Posted by Phil Giraldi on 06/10/10

Representative Brad Sherman of California declared last week that he would be asking the Attorney General to prosecute as terrorism supporters any and all Americans who participated in the Gaza flotilla.  His comments should come as no surprise to those of us who have spent years watching congress line up to render obeisance to Israel.  Even if one accepts the wildly improbable Israeli narrative of what happened it is nevertheless true that the Americans on board were perfectly respectable citizens who were seized in international waters, had their possessions stolen, and were beaten and abused.  One was a USS Liberty survivor who now has the distinction of being attacked at sea twice by the Israelis.  One US citizen was shot dead, four times in the head as he was "resisting."  Eight other unarmed passengers were also killed.  The US government (in the form of Joe Biden) has approved the Israeli action and Tel Aviv has promised to let its own military do an investigation of what occurred, which reminds me of several fox and hen house jokes.

But Brad Sherman's bold foray pales in comparison to this article by one Holly Yan on a local TV station website originating in Dallas - Fort Worth.  She tells of helpless commandos viciously attacked by unarmed passengers.  Man bites dog.  I would comment further on it, but when something is perfect it is best to let it stand all by itself.

"Nearly two weeks after members of the Israeli navy were attacked by passengers of a Turkish flotilla, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R- Texas, denounced the attack and introduced a resolution supporting Israel.

'Every country has a right to defend itself, and Israel is no different,' Cornyn said in a written statement. 'The flotilla was a disgraceful and premeditated attempt to provoke a violent confrontation with Israel, hidden under the cloak of a humanitarian relief effort. This type of despicable conduct must be condemned and I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important resolution to help remind the world that the United States stands with Israel.'

The 'Free Gaza' flotilla was sponsored by the Humanitarian Relief Foundation and a Turkish organization. When it entered Israel's defensive blockade May 31, the Israeli navy intercepted the Mavi Marmara ship and boarded. Passengers of the Mavi Marmara attacked members of the navy with knives, pipes, clubs and other weapons.

The Israelis then killed nine of the attackers in what many call an act of self defense.

Israel created the blockade of Gaza in 2007 in an attempt to block rockets and mortars into Israel."

http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-john-cornyn-resolution-supporting-israel,0,5388
352.story

 
Posted by Phil Giraldi on 04/13/10
Last updated 04/12/10

The People's Republic of Maryland is considering legislation that would install a device in the automobiles of drivers who have been convicted once of "driving under the influence."  The device would sense alcohol on the breath of the driver using something similar to a breathalizer device and would disable the car ignition.  I know that many will consider the measure to be appropriate as drunken drivers kill a lot of people, but I have to wonder where it will all end up.  One could plausibly argue using the same logic that someone who has had a drink and who has not been convicted of DUI could equally get into an accident and kill someone, so having a drink and getting into a car must be prevented.  So the next generation of this law will be to install the device in ALL vehicles and anyone who goes out and has two glasses of wine with dinner will return to his vehicle only to discover that it will not start. 

We can then install devices in people's houses that will result in an automatic fine if you smoke a cigar in your house because it is bad for the health, like the truck driver in Canada who was fined because he was smoking in the cab of his own truck.  And then we can legislate all other behavior.  What bothers me is that there is a definite movement in the direction of controlling the lives of citizens to a point where the only thing safe to do will be to sit at home staring into space. 

Posted 04/13/10 RhysW ann arbor, MI

We've had those in Michigan for a few years at least. I've never seen one, but I know someone who had it. Usually, he'd just have a sober person breath into it for him.

Posted 04/13/10 sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

No, it'll be "sitting at home staring at the TV." I despise behavior controls. Life is not safe! It never was, nor should it ever be. "Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

Posted 04/13/10 vegeta4freedom Jupiter, FL

I have to disagree with Phil here. I lost a loved one this year to a drunk driver, and if she had not been able to start her car, or it took a couple extra minutes to start it, he would still be here. And here at Campaign for Liberty, where personal responsibility is preached, one's bad decisions(such as a DUI) come with consequences. When you get behind the wheel of a car drunk, you are infringing on the rights of your fellow drivers that are on the road with you. And let's be honest here, if you have one DUI, chances are you have driven drunk many times before.

