National-Security State Toadies are Guilty of Hypocrisy on Snowden

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most amusing aspects of the NSA scandal has been watching national-security state toadies berate Edward Snowden, the man who blew the whistle on the NSA's longtime secret surveillance system, for being a "coward."

Their rationale?

They say that Snowden should have stayed here in the United States instead of fleeing to Hong Kong. They say that if he were a genuine hero, as his supporters say he is, he would have remained in the United States, where the national-security state would have incarcerated him, tortured him, and executed him.

Oh?

Well, pray tell, national-security state toadies: Where were you all when those CIA agents skedaddled out of Italy after committing felonious offenses in that country?

Well, I don't know where you all were but I can tell you what you were doing. You toadies were keeping your lips sealed. Unlike what you're saying about Snowden, you all have never issued a peep of protest about the refusal of those CIA agents to face the music in Italy, stand before the accusers, and defend themselves against the charges.

Let's review that case. CIA agents go into Italy and ensconce themselves in luxurious hotels at U.S. taxpayer expense. Then they proceed to kidnap a man on the streets of Milan and forcibly transport him out of the country. They ?take him to Egypt--yes, the same Egypt that was then headed by military strongman and brutal pro-U.S. dictator Hosni Mubarak. Why Egypt? Because Egypt's military dictatorship was great at torturing people. And the U.S. national-security state wanted the man to be tortured.

What's the problem with kidnapping and torture? Well, only that they're criminal offenses under Italian law, which is precisely why those CIA agents got criminally indicted and later convicted and sentenced to serve time by an Italian court.

By the time charges were brought, however, the CIA agents had fled the country, determined never to return to Italy to face justice.

Why not?

Equally important, why didn't the national-security state toadies who are now calling Edward Snowden a coward say the same thing about those CIA felons?

After all, couldn't those CIA agents have returned to Italy and proudly puffed out their heroic chests and proclaimed,

We are here in Italy to defend ourselves. We are proud members of the U.S. national-security state, the most powerful branch of the U.S. government. In our country, national-security state agents are immune from prosecution for murder, assassination, torture, kidnapping, perjury, or any other felony so long as we are operating to protect "national security." And we, not you or anyone else, decides what that term means. Therefore, you have to dismiss the charges against us or find us innocent because when we kidnapped, renditioned, and tortured that guy, we were doing so to protect "national security."

Alas, they didn't do that. They rushed back to the United States, never to return to Italy.

And the national-security state toadies don't dare say a word.

Moreover, let's not forget the unnamed CIA agents who participated in the execution of the young American journalist Charles Horman during the Pinochet military coup in Chile, which the U.S. national-security state helped to bring about. Those CIA killers of an innocent American citizen certainly have never returned to Chile to face justice. Long ago, they decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

What do the national-security state toadies say about those murderers? Nothing. Nothing at all. While they're screaming like banshees about how Snowden is a coward for refusing to voluntarily return to America to be brutalized, tortured, incarcerated, and executed, their lips are sealed with respect to the CIA agents who murdered American citizen Charles Horman in Chile.

On a related note, what about the Chilean criminal indictment of former national-security state official Navy Capt. Ray E. Davis for purportedly participating in Horman's murder.

Did Davis, who was indicted in 2011, rush back to Chile to face justice? Of course not.

Have the national-security state toadies criticized Davis for "cowardice." Of course not. Their lips have remained sealed about the matter.

What about CIA operative Jose Posada Carriles, who was indicted by the Venezuelan government for the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner, a terrorist act that killed everyone on board, including the young members of Cuba's fencing team? We don't see him rushing back to Venezuela to face his accusers. Instead, this accused terrorist chooses to remain right here in the United States, where the national-security state continues to harbor and protect him, notwithstanding the existence of an extradition agreement between the United States and Venezuela.

And what about the national-security state toadies regarding Posada Carriles? You guessed it! Sealed lips and silence.

So, why the difference? Why do national-security state toadies call Snowden a coward while maintaining strict silence, or even support, for the national-security state agents who steadfastly refuse to face justice in Italy, Chile, and Venezuela?

The difference lies in the mindset that the toadies have toward the national-security state itself. The national-security state is their everything. It's their god. It's their idol. It's their daddy. It's their Big Brother. So, whatever happens to be the position of the national-security state, that's what the position of the national-security state toadies will be. Since the national-security state wants Snowden to return to the United States to be jailed, tortured, and executed, that's what the national-security state toadies want. Since the national-security state wants to harbor and protect its kidnappers, torturers, and murderers from crimes they've purportedly committed, that too is the position of the toadies.
_
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

(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
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The State Doesn't Define What is True or Right
- The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- Freedom versus The National-Security State
- The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America

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

Hypocrisy Central

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the things about liberals that really fascinates me is their hypocrisy, especially when it comes to one of their favorite attacks on libertarians for opposing the welfare state. Whenever libertarians call for the abolition of the moral and economic abomination known as the welfare state, liberals have their standard knee-jerk attack: ?You hate the poor! Libertarians hate the poor!?

The implication, of course, is that liberals love the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals love power and money as much as conservatives do. Their ?love the poor? bromide is nothing more than a convenient way to justify their ardent support of the money and power that accompanies the welfare state way of life.

How do we know that this ?love the poor? bromide is nothing but a sham?

