TSA Stole my Hot Sauce!

We at the Rio Grande Foundation typically go after the idiocy and corruption of our state political leaders, but the TSA is one entity that we all deal with on a regular basis, but that I have not written about extensively. This is largely because there seems to be no momentum in Congress to undo the nationalization of airport security that was enacted after 9/11.

Over the Thanksgiving Holiday, my wife Krista and I spent the week with RGF co-founder Harry Messenheimer and his wife on the Big Island of Hawaii. We were on Oahu for one day and toured the Dole Plantation. There, we purchase a bottle of pineapple-infused hot sauce. Being good travelers, we checked the bottle which was wrapped in some tissue paper to protect it from breaking. Well, when we got home and opened our bags, we had a pre-printed notice in our bag indicating TSA had checked the bag and we had no sauce. Unbelievable!

Apparently, TSA theft is not a new or uncommon issue. I'm proud that my old organization, the National Taxpayers Union, opposed federalizing airport security when it was done and I wish that our political leaders would get rid of TSA and let airlines and passengers handle security issues.

Executing the DC Sniper

Last night, John Alan Muhammed, who brainwashed John Malvo, a teen, and manipulated him into a murder spree that terrorized the Washington area, was executed.

Personally, as one who lives there and lived in fear of death, I am not entirely displeased with this. Of course, this means that my opinion of the rightness of the execution is a bit clouded - much in the same way I would not seeing Osama bin Laden's head on a platter (although I believe he is already dead from kidney disease). Again, because I was within shrapnel range of the Capitol on September 11, having been evacuated from the Department of Labor two blocks away, my judgment on the issue of his fate is also clouded.

On Friday, a gunman went on a rampage and killed almost a dozen people at his former office, blaming the firm which fired him years before for his actions. He, the beltway shooter and bin Laden seem to have gone down a path of deliberate evil. The question is, does this evil merit execution?

While capital punishment is allowed under canon law, there is a condition. This can only occur if a suitable confinement is not possible - suitability including the risk posed to other inmates. This responsibity to make these decisions formerly rested with the sovereign. In a democracy, however, we are all sovereign so it is our call collectively - as well as our responsibility to protect innocent life (including the lives of other inmates).

In my opinion, murders are not altogether sane. If there is a reason for this insanity and it can be reversed with either medication or sobriety, it is not just to kill them. Indeed, after some period they should be released. Indeed, if there is no doubt about their guilt or their mental state, they should be allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity and serve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter in a hospital setting.

Those who cannot be cured are another matter. I once read that those who are sentenced to life without parole consider themselves sentenced to death. Indeed, this is likely true, since their incarceration will indeed be the cause of their deaths eventually. If they are locked up alone in a "super-max" facility they will likely become insane before too long (if they were not already) and they are being killed by slow torture. It would be better to kill them quickly if they cannot be cured, not for the sake of justice, but as a form of permissible euthenasia. We should not be in a hurry to do so, so that they may have the chance to repent in time, although if they chose to be executed, we should not stop them. Indeed, many executions occur because the condemned decides to quit fighting. Perhaps this is a model of how this should be done.

What of Mr. Muhammed? I doubt that he has been given a real evaluation as to his sanity or his reformability and that is likely an injustice. If I were Governor of Virginia, I would at least try to find out and then bless my stars that the office is term limited.

Read and Learn the Constitution!

This article is based on a recent talk I gave on the US Constitution. While Sotomayor may wind up being better in terms of adhering to the Constitution than one might have expected at the outset of her nomination, until average Americans embrace and fully understand the document, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments, our rights will continue to be violated and the federal government will continue to grow out of control.

Democracy is Throwing Shoes

Rob Rafferty should produce get-out-the-vote commercials for the Ad Council.

Visit Jones County, Mississippi (and get Arrested)

The slogan of Jones County, Mississippi is, "Now, this is Living!" Today, our friends at Motorhomediaries.com were arrested while passing through this quaint little dry county.

