses, there is going to be state violence, abuse, mistakes, terror, death, destruction, and corruption.
There is only one way to treat a weed — by pulling it out by its root. There is only one solution to the war on drugs — end it.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Moving in the Direction of China
by Jacob G. Hornberger
I just received an interesting letter from officials of Montgomery County, Maryland, advising me that I owed the county $40. The reason? The letter advised me that surveillance cameras had caught me speeding — 43 mph in a 30 mph zone. Included in the letter were 3 photographs of my vehicle with my license plate clearly visible.
I certainly didn’t have any intent to speed but since my alleged offense occurred two weeks prior to my receipt of the letter, there is no way for me to definitely state that I wasn’t speeding at the time and place alleged.
It’s not so much the ticket that bothers me as much as the creepy feeling that comes with knowing that surveillance cameras are monitoring people’s activities. Since drivers aren’t warned where the surveillance cameras are situated, one must now assume that Big Brother is watching you everywhere at all times, at least when you’re driving.
Everyone has had experience with speed traps. But everyone also knows that cops can’t be everywhere. Not so with surveillance cameras. They can be everywhere. Why, just ask the Chinese, where communist authorities have installed 300,000 surveillance cameras in Beijing alone.
According to an ominous article entitled “China’s All-Seeing Eye” by Naomi Klein in Rolling Stone, another 200,000 cameras have been installed in the city of Shenzhen, some disguised as lampposts. There are plans to install 2 million closed circuit TV cameras in the city in the next two years.
And take a wild guess who is helping the commies to install their camera system. According to Klein, U.S. defense contractors have been doing the manufacturing and supplying of the surveillance equipment. You know—the people in what President Eisenhower described as a potential threat to our democratic way of life — the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Guess what the communists are using as a justification for all this surveillance equipment. If you guessed “war on terrorism” and “national security,” go to the head of the class. Hey, the commies may be brutal but they’re not dumb. They know that “war on terrorism” and “national security” are magic terms that induce people all over the world to sacrifice their freedom and privacy for the sake of “security.”
Meanwhile, in his trip to Red China President Bush has promised not to criticize the communists for their infringements of civil liberties and privacy. He doesn’t want to insult them.
In other words, Bush will invade a country that has never attacked the United States, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people in the process, supposedly for the sake of “freeing” Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship (after those infamous WMDs failed to materialize), but he won’t dare insult one of the most brutal, murderous, tortuous, totalitarian regimes in history.
But perhaps Bush knows that the Chinese authorities will not permit him to lecture them on freedom, especially given the dictatorial powers that Bush has assumed as part of his “war on terrorism” and “national security” measures. You know, things like kidnappings, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detentions, kangaroo military tribunals, denial of due process and trial by jury, infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, including torture and sex abuse, the presidential power to wage wars of aggression against foreign countries, and the self-assumed, omnipotent power to arrest, imprison, and punish anyone anywhere simply on orders of the president. In other words, the same types of powers wielded by rulers of communist countries.
Did you ever think you’d see the day when U.S. officials would be moving in the direction of communist China, not only with respect to economic philosophy and policy (e.g., socialism, paternalism, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, regulation, licensure, income taxation, central banking, paper money, etc.) but also with respect to civil liberties, privacy, and militarism? Think about it the next time you’re driving.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Why Wasn’t Bruce Ivins an Enemy Combatant?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
So, the FBI was prepared to indict U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins for terrorism before he committed suicide. The specific act of terrorism for which Ivins was to be indicted was employing weapons of mass destruction, to wit: anthrax, on American citizens on American soil.
What?
An indictment?
Doesn’t that mean federal courts? Doesn’t that mean the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t that mean the presumption of innocence, right to counsel, right to be free from self-incrimination, protection from cruel and unusual punishments, right to bail, exclusion of evidence acquired by torture, coercion, or illegal searches, right to confront witnesses, right to summon witnesses, a public trial, and trial by jury?
Is that any way to treat an enemy combatant during time of war? Is that the way we treated German prisoners of war in World War II? Did the feds indict them too?
What gives? Haven’t the Bush administration and the Washington Post told us ad infinitum, ad nauseum that the courts are not equipped to handle terrorism cases? Isn’t that what Gitmo is all about? What better example of a terrorism case than the use of weapons of mass destruction against American citizens on American soil? What better example of an “enemy combatant” in the federal government’s “war on terrorism” than Bruce Ivins?
The FBI’s planned indictment of Ivins once again exposes the charade of the “enemy combatant” doctrine, the Pentagon’s kangaroo tribunals, and the so-called war on terrorism. As we have been arguing here at FFF ever since 9/11, terrorism is a federal crime, not an act of war. It is listed on the federal statute books as a federal crime. It was that way before 9/11 and it has remained that way after 9/11. That’s precisely why the FBI and the Justice Department were planning on securing a federal grand-jury indictment against Ivins.
