The “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prospects for Liberty

Immigration, Vulgar Politics, War
By / / 8 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

The furor over the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero) doesn’t make me very optimistic about the prospects for liberty.

As a libertarian and just a live-and-let-live kind of guy, I can’t imagine caring much about, let alone vocally protesting, what someone is building two blocks away from me.

Yet apparently many of my fellow Americans are such busybodies that they’ll whine for weeks about something being built hundreds or thousands of miles away from them, in a city where they don’t live and probably won’t even visit. And many of the complainers are among the Tea Party set whom we are occasionally told are “libertarian,” even though they seem to hate Muslims and Mexicans and love war at least as much as they hate the federal government and love liberty.

Jonah Goldberg claims that the conservatives who object “mostly” recognize that the Muslims have a legal right to build their center. But what I hear on talk radio makes me doubt this. A common argument there seems to be that since “liberals” don’t care about the constitution or property rights in general, they aren’t entitled to invoke them now — as though liberals somehow have the power to waive Muslims’ rights.

In any event, even if Goldberg is correct, it’s hard to imagine that the spirit of liberty resides in the sort of people who get so worked up over this sort of thing. The ease with which they’ve been distracted by this issue suggests that reducing government isn’t going to be their top priority once their team is back in control in Washington.

(Cross-posted on my blog.)

The “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prospects for Liberty Read Post »

I Guess It’s the Singer, Not the Song

Corporatism, Imperialism, Vulgar Politics, War
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Newt Gingrich, self-appointed “teacher of civilization” and de facto leader of the neo-con lynch mob, in an op-ed piece he co-wrote for National Review:  “Far from defeating terrorism, today’s government-to-government foreign-aid system can actually incite it by propping up corrupt and repressive one-party states.”

The views of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, alleged covert jihadist and anti-American radical, as summarized in a June 23, 2004 interview with Chris Hedges of the New York Times:

“On June 23, 2004, [Imam Feisal Abdul-] Rauf told Chris Hedges, then a writer for the New York Times: `Islamic terrorists do not come from another  moral universe … they arise from oppressive societies that … Washington had a hand in creating.'”

If  the view Rauf expressed makes him a fellow traveler with jihadis, wouldn’t this mean that “Mr. Newt” is an apologist for Islamic terrorism?

Of course, what’s really going on is that Newt is promoting a taxpayer-subsidized form of micro-colonialism called Free Cities. Through that “private” initiative (which would actually be a form of international corporatism), the blessings of free enterprise, “limited” government, and protection for individual rights would supposedly be extended to hapless foreigners by the same entity — the Regime in Washington — that is the most powerful enemy of the same.

Gingrich may be history’s purest specimen of cynical political opportunism. As a recent Esquire profile makes clear, he doesn’t really believe in anything, other than his qualifications to tutor the rest of us.

Like Lenin, Gingrich is adept at identifying and exploiting grievances — or creating them ex nihilo. He is many loathsome things, but “stupid” isn’t in that inventory. Gingrich knows that he’s spewing unfiltered nonsense about the “mosque at Ground Zero,” and that he’s engendering hatred toward a moderate, establishment-centered Muslim cleric whose “radical” views aren’t that different from his own.

It’s doubtful that those at the terminus of the human centipede-style GOP propaganda cloaca will recognize that fact.

I Guess It’s the Singer, Not the Song Read Post »

Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq

Imperialism, Mercantilism, Vulgar Politics, War
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

In a series of Orwellian twists, the United States is pulling out (prematurely some say) “all” “combat” troops from Iraq but doubling down (for starters) on mercenaries.

The Obama Administration gets away with “fulfilling” Obama’s promise to end US combat operations in Iraq by removing the last (officially-labeled) combat brigade from the country, yet 50,000 troops will remain until (supposedly) 2011. These 50,000 troops make up 7 “Advise and Assist” Brigades, which are brigade combat teams like the one that just left but with special training, and 2 combat aviation brigades. “The troops are officially there to assist and advise the Iraqi government, but will carry weapons to defend themselves and will join Iraqi troops on missions if requested.”

After 2011, the “military” presence in Iraq is supposed to be “limited to several dozen to several hundred officers in an embassy office who would help the Iraqis purchase and field new American military equipment,” but military officers are saying that “5,000 to 10,000 troops might [still] be needed.”

Meanwhile, “the State Department is planning to more than double its private security guards, up to as many as 7,000.” Can we really still call security personnel ‘civilians’ or ‘private security’ anymore when they’re working for the state in foreign lands, particularly in a combat zone? They’re mercenaries, troops that are conveniently not part of the official US military. The NYT reporter couldn’t help calling them “a small army of contractors.”

The US is building military bases, fortified compounds, outposts, and the largest “embassy” in the world in Iraq. Iraqi politicians still haven’t been able to come to an agreement and form a government after the last elections, making Iraq vulnerable to a coup if the Iraqi military leadership get too frustrated by the ineffectual, in-fighting politicians. The US empire will not be completely out of there anytime soon.

