Making the World Safe from Democracy or: How to Defend Oneself Against the United States

Reflections on State and War
By Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Read part I

After this excursion into the theory of democratic peace I am back to the proposition that there is no greater threat to lasting peace than the democratic state, and in particular the United States. Thus, the question: how to make the world safe from democracy or how to defend oneself against the U.S..

This is not only a problem for foreigners but for Americans as well. After all, the territory constituting the U.S. too is conquered and occupied territory -- conquered by the U.S. government just as Iraq today is conquered by the U.S. government (if only less successfully). Thus recognizing the question as a truly general one allows us to gain a more principled understanding of the issues involved.

Let us assume that a small territory within the borders of the current U.S. -- a village, a town, a county -- declares its independence and secedes from the U.S. What can and will the U.S. do in response? The answer depends on many "ifs" and must be largely speculative, but not entirely so.

It is possible that the U.S. will invade the territory, crush the secessionists, and if necessary kill everyone in its way. This is what the FrenchRepublic did to the seceding Vendee during the French Revolution, for instance, what the Union did to the Confederacy, and on a much smaller scale and more recently, what the U.S. government did in Waco. But history also provides examples to the contrary: the Czechs and Slovaks separated peacefully, Russia let Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia go; the Slovenes were let go; Singapore was even expelled from a previous union with Malaysia.

Obviously, the relative population size matters in the decision to war or not to war. Likewise it matters what resources and technological capabilities are at the secessionists' disposal. Also the geographical location of the secessionists can weigh in favor or against intervention. But this cannot be all. For how is one to explain, for instance, that France has not long ago conquered Monaco, or Germany Luxemburg, or Switzerland Liechtenstein, or Italy Vatican City, or the U.S. Costa Rica? Or how is one to explain that the U.S. does not "finish the job" in Iraq by simply killing all Iraqis. Surely, in terms of population, technology and geography such are manageable tasks.

The reason for these omissions is not that French, German, Swiss, Italian or U.S. state rulers have principled moral scruples against conquest, occupation, expropriation, confiscation, enslavement and the imprisonment or killing of innocents -- they do these things on a daily basis to their "own" population. Bush, for instance, has no compunction ordering to kill innocent Iraqis. He does so every day. Rather, what constrains the conduct of state rulers and explains their reluctance to do things that appear feasible from a "technical" point of view is public opinion, domestically, but also abroad.

As La Boetie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard have explained, government power ultimately rests on opinion, not brute force. Bush does not himself kill or put a gun to the head of those he orders to kill. Generals and soldiers follow his orders on their own. Nor can Bush "force" anyone to continue providing him with the funds needed for his aggression. The citizenry must do so on its own, because it believes that, by and large, it is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if the majority of generals, soldiers and citizens stop believing in the legitimacy of Bush's commands, his commands turn into nothing more than hot air. It is this need for legitimacy that explains why state governments itching to go to war (and especially democratic governments expecting popular war support) must offer a reason for their actions. The public is not typically in favor of killing innocent bystanders for fun or profit. Rather, in order to enlist the public's assistance "evidence" must be manipulated or fabricated so as to make aggression appear as defense (for what reasonable person could be against defense). We know the catchwords: FortSumter, the USS Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 9-11.

It thus turns out that not even an overwhelming size advantage is ultimately decisive in determining the course of action. That David Koresh and his followers in Waco could be brutally killed by the U.S. government was due to the fact that they could be easily portrayed as a bunch of crazy child molesters. Had they been "normal people" an invasion might have been considered a public relations disaster and hence prohibitive. Moreover, regardless of whatever disadvantage the secessionists have in terms of size, resources or location, this can be made up by a favorable international public opinion, especially in the internet age when the spread of news is almost instantaneous. If almost everyone anywhere sides with the secessionists and considers their behavior decent, understandable and just, even the seemingly most powerful government on earth must fear for its legitimacy if it decides to crush the "rebellion."

These considerations bring me to the final points: the likelihood of success of the secessionists depends on their choice of internal organization. The new secessionist country can be another state or it can be a free, state-less society. Tying back to my explanation regarding the relationship between state and aggression, I will argue that the likelihood of successful defense against U.S. aggression is higher if the secessionists form a stateless society than if they opt for another state. Because whether large or small, states are good at aggression and bad at defense, except at defending themselves. (Granting, maybe prematurely, that the U.S. had nothing to do with 9-11 directly, the events of that day certainly show that the U.S. was not good at defending its own citizens: first by provoking the attacks and secondly in having its population disarmed and defenseless vis-a-vis box-cutter wielding foreign invaders.)

How would the defensive stance of a free society differ from that of a state and how would this affect the likelihood a) of a U.S. attack and b) of its success?

Ad a): As explained, the likelihood of an attack depends essentially on the ease of manipulating the evidence so as to camouflage aggression as defense -- and to "discover" such evidence is much easier in the case of a state than that of a state-less society. Even the most liberal state has a monopoly of jurisdiction and taxation and thus cannot but commit injustices and create victims which, properly stylized as "victims of human rights violations" or some such, may provide the necessary "excuse" for a planned invasion. Worse, if the new state is a democracy it is unavoidable that one group -- the Catholics or the Protestants, the Shiites or the Sunnis, the Whites or the Blacks, the Haves or the Not-Haves, etc. -- will use its power to dominate another -- and once again there exists an "excuse" for invasion: to "free some oppressed minority." Better still: the oppressed are incited, assisted by financial aid, to "cry out" for U.S. help. Moreover, in reaction to domestic oppression terrorists may grow up who try to "revenge" the injustice: just think of the Red Brigades, the RAF, the IRA, the ETA, the PKK, etc. -- and both: the continued existence of terrorists as well as a policy of trying to eradicate them may provide "reason" to intervene (to prevent the spread of terrorism or to come to the rescue of freedom fighters). In distinct contrast, in a free society only private property owners and private firms, including insurers, police, and arbitration agencies exist. All relationships are contractual. If there is any provocation or aggression, they are the actions not of terrorists but of ordinary criminals: of murderers, rapists, burglars, thieves and plain frauds -- and it is difficult to portray the treatment of criminals as criminals as a reason for an invasion.

Ad b): What if the attack does occur? In that case it might well be best to give up quickly, especially if the secessionist territory is very small. Thus Mogens Glistrup, founder of the Danish Progress Party, once recommended that the Defense Department of tiny Denmark be replaced with an answering machine announcing (to the Russians) that "we surrender." This way, no destruction occurs and yet the prestige, the good name of the invading government as a "defender and promoter of liberty" is likely forever soiled.

This preliminary consideration leads to our central question regarding the comparative effectiveness of states vs. free societies in matters of defense. As a monopolist of ultimate decision-making, the state decides for everyone bindingly whether to resist or not; if to resist, whether in the form of civil disobedience, armed resistance or some combination thereof; and if armed resistance, of what form. If it decides to put up no resistance, this may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of bribes or personal threats by the invading state -- but in any case, it will certainly be contrary to the preferences of many people who would have liked to put up some resistance and who are thus put in double jeopardy because as resisters they disobey now their own state as well as the invader. On the other hand, if the state decides to resist, this again may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of pride or fear -- but in any case, it too will be contrary to the preferences of many citizens who would have liked to put up no resistance or to resist by different means and who are entangled now as accomplices in the state's schemes and subjected to the same collateral fallout and victor's-justice as everyone else.