FreeKeene.com reports:

It went down this morning in Jones County, MS. Jason Talley posted this to MHD’s Twitter:

“We are in Jones County MS and @adammueller has been arrested for filming cops after they pulled us over.” http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=q72.jpg&via=tfrog

Later, other posts to Jason’s facebook page revealed they were all arrested. After asking for details and hearing nothing, I called the Jones County Jail at 601-649-7502 and confirmed they have all been imprisoned.

Adam Mueller - Disorderly Conduct and Disobeying an Officer
Pete Eyre - Possession of a Beer in a Dry County
Jason Talley - Disorderly Conduct, Disobeying, and Resisting Arrest:

According to the Jones County website the quality of life that Jason, Pete and Adam might have been enjoying if they weren't in the county lockup right now is quite lovely:

Some places have just one or two things going for them – it’s up to you to decide if the benefits of living there outweigh the sacrifices you’ll have to make.

And, then there are those rare places where everything is in sync, and the biggest debate is over which benefit you love the most.

Jones County is that kind of place: not just a place with an affordable cost of living, but also with easy access to goods and services; not just a place to do business, but also to serve others through social and community outreaches; and not just a place to have a good time, but also to feed the mind and soul through the arts and education.

Put it all together and you have a place where you’re free to pursue your happiness among people committed to your well-being and even better living in the future.

We encourage our readers to call the county's sheriff's office and the board of supervisors to find out more about quality of life -- especially that delicious thing called "liberty" -- when one comes to stay in Jones County, Mississippi:

The Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge Office Phone: 601-428-3600. Cell Phone 601-422-3520

Jones County Board of Supervisors President Andy Dial 601-315-0428

Feel free to report your findings in the comment field below.

/KDR

The Next Justice

E.J. Dionne writes in Monday's Post about the coming nomination fight. He urges that we not get involved in catch phrases, however, I believe such a debate might be helpful.

I would like to know from nominees what they believe "judicial activism" means, both from their own point of view and how various actors use it. More specifically, I would like to know their opinion on the rights of state minorities to challenge and overcome the power of state majorities in federal court when those majorities deny the minority their rights to equal protection under the law.

There is a right and historical way to answer this. It would be helpful if the nominee had read Gary Wills' book - A Necessary Evil, as well as Garrett Epps' Democracy Reborn. Knowledge of this history is important when contradicting the originalism of Justices Scalia and Thomas, since both works make clear that Madison, in his original House passed version of the Bill of Rights and the congressional Radical Republicans who drafted the 14th Amendment both had strong ideas about using the federal government to limit the rights of state majorities when they violated the rights of minorities.

I would have a few other questions, which of course the nominee could not answer in committee, but would ask anyway as the mention of them might prove instructive to future delibarations anyway:

On the issue of abortion, could the Congress use its enforcement powers under the 14th Amendment to set an earlier benchmark for the legal recognition of the unborn - say viability (when the lungs develop) or assisted viability - or even the start of the fetal heartbeat or some later point when natural miscarriage is rare? Didn't the Congress in fact do that when they passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act - or were they simply refining the definition of birth under the provisions of the 14th Amendment to include feet first?

On the issue of marriage, is the threshold question whether there is a rational basis for finding that the family of origin has more rights vis-a-vis a same sex spouse than they do vis-a-vis an opposite sex spouse? Was Scalia right when he stated that by protecting consensual adult private same sex relations (watching out for filters here), the Court obliterated any rational basis for outlawing gay marriage?

Of course, these are just the hot button issues. They will represent exactly two cases the Court will decide. The victory for the Republicans is that there will be much focus on these issues while the real work of the Court and the Justice Department will be coping with the undoing of the Bush/Cheney Administration's economic and international policies.

Frankly, I would really like to know the nominees opinion on putting Cheney, et al, in the docket for ordering torture - either here in the United States or in the Hague if the United States Government refuses to act.