But hey, “we” won…right?

~*~

Update: Less than a week after the official end of combat operations in Iraq, US troops were involved in a combat operation in Iraq. Go figure. 12 people died and dozens were wounded in an assault by heavily-armed militants against an Iraqi military headquarters, in the center of Baghdad no less.

~*~

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq Read Post »

Is that offensive?

Imperialism, Vulgar Politics, War
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

The title of this of this blog blurb should be read in the same voice as George Costanza’s as he asks his boss in the following clip, “Was that wrong?”

The brouhaha over the proposed construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero exemplifies the scary stupidity of the boorish American rubes who are so easily manipulated by their elected masters and the vacuous, complicit media. Why, it’s “offensive”, “insensitive”, and intended to cause emotional anguish, don’t you know! Building an Islamic center (whatever that is) near Ground Zero is “offensive”, “insensitive”, and designed to cause emotional anguish in the same way that building American military bases and a 104 acre “Embassy” in Iraq would be… if 9/11 had killed 12 million Americans and the Islamic center were being run by Al-Qaeda. The hypocrisy displayed here by the hoi polloi and the rabble-rousers who tell them what to think is nauseating.

Americans who are feeling really sensitive about the proposed Islamic center at Ground Zero should accept this gift from the Afghan and Iraqi people...

Is that offensive? Read Post »

Pundits: Play Whack-A-Mole with WikiLeaks. Oh wait…

Anti-Statism, Imperialism, Police Statism, Technology, War
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

In How to Mirror a Censored WordPress Blog, I discussed how the Mises Institute open-sourcing all of Mises.org and putting its entire literature and media library online as a set of torrents will help ensure the continued existence of this treasure trove of liberty in the event of a natural disaster or a future crackdown by the US government.

Here’s a practical example taking place before us. Some technologically and strategically-incompetent pundits are clamoring for the United States federal government to use its cyber capabilities to take out WikiLeaks before the organization puts online the remaining 15,000 documents of the leaked Afghan war logs.

Kevin Poulsen of Wired.com explains how a previous attempt to take down wikileaks.org has already failed in the past and how future attempts to take out WikiLeaks will fail as well.

In 2008, federal judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco ordered the WikiLeaks.org domain name seized as part of a lawsuit filed by Julius Baer Bank and Trust, a Swiss bank that suffered a leak of some of its internal documents. Two weeks later the judge admitted he’d acted hastily, and he had the site restored. “There are serious questions of prior restraint, possible violations of the First Amendment,” he said.

Even while the order was in effect, WikiLeaks lived on: supporters and free speech advocates distributed the internet IP address of the site, so it could be reached directly. Mirrors of the site were unaffected by the court order, and a copy of the entire WikiLeaks archive of leaked documents circulated freely on the Pirate Bay.

The U.S. government has other, less legal, options, of course — the “cyber” capabilities Thiessen alludes to. The Pentagon probably has the ability to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks against WikiLeaks’ public-facing servers. If it doesn’t, the Army could rent a formidable botnet from Russian hackers for less than the cost of a Humvee.

But that wouldn’t do much good either. WikiLeaks wrote its own insurance policy two weeks ago, when it posted a 1.4 GB file called insurance.aes256.

The file’s contents are encrypted, so there’s no way to know what’s in it. But, as we’ve previously reported, it’s more than 19 times the size of the Afghan war log — large enough to contain the entire Afghan database, as well as the other, larger classified databases said to be in WikiLeaks’ possession. Accused Army leaker Bradley Manning claimed to have provided WikiLeaks with a log of events in the Iraq war containing 500,000 entries from 2004 through 2009, as well as a database of 260,000 State Department cables to and from diplomatic posts around the globe.

Whatever the insurance file contains, Assange — appearing via Skype on a panel at the Frontline Club — reminded everyone Thursday that he could make it public at any time. “All we have to do is release the password to that material and it’s instantly available,” he said.

WikiLeaks is encouraging supporters to download the insurance file through the BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay. “Keep it safe,” reads a message greeting visitors to the WikiLeaks chat room. After two weeks, the insurance file is doubtless in the hands of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of netizens already.

We dipped into the torrent Friday to get a sense of WikiLeaks’ support in that effort. In a few minutes of downloading, we pulled bits and piece of insurance.aes256 from 61 seeders around the world. We ran the IP addresses through a geolocation service and turned it into a KML file to produce the Google Map at the top of this page [go to the Wired.com article or view it on Google Maps — GAP]. The seeders are everywhere, from the U.S., to Iceland, Australia, Canada and Europe. They had all already grabbed the entire file, and are now just donating bandwidth to help WikiLeaks survive.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

Pundits: Play Whack-A-Mole with WikiLeaks. Oh wait… Read Post »

Scroll to Top