Posted 04/13/10 exile London, Canada

I agree with vegeta4freedom. I liken this to being convicted of a criminal offence and then crying foul over being forced to report to a parole officer once out of prison. It's part of an attempt to get the offender back on the straight and narrow while still offering them the freedoms they DO deserve (like being allowed to drive their own car) Of course, I would favour a "sunset" date for DUI offenders. Say, the device must be installed for 5 years. No attempts to drive while under the influence during that time = removal of the device.

Posted 04/13/10 sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

Guys (vegeta and exile): You can't control other people. The sad truth is that it doesn't take alcohol to have a fatal car accident. I know (and I'm sure we all know) people who have died or worse at the hands of recklessness or negligence or just plain freak accidents behind the wheel. Being monitored and nannied by big daddy government does not promote personal responsibility. Just like you can't teach a dog to stay by fencing the yard. Freedom comes with risks. And yes, some of those risks are from the actions of other people, which you cannot control. The only moral thing to do is to take responsibility for your own actions, and convince -- through reason, not force of law -- others to do the same.

Posted 04/13/10 vegeta4freedom Jupiter, FL

sweetlibery-In this case, it is not about control. It is about certain actions having certain consequences. Here we have the drunk driver, in essence, playing the role of the government...taking away the freedoms and rights of people trying to go about their everyday lives. Just as the government has no control on its spending, we the people (for the most part who are innocent) will be the ones paying the price, not the people in power making the decisions. Now the drunk driver, who has no control over his sobriety, will make the innocent pay for his bad decisions.

Posted 04/13/10 CharlotteJuett Genoa, NE

I agree, completely, sweetliberty. We have only the look at the failures of prohibition and the War on Drugs to the futility of attempting to legislate morality. Rather the fault likes with the failure of the judicial system to sufficiently punish the persons that habitually break this law. Repeat offenders should get jail time and a stiff fine, not a slap on the wrist. There are far too many people out there that have 10 or more DUI offenses and they are still driving drunk, even without a license or insurance.

Posted 04/13/10 cthulhu Williamsburg, VA

Most states already suspend the licenses of people convicted of DUI/DWI for a year. In addition there is usually suspended jail time, community service, participation in an substance abuse class, fines and increased auto insurance rates for three years. To extend this by making someone pay for one of these devices and submit to downloads of the information collected by these machines for possible future punishments, if they have a positive reading (including false positives), is a bit over the top for a first time offender. Now if you are a multiple offender that is different. But then again your worst offenders will just drive without a license and insurance anyways so the only way to stop them is jail time.

Posted 04/13/10 jeremiahhorner Longmont, CO

So.....how do you all feel about people going to jail? That's almost as much freedom as one can lose save for the freedom to live, and that can be taken away too. It's called the "Department of Corrections" and I think this is one of those rare times when they actually may "correct" something rather than just tossing people in a hole. As far as what it "might lead to", we need to draw the lines where they actually need to go (ie: only convicted morons get the device). You can't run from every good idea just because somebody somewhere might try to abuse it. I suppose somebody should have stopped Alexander Graham Bell from paving the way for telemarketers...

Posted 04/13/10 flagellum nellis afb, NV

I don't see the problem with this. They are not doing this to every citizen, only those who are convicted of drunk driving. To put it simply, this will only effect criminals. Actions has consequences.

 
Posted by Phil Giraldi on 04/05/10

A new bit of Senatorial mischief was initiated a month ago by the redoubtable duo John McCain and Joe Lieberman.  It is called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010." The proposed law appears to have bipartisan support though it is not clear if it has enough votes to pass in the full Senate and the position of the Obama Administration regarding it has not been declared, though the president has not been shy about expanding presidential authority up until now. 

