On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

Why are Americans Joining Islamic Groups?

I was asked today by a coworker if an attack could be made by the group ISIS on American soil.
Of course it theoretically can happen. As traction is gaining with ISIS and it seems a "No War" situation is growing ever smaller, American Citizens are joining the ranks of this group. The Department of Justice has apprehended a few hopeful "wannabes" as they either tried to leave or have returned from places like Syria and Iraq. Recently one was even killed fighting with an ISIS linked group. We have seen in recent weeks tweets and news stories of people claiming to be ISIS members showing a flag and note at the gates of the White House and another leading police on a car chase with a ISIS flag displayed out their car window. These could be legitimate members of this group or another, and it could just be people claiming to be but not actual members of  these groups wishing to cause a stir and strike fear in the minds of the citizens.

This leads us to the title point "why would these people join the ranks of a group notably violent towards religions and peoples of certain geographical locations? Why would they give their lives for a cause of violence in the name of some distorted religious view?

It may be those that have found their own view of Islam in whatever fashion they accept it or it could be in some odd way a chance to gain notoriety in themselves. I do not presume to know what drives people to the choices they make. But it is an interesting question to be sure.

In talking with this co-worker he had also asked if any event took place do I think it would be a large scale attack or small. I have to say that for myself I do not really worry too much of the scale of what may or may not happen. It may be small on the scale of a suitcase explosive or it could be on par with a 9/11/01 attack, I think it is a non issue at the size or scale of whatever happens. I don't think it would take much at this point to excite Americans into a religious genocide against every self-described follower of Islam. With the amount of fear conditioning and propaganda being broadcast it wouldn't take much to start a war on all of Islam, in my opinion, although I surely hope I am wrong.

Do No Harm... Even against Police.

I have been seeing stories lately dealing with persons or groups of people targeting police officers for physical altercations. I am against this as a trend and I wanted to take a moment to explain why. No I do not have a soft spot for the police. No I do not secretly work for a Law Enforcment agency. It is on principle of the axiom of Do No Harm. In essence the Non-Aggression Principle in action. If it is not in self defense or the defense of another it is violence, unjust, uncalled for and equally wrong in comparison to the actions in which police officers often use.

For those stories I have seen or heard lately some have been in response to prior events not dealing with the person or group that is making the attack on the officer(s).
One such case is a story of a woman who was tased by an officer while handcuffed. Other officers looked on and allowed this person to be tased repeatedly by a fellow officer. Weeks after the story was made public a small group of men took it upon themselves to find and physically harm the officer, causing minor injuries. This is against all logical retorts to self preservation or self-defense. This group went out of their way, after the primary event had subsided, to find this officer. To track him down, follow and stalk him until they could attack. This is a lowdown and dirty tactic by thugs and one usually associated with the police themselves. It is not an act that should be taken by those who wish to turn a course on the treatment of individuals by police officers.

The use of force on a person not in the preservation or defense of oneself or another in proximity is unexcusably unjustified and shameful. It leads to no other response from law enforcement officers but to retaliate on another helpless victim, continuing a cycle of violence and breeding a war of sorts between the public and the police.

It has been broadcast on social media sites, websites, personal blogs and Youtube videos, those that endorse this type of behavior, those that willingly admit to beliving this to be a admirable result and glorifying the culprits of the attacks. Some will say that even not in the protection of life or limb while in the presence of an officer one should have the right tot use this force based on the prior experiences and history of police brutality. Wholeheartedly I disagree, this is an unprovoked violation of a principled stance to not cause physical harm to others.

In a world gone mad we have police beating people and people beating police, continuing a cycle that will lead to a head and can usher in a higher police state presence and the ultimate loss of freedoms for even those not involved. Fight the State, not through their Modis Operandi, but through peaceful means. Spread ideas, not violence. Live as an example to a better world, live as an example what what it means to value liberty even in the darkest holes of state control and operation. This is not a plea for passification, it is not a plea to not defend yourself or other from abuse by state thugs. It is the spreading of the idea that even force can be met with non-violence and still win. If your only recourse is to cause violence than your ideas are narrow and your mind is closed.

Live by a standard. Live for something.

Do No Harm
Live the Non-Agression Principle

Do we accept murder?

Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

On any given day people are killed in mass numbers all around the world, in some of these cases the public cries out for justice and some they sit silent, justifying it in their minds as necessary or needed in order to prevent social disorder. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) an average of 2.3 million people die in the United States alone. That equates to less than 1% of the national population. And though the center keeps statistics for various ways in which Americans die, that list does not include some very serious situations. Examples would be those Americans that die at the hands of Police, They do not reflect military deaths abroad, and they do not take into account the homeless population that die as a result of starvation or exposure.

Murder is a strong word, it is meant to differentiate to some degree the intent of the act or the circumstance of the deceased person’s condition.   But can we really differentiate the act of taking someone’s life? Can we make it all comfortable and warm by relabeling it something else? Can we pretend it doesn’t have the same affect when we call it something else? I think this is a point a lot of people miss. The result of taking another’s life is the same if we call it a “Brutal Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide”. It is still the same if committed by a man or a woman, a person of certain heritage or skin color, It is the same if we say it is in self-defense or an act of passion or temporary insanity. It is even the same if committed by a person in the course of their job or duty. This fact cannot be refuted.

