We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
This latest Don Feder column, advocating the continued embargo against Cuba, nearly chokes to death on its own contradictions. First, Feder contends:
Castro has nothing we want and nothing to pay for what he wants from us.
If Cuba had something we wanted, of course, they would have something with which to pay for what they want. And in his concluding paragraph, Feder, perhaps unintentionally, concedes that Cuba does indeed have something Americans want:
Besides supporting oppression of the Cuban people, unrestricted U.S. trade — and the tourist dollars to follow — would be invested in America’s destruction. As U.S. forces clean out the Tora Bora caves, we would be nuts to subsidize a branch office of the terrorist international 90 miles from our shores.
Hmmm … so Cubans do have something Americans want — tourism, for one thing. If they “had nothing we wanted,” they would not earn any income with which to pad the coffers of terrorists, now, would they?
The antiterrorist argument is a nonstarter. We do not trade with Cuba now, and they are already a bastion of terrorism. Terrorists could function anywhere, and they generally choose not to set up shop in open, free societies. They operate from repressive places like Afghanistan, Libya and Cuba, right? By keeping Cuba cordoned off from US markets, we are making the place more inviting to terrorists. Moreover, if we opened trade to them, we could at least threaten to shut them out of our markets again if they don’t vigorously prosecute terrorists.
Castro has plodded on in Cuba precisely because of the embargo. With no access to American products, Cubans do not see what they have been forcibly denied. Castro can blame America rather than his own kleptomania / thuggery for the nation’s woes. End the sanctions on Cuba, and watch Castro topple.
In an article in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd writes that after September 11, Americans were turning away from unimportant things like expensive clothes and luxury
But now we are supposed to be in the era of the real rather than the pretentious, the warm rather than the cool, the fundamental rather than the grandiose.
So we must ask: Is the vast new $40 million Prada store that has just opened not far from Ground Zero, trumpeted by the company as “the New York Epicenter” and designed by the hot architect Rem Koolhaas, a relic of our gluttonous ways or a resumption of them?
Of course I realise that Americans are going through a process of adapting and trying to understand new realities, but at the risk of sounding unkind, all they are really doing is waking up from a dream and finding themselves in the real world.
It broke my heart when I saw those terrible images on television on September 11 and oh how I wished a thousand deaths on the monsters who were responsible for it. But I felt nothing more, or less, than I felt when Sarajevo was besieged for 1400 days, during which 10,000 of its people died and 50,000 more were injured out of a population of just over 500,000.
During the war, everywhere in what used to be Yugoslavia experienced shortage and hardship and sudden horror. Americans watched this through the filtering eyes of CNN and the BBC for a few minutes each day before going back to their dinner or driving to the mall, yet it might as well have been occurring on another planet psychologically speaking.
People in Sarajevo would have to dash across roads to go to the markets, risking death from Cetnik snipers and artillery fire on a daily basis. But if you ever go back and look at the videos, look very carefully at the people. You will see women with clean hair, lipstick and makeup. Men wearing pressed jackets and even ties. People determined to retain their humanity as well as just survive another day.
I think Maureen Dowd does not understand, at least not yet, that if the monsters can make you live in their world of poverty and sorrow, then they have truly beaten you. That is why when I realised that Benetton was about to open a shop in Sarajevo in 1995, I wept because I realised that the nightmare was almost over at last. So Maureen, take it from me that there is nothing noble about ‘sweat suits and old clothes already in the closet’. Listen to me and go to that place in New York, only a few blocks from the World Trade Centre that those evil people destroyed. Wander through the wonderful opulence of Prada’s shop and gaze at the exquisite Italian style, treat yourself to a nice little black dress: then look around again and realise that you have won and they have lost.
[Original link to NYT article via Instapundit]
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists.
– Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, September 13, 2001
Over on Cal Ulmann‘s blog Where HipHop and Libertarianism meet, he points out a simple truth
Bush says quitting drugs will stop terrorism. Well then why can’t marijuana that is grown on American soil be given to medical marijuana patients?
Quite so.
It is good to hear that Dmitry is finally free to return to Russia. What puzzles me about this case is how did a US court even feel they had the appropriate jurisdiction to try him?
The way I understand it, he wrote the decryption software in Russia, for a Russian company, ElcomSoft. The software is entirely legal in Russia and yet somehow because the program can crack codes in ways prohibited by the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Sklyarov was arrested when he visited a conference in the USA.
Imagine for a moment that a US citizen, living the USA, writes an article in the Wall Street Journal (a newspaper which is sold world wide). Say that in this article, the US journalist makes remarks that are illegal in Russia (a nation not known for its free press) but in the USA are protected by the First Amendment and hence entirely legal.
How would the USA react if, when that journalist makes the mistake of going to Russia to attend some conference, he gets arrested by the Russian police, thrown in jail and charged with a crime because the Wall Street Journal with the offending remarks was also available in Moscow hotels? Would some US lawyer care to explain how that works?
