Thoughts on the Gitmo hunger strike

How would you like to be imprisoned even though you had done nothing wrong? What if your imprisonment included torture? How would that make you feel, if you survived?

A hunger strike seems like a natural response for someone in that situation.

I believe there must be a special place in Hell for the apologists for torture — from screenwriters who like to suck up to authority by portraying torture as an unpleasant necessity in poorly written television melodramas, to the typical bigot on the street ready to go all “Rah! Rah!” as if he was at a high school footbal game at the prospect of someone, somewhere (even if not him) getting to hurt and humiliate people with different colored skin or different religious beliefs.

Over and over again, we always hear about the hypothetical “if there was a bomb and you had this terrorist in custody…”.

That’s not the way it works in real life. Most of the prisoners in Guantanamo are innocent, perhaps as many as eighty percent, according to one prisoner who managed to get released. Some may challenge that figure, but I say that number is generous to the government. Technically, since none of the Guantanamo prisoners have been proven guilty or even could be proven guilty (else they would have by now), they’re all innocent in that sense at the very least.

But let’s go with the eighty percent figure, rather than one hundred percent…

  • You don’t have one figure that you know to be a bad guy.
  • You don’t know that there’s a bomb somewhere.
  • You have more than just 24 hours.

No. The truth is far different.

You have many people and at least 80 out of every 100 are innocent. Are you then willing to imprison all of them without trial indefinitely and torture them?

That’s what’s really going on. Innocent people are being tortured — and it’s not saving American lives but taking them, perhaps for years to come, as such injustice fuels the very miltancy the lying vermin in DC and Hollywood claim this is to protect us from.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the American people had an opportunity to confront the cause of the events of that dark day — US government intervention abroad. That opportunity was wasted. It was thrown away. It was pissed on and thrown out with the garbage, just like so many people’s lives would be.

Rather than honestly confront what the US government had done to bring this upon us, the American people in aggregate chose to murder women and children, to imprison the innocent and to torture the undeserving.

Imagine the despair of someone kidnapped and taken to a foreign land without trial after doing no wrong. Imagine suffering painful mistreatment, poor conditions and the uncertainty of what your fate will be. Imagine after two years of this, you went on a hunger strike, even though it meant possibly dying.

Now imagine they held you down to painfully shove a plastic tube up through your nose and down your throat to force food into your stomach. You will not even be allowed to die.

This is not American patriotism. This is not national security. This is an unholy abomination.

FBI harassment of anarchist stripper

Tabby Chase - anarchist stripper harassed by FBIOne Tabby Chase of Atlanta is a stripper (yes, an exotic dancer — and a lovely one, I might add), an IWW member and describes herself as a “flaky anarchist” who doesn’t actually do much beyond having attended a handful of protests. One other thing — she’s also been targeted for questioning by the FBI as a potential “domestic terrorist”.

“Tabby Chase works nights as a dancer at the Clermont Lounge, so she was asleep the morning of Thurs., March 17, when she says FBI Special Agent Dante Jones called her.

Chase says she didn’t know what the FBI wanted. When she awoke, it was late afternoon, and she had five messages from three numbers. She says each was from Jones, telling her the FBI needed to ask some questions.”

This part seems particularly Orwellian:

“During the interrogation, they kept asking me my political affiliation,” Chase says. “And one of them would interject every so often, ‘This is the United States of America, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. We just need to know what that is.’”

Dang, guys. Is this what you really wanted to do when you grew up? Is the Bureau going to have you frog-marching girl scouts next?

Hat tip to: Infoshop

Blogroll additions

Please check out two great liberty blogs — titanium thoughts and black guile.

None dare call it fragging

Some ask if America is becoming a police state. Regular readers of this blog will already have a pretty good idea of what my opinion is, but it occurs to me that perhaps the most important thing to stress is that this mostly isn’t a well-demarcated, “either-or” sort of thing. At any one point in time, it could be said that such things are all a subjective matter of shades of gray. Eventually, though, it’ll be to awkward to point out that it’s become pitch black.

As Garet Garrett wrote:

“There was no painted sign to say: ‘You now are entering Imperium.’ Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: ‘Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.’ And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: ‘No U-turns.’”

[Read more →]

Russian Blog: How to drink vodka and stay sober

Interesting…

Russian Blog: How to drink vodka and stay sober

Russians are renowned for drinking a lot of vodka staying sober. That’s not something to do with biological inheritance but with the way we drink.

Russians believe that foreigners don’t know how to drink. They don’t eat while drinking. They mix cocktails. They sip vodka instead of taking shots. They drink vodka with highly carbonated sodas. In short, they do everything to get drunk from the minimum amount of alcohol…

Russians, on the other hand, do everything to stay sober while drinking as much alcohol as possible. How do we do it? We try to neutralize alcohol as long as possible. I try to outline the basic principles of vodka drinking for uninitiated.

Would the plural form of Vox be Voxen?

Just for the record, I’ve currently got no major axe to grind with Vox Day in particular. I also want to apologize if my last post gave that impression — as I did link to a post by Unrepentant Jezebel from Christsploitation in which, as part of making her larger point about fake-libertarian Bush supporters, she attacked Vox by implying he was an example of same.

