Guantanamo Bay

About a week ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the lead-up to her Friday meeting with President Bush, called upon the US to close Guantanamo Bay Prison. Her comments came across to most red-blooded Americans as out of line, and they were. It is not Germany's buisness to dictate to the US whether or not it keeps prisons open. It comes across particularly obnoxiously after previous German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder's minister of the environment gave a speech essentailly claiming that the United States deserved the havok wreaked by Hurricane Katrina for not signing on to Kyoto. As seemingly offensive as her comments may have been, some of the complaints about Guantanamo Bay are legitimate, and are ones that should be loudly coming from the American people.
The Bush administration has proven that it cannot be trusted to respect human rights unless it is being ever-so-closely watched. Its broad authorizations for the use of torture against anyone who they suspect might be a terrorist evidences that. And, while I fully believe that most prisoners at Gitmo are excellently treated, the administration's record of a rogue cowboy attitude towards human rights makes it very probable that some are being grossly mistreated. It is the responsibilty of the people of our country to care about this.
What is absolutely necessary is a concrete, enforcable declaration outlining how we will handle Guantanamo Bay Prison. At the moment, the administration seems to hold an anything goes attitude towards the prison. There seems to be no concrete code that it follows in regards to it.
First, it must state who can be held in Guantanamo Bay, and the vague phrase "persons deemed dangerous to the security of the United States" is simply not going to cut it. Guantanamo needs to be a place for those who have commited certain specific crimes. Some burden of proof needs to be placed on the government, making sure that these people are being justly detained. Some trustable body must be set up to hold the government to this burden, too. Also, the declaration must make clear that US citizens will not be held in Guantanamo Bay, even if they are considered enemy combatants. All US citizens must be granted their full Constitutional rights, and all of the protections of the due process of the American justice system.
Secondly, some system must be set up for the prosecution of those detained. Having secret military tribunals for some, and never even charging others with a specific crime, is not acceptable. There needs to be some time limit for how long people can remain detainees without being brought to trial.
Finally, the government must clearly state its code of conduct for how these prisoners will be treated. I, for one, do not require that the prisoners be treated like royalty. They can be continuously annoyed, etc., but the line must be drawn somewhere. I think that, while most of the detainees are not actually afforded any rights by the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva Convention standards are a convenient and appropriate place for the line to be drawn.
I am sure that this opinion will come under attack for being "soft on terror." In the long run, however, I believe that it will help our mission against terrorists. It will improve our stature in the world, and as much as we'd like to believe that this doesn't matter, it does. It will hurt the terrorist cause. They will no longer be able to use our torture as a rallying call. Also, the United States broke away from Britain largely on the belief that distinct codes limiting government must exist and must be respected. For the government to issue a declaration similar to the one I am calling for is the American thing to do.

USA PATRIOT

Yes, I am being a bit opportunistic here, and I hope more people are...it's time to use this NSA scandal to fully turn public opinion against the USA PATRIOT act.

The very name USA PATRIOT act is a lie in several ways, there is nothing patriotic about opressing US citizens, it is not Uniting and Strengthened America, we are increasingly divided as a nation due to this and other actions taken by President Bush, the tools it provides the government are in no way appropriate, and many of the powers it gives are not used to fight terrorism, but to fight political opposition to the current administration. Parts of this act could be seen as a neo-sedition act.

The president argues that the powers given to the government in the USA PATRIOT act are necessary to fight the terrorist menace, but this is clearly not the case. There is no reason why the government should need to be allowed to arrest, or even spy on, Americans without a warrant, and it absolutely terrifying that it has the power to detain them indefinitely without ever bringing them before a judge much less a jury, and without even making public that the person was detained. Bush argues that this is the only way that the government can stop terrorists. If there is adequate reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, then why not bring that adequate reasoning before a judge? If you can show probable cause, then you should have no problem getting a warrant. If the government does not have probable cause, how can it assume the power to detain that person? If they are going to arrest everone who could possibly be a terrorist, and your justification for believing that that person is a terrorist is that the person has been outspoken against the president, then a significant percentage of the politically-aware if this country would be occupying jail cells.

Many claim that the time it would take for each case to be brought before a judge in one of the courts created by FISA in the 1970s would would be too long, and would lead to a loss of important intelligence gathering time. Getting a warrant before arresting a criminal allows the criminal more time on the streets, but this does not provide reason to abandon the use of arrest warrants.