The reaction of a free territory is distinctly different. There is no government which makes one decision. Instead, there are numerous institutions and individuals who choose their own defense strategy, either independent of or in cooperation with others, each in accordance with one's own risk assessment. Consequently, the aggressor has far more difficulties gathering information and conquering the territory. It is no longer sufficient to "know" the government, to win one decisive battle or to gain control of government headquarters from where to transmit orders to the native population. Even if one opponent is "known", one battle is won or one defense agency defeated, this has no bearing on others.

Moreover, the multitude of command structures and strategies as well as the contractual character of a free society affect the conduct of both armed and unarmed resistance. As for the former, in state-territories the civilian population is typically unarmed and heavy reliance exists on regular, tax-and-draft-funded armies and conventional warfare. Hence, the defense forces create enemies even among its own citizenry, which the aggressor state can use to its own advantage, and in any case there is little to fear for the aggressor once the regular army is defeated. In contrast, the population of free territories is likely heavily armed and the fighting done by irregular militias led by defense professionals and in the form of guerilla or partisan warfare. All fighters are volunteers and all of their support: food, shelter, logistical help etc. is voluntary. Hence, guerrillas must be extremely friendly to their own population. But precisely this: their entirely defensive character and near-unanimous support in public opinion can render them nearly invincible, even by numerically far superior invading armies. History provides numerous examples: Napoleon's defeat in Spain, France's defeat in Algeria, the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, Israel's defeat in South Lebanon.

This consideration of the relationship between fighters and civilians leads immediately to the other form of defense: unarmed resistance or civil disobedience. Provided only that the secessionists have the will to be free, the effectiveness of this strategy can hardly be overestimated. Just recall that power does not rest alone on brute force but must rely on "opinion." The conquerors cannot put one man next to each secessionist and so force him obey their orders. The secessionists must obey by their own free will. However, if they do not -- and this insight forms the basis of the doctrine of civil disobedience -- the conquerors will fail. Most importantly: civil disobedience can occur in many forms and degrees. It can range from ostentatious acts of defiance to entirely unobtrusive ways, thus allowing almost everyone to participate in the defense effort: the courageous and the timid, the young and the old, men and women, leaders and followers. One may hide armed fighters or not hinder them and keep quiet about their whereabouts. One may publicly refuse to obey certain laws, or evade and ignore them. One may engage in sabotage, obstruction, negligence or simply display a lack of diligence. One may openly scoff at orders or comply only incompletely. Tax payments may be refused or evaded. There may be demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, work-stoppages or plain slacking-off. The conquerors may be maltreated, molested, ridiculed, laughed at or simply ostracized and never assisted in anything. In any case: all of this contributes to the same result: to render the conquerors powerless, make them despair and finally resign and withdraw.

As is often the case, the first step in the anti-imperialist-anti-democratic struggle is the most difficult. Indeed, the difficulties are enormous. Once the first step has been successfully taken, however, things get successively easier. Once the number of secessionist territories has reached a critical mass -- and every success in one location will promote imitation by other localities -- the difficulties of crushing the secessionists will increase exponentially. In fact, the more time passes the greater will the comparative economic and technological advantage of free territories become and in light of the ever increasing attractiveness and economic opportunities offered by the free territories the imperialist powers will be increasingly happy if they can hang on to their power rather than risk whatever legitimacy they still have in an attack.
_
Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail] is distinguished fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society. His books include Democracy: The God That Failed and The Myth of National Defense. Visit his website.

View the original article here

Internal Affairs Divisions Dismissing 99% Of Misconduct Cases Against New Jersey Police Officers

by Tim Cushing

Not all cops are bad, but the insulation from accountability begins with the departments themselves, which often go out of their way to defend the actions of abusive officers. In some cases, pressure from police unions has kept unruly officers on the job despite the departments' efforts to remove them. Other times, the insulating force is also the first line of officer accountability: Internal Affairs. Often depicted as a hated entity within the force, the Internal Affairs division is supposed to be the public's first line of defense against cops who abuse their power. As documents obtained by the Courier News and Home News Tribune show, dozens of complaints against central New Jersey police officers are dismissed every year without ever making it past these departments' internal review mechanisms.

From 2008 to 2012, citizens filed hundreds of complaints alleging brutality, bias and civil rights violations by officers in more than seven dozen police departments in Central Jersey?

Just 1 percent of all excessive force complaints were sustained by internal affairs units in Central Jersey, the review found. That?s less than the national average of 8 percent, according to a federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report released in 2007.

Elizabeth, for example, processed 203 such complaints in the five-year period and not once sided with a complainant. Woodbridge had 84 complaints, New Brunswick had 81, Perth Amboy had 50 and Linden had 33. In all those cases, these agencies either ?exonerated? the officers, dismissed the complaints as frivolous, determined that they did not have sufficient evidence or simply never closed the investigations.

Nationwide numbers aren't all that encouraging, with only 8% of complaints being sustained, but the New Jersey police departments are pitching near shutouts. These numbers can be taken to mean that either these departments only staff exemplary officers -- or that many cases boil down to not much more than the complainant's word against the officer's, something that rarely goes the complainant's way.

On a positive note, the journalists were able to compile the numbers thanks to New Jersey's Open Public Records Act which requires police departments to tally and track complaints, including how each case is disposed. On the downside, almost all information related to the officers involved is redacted.

Except in race cases, complaints against officers and how officers were disciplined ? which can range from spoken or written reprimands to suspensions or termination ? are kept confidential.

The tallies of complaints and how they were disposed are public records, as are use of force reports, which officers are required to file whenever they use bodily force or weapons to subdue a suspect. The public also has the right to read synopses of all complaints where a fine or suspension of at least 10 days was assessed. But the identities of officers, as well as the complainants, have to be redacted from these documents.

As Sergio Bachao of My Central Jersey points out, this provides public officers with more protection than it does private citizens. Complaints and disciplinary rulings against licensed professionals in the private sector are posted by the state using these citizens' full names. Obviously, doing so makes these professionals more accountable and provides other members of the public with info they can use to avoid potential scams, etc.

The redactions work the opposite way in these public records, protecting those who have been accused of wrongdoing. It's often not until a case has finally made its way to the courtroom that these officers' "rap sheets" are exposed. And in most cases, officers accused of deploying excessive force or abusing their power will be serial violators -- something that would have been noticed earlier if not for these redactions.

In the wake of the Deloatch investigation, then-Sgt. Richard Rowe was charged with mishandling 81 internal affairs in New Brunswick from 2003 to 2007. He was sentenced in August to two years of probation. The Home News Tribune also reported that Berdel had been investigated at least seven times by internal affairs, including once for an excessive force complaint. The complaints either were not sustained or never resolved.

One NJ assemblyman thinks he has a solution.

Assemblyman Peter Barnes III, D-Middlesex, said that all internal affairs investigations should be handled by county prosecutors or the state Attorney General?s Office.

?It?s long since past the day where you can say with a straight face that it?s OK to have officers investigate their own. It just isn?t a good system,? Barnes said.

Barnes has a bit too much confidence that prosecutors and state AGs will be a more "neutral" force than Internal Affairs. These entities operate in concert with police officers to prosecute accused wrongdoers. The close relationships with police departments are often hard to disentangle when an officer is facing potential criminal charges. It's not unheard of for misconduct cases to finally reach the AG level only to find the AG unwilling to pursue charges.