There has been a steady rise in the cases of death resulted by various means while in police custody. This is a trend that is not just national but international as the world moves into a more police and military industrial occupation. It seems daily there are stories of people being beaten by police, strangled by police, shot by police, run over by police and on and on. And there seems to be this overwhelming silence to it all. There are very little “news” agencies willing to tackle a story like these, there are no “government leaders” willing to call on the issue, but there is a small tireless minority that is screaming at the top of their suppressed lungs. Organizations like CopBlock.org, who through their online site are facilitating users and subscribers who have recorded police activity and presence to post these interactions to the world. Accountability and oversight being the aims of these users and organization, it has seen an increase in users, subscribers and uploaded video.

But again where is the outcry for the victims of police brutality and the deaths mounting by these officers? How is a man with a certain dress and given a badge and weapon given a right to kill others? Can there be a difference in the actions of these officers that prohibit them from the same shame and disgust of taking another’s life? It seems there is; at least to some.

Along the same lines as Police we have mentioned the actions of military service members. Can they, through granted immunity, not be seen as murderers? Do their actions not leave the same results? How can one differentiate the results as one being beneficial or justified and another being a scourge of mankind and a reprehensible act?

The use of military force is nothing new to this world and it seems there are not many who see any way to change that course. There are the many young people who use joining a military to gain monetary footholds, to enjoy benefits paid for by others or under the impression that they will be providing a service to others and the country of their birth or citizenship. Many see it as just a stepping stone into the world post schooling and pre individual responsibility.

The carnage raised by war and the destruction raised even in times on non-war have been brushed aside and legitimized by a majority of people in the world today. Some wartime actions are seen as horrid and evil (Nazi Concentration camps) others are given a pass in history (United States Internment camps). The bombing at Pearl Harbor is seen as a precursor to war, yet the daily drone bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, Somalia, Algeria are seen as justifiable uses of force. It is a hypocrisy, a pharisaic belief to act as if one act is any more or less of a crime against man as the other, yet this happens daily all around the world. Why? What has happened to the human mind and spirit that we have given false protection to an immoral act in certain circumstances, we ceremoniously give certain people a free pass at murder. No questions asked, no accountability, no judgment, and no recourse.

So as I started this writing I will end it. Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

The Thought Police are out in full force.

I am not that much of a sports fan, in fact I rarely watch TV at all, but the Sterling/Clippers story has exited the sports arena and some people have entered it into the political sphere. The remarks made by a man speaking to his significant other in his own home have somehow made front page and back page news all over the world. It is no wonder to me on why this has taken place and why it has spread like the proverbial wildfire. The Thought Police of America have taken hold of the racial divide and the opinions and preferences of people; they have raised them up into a cloud of emotional conversation and illogical conclusions, all of this swept into their own idea of justice in the name of equality.

What Sterling did is no different than what has happened since the dawn of man and what is done by almost everyone in their daily lives, preferences and choices made by experiences both positive and negative. These experiences give us the ability to choose association with some and choose not to associate with others.  Are we to say that a mother choose to not send her children to a child care facility that employs someone with a criminal past, is somehow wrong in that decision?  Are we to say that any business that refuses to hire a convicted felon is somehow wrong in their choice? Are we to say that a family choosing where to live in a city should not have the ability to discern where they want to raise their young based on prior experiences or information available? Those examples are ridiculous in the eyes of most, but in relation to what Sterling has said it wouldn’t be far from an appropriate response from the public. These cases are not the same thing some will say. But are they not? Is the choice and right of association not the same in these cases as with Mr. Sterling’s comment?

Is racism real?

Yes, not doubt about that, it is a completely real issue. But to say that men not have the reason to decide on whom they wish to associate with is to say that the thoughts and choices of men are best left to public emotion and the will of the majority. Had Sterling said he didn’t want Asians or Mexicans to attend exhibitions held by the basketball team he owns would this had taken off as it has? We don’t know for sure and nothing is left but to speculate, I will leave that with the reader. The fear of being labeled a racist in 2014 is almost as bad as being labeled a Communist in the 1960’s. It has to do with social engineering I believe and to a certain extent social derision caused by the exploitation by the media of cases such as this one. Recently, as an example of this, the story of Cliven Bundy and the fight for the use of land against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took a serious turn when Mr. Bundy’s comments on the struggles and situations of African Americans and people from Mexico were construed by media outlets to taint him with a racial inferiority ideology. Though many of the volunteers who came to the aid of Mr. Bundy were of the mindset of personal liberty, these innocuous comments were skewed to turn supporters into deserters and to turn the tide on the situation.