What President Bush and the Pentagon did after the 9/11 attacks was assume dictatorial powers in the guise of waging war, which they called the “war on terrorism.” This included the omnipotent power to completely bypass the federal courts when it came to suspected terrorists. With the assumption of such power, the military could take anyone it wanted into custody simply by having the president designate the person as an “enemy combatant.” This included foreigners and Americans arrested both abroad and here within the United States. After all, in the war on terrorism the whole world is the battlefield, they told us, including the United States.
Never mind that the assumption of such dictatorial power was accomplished without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. All that was important, they said, was that Bush was now wearing a commander in chief helmet in time of “war,” which, they said, gave him and his minions the omnipotent power to kidnap, arrest, torture, indefinitely imprison, and execute anyone they wanted anywhere in the world.
Could such power be extended to other criminal acts? Why not? Consider the violent attacks that drug lords are committing against the military, police, and populace in Mexico. Suppose the drug lords expand such violent attacks to the United States, embarking on a killing spree against DEA agents, federal judges, federal prosecutors, military personnel, local law-enforcement agents, and private citizens.
There is absolutely no reason that the president, the CIA, and the Pentagon could not extend the enemy-combatant doctrine that they’ve used in the “war on terrorism” to the “war on drugs.” That would give the president, the CIA, and the Pentagon the power not only to treat suspected terrorists as enemy combatants but also suspected drug dealers, perhaps even drug users. And the fact that “the terrorists” are being funded by sales of illicit drugs would undoubtedly be cited as another reason for expanding the dictatorial war on terrorism powers to the war on drugs.
But the fact is that the federal courts are well-equipped to handle terrorism cases as well as drug cases, murder cases, and kidnapping cases. That’s why the feds continue to indict people for such criminal offenses. That’s why they planned to indict suspected terrorist Bruce Ivins and to try him in federal district court.
Another important factor to consider is that Bush and the Pentagon now have the discretionary power to treat people in two completely different ways for the same offense: either by subjecting them to the kangaroo, show-trial treatment at Gitmo or the regular federal-court route that provides constitutional guarantees.
It would be difficult to find a more perfect example of a violation of the rule of law and the principle of equal treatment under law than this. For when government officials have the discretion to treat two people who have committed the same offense in two completely separate and distinct ways, that’s the essence of injustice.
The Jose Padilla case reflected the horror of this discretionary ad hoc power. For years, the feds treated Padilla as an enemy combatant in the war on terror, subjecting him to imprisonment in a military dungeon, isolation, torture, and the threat of indefinite detention. Then, after a few years of claiming that the federal courts were inadequate to handle terrorism cases, the feds willy-nilly changed their minds and decided to treat Padilla as a federal-court defendant. He was indicted, convicted, and sentenced in a federal court. If the appellate courts were to overturn Padilla’s conviction, the Pentagon wields the power to yank him back into custody as an enemy combatant.
Padilla is an American citizen, just as Bruce Ivins was. Under President Bush’s post-9/11 unilateral assumption of dictatorial power, the feds didn’t have to indict Bruce Ivins for terrorism. They could have treated him as an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism, just like they initially did to Jose Padilla. They can now do this to any American, including you. This is what passes for “freedom” in post-9/11 America.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Irrelevancy of the Gitmo Trials
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The Pentagon’s model “judicial” system at Guantanamo Bay has many fascinating features, virtually all of which are contrary to the rights and guarantees in the federal system established by the Constitution. Among the features in the Pentagon’s system are a presumption of guilt for the accused, no right to confront witnesses, the use of hearsay evidence, the use of evidence acquired by torture or coercion, no right against self-incrimination, no protection against cruel and unusual punishments, no right to bail, and no right to trial by jury.
But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Pentagon’s system is the irrelevancy of the trial itself. Under the Pentagon’s rules, if a person is found not guilty the Pentagon can nonetheless continue to keep him in custody for as long as it wants, even for the rest of his life. In the federal judicial system here in the United States, when a jury acquits an accused he is immediately discharged from custody, enabling him to walk out the courtroom a free man.
Granted, it is highly unlikely that any defendant is going to be acquitted, given that U.S. military personnel are serving as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Nonetheless, every American should take note of this critically important part of this model “judicial” system established by the Pentagon. If the accused is acquitted by the military tribunal, the Pentagon can continue to treat him as if he had been convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Obvious questions arise: If the Pentagon can continue imprisoning a defendant who has been acquitted, then what’s the point of a trial? Isn’t the trial more in the nature of a show trial, similar to those conducted by the Soviet Union? Isn’t the Pentagon simply using a fake trial, one whose outcome is preordained and irrelevant, to convince people that its punishment of a person is done pursuant to principles of justice?
The Pentagon’s model “judicial” system makes a mockery of the principles of justice that America is supposed to stand for. Heaven forbid that the Pentagon is ever permitted to import it to our country.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Fixing the Economy
by Jacob G. Hornberger
A Washington Post poll reveals that most Americans doubt whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be able to “fix the ailing economy” or “improve the healthcare system.”