AGs and prosecutors often believe they're in the business of "fighting crime" (some even run for election using a "tough on crime" platform) when in reality they're only part of a system aimed at providing justice. Because of this misconception, prosecutors and AGs consider police officers to be allies in the war on crime and tend to be rather lenient when charged with prosecuting officer misconduct.

There's probably no perfect solution for this problem but some extra steps could mitigate a lot of these concerns. To be sure, there are a large number of complaints that fall into the "frivolous" category, meaning the percentage of misconduct cases that result in any sort of disciplinary action will still remain rather low. But requiring some sort of independent oversight would be a start. As it stands now, an internal division reviews these cases and, should it believe criminal charges might be in order, it forwards them to state AGs and prosecutors -- who are often as reluctant to pursue charges as the department itself.

Another suggestion would be the use of body cameras by police officers. Although officers and police departments still retain some control over the footage collected, early use has indicated that they tend to reduce complaints of misconduct or excessive force. Citizens are less likely to file frivolous complaints knowing there's footage of the incident, and officers are less likely to deploy excessive force for the same reason.

At this point though, with only 1% of complaints being sustained, citizens have very little reason to believe the system will hold bad cops accountable. Likewise, bad cops can look to the 99% "clearance rate" as an indicator that their bad behavior will go unpunished, if not unnoticed.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Capital Punishment for Traffic Violations
- Police Shoot Man Assembling Toy Gun While Sitting In His Own Car
- Dashcam Video Shows Scene As Officer Shoots 14-Yr-Old With Toy Gun
- Father Says He's Being Jailed For Paying Too Much Child Support & Over Visiting His Son [Updated]
- San Diego Deputy Threatens To 'Shove' Camera Light Up Videographer's 'A**'
- Video captures moment PCSO who pulled over a driver was then arrested HIMSELF for being twice the drink-drive limit by police officers he called for back-up
- The Right to Resist -- and the Duty to Interpose
- Texas Game Wardens Prepare for War

Nothing is going to get better when it comes to this criminal entity known as the police force. These sociopaths must froth at the mouth knowing that nearly 100% of complaints filed against them get thrown out. Prosecutors and Judges are part of the sociopathic club.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

No Charges Against Chicago Cop Who Drank Several Beers Before Shooting Unarmed Man in Back

Article posted Dec 02 2013, 12:25 AMBy Carlos Miller

Cook County prosecutors spent two years conducting an ?exhaustive? investigation on a Chicago police officer who drank several before beers before shooting a man to death after the man pointed a cell phone at him.

Yet not once during those two years did prosecutors speak to officer Gildardo Sierra, who had shot two other men in the six months prior to the 2011 shooting, including one fatally.

The shooting, which was caught on a dash cam video, was enough for Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to acknowledge that allowing Sierra back on the streets after the first two incidents was a mistake.

Read More

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying

By Mark M. Jaycox

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued.

Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.

What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA's spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights.

Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll, Rasmusson--though sometimes known for push polling--revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with the statement.

Americans seem to be waking up from its surveillance state slumber as the leaks around the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying continue. The anger Americans--especially younger Americans--have around the NSA spying is starting to show. President Obama has seen a 14-point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 18-29 after the NSA spying.?

These recent round of polls confirm that Americans are not only concerned with the fact that the spying infringes their privacy, but also that they want the spying to stop. And this is even more so for younger Americans. Now is the time for Congress to act: click here now to join the StopWatching.Us coalition.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Nanny State: Mandatory Helmets For Walking
- NSA's Massive Utah Datacenter Having Serious Electrical Problems: Has Already Had 10 Fiery Explosions
- James Clapper Thinks That NSA Employees Will Sell Out Our Nation After A Few Days Without A Paycheck
- BBC Caught Staging Syria Chemical Weapons Propaganda?
- Government 'Shut Down' Doesn't Prevent Opening of $2 Billion NSA Spy Center
- NYT Reporting NSA Spying On Anyone SUSPECTED Of A Crime!
- Downloading Is Mean! Content Industry Drafts Anti-Piracy Curriculum for Elementary Schools
- TSA To Roll Out "Covert Surveillance" Vans

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent

by Mike Masnick

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the MIT report concerning the case against Aaron Swartz. A number of people have picked up on some really questionable things in the report. One incredible claim made in it was that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who was running the prosecution against Swartz, apparently admitted that he really only ramped up his efforts against Swartz to punish Swartz and the organization he founded, Demand Progress, for having the audacity to discuss the case publicly and explain why Swartz believed he didn't do anything wrong. Here's the passage from the report:

The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was "dumb-founded" by Swartz's response.

The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel's back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a "wild Internet campaign" in an effort to drum up support. This was a "foolish" move that moved the case "from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level." The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally

MIT used this to explain why it thought that any public statements it might make in support of Swartz would make the case worse for him, because Heymann, in his petty vindictive mind, might view it as a further "wild" public campaign by Swartz. Leaving aside that this makes absolutely no sense at all, the actions of Heymann are particularly despicable here, suggesting that merely professing your innocence to crimes that you believe you are innocent of, should lead to much greater prosecution.

This passage has now caught the attention of Rep. Darrell Issa, and he is asking Attorney General Eric Holder about whether or not the DOJ directly comes down hard on those who exercise their First Amendment rights in the face of questionable prosecutions:

"The implication that the Department ratcheted up the prosecution by moving the case to 'an institutional level' after it discovered the petition by Demand Progress suggests that the Department acted in a retaliatory manner and that it bases its charging decisions on externalities such as an Internet campaign," Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, wrote in his letter to Holder.

"The suggestions that prosecutors did in fact seek to make an example out of Aaron Swartz because Demand Progress exercised its First Amendment rights in publicly supporting him raises new questions about the Department's handling of the case," Issa wrote.

A separate point that comes out in the report that is equally as absurd was that Heymann believed that the case required some jail time as punishment because it "involves the unauthorized downloading of intellectual property that cost millions of dollars to create." This is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, MIT made those works freely available to anyone on campus, so the argument that it was "unauthorized" remains very questionable. Second, the "cost millions of dollars to create" argument is simply laughable. Nearly all of that was publicly funded by taxpayer money, which is supposed to lead to the enrichment of public learning and knowledge -- the exact thing that Swartz appeared to be focused on. This ridiculous belief that he needed to be put in prison because of the monetary cost of creating these educational works is astounding. And sad, given the eventual outcome.

It's no secret that the DOJ often seems to think that "intellectual property" laws are designed to protect the moneyed interests of copyright holders, but that's not what the Constitution or the law says. At the very least, the people hired as US Attorney's to represent the US government should know better than to ratchet up prosecution for people who are expressing their First Amendment rights and doing things that directly align with the Constitutional reasons for copyright law.

Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann is a disgrace to the Constitution he's supposed to be defending.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Politics/Corruption
- As Head Of NSA Review Group Obama Appoints Same Person Who "Apologized" For Lying To Congress
- Tennessee judge orders that parents rename their 7-month-old son
- Judge Scolds Jury for Getting the Verdict "Wrong"
- Lawmakers Issued License Plates That Make Them 'Invisible' To Traffic Cams And Parking Tickets
- Rep. Keith Ellison: Gov. Not Broke Because There's Plenty of Money In Private Hands And 'Government Has A Right' To It
- The Definitive Expos? of Glenn Beck
- Obama Agrees with Hitler on Schooling Children
- Obama Supporters Petition to Grant Him Immunity for All Crimes He Commits While in Office

How sad our government has become. We live in a time of waiting for the other shoe to drop. When it does drop, the outrage against our governing enemies will be swift and final. Those who rule us are as brain dead as the slugs I just poisoned in my garden. Web sites keep telling the populace to wake-up. I believe that it is our so called rulers who should wake up. great description 2049.drop the anonymous please we gots ta face em.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Judge Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Feds Who Arrested Former Marine For His Controversial Facebook Posts

by Tim Cushing

Almost exactly a year ago, former Marine Brandon Raub was taken from his home by federal agents and involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward, all because of some controversial postings to his Facebook account, including some 9/11 conspiracy-related articles and violent song lyrics.

On August 16, 2012, Raub was visited by local police, FBI agents and Secret Service personnel who questioned him about his Facebook posts. Raub was cooperative and discussed his activity with the officers, despite their not having a warrant. At some point, one of the agents made a call to Michael Campbell, a psychotherapist retained by the county who decided, despite having never met or observed Raub, that the former Marine was "potentially dangerous" and should be detained.

At that point, the collected officers cuffed Raub and took him to the local jail before having him committed to the mental hospital. Government officials later claimed Raub wasn't arrested, but the video taken of his "not being arrested" looks for all the world to the un-government-trained eye like an arrest.

After being detained for four days, Raub appeared before another judge who ordered him to be held for 30 days for evaluation. A short while later, this was overruled by Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett, who ordered Raub released immediately, stating that the prosecution's case was ?so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.? At this point, the Rutherford Institute, which had taken Raub's case after his "non-arrest," filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the officers and agents involved with his unlawful detainment.

Needless to say, the government has attempted to have this lawsuit dismissed. Fortunately for Raub (and the American public), the judge isn't willing to let the involved parties just walk away from their problem.

A federal judge in Richmond, Va., has refused to dismiss from a lawsuit several FBI and Secret Service agents as well as local police officers who arrested a military veteran based on an opinion from a counselor who had never met him that he might be a danger.

The decision came from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who essentially said there is not enough information at this point in the case to dismiss the law enforcement defendants. He ordered limited discovery.

Hudson said the Rutherford Institute, which is representing Raub, had alleged sufficient facts to indicate that the involuntary commitment violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution?s First and Fourth Amendments.

The government agents named have claimed that officers only have to show "probable cause that the individual poses a danger to himself or others" in order to forcibly detain and commit civilians. Hudson has rebutted this claim, stating that these agents had no previous experience with Raub and were acting solely on the claims made by a third party, unless other facts indicating otherwise present themselves during the limited discovery. That handles the Fourth Amendment claims. The First Amendment claims brought by Raub also survived the motion to dismiss.

[T]here is no dispute over whether political speech is protected or whether an arrest for political speech would adversely affect one's ability to further engage in political expression. And the third element -- causation -- may be inferred from Raub's allegation that the only knowledge the County Defendants had at the time of arrest concerned his political views.

No one has a problem with law enforcement investigating threats, but all too often lately, these agencies have proven they are quick to act on very little information, much of it devoid of any context. Raub's case and other incidents involving social media all have one thing in common: the word "terrorist." The government's favorite witch hunt is hurting Americans, as zealous government entities are willing to see the implicit threat of terrorism everywhere someone tells them to look.

08 02 2013 Raub Opinion (PDF)

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Manning Speaks: "I am a Good Person"
- Owner of Snowden's Email Service on Why He Closed Lavabit Rather Than Comply With Gov't
- NSA Spying Threatens Law-Abiding Americans
- "Parallel Construction": Government Term for Lying About Its Investigations
- Former NSA Boss Calls Snowden's Supporters Internet Shut-ins; Equates Transparency Activists With Al-Qaeda
- DEA Conceals Reliance on Surveillance Conducted by Intelligence Agencies
- Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy
- Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?

at BEST this case would be:

1.) the biggest pussies in the world running around with body armor and outnumbering and outgunning every person around them, while calling everyone and everything "a threat".

but we all can see the truth is not that "best" case scenario,
the truth is:

2.) (their voice): "DON'T YOU DARE EVEN TALK BAD ABOUT YOUR GOD THE COPS AND GOVT, WE ARE YOUR GOD, GODDDD!!!!!"

the real truth: nope, ur not. reach out and touch me - you will pull back a bloody stump. like your hand? keep it off me and it'll be fine.

in related news: midway has some .308 for sale:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/958697/lapua-mega-ammunition-308-winchester-185-grain-soft-point-box-of-20

where in the heck have i been? @nonymous 12169 seems to be shaking-off the programming. there's still hate in her (i think it's a "her" ? not sure. might be someone programmed after p.l.a.t.o. was scrapped... Short sentences suggests both, female, and, educated male.

headline on yahoo reads: "Bride Gets Wedding Cake Revenge on eBay". mind you, that's a HUMONGOUS f*-up. the wedding cake wad suppose to look like tires, "Yes," tires....

in fake-believe land, my first impression was: the brits. have white-trash too? however, i play by the rules of logic-land.

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex-bride-lists-appalling-wedding-cake-on-ebay--publicly-shames-cake-maker-180206231.html

so, the REAL story in the link above, reads that "a team-player" (a default-bride), wasn't recognized by the cartel; they made her run through a maze, redirected her, and, compiled a bunch of nonsense - to send her spinning in circles, (or, a "tire.")

now, she's calling the cartels' cops, "incompetent." the "uppers" in the hierarchy, are siding w/ her.

A man who builds race-cars, told me once: "there's no replacement for displacement." so, i slapped a 351 Windsor, in my 1967 cougar. (this was prior to my having become unplugged, and, one could still drag race, without having to worry over cops. ). But, the engine resulted in a poor fit.

(yes, fuck-wits, i see the numbers, and, the irony, in the word: "cougar"

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice

by John W. Whitehead

Time and again, throughout America?s history, individuals with a passion for truth and a commitment to justice have opted to defy the unjust laws and practices of the American government in order to speak up against slavery, segregation, discrimination, and war. Even when their personal safety and freedom were on the line, these individuals spoke up, knowing they would be chastised, ridiculed, arrested, branded traitors and even killed.

Indeed, while brave men and women such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman are lauded as American heroes today, they were once considered enemies of the state.

Thanks to the U.S. government?s growing intolerance for dissidents who insist on transparency and accountability, oppose its endless wars and targeted killings of innocent civilians and terrorists alike, and demand that government officials abide by the rule of law, that list of so-called ?enemies of the state? is growing.

One such ?enemy of the state? is Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst who has been targeted by the Obama administration for holding up a mirror to the bloated face of American empire. Manning is being prosecuted for leaking classified government documents which, like the Pentagon Papers a generation ago, expose systemic corruption within America?s military and diplomatic apparatus. The embarrassment caused by showing that the emperor has no clothes, as it were, has made Bradley Manning public enemy number one in the eyes of the federal government.

As Chris Hedges explains:

?Manning provided to the public the most important window into the inner workings of imperial power since the release of the Pentagon Papers. The routine use of torture, the detention of Iraqis who were innocent, the inhuman conditions within our secret detention facilities, the use of State Department officials as spies in the United Nations, the collusion with corporations to keep wages low in developing countries such as Haiti, and specific war crimes such as the missile strike on a house that killed seven children in Afghanistan would have remained hidden without Manning.?