The act would make it possible for the US military to seize and imprison anyone anywhere in the world, including American citizens, on suspicion of involvement in terrorism.  This includes "material support" which is not otherwise defined and could prove to be extremely elastic.  The imprisonment would be under the authority of the president as commander in chief. McCain and Lieberman's bill defines the detainees as "unprivileged enemy belligerents," which is apparently what the Obama justice department prefers rather than the Bush and Cheney designation "unlawful enemy combatants."  The bill's language identifies and includes not only actual terrorists but also individuals of "potential intelligence value" and other categories "as the president considers appropriate." Part of the bill, "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents," authorizes suspects to "be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." As proponents of the bill support a "long war" against so-called Islamofascism, that could mean effectively forever.

The McCain-Lieberman bill would create a new category of prisoner for whom there will be no charges, no trial, and no civilian judicial review.  It would be a de facto suspension of the US Bill of Rights.

Posted 04/05/10 MikeO Spokane, WA

This is exactly the reason I support Ron Paul and Campaign for liberty. WOW what is this country coming too. Are there really that many scared Americans out there that they would let this happen? Not sure if my emails to my congressman and senator do any good but I'm sending them anyway. I so hope that McCain looses his primary!

Posted 04/05/10 bujin00 Oro Valley, AZ

Par for the course... I think I'll go wash my mouth out with buckshot....BANG!

Posted 04/05/10 David S Shelby Twp, MI

This is the worst bill I can remember seeing in my 61 years of life. It would turn America into something resembling Nazi Germany and it would set the cause of freedom back 800 years to the time before the Magna Carta. S-3081 would end habeas corpus, and the 5th amendment's requirement for due process of law and the 6th amendment's protection of the right to a jury trial and to legal counsel. As a member of the military McCain took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. As a Senator he took an oath to support the constitution. But now he is introducing legislation that would destroy the constitution. The kindest thing I can say about him is that he must be senile. If I was the president I would veto this bill but if it passed over my veto I would use it against every member of congress who voted for it. I would have every one of them thrown in jail for terrorism, i.e. destroying the constitution. Apparently the only way those jerks can understand the importance of the constitution is to experience not having it... first hand! I would only release them if they repealed S-3081.

Posted 04/05/10 abjectivist Springport, MI

Interesting that these "opposing party" presidential and vp candidates would give this much additional power to the executive branch. @ David S. I would think an innocent dose of harmless waterboarding might also be a good experience for the supporters.

Posted 04/05/10 Godspeed Cressona, PA

McCain= pure traitor. May your soul rot!

Posted 04/05/10 kungfucraig Ann Arbor, MI

Links?

Posted 04/06/10 bbulgier Queen Creek, AZ

Google s.3081 or http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text

 
Posted by Phil Giraldi on 03/05/10

The British media is reporting that the local councils in England have been installing microchips in the standardized garbage bins that people are required to use.  The microchips can register how full the bin is and the long term intention is reportedly to punish people who are regarded as producing too much garbage.  As always, the move is being promoted in a feel good way as an environmental measure to encourage people to recycle, which is already mandatory.  The local councils will be able to set acceptable levels of garbage generation per capita and will be able to bill people who exceed their quotas.  Britain is already the most surveilled country in the world with CCTV cameras on nearly every street corner and blanketing every major roadway but garbage monitoring might be regarded as a new low in the attempt by the nanny state to regulate every aspect of daily life. - Phil Giraldi, American Conservative Defense Alliance

Posted 03/05/10 Scott from PA Hopwood, PA

The unintended consequence will be more litter, not more recycling.

Posted 03/05/10 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

"The unintended consequence will be more litter, not more recycling." Socialism is the destroyer of human civilzation.

Posted 03/05/10 Paul Hogan Middle Village, NY

These measures are intrusive but they are getting comical. Indeed the consequence will be more litter. This makes me think of prohibition, the intention was to stop Americans from consuming alcohol and the result was more alcohol consumption and a thriving underworld. Since we're all going to labeled terrorists and outlaws we may as well make our alleged crimes pay. Maybe this could work to our advantage, as governments get more restrictive we can all thrive in an underground economy.

