Month: August 2013

35 Years in a Cage for Revealing War Crimes

35 years in a cage. That’s the reward Bradley Manning received for revealing war crimes to the world:

The US soldier convicted of handing a trove of secret government documents to anti-secrecy website Wikileaks has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Historical whistleblowers, such as Daniel Ellsberg, have been targeted for informing the public of ongoing misdeeds but none were caged for several decades. When Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers the state had the decency to at least publicly admit it did something incorrectly and leave it at that. Yes, he was run through the ringer needlessly but remained free afterwards.

Bradley Manning, who did the same thing as Ellsberg, wasn’t so lucky. He decided to blow the whistle a few decades too late. America is no longer that land of the free and the government no longer pretends to have any decency left in it. This country is a police state and any dissidence is ruthlessly crushed under its heel.

Every person involved in the prosecution of Manning should be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting war criminals. Adrian Lamo, the traitorous bastard who reported Manning to the state, deserves a special place in Hell. Manning confided in him, thinking his history of being a hacker would make in somewhat sympathetic, and he threw him to the wolves. Had Lamo not done that there is a good chance that Manning wouldn’t have suffered three years of torture while he awaited a sham trial.

This entire trial has been a mockery of justice. The only reason it was called was so the state could cover up the real crimes that were revealed by Manning.

Gun for Me, Not for Thee

I’m left in awe of the ability politicians have for giving a long-winded response devoid of content in lieu of a short quip that would have done the same. After coming into office, Obama announced the release of the We the People Petitions. Supposedly the system is one where individuals can submit petitions and if that petition gets enough signatures within a specific span of time somebody from the White House will address it. The White House’s first slew of response let us know how popular petitions would be handled. Instead of giving any notable consideration to popular petitions they are simply ignored. Sometimes, I’m guessing when a petition is particularly uncomfortable for the White House, popular petitions vanish. Consider the history of We the People Petitions I’m not surprised to see this response:

A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?

[…]

Here is the response of the White House:

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.

The White House could have simply said, “Guns are for masters, not for slaves.” Instead it gave a lengthy response that said nothing and merely plugged Obama’s gun control plan. Seriously, this response is a marvel when you look at it as an example of a political statement that runs on in length but fails to answer the question posed.

I did find it rather humorous that the response mentioned the assassination of President as justification for granting the position a full-time security detail. It’s a response that spits in the face of every non-politician who has been murdered. More non-politicians have been murdered than politicians yet the politicians are the ones who both receive special protection and prevent us from defending ourselves. If that doesn’t shine a light on the state’s attitude towards us then nothing will.

Ensuring the Continued Health and Labor of the Slaves

Many prisoners in California have gone on a hunger strike to protest the deplorable conditions and despicable acts taking place in that state’s overcrowded prisons. Once again, proving that the state doesn’t believe you own yourself, a district court has ruled that the prisoners can be forcefully fed:

A district court judge in California has given state authorities permission to force-feed dozens of prisoners who have been on hunger strike for more than six weeks.

Judge Thelton Henderson said some of the prisoners who were near death could be fed, despite some signing requests not to be revived.

One may ask, why would the state want to forcefully feed prisoners? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let them die, as they wish to do? Although I’m not privy to the state’s insider conversations I have an educated guess. The district court is probably concerned that starving prisoners are poor laborers for UNICOR and Corrections Corporation of America. What good is a slave laborer if they are so hungry they cannot work? In order to ensure the continued flow of goods from the prison-industrial complex to the state and general economy the district court felt it necessary to feed the protesting slaves. This day and age one cannot even die without receiving governmental permission.

The Fallacy of Social Safety Nets

Self-described progressives often advocate the creation of, what they call, social safety nets. While their hearts are in the right place their methods suck. Most of us want a mechanism to help those who have fallen on hard times but having the state establish that mechanism is the wrong way to do it, unless your goal is something besides helping those in need. The state has a long–running war against the homeless. State operated social safety nets are euphemisms for stealing wealth from the people and kicking to the curb those who have nothing for the state to take. Take, for example, the recent decision made by city officials in Columbia, South Carolina:

Last week, city officials in Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove the homeless population of the city from the downtown area as a means of protecting the Columbia’s growing commerce.