Samizdata reader Kate Redmond wrote in pointing out that view similar to mine regarding the dismal Taliban member John Walker are appearing beyond blogland. Kate writes
I have finally started to see some vaguely similar sentiments in the mainstream press. I don’t know if you saw this article by Mark Steyn this
week:
I’m not in favour of trying him for treason: Alan Dershowitz and the other high-rent lawyers are already salivating over the possibility of a two-year circus with attendant book deals and TV movies. But there is another way: on page four of John Walker’s US passport, it states that any American who enlists in a foreign army automatically loses his citizenship. Mr Walker wants to be Abdul Hamid: Mr Bush should honour his wishes. Let us leave him to the Northern Alliance and let his San Francisco fancypants lawyers petition to appear before the Kabul bar, if there is one. It would, surely, be grossly discriminatory to subject Mr Hamid to non-Islamic justice.
Actually, what it says in my U.S. passport is that, Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing, voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship, any of the following acts: […] (3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state
So, I guess the crux of the matter for Steyn’s argument is whether Walker intended to renounce his citizenship. I’m not certain that it’s not possible to serve in a foreign army without losing one’s citizenship. I believe I’ve heard of American citizens who have served in the Israeli army and I know Swiss-U.S. dual citizens who almost certainly do their mandatory Swiss military service.
Similarly many US citizens served with the British military prior to America’s entry into WWII, notably the pilots who flew for the RAF during the Battle of Britain. There were also US ‘Internationals’ with the Croatian HV and HVO during the recent Balkan Wars and certainly the State Department never made any attempt to go after them. I think the ‘certain circumstances’ quoted above is intentional legal wiggle room, thus it very much depends on exactly whose military you have joined. Joining the French Legion Étranger is not likely to get people hopping up and down (though in reality most US members of the LÉ claim to be ‘Canadian’) but signing on for a jaunt with North Korea, toting a Kalashnokov with the Cubans or becoming Abdul Hamid and joining the Taliban is a rather different matter.
I must say the prospect of the likes of Alan Dershowitz turning John Walker into some cause célèbre is quite an unpleasant thought and I love Mark Steyn’s suggestion on that matter. On the contention that anything that thwarts Alan Dershowitz must surely be in the national interest, Walker should loose his citizenship on that basis alone.
Starved for intelligence?
There is a very interesting article by James Ostrowski at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, pertaining to spending by the US intelligence services. The bit that caught my eye was:
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the combined budget of these agencies is at least $30 billion annually. Officially and unofficially, the U.S. and its allies probably have more than 75,000 intelligence personnel. This army [is] larger than the Army of Northern Virginia, and spends twice as much as the entire Chinese defense budget…
Fascinating stuff, though I do wonder if we actually know what China spends on its defense budget in economically meaningful terms. The history of various Western intelligence agencies’ estimates of the Soviet defense budgets during the 1970’s and 1980’s does not exactly fill me with confidence.
Over on Daimnation there is a good piece that he has picked up about the feelings of a Muslim American from New York who is with the US 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan.
Those two towers were special. Me and my family, we used to take the ferry, go to Staten Island, and on our way back, you could just see the skyline, at night time, it was just beautiful.
His views come as no suprise to me and should shame the ‘kill all towelheads’ crowd into silence.
Some months ago Carla Howell and the Libertarians of Massachusetts set out to do more than just talk about making government smaller. They decided to act. They decided to give the people of Massachusetts an opportunity not to slow the rise of taxes, not to freeze them, not to index them… but to roll them back. They penned a ballot initiative to abolish the Massachusetts Income Tax.
It is not easy to get an initiative on the ballot. It costs a great deal of money and untold hours of labour. Libertarians from all over pitched in with donations of cash; Carla and her crew lived and breathed petition from 6am to 12 midnight day after day, week after week, month after month.
And they did it. 75,516 Certified signatures were delivered in 10 shipping boxes to the Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State on Tuesday, December 4th. The event was covered by local and national media and garnered significant publicity for the Libertarian Party. Carla reports coverage by the Associated Press, the State House News Service, The Boston Globe, The Lowell Sun, Berkshire Eagle, NPR, WBZ, WBUR, WTAG, WSAR, WHMP, WHAI, WHYN, BNN TV, Free-Market.net, The Chicopee Herald, Reminder Metro-West, Providence Journal, Fox News and CNN Banner Headline.
Our modern day Sons of Liberty delivered 101,139 raw signatures to 343 town clerks; 75% were validated. Only 57,100 were required to put this measure on the ballot for November 2002. It was unreported whether they are saving the Indian war paint for next year’s post election party.