The problem with Americans is that they fail to understand that the federal government is the cause, not the cure, for the ailing economy, the healthcare system, and a host of other problems facing our nation. No matter which crisis we focus on — the drug war, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, war on immigrants, the dollar, the Federal Reserve, and many more — anyone who looks to McCain or Obama to fix it is on a fool’s errand. No one can make socialism, interventionism, and empire work, a principle Americans must finally confront if they want to have a strong, growing, prosperous economy.
Why are Americans having a difficult time making ends meet? The problem does not go back just a few years. It goes back decades. Ever since the advent of the New Deal in the 1930s, government’s expenditures, both for welfare and warfare, have continued to grow.
All that money has come out of the pockets of the American people, either through taxes or inflation (i.e., simply printing the money to pay for the government expenses.) It’s not a coincidence that government coins no longer contain gold or silver in them but instead are now made of base metals. That’s what comes with ever-growing government spending financed by inflation.
It is impossible to measure the damage that all that confiscation of income and capital has had on the standard of living of the American people. Contrary to what Americans are taught from the first grade on up, the key to rising standards of living lies with savings, not consumption. When people save, those savings are loaned by banks to businesses for the purpose of purchasing machinery and tools. That equipment, in turn, makes workers more productive. More productivity means higher income for the business, which means higher wages paid to employees.
Without savings, businesses cannot acquire capital. Without increases in capital, wages for workers cannot rise. Growing wages depend on growing productivity. That’s why employees and owners have a joint interest in the success of the operation.
What would life be like had the United States not adopted a socialistic welfare state, a regulated society, and an overseas military empire and instead had continued to embrace the free-market, limited-government philosophy that our American ancestors had embraced? It boggles the mind to imagine how high the American standard of living would be today if all that confiscated capital had remained in people’s hands.
Imagine if just 10 years ago the income tax had been abolished, as libertarians have long called for. How much money would you have in the bank? Consider a family that has paid an average of $20,000 per year in income taxes. That would mean $200,000 in the bank plus interest. That’s a lot of money to pay for education, healthcare, home loans, and vacations.
Imagine if 10 years ago Medicare and Medicaid had been abolished. Healthcare costs would not be soaring and doctors would not be leaving the profession in droves.
Decade after decade, government spending and federal regulation has continued to soar, with Americans being encouraged by government officials and mainstream economists to spend, spend, spend. Today, most everyone is having a difficult time making ends meet. Hardly anyone is able to save money. It might well be that the welfare-state and the warfare-state chickens are all coming home to roost at the same time.
In the past when Americans have looked to a new president to “fix the economy,” hope sprung eternal that the president would be able to make the welfare-warfare state work successfully. As people grow despondent over whether McCain or Obama will be able to make such magic succeed, we can only hope that Americans will begin reflecting on the real solution for an ailing economy: rejecting both the welfare state and the warfare state in favor of the free-market, limited-government way of life embraced by our ancestors.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Separating School & State
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Sheldon Richman, who authored FFF’s great book Separating School & State: Liberating America’s Families received the following email from his daughter Emily:
“Jennifer and I met a couple of people at this sushi place in Little Rock on Thursday that does karaoke. And we are friends with them on Facebook now. Today, one of them sent me a message asking if you were my dad! He said when he first heard our last name he was going to ask if we were related to you, but he thought we would think he was crazy!
“I asked how he had heard of you and he said:
“I remember back when I was about 12 years old when public schools in Arkansas started doing this ‘restructuring’ thing. Around that same time the book ‘Separating School and State’ came out (either 94 or 95?). Both those things combined to cause a huge stir in the church my parents went to at the time. Several parents pulled their kids out of school and home schooled them after that.
“I thought it was pretty cool that he remembered that and knew who you were! Just thought I’d let you know! — Emily”
It just goes to show how ideas can have a power that is impossible to measure. What a great feeling knowing that our book played a very positive role in the life of some families, especially the children who were not subjected to public schooling as result of the book.
As we have long maintained here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, the key to the education morass, however, is not homeschooling but rather a total free market in education, which would include homeschooling as an available option.
Today, parents essentially have only three choices when it comes to their children’s education: homeschooling, government-approved private schools, and government schools. A free market in education would free up the educational arena so that a much wider array of educational vehicles would be offered to consumers.
For example, suppose parents understand the damage that government schools cause children and do not wish to subject their children to them. Yet, suppose also that they cannot financially afford private school and do not feel competent to homeschool.
What’s their solution? They have none. For them, all three choices are bad. But if the educational marketplace were freed up, the probability is that they would find some more satisfactory alternatives, some of which we cannot even imagine that some creative entrepreneur would come up with.
As Sheldon pointed out in Separating School & State, the ideal is to end all government involvement in education, just as Americans long ago ended all government involvement in religion. That would mean the repeal of compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes, terminating all state education personnel, and disposing of all the school buildings.
Hasn’t the state done enough damage with its system of regimentation, memorization, and Ritalin injections? Why not a free market in education? Doesn’t the free market deliver the best of everything? Why not give families the opportunity to provide the best possible education for their children? Why not separate school and state?
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