The Emergency Homeless Response, headed by Councilman Cameron Runyan (D), was unanimously approved by the Columbia City Council. Under the plan, police will patrol downtown Columbia and remove all homeless individuals from the area. Should they refuse to leave, they will be subject to arrest. A hotline will be set up to aid the process, so that downtown residents can report the presence of homeless individuals to the police. Police will also more strictly enforce Columbia’s “quality of life” policies, which include (among others) bans on public urination and loitering.

As a supplement to the plan, an emergency winter shelter on the outskirts of the city will be opened year-round to accommodate the influx of homeless individuals exiled from the city center. However, as the shelter only has 240 beds, it is unlikely to be able to handle the entire homeless population of Columbia, which numbers around 1,518 people.

As I said in a longer winded post, progressives will never be able to achieve their goals through statism. The state has no interest in helping the poor and downtrodden because they have nothing for the state to take. Instead of helping the homeless city governments have opted for a different plan. That plan is to make the lives of the homeless so miserable that they migrate elsewhere and become another city’s “problem.” If you truly want to help those in need then it’s time to create mutual aid societies. Through voluntary efforts those in need can be helped.

Another Reason I Find Politics Trite

Yesterday I headed over to /r/Libertarian hoping to skim a blog worthy story or two from the cesspool of neoconservative talking point. My quest almost turned out to be fruitless until I decided to look at things from another perspective. Instead of looking for an interesting story to discuss I decided to look for a link that embodied some of the reasons I find politics to be a pointless exercise. That quest was a rousing success. I could have posted many stories here but I settled on one that managed to unintentionally summarize one of the things I hate most about politics into a simple image. Take a look at this comic:

If you’re a neoconservative who thinks that the only thing wrong with America is the president then this image probably gives you a throbbing hard-on or makes you moist between your legs. It’s pure, unbridled Obama hatred packed into a 71 kilobyte, 555×380 pixel image. But, like most political cartoons, it’s a lie. The author would lead you to believe that Obama has claimed all the power for his branch of government and rendered the other two impotent. It’s a crock of shit, which brings me to one of the things I hate a politics the most: the tendency to grossly oversimplify matters.

Although the example I picked is neoconservative in nature, the neoliberals aren’t innocent of such chicanery. In fact it was only two election cycles ago where the neoliberals blamed all of the world’s ills on George W. Bush. Now that their man is the figurehead of America all of the ills of this country are due to “obstructionist Republicans in the House.” You can see that both sides share a common trait: everything bad is always the other side’s fault and everything good is always their side’s doing.

I have a theory about why such behavior is prevalent in politics. Politics requires one to believe in the currently established system, at least to some extent. How else could one claim that the country can be saved so long as the “right people” get into office? Why else would one work for the “right person’s” campaign unless they believed the system itself can be used to affect positive change? If you truly believe the system is broken, if you truly believe the system can’t be used to create a better future then you will find no point in participating in it. Since individuals who participate in the political system believe that, at least in some capacity, the system is legitimate they must find another reason why their vision for the “best future” isn’t being executed. Some of these people blame uneducated voters while others blame certain politicians.

You see, if the system is legitimate then society’s ills must be caused by something besides the system itself. Taking the system itself off of the table removes a great deal of complex societal issues. Fixing society’s ills, for example, is as simple as putting the “right people” in charge of the legitimate system. Since most people believe that their vision is the one true vision they inevitably find the parties responsible for society’s ills: those who hold different political ideologies. We now have an “us” them and a “them” team. Depending on how you identify yourself politically the composition of “us” and “them” will differ. In the case of Republicans the “them” team is made up of Democrats. Team libertarian sees team “them” as a bunch of pinko socialists. Self-declared conservatives have a tendency to blame “the liberals.” It’s very convenient but it boils very complex issues down to gross generalizations.