Despite not being convicted of any crime, Manning has been put through a horror trip since the first day of his incarceration in the military brig at Quantico. He has spent 1,000 days in jail without trial, a large portion of which was passed in solitary confinement, imprisoned in a windowless 6 x 12 foot cell containing a bed, a drinking fountain and a toilet. Manning was kept under Suicide and/or Prevention of Injury (POI) watch during his incarceration, largely against the advice of two forensic psychiatrists. Under suicide watch, Manning was confined to his tiny cell for 24 hours a day and stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear.

Once he was finally brought before a military court, Manning pled guilty to ten of the twenty-two charges brought against him, admitting that he leaked the documents because he believed that the public has a right to know about the government?s misdeeds. Manning?s admission guarantees that he will be put into prison for up to twenty years. However, instead of proceeding to sentencing, government prosecutors are insisting on pressing the most serious charges against him, including ?aiding the enemy,? in an attempt to imprison him for life.

The government?s aim is clear: to make an example of Manning (what Yale professor Eugene Fidell describes as an attempt to ?scare the daylights out of other people?), thereby discouraging anyone else from defying the regime or daring to lay bare the inner workings of a corrupt government.

Indeed, despite promising unprecedented levels of transparency when he ascended to the presidency in 2009, Obama has invoked the WWI-era Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined as a means of silencing all internal dissent and criticism. Obama?s administration has also launched an all-out campaign to roust out, prosecute, and imprison government whistleblowers for exposing government corruption, incompetence, and greed.

Thus, Bradley Manning is merely the latest whistleblower to be singled out for punishment. So determined is the government to crucify Manning that government prosecutors plan to make the case that Manning essentially aided and abetted Osama bin Laden. Manning?s trial, which promises to be a government spectacle of manufactured ?shock and awe,? will feature testimony from an anonymous Navy Seal who took part in the raid on Osama bin Laden?s Abbottabad compound. This Seal will reportedly testify that he recovered computer discs in Osama bin Laden?s personal effects containing government material that originated from Manning?s leak.

What the government is attempting to suggest is that if an individual or news organization publishes information that is accessed by terrorists over the internet, for example, then those individuals or news organizations are essentially guilty of collusion.

Stacking the odds in their favor, government prosecutors have refused to allow Manning?s defense team to interview government witnesses or to introduce evidence showing that Manning?s leak of government information did little, if any, harm to U.S. interests other than showing that the Obama administration is no different from its predecessors. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the publication of the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary had ?not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.? As for the leak of some 250,000 State Department documents, a report by Reuters indicates that the damage caused was ?limited,? and was for the most part simply an embarrassment to the Obama administration.

Manning reacted as one would hope any honorable American would react when they witness their government acting in a manner that is corrupt, incompetent, inhumane, immoral and, it must be said, downright evil.

To his credit, Manning refused to remain silent. He spoke out, first to his superiors, who turned a deaf ear to his concerns, then to the New York Times and Washington Post. When he still could find no one willing to alert the American people to what their government was really doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, he turned to Wikileaks.

The rest, as they say, is history.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors
- Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Charges Dropped Against Man Claiming Officers Planted Drugs On Him

DECATUR, Ga. ? A man who claims a police officer planted drugs on him will have the charges dismissed one day before his case was set to go to trial.

But the DeKalb County Solicitor General's Office said the dismissal has nothing to do with a surveillance video Alphonzo Eleby said proves the officer set him up.

Eleby said his nightmare began in July 2012 at the Chevron gas station on North Hairston Road.

He said he stopped to speak to someone who was sitting in a black SUV when an officer said he smelled marijuana and arrested the driver on charges of marijuana possession with intent to distribute.

"I was searched twice," Eleby said. He said no drugs were found on him and he was told to sit down.

An officer stood guard over him for several minutes and Eleby said he never moved.

His attorney said surveillance video from the location shows the officer call the officer guarding Eleby over to the SUV he had been searching.

As she searches the vehicle, Zenobia Waters said the video shows the officer circle back to her client and toss marijuana next to him. She said the officer then picks the drugs up and repositions them.

"I was shocked," Waters said.

"And then he stands up and yells, 'Look what you tried to throw,'" Eleby said.

The video shows Eleby vehemently protesting what he sees the officer do and the officer then puts him in a chokehold while other officers look on.

Read More

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

this is a true representation of the majority of cops!the same type of shit will be coming to light about the san diego county sheriffs. currently in preperation and will be coming to light this year. Protect and Serve......One's own interests. Sue them for every goddamn dollar they have. Your life has been ruined because of this. You now have a drug record which inhibits your ability to travel and get a security clearance or work with children or have a gun. From now on whenever you are asked, "have you ever been arrested?" you will have to say yes, for drugs. It makes no difference if you were convicted or not. You have been fucked over for the rest of your life. Cops do this EVERY single day. Prosecutors AND judges are well aware of this nonsense. Welkom to Amerika.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The Obama Administration Prepares for War -- Against Us

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by Will Grigg

The Obama administration is openly escalating its campaign against private gun ownership -- but is it also preparing to make war on the American population? According to Canadian educator and human rights activist Jim Garrow, the answer to that shocking question is ?yes.?

In a phone interview, Garrow told me that he received an early morning phone call from a man he identified as a retired high-ranking military officer. That man was upset because a young prot?g? had resigned his commission to protest the Obama administration?s efforts to reconstruct the military. That disillusioned young officer reportedly said that the administration?s litmus test for officers was a willingness to accept orders from the chain of command that would involve firing on U.S. citizens who refuse to surrender their firearms.

Garrow, who has not revealed the name of his source, is regarded as a man of some accomplishment. Through the Bethune Institute, he has established hundreds of schools throughout China. Three years ago, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for rescuing baby girls who were targeted for infanticide because of the Chinese government?s one-child policy.? His warning shouldn?t be taken as gospel ? but it shouldn?t be dismissed as mere rumor, either.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Illinois Citizens Still Being Arrested For Filming Cops Despite Court Ruling Which Blocked Unconstitutional Law
- AZ Cop Investigated For Having Allegedly Used Stun Gun On Stepson Over 'Unsatisfactory Report Card'
- An Anger Management Class?
- Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho
- Cop Who Shot Puppy Runs Away Like a Little Girl After Owners Win In Court
- Yes, They Intend to Draft Your Daughter
- Police Pack Courtroom of Cop Facing Felony Charges for Shooting & Killing Restrained Dog
- Honesty is Not a Job Requirement for Police Officers

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by Timothy Geigner

As the tragic death of Aaron Swartz resides fresh in our memories, there has been a renewed interest by the public in the way prosecutors use the threat of more jail time as a carrot (edit: should have said "stick"; thanks comments section!) to secure plea bargains. The way the system is set up allows for an arena in which justice is no longer the objective. Instead, an injustice can be used in some kind of strange "ends justify the means" game that would make Lady Justice weep openly. With the odds firmly stacked against anyone that falls in the crosshairs of a federal prosecutor, this is a horrifyingly unjust method for achieving justice, and it appears to be a method favored for use against so-called hackers and hacktivists.

Now, lest you think that the Swartz case was an isolated event, or in case you thought perhaps there would be some sort of ripple effect as a result of it, you should note that prosecutors in the Barrett Brown case appear to be pursuing similar tactics. For those of you not familiar with Brown, he is the self-proclaimed spokesperson for Anonymous recently arrested for allegedly threatening an FBI agent.