Now I am hearing claims that the Bush wiretaps are legal, authorized by USSID (U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive.) They have clearly not read that law, more on this later.

Katrina

As you know, Katrina has reeked havok throughout the south. Please make a donation to the American Red Cross to help out! A lot of help is needed.

Remember, we can't expect much help from foreigners...Germany's reaction to the disaster was to put their environmental minister out there to make a statement about how the hurrican is Bush's fault for not signing on to the Kyoto protocol. Rather disgraceful...I know the US government would have more tact than to make a speech after thousands of people died essentially saying "Well, y'all had it comin'!"

Call for Economic Justice

The people of the world need to call for a world with economic justice. To achieve this, we should abolish all barriers to free trade, including the various "free trade" organizations who actually support protectionist policies. To NAFTA, CAFTA, someday SAFTA, we need to 'just say no.' Instead, we should engage in free trade. Through free trade, we would stop bankrupting our government through policies that provide little if any benefit to Americans, and cripple economies in other parts of the world. Why should the government pay to subsidize United States grain exports? Without such subsidies, this grain would not be exported, because the local markets would be able to offer the more competitive price. This would increase the supply of home grown grain in the US, driving other countries out of our markets. If there is no market for the produce of our farmers, then we need to either diversify the crops that our farmers grow or simply grow less.
The only instances in which action against free trade may be necessary is to prevent it from being utilized as a tool by governments who do not support such a policy. If western nations would restrict trade to states abiding by free-trade, then more and more states would join in. Eventually, it would be impossible for a country to pull away from free-trade policies. Farm subsidies need to be stopped, while the world needs to work to convince China to abandon its state-run industry and protectionist policies. Africa needs to be allowed to grow. Through free trade, the world has a virtually endless supply of wealth. There is no need for poverty.
By allowing the people of Africa, and the majority of the people of China, to climb out of poverty and amass some minimal amount of wealth, we will be welcoming them into the global marketplace. This increases the supply and demand for goods and services, inherently increasing the world's wealth.
Well targeted aid is necessary in Africa to update its infrastructure before it can realistically become an economic force. Then, by allowing free-trade, Africa will be able to end its dependance on Western aid. The people of Africa will begin to climb out of poverty. This allows for the building blocks of democracy, and will help to topple the totalitarian regimes in power. It all starts with trade. Tell your representatives that you support free trade, with your voice, vote, and dollar.

Debt Relief

Many small government advocates like myself were against the G8 decision to approve debt reliefe to 18 poor countries. They believe that countries should be held responsible for their loans, and anyway, why should USAID be using our tax dollars for its charity work.
The problem with this point of view is that these loans should never have been given. Most of them were given through a joint project between the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Both organizations are backed by the G8 nations, the President of the United States is even responsible for appointing the World Bank president. They loaned money to the corrupt regimes of various brutal dictators. The dictators then spent this money on their lavish lifestyle, and in many of the cases were ousted from power. When they were ousted, they took the remaining money and ran. The people of the state never saw the benefits of that money. In fact, it was often used as an oppressive tool to prolong the reign of the cruel regimes.
While the people of the country never saw the money, the World Bank and IMF held the people responsible for paying back the debt. Thus, any future government had to spend the majority of their income paying back the debt. In some countries it was 80% of their tax income. When the governments were unable to make payments, the WB/IMF would give them another loan to make the payments through the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) program. These loans came with many strings attatched, pushing the government to undertake projects which were proven unsuccessful, putting the country into deeper financial arrears. The World Bank even admitted that the HIPC program was a failure, yet they continued to act as loan sharks demanding payments on their loans.
These loans should never have been given, and the World Bank and IMF should have been forced to relieve the loans themselves, using their rather large untaxed coffers. But, because this would have taken money from their more successful programs, the G8 states are picking up the tab. My only regrettes towards the G8 action is that it works through the disfunctional HIPC program. This means that in order to recieve the debt relief, the countries must still undertake World Bank/IMF mandated programs. Hopefully, the program will at least improve its reccomendations, focusing on improving education, medical care, etc. in rather than building unnecessary damns and the like.