"Uncivil Obedience, Disobedience, and Civil Initiative"

This quotation is the title of an essay in Jim Corbett’s book Goatwalking, in which he compares the political theory of Thomas Hobbes and Henry David Thoreau to the philosophy and practice of civil initiative that he developed over a decade of human rights struggle. I’ve just written a short article about civil initiative over on the Opus journal, and I wanted to mention it here because Corbett’s thinking seems distinctly free liberal.

To illustrate, take my grossly oversimplified summaries of Hobbes, Thoreau, and Corbett:

• Hobbes: Human life without states is nasty, brutish, and short. If we concede to protection by the Leviathan, we are it’s subjects, and must obey its commands. It’s kind of like Cthulhu. Sorry, but that’s the social contract. If you want to renegotiate, your only recourse is revolution.
• Thoreau: The individual’s sole duty is to conscience, not government commands. States are too often the agents of injustice, and their laws are an obstacle to justice. Questions of right can’t be resolved by democratic legislation, but only by conscientious individuals, who must choose between respect for law and respect for right. When conscience conflicts with law, your options are conscientious disengagement or revolutionary disobedience.
• Corbett: The common law is formed not by states, but by communities through the exercise of natural rights. Sometimes one must choose between obeying the law and obeying the government—not because the law is an obstacle to justice, but because the government is shattering the legal order by violating human rights. When communities must violate government statutes to protect human rights, their actions must be germane to victims needs and accountable to legal order.

For Hobbes, the fulcrum of social change and civil order is the benign, legitimate sovereign. Thoreau’s fulcrum is the individual conscience. For Corbett, liberty and community are interdependent primaries: masterless communities form the basis for accountability to legal order, which is defined by the protection of natural rights. Naturally ornery, I find Thoreau’s individualism appealing, but I agree with Corbett that only a community can integrate, outreach, and outlast individual acts of conscience.

What kinds of activism have you been involved in?

Different kinds of activism divulge their constituting principles. Lobbying recognizes the sovereignty of states in making law. Conscientious disengagement and revolutionary disobedience repudiate human law in favor of individual conscience. Civil initiative refuses either to forfeit legal order or to plead guilty for resisting government statutes that violate human rights.

I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences. I welcome you to read about civil initiative, and leave your questions and comments.

John Stephens is a Quaker, artist, teacher, and designer in Virginia. You can find him at Design Opus where he works on media for social entrepreneurship and community peacebuilding.

FBI workers spy on teen girls' dressing room

Why does the FBI have a mall in small-town West Virginia wired with cameras?! Not to mention the dressing rooms?! Hopefully these questions will be answered as the story develops.

Here's an excerpt from the AP story:

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) - Two FBI workers are accused of using surveillance equipment to spy on teenage girls as they undressed and tried on prom gowns at a charity event at a West Virginia mall.

The FBI employees have been charged with conspiracy and committing criminal invasion of privacy. They were working in an FBI satellite control room at the mall when they positioned a camera on temporary changing rooms and zoomed in for at least 90 minutes on girls dressing for the Cinderella Project fashion show, Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson said Monday.

Gary Sutton Jr., 40, of New Milton and Charles Hommema of Buckhannon have been charged with the misdemeanors and face fines and up to a year in jail on each charge if convicted. Sutton has been released on bond, Wilson said, and Hommema is to be arraigned later this week. Wilson did not know Hommema's age.

The workers were described in a complaint as "police officers," but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did.

FULL STORY -- http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97MF9I00&show_article=1

New Mexico Legislator to Congress "Obey the Constitution!"

The United States Constitution is a much trampled upon document these days. The trend started long ago with Woodrow Wilson and FDR being among the most anti-Constitutional presidents in the history of the Republic. Of course , this trend has only worsened in recent years as both President Bush and Obama have further ignored the document, thus expanding their own powers and taking powers from the states, the REAL ID being one prominent issue that -- at least so far -- the states have succeeded in defeating.

