Small Government Blog

AMNESTY’S GUANTANAMO EXHIBIT

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then of what value might be a full size three dimensional replica?

This past week, from Thursday, May 8th through Sunday, May 11th, Amnesty International USA provided South Florida residents a glimpse of the day-to-day experience of detainees at Guantánamo.

At the Tina Hills Pavilion, Amnesty exhibited a full size replica of a Guantanamo detainee cell.

Sitting in the cell replica, it’s easy to reflect on the scope of the injustice it manifests.

These cells serve as the vehicle for the repudiation of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded.

One of our signature documents, The Declaration of Independence , states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty…”

In the context of human society, this constituted a truly revolutionary discovery; that man, by his very nature, imposed certain requirements and limitations on the social structure.

Particularly, with regards to the matter of governance.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

Nowhere in this document is it suggested that these rights apply only to Americans. Nor that they only apply on American soil.

To the contrary, it is virtually explicit that these rights are founded in human nature. In force wherever people establish a society.

And yet one of the arguments for the ongoing crime we call Guantanamo is that it is not on American soil!

Specifically, the fundamental right Guantanamo is designed to overturn is what is referred to as “habeaus corpus”

Article One Section 9 of the United States Constitution, our other signature document:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The right of a detainee to informed, impartial judicial review of the basis for their detention had been recognized in written law since the 17th century.

IN an ABC news interview, the titular head of the nominal “free world” stated: “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”

“He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks,”

And so it becomes a foregone conclusion, requiring his mere say-so.

Indeed, former chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, recently testified that under pressure from Pentagon officials he’d been told that there could be no aquittals.

The argument could be made that the dolt in the Oval Office is incapable of appreciating the implications of his actions.

Ironically, one detainee recently stood before a judge in a military commissions courtroom and displayed a clear grasp of the concept of rule of law.

In June of 2006, the Supreme Court decided the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. Salim Ahmed Hamdan had argued that the commission trying him lacked protections required by the Geneva Conventions and The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It seemed, at the time, that the court had ruled in Hamdan’s favor. But Justice John Paul Stevens stated in his majority opinion: “Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities.”

Virtually inviting congress to make “adjustments”, which they did.

“Everyone tells me the law. But where is the law?” asked Handan at a recent hearing.

“The law is clear. The Constitution is clear. International law is clear,” he said to the judge. “Why don’t we follow the law? Where is the justice?”

In a Salon article, “Lawless in Guantánamo” , Jennifer Daskal writes:

“Hamdan pleaded for a fair trial, reminded the judge of his Supreme Court victory, and questioned why the U.S. government then proceeded to change the law and keep him locked up. “Is it just for my case?” he asked.

But Hamdan’s central question remained: “By what law will you try me?”

The judge responded with the only answer he could: The military commissions law passed by Congress in 2006.

“But the government changed the law to its advantage,” Hamdan replied. “I am not being tried by the American law.”

And Hamdan left the courtroom, having made clear that he would no longer participate in a commissions system unmoored from American criminal law, the Constitution and international law.

The court closed down for the night. It reassembled in the morning and went straight into scheduling. But its star figure was missing. A trial date was set for June 2. With or without Hamdan.”

Unlike bush, Hamdan understands the boundless implications of the process to which he is an immediate, material victim.

Another victim, further down the road in the process, the recently released Sami al-Hajj had this to say:

“Our human condition, our human dignity was violated, and the American administration went beyond all human values, all moral values, all religious values. In Guantanamo … rats are treated with more humanity. But we have people from more than 50 countries that are completely deprived of all rights and privileges. And they will not give them the rights that they give animals… for more than seven years, [inmates] did not get a chance to be brought before a civil court to defend their just case”

al-Hajj is an Al Jazeera cameraman.

Al Jazeera is one news organization singularly familiar with georgewbush’s brand of lawlessness.

In November of 2001, their office in Kabul Afganistan was attacked.

In April of 2003 the Sheraton Hotel in Basra, in southern Iraq was bombed. It’s only guests?

Al Jazeera journalists.

And in November of 2005, georgewbush contempated bombing their headquarters in the Washington-friendly nation of Qatar.

Amnesty’s exhibit now moves on to Philadelphia, the next stop on it’s seven city tour. Other planned stops include Washington, DC, Portland, Maine, St. Louis, Los Angeles and…Crawford, Texas.

The Cell replica includes one amenity that it goes without saying the real thing lacks. An opportunity for the “detainee” to record a thirty second video.

I kind of flubbed my chance, incapable of such conciseness. I was able to spend a little time handing out some of Amnesty’s brochures at the local marketplace, and over the course of a busy weekend, stopped by several times to offer encouragement and moral support.