The implications are beginning to sink in. Howls of anguish and even fear that voters might actually vote for $3000 a year back into their own pockets are rising from the snouts of the public trough class. You can be sure the next phase will be neither quiet nor behind the scenes. The porkers will be out in force from here on out, inventing tax cut horror stories, trundling out their pet talking head victims, putting career bureaucrats on TV to tell how they will cut their most important services first… Oh it is going to be glorious to watch.
It has already begun. Michael Widmer, Director of Communications and Deputy Chief Secretary of former Governor Michael Dukakis(D) and currently the President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is one of the first to voice his fears:
“It would decimate state government.”
Awww…. I’m soooo sad about that Mr Widmer. In fact, ending the income tax would leave a state budget of $14 Billion. That’s 40% higher than Michael Dukakis’ last bloated budget.
Mr. Widmer also noted that ending the income tax would cause “the lay-off of tens of thousands of government workers.” He neglects to add it would put $9 Billion back into the Massachusetts economy. That’s enough to create 400,000 new jobs in the private sector. More than enough to put those government employees to work doing something productive, Mr. Widmer. Next Question?
It’s going to be a bloody war for the next year and the opposition is going to bring enormous resources to bear to hold on to their $9 Billion a year tithe from the working people of Massachusetts. Carla’s little tribe are going to need help. I highly recommend that all who can afford to do so donate and continue to donate. Money is the armament of political warfare and we have to keep our braves in arrowheads if we expect them to take on the Leviathan.
It’s going to be an absolutely magnificent tea party.
Over on Fevered Rants, bloggista Alex del Castillo has dug up some interesting legal references pertaining to the John Walker affair in Afghanistan. He has some good links on the subject.
The owing allegiance phrase could likely be debated as to what it means exactly, but I think intent is clear. What would be the purpose of a law against treason if the act of treason automatically renounced one’s citizenship and conceivably made one merely an enemy of the state rather than a treasonous citizen? Actually, I think citizenship at the time of trial is a red herring, it is the act that counts.
However the issue of citizenship at the time of Walker’s alleged treason is rather more important legally I assume as the actions cannot be ‘treason’ if he had renounced any allegiance to the US earlier. I am no lawyer but if that is the case, why is be being held by the USA at all? Why not just leave him in the tender cares of General Rashid Dostam‘s Uzbeks?
I must confess I have always declined to accept the idea of the state-centric notion of ‘citizenship’. I see nothing wrong with loyalty to a society with which one has affinity but I for one feel no such thing for any state, which is quite another matter. My outrage over September 11 was not because the United States was attacked, but because fellow members of an extended civil society of which I am a member were murdered without cause by some sociopathic collectivist Islamic terrorists. Nationality per se is really not the issue.
By my way of seeing things, Walker chose to join the Taliban and thus should be of no more consequence than any other captured Taliban soldier. It should be remembered that the US/UK are at war in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and attacking the Taliban was only done because that proved to be a pre-requisite for achieving that objective. If Walker were a member of Al Qaeda, well, that would be different. He would be part of the organization responsible for September 11 and should be treated accordingly…but that does not seem to be the case.
As a defeated Taliban member, however, he should have just been left to get on with his new ‘friends’ in what is left of Kandahar, if Dostam’s people were inclined to let him go. If they were not, and he died in some fly infested prison cell in Mazar-i-Sharif, I do not see how it would be the concern of anyone in the USA. I would hardly describe that as being let off lightly! Alex del Castillo sums up with a similar view, but more because he views it as what he deserves. I take the view that it is the correct thing to do, which is a somewhat different sentiment even if the result may be the same.
The querulous Eric L. Bainter replies to George Guttman’s views and verbiage.
Mr. Guttman writes:
Why is a US military tribunal “wrong” for foreign terrorists… when it is also what US military personnel face.
I agree with his basic message – that there’s nothing wrong with the military tribunals for foreign terrorists/war criminals – but his comment as stated is incorrect in strictly factual terms. There’s enough loose verbiage flying around about the tribunals now, generally from the anti-tribunal crowd, which certainly undermines their positions.
Military personnel face trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is largely similar to US law for civilians, not a tribunal as laid out in Mr. Bush’s executive order. The UCMJ does have some differences from most civilian trials. For example, UCMJ panels (juries) can generally convict with a two-thirds, except, I believe, in capital cases (maybe some JAG out there can comment).
I told our local JAG office that I would be happy to serve on a tribunal, and I eagerly (if not optimistically) await the call.
Eric L. Bainter
Christopher Hitchens is in typically ebullient form on The Nation as he writes The Ends of War, in which he makes a remark that I suspect is destined to became a classic quote:
The United States of America has just succeeded in bombing a country back out of the Stone Age.
Outstanding. Just for good measure, he yet again carves up Noam Chomsky in his Parthian shot. In a battle of wits, nauseating Noam is unarmed. This whole article is well worth a read.
I am only just starting to get used to the idea of not reflexively thinking of Christopher Hitchens as the enemy.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