Fortunately, although it has proven to be less than perfect, the Founding Fathers believed that powers should be split not only among the various federal branches, but also with the various states as a check on federal power. To that end, freshman New Mexico Representative Dennis Roch has introduced HJR 27 which re-asserts New Mexico's rights under the 10th amendment to the US Constitution. If you are not familiar with that particular amendment, it states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Obviously, the federal government and its agents have been ignoring the 10th amendment for a very long time, thus infringing on the rights of both the states and most especially the people as a whole, so it is our hope that Rep. Roch's efforts will succeed or at least receive significant attention.

Search Me?

CNN passes on a local story about two San Francisco 49 fans who are suing the NFL over pat down searches prior to entering the ball park. The NFL maintains that no one is forced to go to a Niners game (given there record of late, I would not be so sure), so that any requirement is legal. The season ticket holders disagree, claiming the searches are an unreasonable invasion. Note that the pat downs are conducted privately, which makes you wonder if it is the war on terror or the war on Jack Daniels and do it yourself concessions that is the real enemy.

Interesting dichotomy - a libertarian individual right vs. a libertarian commercial right.

I think the answer depends on who owns the stadium. If the event is being held at a public venue, then the NFL has no business searching citizens, since they are using the space at the sufferance of the community (especially the way they play). The community should put its foot down and direct its elected leaders to stop the searches. If the team paid for the stadium - and without the usual corporate welfare associated with such ventures - it can dictate terms, otherwise it must be made to respect the rights of the masses to smuggle in Evian,

Impunity for Torture System?

Quaker Chuck Fager writes about regime change for U.S. torture policy.

His outlook is bleak. While the new President may move to close Guantanamo and bring an end to the war in Iraq, Fager highlights two subtler currents which could erode the Bill of Rights even further: impunity and precedent.

Impunity means getting away with it. If those who created the torture system and those who managed it are not held to account, they will have achieved impunity, which is now their primary goal.

And with impunity will come a shift in the underpinnings of torture. It will move from being an outrageous aberration in our public order to being an accepted part of it. It will become precedent.

[...]

If the torture transition comes to pass, torture will be regularized in U.S. governance. Our rulers will have effectively gained the ability to declare any citizen outside the protection of the law. And they can do that from above and beyond the restraints of the law, with impunity.

Those two powers—first, to declare any citizen outside the law’s protection, and second, to do so without fear of the law’s restraints—are the essential components of a police state, the pillars of tyranny. That is why I believe in making the prevention of impunity and stopping the torture transition top priorities for work against torture in the coming years.

John Stephens is a Quaker, artist, teacher, and designer in Virginia. You can find him at Design Opus where he works on media for social entrepreneurship and community peacebuilding.

We're from the Government and We're here to "protect" you

If you think the government has any interest in protecting you or your health, this article should give you pause. It turns out that the feds are prohibiting a meat packer from testing every cow for mad cow disease.

Lest you think the problem here is big, bad, corporations, it would seem that lobbyists and political donations will always hold sway over government and its agencies. Might we move to a Consumer Reports or Good Housekeeping seal model with organizations genuinely dedicated to protecting consumers?

Lincoln's Legacy

Recently, I took part in a symposium about Abraham Lincoln and his legacy. The group that organized the symposium was the Center for the American Experiment a free market think tank based in Minnesota. A few dozen conservative and free market leaders including Grover Norquist and yours truly took part in the discussion. Check out the symposium here.

Needless to say, there is a diversity of opinion on Lincoln's legacy. My take tilts towards the negative based on questions of the relative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist">necessity of the Civil War and his abuse of habeas corpus. Check it out.

Denver Cops Beat Man Silly

I'm sick of police who act like they're above the law and am going to blog about them here whenever possible starting now. Check out this footage from Denver.

Land of the Free or Evil Empire?