That?s easy. Just look at how liberals treat illegal immigrants, who are among the poorest people in the world. They treat them as badly as conservatives do, perhaps even worse. In fact, President Obama has more deportations than his predecessor, President Bush. And he?s proud of it! His recent exception for American children born of illegal immigrants is obviously nothing more than a well-timed campaign gimmick to garner Hispanic votes.

Here?s a good example of how much liberals love the poor. The Los Angeles Times reports that a woman named Encarnacion Bail Romero and 135 other illegal immigrants were arrested in 2007 at a Missouri poultry processing plant. She had used a fake Social Security number to get the job and so the Obama feds charged her with federal ?aggravated identity theft.? She got sentenced to two years in prison and was sent 1000 miles away to serve her time.

Now, let?s reflect on what?s really happening here. This woman is doing nothing more than trying to sustain and improve her life through labor. At the fundamental level, that?s her ?crime.? She crossed the international border to seek employment with someone who wished to employ her. She found a job and an American employer hired her. It was a consensual transaction. Both sides benefited. She obviously worked hard, as most immigrants do, because she stayed employed.

But under federal law, she was required to produce a Social Security number, so she used a ?stolen? number. But who got harmed here and who benefited by the use of that unauthorized Social Security number? Her employer extracted a certain percentage of her salary and sent it to the Social Security Administration. But her Social Security account was credited with the money. It was someone else?s account that got credited. She didn?t benefit at all. Several decades from now when she?s ready to retire, she won?t be able to claim that Social Security ?benefit.?

Okay, so she used a ?stolen? Social Security number to get the job. But isn?t it the government that steals her money? Yet, she?s the one who goes to prison!

Two years in prison for that? Two years in jail for coming to the United States to work through a consensual labor relationship with an American employer who liked her work.

Oh, but that?s not the end of it. Guess what the love-the-poor liberals are now doing to Encarnacion Bail Romero. They?re taking away her son. Missouri state officials, under Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, have instituted legal proceedings to terminate her parental rights over her son and give the child to an American couple.

Their ground for termination? They say that she abandoned her child when she went to prison.

Don?t you just love it? Have you ever seen such rank hypocrisy? They claim to love the poor and then they punish a poor woman who is just doing her best to sustain her life and the life of her child with labor. They send her to jail and then use the incarceration to take her child away from her.

Of course, conservatives aren?t any winners in this area either, but then again at least they don?t purport to love the poor, as liberals do. Conservative immigration hypocrisy arises when conservatives say they love ?free enterprise, private property, and limited government? and then enthusiastically support the mistreatment and abuse of foreigners who are just coming here to work for American employers who like hiring them.

There is only one political philosophy that is consistent with moral and religious values. That philosophy is libertarianism. It is only libertarians who embrace open immigration, a way of life that truly helps the poor through the defense of such fundamental, inherent, God-given rights as freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of association, freedom of contract, and freedom of commerce.
_
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

(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
- The "We're at War with the Muslims" Crowd
- Should Police & Military Be Blamed For Their Criminal Actions, Or Is It The Fault Of Their Leaders?
- William Grigg Interviewed by Alex Jones
- Is America the World's Largest Sponsor of Terrorism?
- Resisting America's Torture State
- The Overcriminalization of America: Are We All Criminals Now?
- Peace. Love. And Anarchy.
- Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, wisely noted, "Anyone who believes there are 2 parties in Washington DC is a fool."

Anyone who continues to write about the 'libruls/conservatives is also a fool. It's all a scripted play with everyone reciting their lines. Neither side of the face gives a dam about America or Americans. It's all one big organized crime syndicate.

So which side of the head are your going to vote for this time?

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

British Ambassador Tells of UK Media’s Hypocrisy

Press TV

A former British ambassador has shed light on the British media’s hypocrisy in covering the anti-regime protests in Bahrain as recent reports tell of Britain’s role in suppressing Bahraini protesters.

Craig Murray, a human rights activist and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has lashed out at the state-funded BBC for its coverage of the Bahraini regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters. “The Shiite majority does suffer discrimination, but the rest of the population is getting fed up with the continual disruption and demonstrations,” Murray quoted the BBC’s Frank Gardner as saying while he described the Bahraini regime forces’ crackdown on protesters.

Murray also made a comparison between the British media’s coverage of Bahraini people’s revolution and the way the western media covered the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. The two descriptions contained identical words while the words “black majority” were used instead of “Shiite majority” in the report quoted by Murray which described the way western media covered the anti-apartheid movement.

This comes as recent reports have shed more light on the role Britain plays in the brutal crackdown on the Bahraini people. As the Bahraini people took to the streets to mark the anniversary of the dawn of their revolution, Bahraini regime’s forces employed weapons and tactics which were imported from the UK.

Britain’s former Metropolitan police assistant commissioner John Yates, who was forced to resign following the phone-hacking scandal, popped up in Bahrain to help the regime oversee “police reforms.”

However, the reforms seem to be the use of tear gas and stun grenades and the introduction of “kettling” tactics to the Bahraini regime’s security forces. Bahrain’s “police reforms” overseen by Britain is not restricted to tactics. Official figures revealed that the British government sold over £1m worth of rifles and military equipment to the Bahraini regime from July to September last year.

View the original article here