Posted 03/06/10 Milo Amberlight Bolton, CT

On principle, I must disagree with this post. Garbage disposal is ALREADY socialized, which is why we have so much of it in the first place--there is no direct cost to individual for disposing of waste, so there is no incentive to produce less of it or to recycle instead. You cannot socialize a system and then not properly regulate it. This is the same thing that happened in the financial system--the natural incentives of profit and loss were distorted by government guarantees, without the necessary regulations to patch up the new incentive structure. The microchip idea isn't all that bad a one considering the socialized system that we have. A far better idea, however, would be a real free market.

Posted 03/06/10 Len Morlock Mayville, NY

While it makes sense that those who use more of a service should pay more, that can be accomplished without the intrusiveness and cost of monitoring devices. Many places simply require that you purchase special garbage bags in order to have your trash collected. The more trash you have, the more bags you have to pay for. If you want to encourage more recycling, offer some sort of credit towards the purchase of the garbage bags in exchange for the recycled materials. Of course that's too complicated for those who simply want to control others.

Posted 03/06/10 redshirt Philadelphia, PA

Len, awesome post!

Posted 03/07/10 celticreeler Rolla, MO

Think of all the employment opportunities this will create! There will be the microchip maker, the microchip shipper, the microchip installer, the microchip reader, the microchip repairman, the council on (garbage) microchips, the bureau of microchips, the director of microchips, the assistant to the director of microchips, the junior assistant to the director of microchips...it will be WONDERFUL! So many people will find work! It will all cost so much, no one will have enough money to buy anything that comes in a wrapper. So there will be no garbage to monitor. Have they all lost their minds?

Posted 03/07/10 SpectreWriter Loveland, CO

Socialist garbage? <gasp!> What would you recommend? Perhaps London should adopt the method of the country folk everywhere in the world (and the city folk in Dakar) and just burn it all or throw it into the ocean? Let's try to keep it real, shall we? Computers aren't inherently evil. Is it "socialist" for them to use similar technologies to automate meter readings for utilities? Since when is it "socialist" for people to pay for their what they use? Applying the Socialist label to something doesn't make that label accurate, nor does it make the practice Wrong, or even ill-advised.

Posted 03/08/10 Linda APO AP, Japan

I like the idea of credits for recycle. Here in Okinawa, we not only have to buy the accepted bags, but each city has its own bag with label imprint, so I can't buy bags in Ginowan and use them in Okinawa City. This keeps the "profits" local to pay for pick up. However, the recycle bins are just put out on the streets and we use the ones closest to our house. Streets are pretty narrow, so it would be hard to get down one if everyone had their own recycle bins. Old people go up and down the streets before pick-up, scrounging aluminum, which they collect and then get paid (currently a low 60 yen/kilogram) by an aluminum collection company. We have a truck come by the house. They weigh the aluminum and pay on-the-spot. They will also take and pay for the large awamori bottles. So I don't know how they'd credit recycle. But an idea like that would probably be of interest locally. Thanks!

 
Posted by Phil Giraldi on 02/04/10

I was shocked by yesterday's House Intelligence Committee comments by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and am astonished that his statement is not the featured front page item in every news medium today.  Blair said  that US citizens abroad might be killed by CIA or the Defense Department if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."  He added that in so doing the government would "follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed" and described the policy as designed to "protect most of the country." 

Well, I guess it's just tough luck if you're not one of the "most" while a "defined policy" being overseen by a Washington bureaucrat whose mission is to kill terrorists might reassure some. One recalls, however, that Washington officials approved waterboarding, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition.  I must admit to having a problem with extrajudicial killing unless someone is absolutely caught in flagrante in a murderous act because, as a former intelligence officer, I know full well how bad intelligence can be.  Would we be killing someone without any due process just because someone else bearing a grudge manages to plant some false info, as has occurred all too often in Afghanistan?  If it is true that something like 19 civilians die in drone strikes for every bad guy we manage to get, there is something seriously wrong with the intelligence and about the system in general. 