Once upon a time Rome was a republic, something of a model of good government for the time. But over time it degenerated into becoming an oppressive empire.

Could the same thing be happening to the United States? Mother Jones proves it has already happened. One in four of the world's prison inmates are in jail in this country! This is hideous! For those who value liberty this is a much bigger issue than tax rates, eminent domain, monetary policy etc.

TSA's No Fly List Politicized

According to Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower formerly with the Justice Department, the Transportation Security Administration is using the government's "No Fly List" to punish political opponents. Read her article here.

This is not surprising behavior for an unaccountable federal agency. Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of political momentum on behalf of getting rid of TSA. It would be nice if those who spoke out against government abuses didn't automatically wind up on a list supposedly reserved for terrorists, but when you put governments in charge of this sensitive information and makes them answerable to no one, politicization is an inevitable result.

Anarchy Works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

Interesting, charmingly entertaining video that seems to be saying: Anarchy works, because we already have it!

Well, all righty, then.

-RC

Taking Olbermann and Obama to Task for FISA Support

Just because Obama supports Bush's unconstitutional FISA expansion doesn't mean that it is any more legitimate or better policy. While MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has often been an opponent of the Bush Administration's war and privacy policies, his principles apparently don't extend to keeping Democrats from doing the same things.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com takes Olbermann, Jonathan Alter, and other unprincipled lefties to task for endorsing Bush's power grab.

Illegally Download Music, Lose Your House?

Most "Free Liberals" support property rights. That said, reasonable, pro-liberty people can disagree over the concept and enforcement of intellectual property. Most fair-minded people also understand the concept of proportionality in punishment.

That brings us to Los Angeles where the County Commission recently adopted an ordinance that essentially allows the authorities to seize homes if acts of piracy (illegally downloading music and movies) are found to be committed on the premises.

According to the story from Wired, the County board declared that piracy "substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors."

Not surprisingly, the regulation was crafted at the urging of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Property owners who knowingly permit such activity can also be dinged $1,000 for each counterfeited work produced on the property.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers included provisions for patents in the Constitution. They did this because the public at large benefits from new products and technologies. Without patent protection, the incentive for people to innovate is reduced. Is this true for intellectual property? The debate over that issue rages on, but the answers are much less cut-and-dried.

It would seem that losing one's house for pirating a movie is more than a little unfair.

The Truman Transformation

Ever wonder where today's "imperial presidency" came from? Columnist George Will made the case recently that Harry Truman's presidency should be viewed as a turning point in presidential power.

Salient reasons for Will's argument include the undeclared Korean War without Congressional approval and seizure of the nation's steel mills. While historians' approval of Truman's presidency is to be expected as he grew government and increased the power of the presidency, he was among the biggest of big-government Democrats.

The Thugs of Redford Township

The powers that be don't like to be hassled. (H/T Eric Dondero).

Park Police Thugs Destroy Liberty in the Shadow of Jefferson

Do you think the police are really there to protect you? We are told from childhood that the police are our friends and are there for our benefit. While minorities have often seen and experienced otherwise, the rise of youtube and other "democratic" media outlets has shown increasingly how police act like jerks, take our liberties, and treat average people like dirt.

One recent example of that recently occurred on Thomas Jefferson's birthday at the Memorial in our Nation's Capital which honors him. Radley Balko discusses the details of this recent example of police abuse at Reason's blog.

Taxation is Theft. Go for it!

Wow! Jan Helfeld’s interview with Harry Reid sure touched off a firestorm of comments. The interview and its reactions illustrate the twin dangers of radicalism and rationalization.

Taxation for the most part is theft. (Exceptions are certain user fees and externality taxes.) However, doing without taxation is truly problematic. Without taxes, we might not be able to fund an adequate military, a broad social safety net, astronomical baseball player salaries, or a helium fund for our mighty dirigible fleet.