The title of the brochure was “Counter Terror With Justice”. With that simple phrase, Amnesty sums up the core issue of the bogus “War on Terror”.

Id est, if we were to begin to engage the rest of humanity from within the parameters of a justice society, the threat of terrorism, however real it may be currently, would simply peter out over time, it’s motivation no longer.

I was rewarded for my efforts with a great orange t-shirt, comemmorating the the Guantanamo cell tour.

It features that pregnant phrase, “Counter Terror With Justice”.

–The Bikemessenger

Up until now, the so-called “libertarian” Party has lacked an iconic animal mascot, in the manner of the Republican elephant or Democrat mule (oh, wait, it’s a donkey, right? I always have trouble with that…).

But recent events in the race for the party’s presidential nomination have coalesed the party’s character as to make the leading candidate as obvious as the Republican’s John bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran.

In the past, whatever disagreement one might have with the party’s nominee, one could at least, for the most part recognize them as a bonafide libertarian of some sort.

But this election cycle—well it’s different. Whether they win the nomination or not, this should be remembered as the year of Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.

Both as of this writing are seeking the party’s presidential nomination. Barr, the befuddled ex-Republican, ex-conservative. Gravel, the loony majoritarian world government advocate.

Back in 1995, the UPN TV network aired a half-hour sitcom starring the late comedian Richard Jeni.

Jeni played the host of a TV cooking show, a solitary guy. The show was entitled “Platypus Man”, after the male platypus, a solitary, venomous beast.

Sadly, Mr. Jeni is said to have met untimely death at his own hand; his TV show ran only one season.

It used to accurately be called THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

Oh, and that “obvious leading candidate” I was alluding to earlier?

I didn’t mean the nominee, I meant the iconic animal mascot.

Imagine THE PLATYPUS PARTY; presenting the voters with the Barr/Gravel Presidential ticket. Tempting isn’t?

Perhaps the former LP has resorted to the platypus means of self-perpetuation.

—The Bikemessenger

In this video , John Perry is inspirational, as he discusses the history of presidential impeachment proceedings and their insuing political ramifications.

John then explains in no uncertain terms, the urgency and gravity of our current circumstances and how crucial impeachment proceedings are to our future.

In his time, through the then-new medium of television, Edward R. Murrow helped turn America away from the hysteria and abuses of the McCarthy era.

In these times, rather than the “Red Scare” of communist infiltration, we are set upon by the “War on Terror”. A more accurate term perhaps would be the war OF terror, as all references seem aimed at making us experience fear. And thus rendered acquiesent to the subversion of our rights.

Today, the lines between entertainment and hard news in the established media are breached; depth and objectivity cast aside; sensationalism and faux-neutrality posturing in their stead.

Fortunately, we also have a revolutionary new information source, the internet.

And in John Perry, the spirit of Murrow.

Spread the word.

—The Bikemessenger

This past January 19th, I attended a presentation by Phil Blumel of the Republican Liberty Caucus at the Ron Paul Presidential campaign headquarters here in Miami.

I was left with no doubt of Blumel’s sincerity or good intentions. But the strategy of the RLC is inherently futile.

History shows that working to influence one of the two major partys towards any fundamentally or radically different course is, by nature, a hopeless pursuit.

“The goal of the RLC is to elect liberty-minded, limited-government individuals to office.” Says the RLC’s website.

But as Libertarian goals can only be achieved through the subversion of the status quo of ever-expanding government power and authority, any effort to influence the actions of a beneficiary organization, such as the Republican party, run counter to the interests of that organization.

The RLC is engaged in a campaign to politely ask the Republican party power brokers to committ suicide, as that is what would be in the interests of the country.

Sadly, it’s become a matter of general acceptance that there can only be “two” alternatives in American politics.

And the reason it is a problem, as I have pointed out many a time, is it facilitates the “two” conveniently merging into an effective one, as the incentive to maintain the two parties ONLY system supercedes the ambition to be number one.

A little reiteration; as ballot access requirements have been tightened over time, and campaign finance “reform” has limited the capacity of third parties to acquire financial backing, third parties have effectively lost their legitimacy and relevance in the minds of most voters.

Before, third parties were an essential and integral element the American political process. If you have any doubt of their marginalization, just ask around.

Last month, Bonnie Daniels, who provided me with a favorite t-shirt, asked me to sign a petition criticizing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a local congress sitter of the Democrat faction, for failing to support her faction’s challengers to the local incumbent Republican trio of ultra-fascists; Mario Diaz-Balart , Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Of course, I declined. Instead, I tryed to use it as an object lesson in the effective Republican/Democrat merger/collusion.