Free Speech and Property Rights

In defense of all issues you will hear me say that the individual has the right to do as they wish so long as those wishes do not interfere with the rights of others. This case is no different. This as well as most issues really can be reduced to property rights and free speech. Let’s take Property Rights first. Sterling owns a basketball team; he does not own the stadium they play in at home games nor any of the stadiums they play on the road. He does not own any of the players, they are contracted employees. Mr. Sterling’s comment was to say that he did not want certain people to attend games at a home stadium but since he does not own said stadium he has no way to enforce this preference. He has no way to limit the audience to a specific race, gender, faith or any other collective of choice. Thus this issue is dead at the point of the Property Rights of the owner of the stadium. Likewise if those stadium owners see fit to exclude Sterling from entering their premises it would stand as the right of the owners to do so at their discretion. Second point, Sterling owns the team, not the players. They have the choice and right of association just as he does. If they see fit to leave the employment of Sterling on the basis of disagreement and have satisfied the employment contract or both parties mutually agree on the termination of the contract for difference of opinions or hostility in the workplace they may choose to do so. Third point, as Sterling owns the team; it is entered into a league by mutual beneficial gain; the league may revoke access or contract with the team at any time for any reason {if} there is no contract that must be satisfied or enforced. In this case the lifetime ban of Sterling is a consequence of his words and is in line with contractual precedence and private property rights and the right of association on behalf of the NBA.

On a side note, The National Basketball Association (NBA) has ordered Mr. Sterling to pay a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. If this Constitution (contract) was personally signed by Sterling on the admittance of his team into the league or his place being recognized as the team owner by the Board of Directors of the NBA, Sterling would have no recourse but to pay the fine and accept the punishment of the league. Another part of the plan for punishment is the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s request to urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team. The sale of private property should never be left to the will of any majority over the rightful owner; this is clearly a case of over stepping boundaries on the part of the Board of Governors, with exceptions to if this clause was drafted into the NBA constitution and personally signed and recognized by Sterling.

“The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Now after stating my view on that, let’s get back to the Thought Police.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is the lack of privacy and the ability and acceptance by the public of a leak of secretly recorded information. This is a violation of the right to privacy of Sterling and leaves me to wonder the ultimate goal of such a leak. Was it a vendetta or was it to be used as a bargaining chip or blackmail of some sort? Was it purely out of distaste of his words and the only recourse the leaker thought of was to make this private conversation public information?

The emotional responses to this story give the impression that most followers of it have a long held disapproval of racial bigotry or intolerance, but is that the truth? It may well be established that a certain amount of this racial intolerance is accepted by a majority of the public through the guise of government laws, regulations and of course American history. It is no small thing to forget that for well over 100 years this country was segregated by this same ideology and it was widely accepted as a matter of fact of life for colonial and pre civil war America.  It is also stated that this same type of collective separation happens every day in the War on Drugs with a high majority of those incarcerated are done so under laws that predominantly target certain demographics and their habits and traits, their choices and preferences. Is this to say that what they do is wrong? Not necessarily. It is through the propagation of morals and values of the majority through government that the choices and inclinations of the single man are reduced to illegal acts punishable by detention, monetary theft, or the ultimate end of death by government forces.

It is a sad state of affairs when the conversation in a private home can be used to cause a wave of social disturbance and outrage. No threat to life or property had or has taken place and the thoughts of the comments were, though not innocent in nature, were not enforceable in the end. The Thought Police will win this one, as they usually do, in part for the fear of the people of being labeled something unsavory. 

Fred Phelps is dead, so why are there people rejoicing?

Fred Phelps the founder of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church has died of natural causes at the age of 84.  I have seen a few friends, acquaintances, news agencies and online writers begin to revel in the death of this man and I have to ask why. Why are we rejoicing in the death of any man, no matter their behavior or actions in their lives? Why would we hold a grudge against someone in their death? Quite a few people have even talked of replicating this man’s behavior by picketing his own funeral. So my question to them would be; for what end? What would be the point of continuing the behavior and hate of this man and his “church”? What purpose does it serve to continue the vitriol of the ilk of Westboro Baptist Church?

My thoughts on this topic began well before the passing of Mr. Phelps and could best be traced to the killing of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. 

Many people rejoiced in the news that these two notorious people had been killed, but I sat wondering why? What joy did they get from the death of a man? What had been gained or lost? What does it say about the mindset of those individuals? Some call themselves strong pro-life believers yet here they are rejoicing in death. It is a strange paradox to me. how can one hold the thought that all life is precious and in the same breath say that a man should die for his actions? 

Mr. Phelps spent some years protesting military service member’s funerals, causing great anguish for the families. So what does it say about those that would do the same for this man. Even the father of a fallen US soldier whose funeral was used in the attacks on gays and military members has said do not give him that satisfaction, do not honor him or his message by falling to his level.

A writer for the Washington Post who had been on the receiving end of the Westboro protests years earlier has left this same message, “Instead, what if those on the receiving end of Phelps’s ideology did the opposite, which is to say, let him go quietly — and without protest — into that good night? Imagine the karma lesson that would be to all those who have supported Westboro Baptist.”

I couldn’t have said it better