Machiavelli provided the answer: if evil is required to accomplish a greater good, then go for it. But be honest. There is no social contract. We tax because the ends justify the means.

Or do they? For national defense I would say the answer is a strong “yes.” Without theft by our own government, we might suffer worse theft by a conqueror. Some social safety net programs might be justifiable as well. Given the choice between robbing the rich to pay for institutions and group homes or letting the severely mentally handicapped go without care, I’ll take robbing the rich. (But if I can dodge this choice through charity, then methinks charity is the better answer.)

On the other hand, I am not persuaded that the benefits of a city owned baseball stadium justify theft. Professional baseball is entertainment for people who like boring sports. Let them fund their boring pastime through ticket sales or donations. (Or better yet, let them watch chess tournaments. The players are cheaper and the action is far more intense.)

Your values may differ. If you think getting a Major League franchise in your city is so important that it justifies robbing your neighbors – including those of us who hate baseball – then go for it. Just realize that you are committing robbery to support your pastime and take moral responsibility.

And don’t be surprised when someone robs you back to pay for that mighty dirigible fleet.

283 Nonarchy Pods -- Comin' Right Up

Nonarchist theorist Roderick Long, philosophy prof at Auburn, is bold. He's so bold that he and 282 other brave souls are petitioning the government – to abolish itself! And be replaced with...nothing.

Always one to prefer constructive criticism, Long might want to consider broadening his "demands" out a bit. Why limit his petition to the United States? If Marx can cry out: "Workers of the world, unite!" why can't Long exclaim: "Governments of the world, dissolve!"

Of course, all the stockpiles of munitions will need to be disposed of, but why get wrapped around one's axles about such minor details?

Long is technically correct when he states, "...few if any of those over whom you claim authority have ever consented to such governance...." After all, did you sign a contract with the government that gives them authority to do what they do? I know I didn't. I'm quite sure I'd like government to do less, a lot less in my dreams. I've even toyed with moving to the stateless area formerly known as Somalia, but I've become accustomed to my inside-the-Beltway oasis and its creature comforts. And, while a time machine has yet to be invented, it might be cool to teleport back a thousand years to Iceland. This way, I can validate the historians who claim to've read the records scratched on bogs that suggest that perhaps that isolated tundra of an island was an anarcho-paradise. Of course, that even Iceland could not maintain its nonarchic utopia might -- just might -- give pause to the Long 283.

Or, like the sun rising and setting, we just might accept that some sort of State seems likely for the foreseeable future and beyond. Call that a "constructive contract" if you must, but unless the 283 swells to tens of millions, I'm making book on some semblance of government continuity. And, near as I can tell, 99.9999% seem to accede to the terms, more or less.

Still, it seems we should have compassion for the 283. What to do? My modest proposal: Nonarchy Pods. If someone really, really, really wants to opt out of the state's authority to keep the peace, we should let them. They can buy a pod that envelopes them on their property. The pod is impenetrable – nothing comes in or out. They become autonomous little Lichtensteins, except they cannot leave, as the 283 have stated they refuse to abide by the rule of law here amongst the governed.

OK, OK, we allow them to trade through a small hole in the pod, I'm feeling generous. And if someone wants to go in the pod, they may, so long as the understand that there is no exit.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program, "Roll Back the State."

-RC

“Original Intent”: Then, Now and Forever

Two conversations that freedomistas continue to have are about the “original intent” of the Constitution and the intent of the Union during the Civil War. These issues are intertwined in interesting ways.

Let’s stipulate that we really can’t know what the “original intent” of the Framers was. Sometimes, I myself am conflicted in my intent, how about you? Occasionally, I’m quite clear on my intentions, but, frankly, that’s a rare thing. I suspect that’s the human condition, and was the human condition in the 18th century, too.

If true, it follows that any one Framer’s intent back then was probably somewhat muddled. Aggregate those muddles, and we get a pool of muddledness. We can read the text of the Constitution, transcripts of the proceedings, written documents from the times commenting on the draft, etc. But, still, we should be humble enough to recognize that there was no such thing as an “original intent.”