“Wasserman-Schultz has made it plain to you.” I wrote, “You are not her constituency. Her Republican friends are.

If she gets voted out of office, it’s the Republicans that will take care of her, not you.

This should serve as an object lesson to anyone who characterizes themselves as a “progressive”…

…Fortunately for you, there really is a party that sincerely promotes your agenda. Or at least, so it appears to this outside observer.”

The response was no surprise:

“Thank you, Robert, for your thoughtful e-mail. You make many good points. I know something has to change, but I’m not ready to ‘go Green’- basically, because I don’t see that the country is anywhere near ready, and in the near term, there is, for me, just too much at stake…”

And the prevasiveness of this view is apparent in an article by Paul Craig Roberts to which John Perry, the Edward R. Murrow of the internet, alerted me:

“The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran.

If only America had an independent media and an opposition party. If there were a shred of integrity left in American political life, perhaps a third act of naked aggression–a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard–by the Bush Regime could be prevented.”

“Two massive failures by the American media, the Democratic Party, and the American people have paved the way for Cheney’s long planned attack on Iran. One failure is the lack of skepticism about the US government’s explanation of 9/11. The other failure is the Democrats’ refusal to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush for lying to the Congress, the American people, and the world and launching an invasion of Iraq based on deception and fabricated evidence.

If an American president can start a war exactly as Adolf Hitler did with pure lies and not be held accountable, he can get away with anything. And Bush and his evil regime have.”

Perhaps we should excuse Dr. Roberts, assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, for having been too deeply involved in one of the major parties to appreciate the fact that the Democrats have nothing to gain by performing the much-needed role of an “opposition party”.

As I pointed out to Bonnie, the Democrats are merely following their own self-interests.

In the absence of any other focused pressure, of course they acquiesce to the Republicans.

And the only other viable source of focused pressure, the threat of a third party, has been removed.

But far more disturbing than Dr. Robert’s missing the point is this recent commentary by Kevin Zeese:

“…Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.”

But Senator Obama has a much boarder constituency to satisfy than “the peace movement” if he expects to ascend to the presidency.

Unlike Dr. Roberts, Zeese should have it very clear in his mind that “the peace movement”, as it were, needs to rally around a candidate outside the Republican/Democrat axis.

It’s a role he himself has fulfilled in the recent past:

Zeese went on to say:

“For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither…If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr.”

But rather than the fragmentation Zeese suggests, the peace movement needs a candidate that will promise to reverse our foreign policy. The reversal I refer to, of course, is the foreign policy proposed by Dr. Ron Paul. It is a foreign policy all elements of the peace moement should be able to rally around.

But wait; Paul, McKinney and all the rest also take positions on a wide range of issues.

Let’s take health care, for example. Ron Paul says:

“You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.”

Meanwhile, responding to a Green Party questionnaire , McKinney answered: “In Congress, I was a cosponsor of every bill to create a national system for universal access to health care under a single payer model.”

This example illustrates the dilemma faced by the peace movement—while there may be a general agreement on foreign policy issues, or at least a basis for concensus, other issues serve to preclude rallying behind a single candidate.

What the “peace movement”, as it were, needs is a candidate that, while they may have specific positions on unrelated issues, will pledge to, if elected president, not use the position to advocate or advance their cause.

It would then become possible, for example, for libertarians to rally around a Cynthia McKinney. Or a universal health care advocate to support a Ron Paul.

If only we had a candidate who would demur on other, unrelated controversies.

Am I advocating an overtly “one issue” candidate? Yes.

The anti-war movement needs and deserves it’s own candidate. This is a critical juncture in American, and world history.

Those of us who see this need to put our differences aside. No, not ignore, dismiss or fail to acknowlege; but merely put aside.

We could do this if we had a candidate that would pledge to not use their position to promote their side on these various other matters.

Realistically, a third party candidate will not win the presidency. As it now stands, a wide range of candidates will tap into anti-war sentiment.

Most voters driven by that sentiment will probably engage in the futility of voting for the pro-war major party candidate with the least strident rhetoric.

As one anti-war protestor told me in regards to the last presidential election, “I was against the war, so I voted for Kerry”.

But perhaps if we had a candidate that would effectively take other issues “off the table”, so to speak, we could all come together on the most important issue of this coming election—Washington’s agressive, militaristic foreign policy which we all oppose.

—The Bikemessenger

By supporting Ron Paul, we move away from 3rd party politics. We are now in the realm of major party politics.