Brown was arrested and taken into custody in September after allegedly threatening an FBI agent. In December 2012, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for trafficking ?stolen authentication features,? as well as "access device fraud" and ?aggravated identity theft.?

On Wednesday, Brown was hit with one count of ?concealment of evidence,? and one count of ?corrupting concealing evidence.?

And what did Brown do to "conceal evidence"? Apparently he "hid" his laptop with his mother's dishes. Apparently putting a laptop where the Feds don't obviously look is now "concealing evidence."

I won't sit here and compare Brown and Swartz in terms of character. Not because I know or don't know enough about either of them to do so, but rather because that would miss the point entirely. I'll leave it to others to erect the false justification of character assassination. Instead, I'd rather focus on how prosecutors appeared to think that the original charges, which could lead to 90 years of imprisonment for Brown, were apparently not enough and decided to lump this last charge on top of the others. Brown's former attorney, Jay Leiderman, appears to be similarly flabbergasted.

?I would not have seen a third indictment coming,? Leiderman told Ars. ?You would think the 90 years of prison exposure that they had on him was enough. Are we at a point in society where we think that 90 years is no longer enough??

Leiderman speculated that the new indictment was a legal pressure tactic against Brown.

As Ledierman goes on to say, at some point we departed the realm of prosecuting hacktivists and instead entered the realm of persecuting them. If there are crimes committed, let Brown or whoever else stand trial. If the law is behind the times, or written in a way that is ridiculous (as in the Swartz case), we can change the law. There's nothing wrong with the argument that that's a responsibility that falls on the public via whom we elect to government. All that said, for hacktivist crimes, or even those that Brown is accused of, to result in 90 years of jail time -- and for that to not be good enough for prosecutors -- is an absolute joke. Lumping on yet another, more minor, charge to pressure the accused is a downright travesty.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Oregon Bill Would Make Cigarettes Controlled Substances
- Here Are All The Children Murdered By Drone Strikes At The Hands Of Obama
- Obama Supporters Don't Know Obama
- People who don't support Obama should be shot [Video]
- Carmen Ortiz Refuses To Reflect; Insists Her Office Will Do Everything The Same As Before
- Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
- Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
- Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE"

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Seattle Cops Retaliate Against Man That Complained About Seattle Police

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Who Would Jesus Sue? Tim Tebow Threatens Bogus Lawsuit Against Maker of 'MY Jesus' T-Shirt

Chris | InformationLiberation

Intellectual property laws frequently make people do stupid things. Case in point, Tim Tebow apparently threatened a lawsuit against the seller of a "MY Jesus" T-shirt because they claim the site is using his likeness. That the site specifically says they've got nothing to do with Tim Tebow nor the NY Jetts is apparently of no consequence to his idiot lawyers, they're just hoping their threats and intimidation get the T-Shirt maker to submit to their will -- as Jesus would have.

Fortunately the T-shirt maker, CubbyTees, is not submitting to Tim Tebow and his lawyer's thuggery.

Via TMZ:

TMZ obtained the cease and desist letter Tebow's attorneys sent to cubbytees.com last month -- in which they claim "The Merchandise makes it appear as if Mr. Tebow actually endorses Cubby Tees and its products."

Interestingly, the tee shirts in question do not use Tebow's image or name -- but instead spell out "MY Jesus" using the colors and font of his new team ... the NY Jets. In fact, the website clearly states, "This fun design is not officially endorsed by New York's backup quarterback or the Son of God, but plays off the themes of Tebow's faith and his new team."

Still, Tebow's attorneys are demanding the site stop "any use of Mr. Tebow's name and/or likeness" -- and according to Cubby Tees, Tebow already successfully petitioned eBay to remove the tees.

The shirt makers tell TMZ they aren't backing down, and actually sent a response to team Tebow ... saying the design "shares nothing with Mr. Tebow except for promotion of a common Lord and Savior." The shirts are still for sale.

It's amazing how bad laws can turn otherwise seemingly friendly people into piranhas. I'm sure Mr. Tebow thinks he was somehow wronged by this T-shirt maker using his "likeness," in reality all that happened was someone printed a T-shirt promoting him at no cost to himself.

Nonetheless, thinking in line with the idiocy of IP laws, he thinks in order to "right" this "wrong," he must threaten to haul the person into court and use the state to shake the person down for everything they've got.

All these wrongheaded IP laws should be repealed, from likeness to slander to reputation rights, etc. They're all nonsense, and they're serving to turn even Jesus lovers like Mr. Tebow into devils.

Latest Commentary
- Even Worse Than Democracy
- A Century of Cosmetics: Is the End Near?
- The War on Drugs: Cui Bono?
- Sending Your Kids to Public School Is Child Abuse
- Five Pillars of Economic Freedom
- Seize Chuck Schumer's Ill-Gotten Assets & Banish Him From The Country
- Brazil and the Spirit of Liberty
- Heat and Light in the TSA Line

I have great respect for Mr. Tebow, but this lawsuit is just plain silly (and I have a feeling that it's his lawyers, not Tebow himself, who are behind this). This is clearly a Christian parody shirt, which is perfectly legal and the likes of which can be found in virtually any Christian bookstore. CORRECTION: What I meant to say in the first sentence was, "...but this threat of a lawsuit is just plain silly".

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

No One Should Be Forced to Act Against His Conscience

by Sheldon Richman

A question arises from the recent controversy between President Obama and the Catholic Church that aches for an answer: If Catholic institutions have a right to abstain from paying for what morally offends them, why don?t the rest of us?

The initial Obamacare rule held that all employers, in fulfilling their new legal requirement to provide health insurance to their employees, must include contraception (and other ?preventive? health services) in the coverage at no cost. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. The Department of Health and Human services was willing to exempt churches but not church-operated institutions that pursue a broader mission than religious teaching, such as colleges, hospitals, and charities. This brought protests from Catholic officials, who claim that their religious freedom would be infringed by a mandate that they buy services that they teach are morally abhorrent.

As the political controversy mounted, the Obama administration devised an ?accommodation?: those institutions would not have to pay for birth-control coverage; however, their insurers would still have to offer free contraception.

Many objections can be raised against this policy. In a society that thinks itself free, how dare the government force employers to provide health insurance? How dare it mandate that coverage include contraception ? or any particular service? How dare it mandate that any coverage be free? (It can?t really be free; the coverage necessarily reduces employees? cash wages.) How can contraception use be insurable when it is a chosen act, not the kind of low-probability, high-cost event that insurance was designed to protect against? Is there really a moral difference between forcing a Catholic institution to pay for employee contraception and forcing it to arrange a match between its employees and an insurer that will provide the contraception?

These questions are daggers at the heart of Obamacare. But let?s leave them aside. What has gone largely unnoticed is that the principle invoked by the Catholic Church and largely endorsed by the public ? that freedom of religion, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution?s First Amendment, rules out forcing a church to pay for what it regards as morally abhorrent ? applies beyond this instance. If a Catholic institution should not be forced to pay for contraception because it regards birth control as morally repugnant, why should anyone be forced to pay for what he or she finds morally repugnant?

It does no good to say that the First Amendment is about religion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not create rights; they acknowledged preexisting rights. Moreover, we are entitled to make reasonable inferences from the framers? language, because they could hardly have created an exhaustive list of implications. For example, by specifying the free exercise of religion, the framers can?t be construed as intending to exclude atheists from the protection of freedom of conscience.