Which leads to the intentions of the Union in 1860: What was it? It may be no surprise that it was just as muddled in the 19th century as it was in the 18th. This, of course, includes Abraham Lincoln, whom some deify and others demonize. It’s one thing to explode myths about Lincoln, but another to suggest that the Confederacy’s secession was in effect authorized by the Constitution’s (non-existent) original intent. A case can be made, surely, but overstating the case tends to undermine the validity of the assertion.

The revisionists go further: The Civil War wasn’t about slavery, or that slavery was one of several disputes. Yes, the record shows that there were other bones of contention. Yet, one need only read the Republican Party’s platforms of 1860 and 1864 that the party, at least, was deeply concerned about the continued institution of slavery. It appears that they viewed the secession of the Confederate states to be a “Rebellion.”

In 1860, they said:

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States. 9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

In 1864, they said:

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

There are a number of ways to look at any issue. We should take great care when asserting that we know the one truth.

-RC

Alberto Gonzales Steps Down

In case you haven't already heard, Gonzales stepped down as US Attorney General today. It is hard to overstate just how poorly he has performed his job of "upholding and protecting the United States Constitution."

For many in the media and the Democratic Party, Gonzales's legacy will be the US Attorney scandal which may or may not have had real importance for the Republic. What does matter and is directly relevant to our current situation is his prominent role in developing the Administration's positions on torture and domestic spying.

There's no doubt his legacy will be "dismal," but it is important he be remembered for the really outrageous behavior, not just the politically-motivated attorney scandal.

Orwell update

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for calling attention to the plight of Professor Walter Murphy, a former Marine, critic of Roe versus Wade, and a supporter of the Alito nomination. In a chilling example of how the war on terror is also a war on dissent, Professor Murphy found himself on the no-fly list and was told it likely was because he give speeches critical of Bush.

Here is the story in Professor Murphy's own words:

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

State Secrets and National Security

Below is a petition which is being submitted to Congress on behalf of Liberty Coalition (of which I serve as communications director) and other organizations. The petition points to the real problem that we have been facing where the executive branch has been repeatedly making tactical moves to prevent Congress from providing meaningful oversight of the activities of the federal government.

In the case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, it sounds as though she may have damning evidence of criminal behavior within the US goverment, as well as information which could shed more light on the 9/11 attacks. While her own travails as a whisltleblower provide a reason for concern, the out-of-control behavior by federal public servants is especially troubling.

Please read below and see what you think.

-- KDR

***

To: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

A Petition to require public hearings by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform into confirmed reports by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds of wrongdoing, criminal activities, cover-ups against the security and interests of the United States and its citizenry, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

In March 2002 the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-IG) began its investigation of Ms. Edmonds’ reports.

In June 2002, in at least two unclassified Senate briefings, FBI officials confirmed the validity of Ms. Edmonds reports; however, in May 2004 Attorney General Ashcroft retroactively classified information from these briefings and gagged the Congress, preventing further investigation.
In October 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft invoked the ‘State Secrets Privilege’ to block all court proceedings in Edmonds’ case.
In July 2004 the DOJ-IG investigation into Edmonds' dismissal was completed but was entirely classified.
In January 2005 the DOJ-IG released an unclassified summary report on Edmonds’ case which concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by other witnesses and documents.
The issues that were reported by Ms. Edmonds include:
• Cases of espionage activities within the FBI, DOD, and the Department of State
• Cases of cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse of protecting certain diplomatic relations
• Cases of intentional blocking and mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI translators and management
• Cases of foreign entities bribing certain government officials and elected representatives