Returning to the comic we see that the author believes the executive branch has all the power. I’m sure, in his head, all would be well again if the three branches had equal power. The good news is that each branch does have equal power. How the hell do you think the executive branch enjoys its vast power? Congress has to pass the budget that allows the executive branch to execute its whims. The judicial branch has been more than happy to rule the vast powers of the executive branch as constitutional. We don’t have a compartmentalized system where each branch fights the other two branches. What we do have are three members of the same team. All three branches of government are helping each other because they know if they scratch their fellow’s back they will likely get their back scratched in return. But since individuals involved in the political process believe the system, in some capacity, is legitimate they can’t bring themselves to make such criticisms.

There you have it, a long-winded rant about one of the inherit characteristics of politics that I detest. This, among many other reasons, is why I refuse to further participate in the political process. I will note work on a campaign, run for office, or vote. As far as I’m concerned the entire system is part of the problem and any work performed within that system is a complete waste of my time. If I want to have heated debates about meaningless topics I will stick to ones about which superhero is more bad ass. At least debates about superheroes are entertaining because the characters involved are larger than life. Debates about political figures are depressing because the characters are petty criminals who get their rocks off on wielding power over their fellow individuals.

Why Reforming Police Departments is Impossible

Many people believe that most police officers are good people and there are a handful of bad apples ruining it for everybody. I disagree with this sentiment because whenever I see people of good conscious trying to reform a police department or the field of law enforcement they get stomped down. Such an atmosphere is a breeding ground of psychopaths. Imagine if you had violent tendencies and a general apathy towards the well being of others. Would a job that offered you an outlet for your vicious nature along with practical immunity from the consequences of wrongdoing sound like the perfect position? Would you allow a person trying to stop you to meddle with your dream job?

Take the recent example of Sheriff Nick Finch. Mr. Finch, from my point of view, did a good thing by preventing a non-violent individual who was openly carrying a firearm in Florida (which is generally illegal) from being kidnapped and caged. There is no reason to cage people who aren’t performing acts of violent acts. It would do the field of law enforcement a great deal of good to cease arresting non-violent individuals. But this is the United Police States of America and a cop who isn’t being a psychopath must be destroyed. For doing the right thing Mr. Finch was arrested:

The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained.

[…]

Rick Scott, Florida governor, stepped in and had Finch arrested. Governor Scott then appointed a new sheriff. Finch says he did not vote for the Governor. “I’m not a republican, or a democrat. Just a man who believes in the Constitution,” says Finch.

This is another example of the grant statist machinery removing a malfunctioning cog from itself. It’s also an explanation of why good cops are far and few between. When a cop actually steps up to do something positive they are crushed either by their fellow police officers or by high ups in the state. Men of good conscious are pushed out of the law enforcement field while men with evil desires are attracted to it. It’s not an instance of a few bad apples ruining it for everybody else, it’s an instance of a few good apples becoming diseased by the vast majority of infected apples.

The Detention of David Miranda

Anybody who has continued to follow the surveillance state fiasco that became prominent thanks to Glenn Greenwald has probably already heard that David Miranda, Mr. Greenwald’s partner, was detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport:

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Considering the person who was detained and the length of time he was detained it’s pretty obvious what was going on. The state, embarrassed by the National Security Agency (NSA) slides that were published by Mr. Greenwald, has resorted to a tactic favored by tyrants throughout history: intimidation. What’s particularly funny is that the same state that wasn’t bashful about detaining Mr. Miranda (who, for us Americans, has a rather ironic last name) has still decided to “investigate” the matter:

Senior politicians and an independent reviewer have said police must explain why David Miranda was detained for nine hours at Heathrow Airport.

The explanation is quite simple. As enforcers for the same people demanding an explanation, the guards at Heathrow airport decided to send Mr. Greenwald a message. The message itself was quite simple, the state can get to the people Mr. Greenwald cares about the most. It’s the same tactic used by mafia henchmen in the movies. When somebody falls out of favor with the local mafia a few henchmen are dispatched to pick up that person’s children from school and drive them home. The parent understands that the mafia is letting him or her know that they could easily kill his or her children at any time. From there the parent can decide to fall into line with the mafia or risk having his or her children killed.