Logic drives us to conclude that government should never compel anyone to act against his or her moral convictions. The good sense of this becomes clear when we get down to particulars. If a Catholic may not be forced to pay for birth control in violation of conscience, why should that Catholic ? or anyone else ? be compelled to finance mass murder in violation of conscience? No one can reasonably insist that personal convictions should be disregarded in the case of mass murder.

This is no hypothetical speculation. Americans have been forced, without their consultation ? much less permission ? to finance mass murder. It?s called war, invasion, occupation, and special operations. U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere have directly or indirectly killed over a million people who never threatened Americans at home. Those missions have ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands more through injury and the destruction of their homes and societies.

The president of the United States refuses to take war with Iran off ?the table? ostensibly because the Islamic republic won?t end its nuclear-enrichment program ? although the International Atomic Energy Agency says no weapons are being produced, and U.S. and Israeli officials say no decision to build a weapon has been made. War against Iran would constitute mass murder.

The U.S. government should be stopped from engaging in such brutality. But short of that, those with a conscientious objection should be free to opt out of financing these crimes.
_
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog Free Association at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.

Latest Commentary
- Democracy Is Destroying Your Wealth and Freedom
- The Global Land Grab
- Degenerates Rule America
- Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany?
- Don't Be a Domesticated Extremist
- To Love the Unknown
- Is it the Lawmakers or Law Enforcers who are to Blame?
- Why Facebook Works and Democracy Does Not

So, The Catholic Church is against health-care for everybody because it would 'force' them to pay to something that they find 'morally abhorrent' ?

We ARE talking about the same Catholic Church that has payed HUNDREDS of millions in 'compensation' to the victims of their Gay-paedophile-Priests, right ??

I'll say it again : Fundamentalist Libertarians are exactly as blind and dangerous as Fundamentalist Socialists, Commies, nazies, fascists,
Flat-Earthers and what not ..
Ideology is for people who can't cope with reality !

The ACLU and others who scream "Separation of church and state!" seem to be MIA on this. What hypocrites. They don't want the church involved in the government's business, but don't mind if the government gets involved in the church's business. Hey--to force ANYONE to purchase health insurance--and at whatever cost the genocidal insurance companies want to charge, for health care that is also genocidal (just ask Michael Jackson, Whitney et al) IS MORALLY ABHORRENT JUST LIKE UNPROVOKED WARS TO BENEFIT THE SAME LIZARD BANKSTERS--i say we need some et's to come down and SHRINK these bankster lizards and their minions down to the size of 3-4 inches and set them loose in the garden to keep the bug population down---that way, they can stalk, f---k, eat, and kill their prey and at the same time be doing a public service for all...HOW'S THAT FOR A SOLUTION??? peace out--

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Jeffrey Tucker makes the Case Against the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel

Jeffrey Tucker makes the Case Against the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel - informationliberationinformationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...Breaking NewsBrowse by CategoryAnalysisHighlightsMultimediaLatest CommentsArchivesRSS FeedSyndicationAboutContact
Multimedia
An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand EverythingThe Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility
The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes OffOperation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)Article posted Feb 16 2012, 11:44 PMCategory: EconomySource: YouTubePrint
Jeffrey Tucker makes the Case Against the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel


SHARE: Share Tweet Email This


Latest Economy
- Tom Woods Interviews Lew Rockwell
- Another Fed-Backed Solar Company Goes Bankrupt
- Obama: Not Raising Taxes Is a Form of Government Spending
- Fed Should Heed Lessons of 1920 Recession Response, Grant Says
- Keynesians Jump The Gun on Inflation
- Doug Casey Interviewed by Kerry Lutz
- Obama: Lets Debase Our Coinage Even Further to "Save Money"
- Obama Proposes Doubling Dividend Tax on Wealthy









No Comments PostedAdd Comment

Add CommentNameComment

* No HTML


Verification *Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below 

PLEASE NOTEPlease see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston ChurchillSearch

Advanced SearchLogin Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register
Most Popular TSA Forces Woman To Use Naked Body Scanner Three Times Because of "Cute" Figure - 02/14Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing - 02/16Caught On Tape: Cop Sucker Punches Suspect In Back Of Head, Then Charges Him With "Assaulting A Police Officer" - 02/15Caught On Tape: Officer Threatens to Make Up Evidence After Arrest of Innocent Men - 02/14Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany? - 02/13According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be Suspicious Activity - 02/06David Stanley, RIP - 02/03911 IS A JOKE: Detroit citizens no longer rely on police as self-defense killings skyrocket - 02/07
HighlightsThe Missing Lesson From Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform"They're Only Out To Make Cold Hard American Cash"; Park Police Crack Down on Bicycle Cabs in DC18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. PrisonsEighth Grader Executed for Scaring a CopFeds Drop All Charges Against 27 Head-Shop Owners They Falsely Accused of Being Terrorist Drug DealersStraight-A College Student Faces 125 Years In Jail For Producing Fake IDsTexas Cops Ticket Thousands of Schoolchildren to Raise Revenue, Some as Young as 6-Yrs-OldHouston Police Chief: Videotaping or Criticizing Police May be Sign You're a Cop-Killer(more)
 Top

View the original article here

Justice Department Backs RIAA Against Pirating Student

by Ernesto

The Department of Justice has filed a brief siding with the RIAA in its civil case against the file-sharing student Joel Tenenbaum.The RIAA is protesting a demand from the student?s legal team, who want the court to reduce the massive $675,000 fine on due process grounds, to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song.

More than half a decade ago, the RIAA sued tens of thousands of alleged file-sharers. While the music group settled with the majority for a few thousand dollars each, student Joel Tenenbaum chose to put up a fight.

As of today, the case is still ongoing.

In 2009, a jury found Tenenbaum guilty of ?willful infringement? and awarded damages mounting to $675,000. A year later this amount was reduced by 90% when Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the penalty was excessive and unconstitutional. In 2011 this decision that was reversed after a new hearing at the Court of Appeals.

In yet another appeal, Tenenbaum?s legal team, headed by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, is asking the court to reduce the $22,500 fine per song to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song. This request is made on due process grounds.

As expected, the RIAA doesn?t agree with the request and presented its arguments to the court last Friday. But they were not alone ? on the same day the Department of Justice also filed a brief with the court, backing the RIAA?s vision on the case.

In a 26-page filing the Department of Justice makes the argument that previous cases, as cited by Tenenbaum?s legal team, do not apply in this instance. It concludes that the due process grounds are not relevant yet and that the damages therefore shouldn?t be reduced before the case continues.

The due process question should only be answered when the court decides that the jury?s award of $22,500 per song is not excessive, according to the Departement of Justice.

?The only circumstance in which the Court can reach Defendant?s due process challenge at this time is if the Court first determines the jury?s statutory damages award is not excessive under the common law remittitur standard. The United States, therefore, does not believe it is necessary at this juncture to address the merits of Defendant?s constitutional claim,? the DoJ writes.

Although this is not the first time the Justice Department has become involved in an RIAA civil case, it remains unclear why they chose to intervene this time. What we do know is that the authorities are very up-to-date with the legal proceedings, as five former RIAA lawyers are now employed by the Department of Justice.