And who makes the judgment of what constitutes something that "threatens Americans"?  Blair went on to explain that being targeted might be based on being "involved in a group that is trying to attack us."  Involved?  What does that mean?  That would seem to be a First Amendment issue to me.  If I send $5 to an apparent charity that turns out to be a part of Hezbollah can I expect a black helicopter overhead in minutes?  The Blair comment is particularly scary in that it is a complete denial of the rights guaranteed to US citizens, including the right to a fair trial.   It is also an admission that the White House sees such targeted killings as perfectly acceptable.  I would add that no one on the Intelligence Committee protested much either.  When a government is selectively targeting and killing its own citizens isn't it a sign that something is very, very wrong? -Phil Giraldi, American Conservative Defense Alliance

Posted 02/04/10 Mike in Virginia Fredericksburg, VA

This policy came out a few days ago and was featured in an article or a blog on LRC. In effect, the President of the United States claims authority to assassinate American citizens without a trial or any semblance of due process. Sure, right now the policy includes only American citizens who are abroad. But how long before it includes Americans here? And when that happens, won't it be a baby step to gas chambers for all those who dissent or are otherwise deemed to be undesirable? This is truly scary stuff.

Posted 02/05/10 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

http://educationandethics.blogspot.com/ Friday, February 5, 2010 Divine Economy Theory Solves The 'Moral Authority' Dilemma. When those with no moral authority take action the end result is injustice. When those with no moral authority have power there are two possible outcomes: chaos and a power struggle or totalitarianism. As long as those with no moral authority are in control the cycle of either chaos and a power struggle or totalitarianism will continue. This is the problem. The solution is the recognition by humanity that there is no moral authority for any human intervention in the economy. That is the essence of the divine economy theory. Logically then, the divine economy theory is the solution to the quagmire of problems confronting humankind. The divine economy theory unequivocally proves that there is no moral authority for any ego-driven intervention or any ego-driven interpretaion.

Posted 02/05/10 Glenn Cumming, GA

Thanks for the post, Phil. Pre-emptive war becomes pre-emptive murder. Nevermind that it is the U.S. that is doing all the attacking. I wonder if this has something to do with putting fear into journalists that are revealing the truth about the U.S., especially regarding Gitmo, etc. From Russia, with love, Josef Stalin

Posted 02/05/10 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Is there any moral difference between killing Americans overseas with clandestine operations and killing them at home with rationed healthcare?

Posted 02/05/10 MN Stix Waite Park, MN

A simple indicator of what is really going on in this country. They claim you may be murdered by order of the white house in a foreign country. What this really says is "we reserve the right to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime so long as we decide you are doing something wrong." This is just another disgusting display of the evil that exists in Washington. I know it is worn out now, but, Even Hitler would be blushing at this.

Posted 02/05/10 MikeKlamecki Elkhart Lake, WI

At least someone is, and has been covering this: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinatio ns/index.html

Posted 02/05/10 Ike Hall Clarkston, GA

The question is, under what Constitutional rubric was this program hatched? Clearly, the U.S. Government believes it can target people outside its geographical jurisdiction. Does the U.S. Government consider its relations with other nations to be anarchic unless otherwise stated?

Posted 02/08/10 Sally Oh Escazú, Costa Rica

I live in Costa Rica with my family. I blog, my husband blogs, we are C4L, Ron Paul, Liberty, Constitutionalist libertarians. MIAC would have us classified as right wing insubordinates immediately... am I in danger here? Ok, I know I'm not. Yet. The US murders suspects all the time - the headlines read "suspected terrorists killed by US forces in _____ (pick one of five countries where we are currently murdering people, many by unmanned drone attacks). The US government is already murdering foreigners, er, people living in other countries who are not US citizens. Coming after expats is the logical next step. You living inside the borders are next, no question.