Edmonds filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the Department of Justice, but the government successfully argued that the state secrets privilege was an absolute bar to her suit going forward. She was even barred from the courtroom during the argument of her appeal! The Supreme Court declined to review the case. The government's invocation of the state secrets privilege in a motion to dismiss her case contradicts the core idea of judicial review and essentially allows the Executive Branch to dictate to the federal courts what cases they can and can’t hear.
Invoking the State Secrets Privilege is a tactic frequently used by the Executive Branch to stop potentially embarrassing lawsuits against the government. Many of these suits are brought by government employees, such as Ms. Edmonds, who allege fraud, mismanagement, or other unlawful conduct, and the state secrets privilege has successfully been invoked by the government to silence them. The state secrets provision has been used too frequently and with too little public protection.
Given the seriousness of Ms. Edmonds’ reports and in the best interests of the security of the country, it is incumbent upon the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities and authority as representatives of the people of the United States, therefore:
We, the undersigned, now call upon the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Congress to hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

OMB Watch
Sean Moulton, Director, Federal Information Policy

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Anthony Romero, National Director

National Coalition against Censorship
Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC)
Nancy Talanian, Director

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Bill Weaver, Board Member

Liberty Coalition
Michael Ostrolenk, Co-founder & Director

National Whistleblower Center
Steve Kohn, Chair

Open the Government .Org
Patrice McDermott, Executive Director

U.S.-Armenian Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC)
Ross Vartian, Executive Director

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Melanie Sloan, Director

Citizen Outreach
Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy

Concerned Foreign Service Officers
Daniel Hirsch, Board Member

Fairfax County Privacy Council
Mike Stollenwerk, Director

Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association
Sandalio Gonzalez, Director

Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Tom Devine, Legal Director

National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation
Gail Dunham, President

Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation
Scott Pullins, Chairman & CEO

Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Danielle Brian, Executive Director

September 11th Advocates
Mindy Kleinberg, Director

Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition (VAWBC)
Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, President

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation (USBOR)
Dane Von Breichenruchardt, President

Privacy Activism
Linda Ackerman, Staff Counsel

The Multiracial Activists,
James Landrith, Founder

The New Grady Coalition
Ron Marshall, Director

The Secretive Execution of Saddam Hussein

We wait in anticipation of the demise of our Great Enemy. The new Iraqi government is set to execute Saddam Hussein, dictator and villain, for his crimes against the people of Iraq. To the US Government, it appears as a victory. Finally, the man we have hated and our government has pursued since the first Gulf War, will pay for defying the US and doing unspeakable things to innocent people. It vindicates our war -- we have removed a threat in the Middle East and brought democracy to an oppressed people.

But, have we done good?

Have we furthered justice? Have we brought peace?

This execution suggests not. We don’t know when he will be executed. Whether it is for security reasons (to protect those who will carry it out), or for strategic reasons (to confuse those who would take action in protest of the execution), or for bureaucratic reasons (because executing people is not handled in a precise and scheduled manner by the government), it does not speak well for the Iraqi government’s transparency and credibility as an institution committed to honesty and justice.

Justice is certainly a fuzzy term. But, if one uses a certain definition, one cannot criticize and compare if the definition changes between cases. So, we must fix one as “our” definition of justice. Saddam had secret trials and secret executions. His raison d’etre was unknown. But, so are the methods and practices of the current Iraqi government, at least to us. We do not know that it is more just than the previous administration.

On the second count, we cannot say that Iraq is more peaceful. Certainly, the killing is no longer limited to the depraved actions of the state. But now, death squads and suicide bombers share in the terror. What is the net casualty rate?

Saddam’s execution should not hang among our laurels, but remind us of how much our government has failed in this disastrous folly.

-- KDR

The Case of Cory Maye

Ironically, while the Kelo decision has made Americans more aware than ever of the need to protect their homes from greedy government officials and developers, the philosopher that your home is your castle is under attack by other government officials -- specifically the police. Radley Balko has been doing tremendous work to expose the militarization of police forces around the country and the general disregard these more militaristic tactics show for not only the property, but the lives of average Americans.