That’s not our home field; it forces us to mollify our “compromise is a last resort” mentality—so vital to 3rd party politics.

As far as party affiliation goes, Dr. Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

georgewbush is also a Republican.

There’s something creepyingly unsanitary inherent to major party politics.

But medical doctors, presumably, know how to work in rubber gloves.

I don’t expect as much consistency with my positions on issues from a major party candidate as I do from a third party candidate. In fact, the two respective sets of expectations are polar extremes.

I’ve even voted for the lesser of two evils.

But only in the case an extraordinarily greater evil
and the absence of any other alternative save abstention.

[Dave has implied to me he’ll probably run again, so I’ll probably vote for him again. I just wish he wouldn’t be so damned sincerely appreciative.]

I won’t bother to rehash the historical place and significance of third partys, nor the implications for their ideological structuring that that history presents. Those matters have been covered extensively here:

Third Partys, Today More Than Ever

History Shoots Down The Reformers

LP Reformers: Study In Cowardice

So if I can swallow hard and vote for Big Dave, I can sure vote for Ron Paul!

As far as major party candidates go, I can hardly expect total agreement. But when it comes to Paul, I find myself disagreeing significantly only on a couple of issues.

I’ve been asked, “so is Ron Paul your man?” “No” I replied, “…but he’s my Republican.”

Another thing about major party politics, mud-slinging seems kind of matter-of-course.

Take this pot shot at Dr. Paul, for example:

I happen to agree that Paul is a bit of a nut job on this subject. But on the other hand, as I pointed out to the slinger, so what?

It has no bearing on his capacity to serve as president, as it does not pertain to any matter Paul or I would consider the appropriate concerns of the President of the United States.

It’s rather telling that with all the raving war mongers vying for the Republican nomination, it’s always Dr. Paul that seems to raise the ire of my socialist friends at afterdowingstreet.org, supposedly dedicated to peace.

It’s not hard to see how Paul is a major threat to their own little domestic war on economic liberty.

In trying to broaden his appeal, a major party candidate can sometimes offend his core supporters. Take this nasty little piece of work from the Ron Paul campaign:

As of this writing, antiwar’s blog post has drawn 426 comments; I’m not the only one put off.

But I’m not going to burn my Ron Paul Revolution tee-shirt just yet.

—The Bikemessenger

In this endorsement of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, Lew Rockwell quotes extensively and effectively from the post-WWII foreign and domestic policies advocated by Senator Robert Taft of Ohio.

Using quotes from Taft’s 1951 book, “A Foreign Policy For Americans”, Rockwell explains how personal liberty, in real, practical terms, is the foundation of prosperity and peace:

Ron Paul: Mr. Republican
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

This article is an essential read for anyone interested in promoting the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION goes beyond the current candidacy of congressman Paul for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

What really frightens the establishment about Paul is the implicit message; that the domestic welfare state is the harmonious and necessary corrollary to the militaristic foreign policy currently presued.

That socialism and imperialism go hand in hand.

Just as personal liberty and Paul’s credo of non-interventionism go hand-in-hand.

It is fundamentally inconsistent to advocate domestic welfare state policies and oppose off-shore interventionism.

This is what frightens the Democrats and their supporters, while they sympathize with Paul’s compelling message of peace.

After all, if the federal government is so good at running the lives of Americans, how can we claim it cannot do the same for Iraqis?

Or Iranians, for that matter.

Thusly, Paul strikes fear in the hearts of statists of both the left and the right.

The purpose of the elites of both the Democratic and Republican partys is to strike a working compromise of allocation of resources between the domestic socialism emphasized by the Democrats and the militaristic imperialism of the current Republican elite.

This is why IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE.

And this why the Republicans “compromise” on such issues as mimimum wage, “universal” health “care” and “education”. Matters which true conservatives like Paul see as outside the scope of the proper function of the federal government. Matters which by their fundamental nature, are not subject to compromise.

As we say at the smallgov blog, COMPROMISE IS A LAST RESORT.

And it is why the Democrats and their supporters cannot uphold a geniune anti-war position.

–The Bikemessenger

In the latest LP news release, the following “Quick Fact” was noted:

Libertarians won four out of the five (80%) Michigan elections in which they participated

What this actually means is that 4 of the 5 candidates won the office they were seeking. Three of the four were reelected. The fourth person was a long-time LP member involved with his community. His election comes as no surprise (at least not to me).

The surprising part of this is that while I and a handful of others tried to build this culture of community participation and hard work as a means to success, the national Libertarian Party (and their Republican-lite cohorts) have engaged in a campaign of voodoo.