The Jumbled Mess that Keeps Us Free

There is a truth about the US government that is almost never flat out stated, but spawns much of the political debate in this country. The government beurocracy is a giant jumbled mess. There are 11 different government organizations for everything. Why not have a Department of Health that covers all health related tasks, eliminate the CDC, the FDA and others. The reason for this is our country has been rather successfully run for over 200 years, and first off, there were some things they didn't think of 200+ years ago, and also, times have changed. Our governments success has discouraged anyone from making widespread changes, so when a new task pops up, one of several things happens. Sometimes, an existing organization takes over, maybe not the organization that SHOULD take over, but one of them. (Note the Department of Energy's involvement in Biomedical projects) Other times, it simply doesn't get done. On occaision, several organizations will attempt the task, usually attempting to sabatoge the other, if they even know that another organization is doing it. The rarest case is when it comes to the attention of certain people in government, and the American people, and it is decided that a new organization is needed to handle the new task. This leads to a jumble of organizations, some of whom are 100% sure on what they are supposed to do, undoubtably incorrect, and others who have no idea what their supposed job is.
If the jumble of Federal organizations isn't enough, we then have the constant battle as to which powers actually belong to the federal government. Suposedly the federal government only has the power to do those things that the US Constitution specifically gave them the power to do, but we all know that this is just ignored, or there are ways found around it, such as withholding federal funding if states don't cooperate with federal initiatives.
Finally, there are the different branches of government constantly fighting. Our government has many checks and balances (more than were intended,) and as it has grown, the checks, balances, and red tape have grown to a ginormous scale. This seems like a problem. In fact, people commonly talk about making the government more efficient, and thank the Lord that they have failed miserably! The jumbled mess in our government keeps us free. It would be damn hard for anyone to sieze control of the government, as noone can really fully understand its workings. There is always someone in the way anytime one man begins to attain to much power. The levels and branches of government do not cooperate, there are party loyalties further complicating matters, and the occaisional guy who actually cares about the freedom of the every day American. Thank God for the jumbled mess that we call our government, and God bless America.

(I apologize that this post is a bit of a jumbled mess itself, I wrote it in pieces)

Gun Control

Strict gun control works against the interests of freedom and democracy, and thus the people. An armed populace is the best detterent to the development of tyranny. If the people are armed, then rulers can be kept in the role of servant, and prevented from ascending to master. Those in command are forced to keep the will of the people in mind, or they may face an armed uprising. Without an armed populace, a leader need only secure the backing of the military and law enforcement and he becomes unchallengable, a de facto dictator.
Gun bans have allowed many atrocities to proced with ease; for example, Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The victims were unarmed. They were without defense when armed men came for them. Also remember, in early America, it was only the patriot's possession of muskets that allowed them to defeat Britain. Without arms, not only would they have been subject to British tyranny, but a worsened British tyranny. The king would have no longer had to worry about the possibility of colonial revolts.
Gun bans are ineffective in stopping crime. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Burglars, gangsters and murderers will be able to find weapons on the black market. Does anyone honestly think that they wouldn't out of respect for the law? Sure, a cop might happen to come across the man's weapon before commits a crime, but the advantage to law enforcement in these few cases is not worth the trade-offs.
Gun ownership can actually act as a crime detterent. Most criminals are not looking to be killed. They will give serious thought before victimizing someone who they believe is well armed.
Beyond all of this, it is everyone's responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. Why deny an honest man a weapon with which to do this?
I have mixed feelings about lesser forms of gun control. I generally support banning convicted felons from owning firearms, though I sometimes question the trust-worthyness of our government and criminal justice system. Might they convict honest men simply to prevent them from owning a gun? Gun registration seems like another reasonable option, but might a list of gun-owners be misused? Would they be the first targets if someone attempted to sieze power? While these may seem like the deranged musings of a conspiracy theorist to you now, never underestimate man's lust for power, and remember to also always look towards the future. While it seems unlikely that anyone would be able to sieze power from the people now, we must install safeguards for our democracy's future.

Freedom is priceless, we must pay whatever price there might be to protect it.

This is a political blog attempting to express views that don't seem to fit in with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party...I believe a substantial number of people hold my beliefs, but we have been forsaken and left in the rain by the "umbrella parties." I am for small government and civil liberties, but my views go far beyond that. The first several posts on this site will outline my essential beliefs on some major issues. Please stay tuned!