Whether these connections between the Justice Department and the RIAA have increased the likelihood of the authorities getting involved is hard to say. However, it is clear that Tenenbaum and his legal team are up against some serious resistance, and that the US authorities don?t want the student to get off that easily..

To be continued, indefinitely.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Skype Chats Between Megaupload Employees Recorded with a Governmental Trojan?
- Feds Seize Sports Streaming Domains in New Super Bowl Crackdown
- FDA's New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug--and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!"
- Ireland: Website accused of defamation is closed by judge
- Estonia Next In Line To Receive US 'Encouragement' To Adopt Harsher Anti-Piracy Laws
- Pirate Bay Verdict Signals Threat Of Huge New Anti-Piracy Campaign
- DEA investigates Montana state legislator for medical marijuana views
- Pirate Bay Founders? Prison Sentences Final, Supreme Court Appeal Rejected

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Ventura's Venture Against the TSA

by Becky Akers

He called it the "The Fascist States of America" and thrilled patriots everywhere when he promised, "I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist" after "a U.S. District Judge dismissed [his] lawsuit against full-body scanners at airports" on a technicality.

In that suit, "Governor Jesse Ventura, a/k/a James G. Janos ? [sought] a declaration that the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security, the TSA?s ?ber-bureaucracy] have violated Ventura?s Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to airport security searches."

Mr. Ventura added, "It?s really sad ? [The judge] claimed her court didn?t have jurisdiction. But this is a constitutional question?"

Actually, it isn?t ? at least to Our Rulers. And not just because they?re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that our hero might want to investigate it for his series, Conspiracy Theory, on TruTV.

The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it about a century ago with administrative law.

You?re undoubtedly more familiar with "administrative law" by its acronyms: IRS, BATF, DHS, DEA, SEC, FDA, FCC, FAA, TSA?in other words, bureaucrats. And yes, with their allergy to common sense, their ineptitude, and their unfathomable Jargon, bureaucrats are utterly worthless except as punch-lines. But they?re also responsible for most of the despotism smothering us, with scads of legal triumphs and precedents fortifying their dictatorship.

Bureaucracies have cursed Americans since the nation?s birth; one even enjoys Constitutional imprimatur. The Post Office had barely delivered its first mail when Congress spawned another agency, US Customs ? grossly ironic, given that tariffs and mercantilism had sparked the recent Revolution.

But few other bureaucracies plagued the country until the despicable and thoroughly (dis)"Honest Abe" destroyed the railroads.

When Lincoln rewarded his cronies in that burgeoning industry with immense tracts of land and equally immense subsidies for a transcontinental line, they stopped pleasing customers in favor of toadying to politicians. Within a few years, rates for shipping wheat were so high and abuse of passengers so egregious that the outcry afforded government an excuse to meddle even more. In 1887, it hatched the Interstate Commerce Commission ? the first "modern" bureaucracy ? and "delegated" to it power it didn?t have.

I?d like to suppose the skies darkened and lamps across the country flickered at this corruption and outrage. Nowhere does the Constitution grant Congress any authority whatever over transportation in general or railroads ? and airlines ? in particular. And it certainly never allows Congress to delegate its legislative power: in fact, Article 1, Section 8 insists that only Congress shall "make all Laws?necessary and proper for carrying into Execution?all other Powers vested by this Constitution?in any Department?"

But the Progressives then rising to cultural power and political office adored Leviathan. They portrayed the beast as mankind?s nurturer and benefactor rather than the dire predator the Founding Fathers had feared. And they despised the Constitution leashing that beast as much as the "ordinary" Americans whose freedom it protected revered it. So rather than openly repealing the thing, Congressional Progressives worked around it by delegating more power they didn?t have to more agencies.

The Constitution purposely divides government?s three functions ? making laws, enforcing them, and judging those who break them ? while seriously hampering the first. Legislating is slow and cumbersome precisely so that an exhaustive and exhausting legal system can?t enslave us. And the division of power helps restrain the Feds.

The Progressives deliberately overturned that. They sought to "streamline" government and make it more "efficient" by combining those separated functions in the most inefficient of all Rube Goldberg machines, the bureaucracy. And so "administrative law contains all the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern [bureaucracies]. It is the body of law created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions," says West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Astounding, isn?t it? Agencies write the laws that empower them to write laws. They set the rules of the game they play against us, enforce those rules, and judge us when we violate them in "administrative hearings." Meanwhile, a single agency in a day can churn out more laws ? euphemized as "regulations" ? than Congress can all year.

Nor does that end the evil. Progressive courts have created a fallacious, profoundly anti-constitutional dichotomy to support the bureaucratic regime: they pretend that actions agencies pursue are administrative rather than criminal. Therefore, they allege that Constitutional prohibitions of such horrors as warrantless searches don?t apply since the document protects us from overweening police power, not overweening government in general.

Agencies, you see, are benevolent. The FDA secures us against filthy food and dangerous drugs; it?s not trying to imprison anyone, goodness, no! Likewise, the TSA guarantees our safety on planes ? and on trains, busses, ferries, and Tennessee?s highways. It lacks punitive intentions; it?s our friend.

Ergo, we can trust bureaucrats and allow them wide discretion ? though virtually anything they do, even pedophilia, is kosher so long as they claim it helps them fulfill their mandate from Congress. These presuppositions make the Bill of Rights completely irrelevant because it guards us from punitive government, whereas agencies are trying to protect, not punish, us.

The fact that bureaucrats ruin lives, that people languish in prison thanks to "administrative" searches, is as irrelevant as our rights. Congress arrogated to itself the unconstitutional power of delegation while pronouncing bureaucracies beneficial, and clowns in gowns winked, so we overlook the inconvenient reality of political prisoners.

These legal theories permeate and poison American government and jurisprudence. And though our grandparents muttered mutinously as the bureaucratic hold on them tightened in the 1920?s and ?30?s, there is no longer any juridical debate: Our Rulers long ago settled it to their satisfaction with the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 (which supposedly curtailed agencies? control over us while actually increasing it) and other sops to the serfs. Continuing to call for Constitutional rights under the bureaucratic regime is like expecting Sabbath services in Bergen-Belsen.

Mr. Ventura viscerally grasps this, as do most of us, even if we can?t explain the "legal" maneuvers behind it; he mourned, "My case clearly shows that the Bill of Rights doesn?t exist anymore. There?s nowhere to go to remedy grievances. It?s phony, a fraud. ? I could have gotten equal justice in Cuba." Indeed. Progressives aren?t the only authoritarians to recognize bureaucracies as the handiest tool for tyrannizing citizens. Communists, socialists, democrats, and fascists do, too.

What would have happened had the court heard Mr. Ventura?s case? The same thing that has happened in other, similar ones: it would have ruled in the TSA?s favor, implicitly relying on Congress? delegation of power it never had ? power that is virtually limitless under the administrative regime. The TSA can do as it pleases, providing it asserts such criminality helps it carry out Congress? mandate to "protect" transportation ? and its perverts take care to constantly prattle just that preposterous justification.

So long as we sue the TSA ? or any bureaucracy ? for violating our Constitutional freedoms, courts will rule against us and smirk while they do. The remedy for administrative law?s totalitarianism lies in abolishing bureaucracies, not pleading with Our Rulers to defend us from them, pretty please.
__
Becky Akers [send her mail] writes primarily about the American Revolution.

Copyright ? 2011 by LewRockwell.com

View the original article here