For the last few years, they have been running around claiming that if we would only gut the platform and drive out the purists, success would surely follow. They advocate a belief in voodoo — you don’t need knowledge, you don’t need money, you don’t need hard work — just a platform that says nothing.

Wrong! Success can only be obtained through hard work.

If the LP were filled with people who believe in a strong work ethic, people like Martin Howrylak (who also had a BIG electoral win Tuesday night) and I, might still be supporters of the Libertarian Party. Instead, we are politically homeless.

So let’s do a little analysis of how in-touch the national Libertarian Party leadership is with the states. The national Libertarian Party pays Sean Haugh $1200 per month to operate a system they call “Candidate Tracker.” Candidate Tracker was tracking 17 candidates (Libertarians nationally had 81 candiates according to their press release). The press release also said 13 of the 81 candidates won.

How many of the 13 winning candidates do you think were tracked in “Candidate Tracker?”

Three. That’s right, the vast majority of the Libertarian Party’s winning candidates weren’t even covered in “Candidate Tracker.”

Next Question: How many of the candidates listed in “Candidate Tracker” were not mentioned in the Libertarian Party’s “Election Night Coverage” page on their web site?

Two. They are:

• Robert Underwood - Running for Springfield City Council in Massachusetts.
  
• Jim Iannuzo - Running for Phoenix City Council District 3 in Arizona.
  

On the “Election Night Coverage” page, under Massachusetts and Arizona it says “No known candidates.”

I think the Libertarian Party has been wasting $1,200 per month. Wake up national chair Bill Redpath, wake up national director Shane Cory. I’m sure you can find a better way to spend $14,000 per year.

Carla Howell, Michael Cloud, and the folks in Massachusetts need more money to complete their petition drive to place an initiative on the ballot to end the income tax in Massachusetts.

This has far reaching consequences. Even if you don’t live in Massachusetts, the symbolism of repealing an income tax any where would be a huge benefit to freedom lovers every where!

I’m tapped out this month. I’ve donated to help this petition drive twice. And I donated to Ron Paul (I wasn’t going to, but got caught up in all the excitement). And, of course, I also donated to the Armenia Tree Project.

Only 9 days left to complete their petition drive. Please help end the income tax in Massachusetts by making a donation at:

https://secure.bluehost.com/~savyonco/ms/sga/sga2.php

An excellent article appeared recently in the National Review Online.

Under the Ottoman Empire, Armenians, who are mostly Christian, had not been allowed to own firearms. This was standard practice for Christians and Jews throughout the Empire, under sharia law for the “Dhimmi” — Christians and Jews (and sometimes other faiths) who were allowed to retain their religion, provided that they lived in subordination.
Genocide Resistance

For freedom loving Americans, the Armenian Genocide Resolution is a clear statement that we know the difference between right and wrong. If you support the right to keep and bear arms, you are already making the statement that you oppose genocide. Supporting the Armenian Genocide Resolution is a public statement about what happens when gun-grabbers are given power.

I was a little disillusioned to learn that Ron Paul did not vote on HR106, the Armenian Genocide Resolution. But, I understand that sometimes congressmen miss votes. Still, I wanted to know where he stood on the issue. Although I couldn’t find anything on the Internet that specifically related to this issue, I managed to find Ron Paul’s opinion of Turkey.

Turkey in particular has shown incredible gall in demanding billions for its cooperation with our war efforts. Turkey shares a border with northern Iraq, and its air bases could serve as an important staging area for American forces. Yet Turkey is demanding a whopping $30 billion in exchange for its support of the war and use of its airfields. Unfortunately, the administration appears ready to accept this blackmail if a slightly lower dollar amount can be negotiated.

This blatant shakedown gives new meaning to the term “ally.”

—Buying ‘Friends’ With Foreign Aid
February 25, 2003

The recent uproar over the claim that Turkey now wants to invade northern Iraq because the House Foreign Relations Committee voted to support HR106 - the Armenian Genocide Resolution - is further disproven by this 4 year old article from Ron Paul. He continues on to say:

Turkey wants more than our money, however. It also wants to control the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The Kurds in both Iraq and Turkey desire an independent Kurdish state, which the Turkish government fiercely resists. Turkish officials want an agreement that will allow thousands of their soldiers to advance into Kurdish northern Iraq on the heels of American forces.

Sadly, the American media wants to blame Nancy Pelosi and Armenian-Americans for Turkey’s imminent aggression. The truth is, Turkey has long been an aggressor nation. It doesn’t matter what happens in the US Congress — Turkey will find some excuse to invade Iraq and they will find other excuses for their other barbaric actions.