“It is a standard political device for fundamentalist Christians to cloak their true theocratic political agendas using the label of “libertarian.” Vox Popoli comes to mind here.”

I ignored that part in my post because the general thrust of what she was saying was in line with my overall thoughts on what I wanted to talk about — the matter of fake-libertarians who support Bush. In truth, I did feel a little disappointed in Vox because I just don’t happen to read his stuff as much as I used to and supposed I must have missed the news about him coming out for Bush. He’s apparently trying to set us straight, though, with this remark:

“I’ll admit to generally preferring Republicans to Democrats, but that’s like choosing between Helen Thomas and the rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt. I’d no sooner vote for a member of the bi-factional ruling party than I’d take [either] Helen or Eleanor out on a date.”

Some good might come of this, though, as it seems to have provoked much discussion by Christian libertarians about how their faith and their politics relate, such as in the comments on Vox’s post and this post by MikeT on Blind Minds Eye.

Although I’m not a Christian, I do respect Christian libertarians to the degree they are authentically libertarian — a point I hope I conveyed adequately in “The Biblical Case for Anarchy“.

I still think UJ’s post was good overall, but it was regretable that she maligned Vox by implying he’s a Republican. The guy may deserve criticism from time to time, but not inaccurate criticism.

The larger lesson to be learned here is that sweeping generalizations often leave out fine-grained detail. The Vox in your head may or may not be an accurate model of the Vox that exists in the real world. That’s not a criticism of UJ, but rather a sorrowful acknowledgement that the Orwellian nature of the current state of political affairs has a lot of us on edge.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to reading Lenin’s “The State and Revolution“.

More on the topic of GOP libertarians

The most vigorous critics of the long standing subservience of some libertarians to the GOP continues to be — other libertarians. In response to David Friedman’s urging of a new libertarian & Democratic Party coalition, Unrepentant Jezebel of Christsploitation.com writes:

“…I’m not going to allow religious right GOP “libertarians” to overrun a perfectly tenable political philosophy (libertarianism / classical liberalism) in front of me and get away with it.”

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I favor a revolutionary rather than a reformist approach. That doesn’t prevent me from observing that some reformists are more or less hypocritical than others. In fact, it puts me in an excellent position to observe exactly that.

If you think you’re a libertarian, but you support a political party whose head wages aggressive wars of conquest on false pretenses, shamelessly attempts to makes excuses for torture, asserts the President is above the law and, unbelievable as it may be, makes Bill Clinton look relatively fiscally conservative by comparison (the horror…) — then you’re not just wrong, you’re so majestically and completely divorced from reality that one has to marvel in awestruck wonder about exactly how you managed to wedge your cranium so far up your colon.

Bush to take Chewbacca Defense at impeachment trial

There was a great deal of nervous anticipation accompanying the announcement of the President’s selection of Johnny Coch to defend him at the impeachment trial. Would Johnny use his famed Chewbacca Defense?

“Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed Congress, George W. Bush’s accusers would certainly want you to believe my client was willfully violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in secret since 2002, and openly and flagrantly after he admitted to repeatedly ordering mass wiretapping of American citizens without warrants as required by law — and they make a good case. Hell, I almost want to impeach his sorry ass myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed Congress, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk and who works at the NSA as a shift supervisor. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks and commute to Earth to work for a secretive government agency? That does not make sense.

But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending the supposed President of the United States and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember when you’re in those Congressional chambers deliberating and conjugating the Bill of Rights and evaluating Constitutional principles of checks and balances, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.

I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man’s political ass is on the line? Why? I’ll tell you why. I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.

The defense rests.”

Note: I gratefully acknowledge wonderful inspiration from the creators of Southpark.

Mass transit monopolies

In a comment on my post about the NYC transit strike, Angelica of the Battlepanda blog asked about monopoly problems as a response to my pointing out that the massive disruption of urban life accompanying the strike was due to the MTA being a government monopoly.

The first and foremost argument against any sort of government monopoly, and in this case mass transit, is the moral one. I’d like to quote Rad Geek on that:

“It’s wrong to have people shot for helping folks get to work. Even if they don’t have a permission slip.”

You don’t get much pithier than that. Although the above might initially seem like a melodramatic way to put it, the honest truth is that all government fiat is backed up by force (i.e. people in blue clothing with shiny badges and guns who will try to kidnap you, and hurt you or kill you if you resist).

I realize that Angelica probably intended to discuss the matter on a strictly utilitarian basis. My view is that morality always trumps utility, but I’ve noticed that when an immoral option at first appears to be the more practical option, one is probably overlooking something. Let’s tackle Angelica’s concerns…
[Read more →]

Please give me a hand on this one

In a comment on my post about the NYC transit strike, Battlepanda asked about monopoly problems as a response to my pointing out that the massive disruption of urban life accompanying the strike was due to the MTA being a government monopoly.

I truthfully told her it would take a long post and then failed to provide one these past few days. I’ve been, as Tom Knapp would put it, “busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest”.

So how about it? Anyone want to post a condensed but thorough and principled argument against public monopolies in transportation services? There’s a wealth of scholarly material available on such matters, but it does take some work to boil it all down to the essential arguments, suitable for a blog post.

Close
E-mail It
Socialized through Gregarious 42