Detaining Mr. Miranda was a coward’s move, which are the only moves the state knows. I’m sure several higher ups in the British government ensured that Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Miranda were added to a watch list so they would be harassed whenever they traveled by air. After the target has been entered into the computer it is up to the ordinance, in this case airport security personnel, to hit its mark. The nice thing about this methodology is it allows politicians to feign innocence. They can claim to have no knowledge of the event, perform an “investigation” into the matter, and punish a handful of disposable soldiers.

Come Back With a Warrant

I have another story that emphasizes the rule we must all follow: never voluntarily allow state employees into your domicile. The job of the police isn’t to protect the people, it’s to exploit them. Police officers are tasked with finding evidence of a crime, kidnapping suspects, and executing those who resist. Today’s story involves a search for evidence relating to a fatal car accident that ended in the arrest of somebody who wasn’t suspected of any wrongdoing:

The car crash also has had consequences for Hall’s father, Aaron. When police performed a search related to Cody’s case in June, they came upon a gun safe containing two illegal assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition, The San Jose Mercury News reported.

As a convicted felon, Aaron Hall is barred from owning any firearms. He was arrested and has been freed on bail. The Mercury News reports that his felony convictions occurred nearly 20 years ago.

You have to admire how the media was able to take a simple fact, that illegally possessed firearms and ammunition were found, and make it sound scarier by stating that “assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition” were found. But I digress. The main point I want to raise is the fact that the suspect’s father, Aaron Hall, was arrested because police entered his home to search for evidence of his son’s crime. During their search the police came across evidence of an entirely unrelated crime perpetrated by a completely different person. That person is now in a cage and the police get to pat themselves on the back because they managed to kidnap two potential slave laborers for the prison-industrial complex.

This kind of scenario could happen to anybody. People naively think they are doing nothing wrong but there are so many laws on the books that each of us likely commit three felonies a day. Police entering your home can use any evidence they come across to charge and arrest you. Do you want to run the risk of a police officer seeing something that you didn’t know was illegal in your home with the astronomical number of laws currently on the books?

Fed Threaten to Arrest Lavabit Operator for Shuttering His Business

Ladar Levison, the owner and operator of Lavabit, recently shutdown his service instead of complying with the surveillance state. Although he was legally barred from discussing the specifics of his situation it’s pretty clear he received a national security letter, which requires him to comply with federal demands and prohibits him from discussing anything related to the letter including the fact he received a letter. In all likelihood he was commanded to install a backdoor into his service so government snoops could spy on his customers, which convinced him that it was time to shutdown entirely. This story reeks of police state tactics but now that Lavabit is shutdown the story should be concluded, right? Wrong. As it turns out, Mr. Levison is being threatened with arrest even though he is no longer operating his service and, therefore, is unable to comply with any demands from federal snoops:

The owner of an encrypted email service used by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden said he has been threatened with criminal charges for refusing to comply with a secret surveillance order to turn over information about his customers.

“I could be arrested for this action,” Ladar Levison told NBC News about his decision to shut down his company, Lavabit LLC, in protest over a secret court order he had received from a federal court that is overseeing the investigation into Snowden.

[…]

Levison said he has been “threatened with arrest multiple times over the past six weeks,” but that he was making a stand on principle: “I think it’s important to point out that what prompted me to shut down my service wasn’t access to one person’s data. It was about protecting the privacy of all my users.”

What is the term for somebody who is forced to work a job even if they have no desire to do so? A slave. If the federal government is threatening to arrest people who shutter their businesses, regardless of those people’s personal reasons for doing so, then it is declaring everybody slaves. Anybody who believes America is the land of the free is deluded.

Monday Metal: Hordes of Chaos by Kreator

Last week I did a presentation on the chaotic nature of the market for an Austrian economics meet up. Included in my notes was Hordes of Chaos by Kreator. Yes, I like to include metal songs in my presentation notes. Although I primarily picked the song because it has the prerequisite word “chaos” in the title, I dig the song so it’s also this week’s Monday Metal entry: