How is the Bush administration encroaching upon our right to privacy? Aiding and abetting an enemy in a time of war is treason, the highest crime against the United States, and if you are caught doing that (via telephone calls with al-Qaeda, for instance), then you will be investigated and possibly prosecuted (given proper evidence.)

The only argument you can make against the Bush administration with regard to privacy is one of potential or future threat, which, while definitely serious, is hardly a violation of the Bill of Rights. Your awareness is correct, but your accusation is purely hypothetical.

The more republican bush & war luvers that get on this blog, the more on target we are. How does taking the country into war based on lies and BS fit in with those values? Where do the 2,500 dead soldiers who died not for OUR liberty, but for IRAQ's liberty, fit in with those values?

Values. It's a empty word to those that put the arms trade and a permament American military base in Iraq
above dead americans who died for another country's freedom. Yet the same people who approve now would be in the street if the UN had ordered them there to fight for Iraq with blue helmets.

How about some hypocritical values?

Just FYI, I'm having trouble signing in. I click "sign in" and it asks me to verify if I want to share my email address and sign in. I click Yes and Continue, then it takes me back to the blog page without me signed in. Weird.

As to the war itself... I have yet to see compelling amounts of false evidence for the war in Iraq. Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi senior envoy for nuclear matters (his title, not my fabrication), spoke in the mid-90s about counterbalancing Israel's nuclear capabilities, and was in Niger to obtain uranium. That Joseph Wilson found no evidence of transactions does not mean that Zahawie wasn't there for that very purpose; all Wilson's testimony suggests is that he didn't SEE anything going down. Saddam's lack of credibility with international weapons inspections only adds credence to the fact that Zahawie was in Niger for something other than a regular visit (by the way, Niger is known for very little OTHER than having large amounts of uranium.)

Saddam with nuclear materials or even with his continued possession of chemical and biological agents posed a threat to the region and the United States. Evidence of al-Qaeda in Iraq was not concrete by any means, but with the rise of radical jihadism and anti-Americanism after 9/11, it would not have been smart to trust Saddam's word when he had broken his promise and deceived the international community over and over and over in the past.

There were some errors of judgment with Iraq, I will give you that, but that comes with all major policy decisions. And war isn't something to embark upon recklessly. But given the threat of terrorism and a culture destined to destroy the "Great Satan," it's hard for us to look at our foreign policy in pure Machiavellian terms anymore. That would be the best, but unfortunately it's just not feasible, especially with the globalization of technology.

I don't like wars of any kind, but sometimes isolationism is more dangerous than pre-emption.

Marcus Brutus,

If the administration knows it's al Qaeda calling, why are they wasting time domestically instead of attacking the source? That excuse is lame offered as a rationalisation for violating core rights. Think, it doesn't hold up.

They are sucking personal information that is supposed to be secure until warrants have been obtained with sworn testimony, specifically describing the information they intend to acquire. They are grabbing this data insdiscriminately.

This information is then placed in huge databases, and connected who knows how many different ways to other databases, some the FBI identified as being illegal, are purchased from private vendors without verification of the datasets accuracy.

This should be opposed for no other reason than the government has proven itself to be unable to protect the private data it lawfully acquires. I am old enough that it didn't affect me directly, but the loss and potential abuse of VA records is appalling.

This administration in incompetent. They failed miserably in their primary duty to defend the US on September 11, 2001. Instead of being true conservatives, and taking responsibility for their failure, they blamed BillyJeff, the Arkansas hillbilly, and his fly, open ever always to the wind. Why would you give them even more power?

Now let's hope the delegates in Portland come up with a Liberty Agenda that is realistic and something that is attractive to more than 2% of the voting public.

Blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 is like calling Vietnam "Nixon's War." What you inherit as President is what you must deal with, but Bush wasn't even in office for a year when the terrorists hit us. I'm sure the administration failed in some things, but those attacks were part of a culmination of events, not an immediate response.

Secondly, you make a good point about protecting privacy and that the information is placed in huge government-run databases. But given that this is done in response to terrorism shows that the process is part of the government's constitutional duty to "provide for the common defence." Were it not for aggressive policy, what would have happened with those agents in Atlanta a few months ago who were conspiring with Canadian terrorists against the United States? What would have happened with the people who were recently caught and detained in Miami, the ones who wanted to attack the Sears Tower? What about the foiled attacks from 2002 on the Library Tower (now the US Bank Building) in Los Angeles?

Our right to privacy is important, and our personal liberties are certainly the most precious asset of all Americans (it's why we have a Bill of Rights.) But in a situation where an enemy to the country is not another sovereign nation but rather an international organization with people everywhere, it's difficult to guarantee civil liberties and secure them against attackers wishing our demise. I think a compromise has been reached, though, in that the call records, just as an example, do not include your name or anyhing other than the phone numbers involved. If they were also obtaining your name, SSN, and home address this would become a much more serious issue, but I really think that the government is trying to protect us from attack (their constitutional duty) while trying to ensure our privacy (our right as citizens who give our consent to government.)

One should use the term 'treason' with great care, especially when referring to an enemy ill-defined and open-ended. The misapplication and abuse of the term 'terror' only heightens the gray fog.

One month before Jane Fonda's villified trip to Hanoi, then Sec. of State Henry Kissinger had a secret meeting with Chinese PM, Zhou en-Lai. The transcript was recently made available at the NSA Archives. Kissinger himself seems to have indicated that N. Vietnam wasn't an American enemy, even though at that time they were holding Americcan POWs and mistreating them evily. Who was the treasonous SOB?

Excerpts from the transcript of Kissinger's meeting with Zhou en-Lai June 20, 1972 (also listed in attendance, John Negroponte):

----------------

They (N.Vietnam) have asked us...there's only one demand they have made we have not met and cannot meet and will not meet, no matter what the price to our other relationships, and that is that we overthrow ourselves the people with whom we have been dealing and who, in reliance on us, have taken certain actions. This isn't because of any particular personal liking for any of the individuals concerned. It isn't because we want a pro-American government in Saigon. Why in the name of God would we want a pro-American government in Saigon when we can live with governments that are not pro-American in much bigger countries of Asia? It is because a country cannot be asked to engage in major acts of betrayal as a basis of its foreign policy.

[. . .]

...if our May 8 proposal were accepted, which has a four-month withdrawal and four months for exchange of prisoners, if in the fifth month the war starts again, it is quite possible we would say this was just a trick to get us out and we cannot accept this.

If the North Vietnamese, on the other hand, engage in a serious negotiation with the South Vietnamese, and if after a longer period it starts again after we were all disengaged, my personal judgment is that it is much less likely that we will go back again, much less likely.

[. . .]

...we believe that the war must now be ended for everybody's sake. If the war continues, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam will surely lose more than it can possibly gain. Its military offensive has stopped; its domestic situation is difficult; and we are forced to do things to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that go beyond anything that is commensurate with our objective. We don't want them to be weak. And I see no prospect for them to reverse the situation. And we want to end the war because it requires now an effort out of proportion to the objectives and because it involves us in discussions with countries with whom we have much more important business.

---------------------

This bit of treachery remained secreted away from the public for over thirty years, and offers a valid argument against the wanton classication of information by the Bush Administration.

Blaming Bush for 911? Hardly, the blames stretches back into the end of the Carter Administration, a heaping helping is upon the backs of the reagancomics, Bush Sr. deserves his rightful share, as does BillyJeff. This is were most of the blame lies.

But who was ultimately tasked at the job of America's defense on September 11, 2001? The Bush Administration weaseled away from their responsibility, an indication of their rightful membership within the antinomian contemporary conservatives.

If Kissinger was not a legitimate statesman, then what bearing does that have now? Just because Kissinger made an egregious error in office, does that mean that Bush necessarily did as well? Just because Kissinger was an idiot, does that absolve Jane Fonda of what she did? No.

I fail to see even the correlation between the two, much less the causative argument leading us to denounce Bush for Fonda-gate.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't 1972 one of the years with a major scaleback of American forces for the precise reason that Nixon wanted an honorable peace? In that context Kissinger's words sound consistent with policy at the time.

Why aren't there any groups lobbying with a liberty agenda? Why are we so focused on relying on Political parties to come up with plans?

Isn't the libertarian philosophy to set government up in such a way that its actions do no harm?

To take on the responsibity of securing your own life, liberty and property?

It's in this spirit that I wrote this.

http://freeamericaact.blogspot.com/

To get back to the "values" aspect of this post... I'm not sure if issues like gun control and religious expression are "non-existent" problems. Democrats want to limit the use of handguns, and have wanted to do so for awhile now. There's not a consensus by any means in Congress about that issue.

Religious expression is under attack, particularly the free exercise clause. Groups like the ACLU sue Christians for having floats in parades, but then turn around and defend the right of religious Native Americans to express themselves in public. "The ACLU doesn't hate religion, just Christianity" as the all-too-applicable bumper sticker reads.

As for the dignity of all human life... I presume that's a vague reference to abortion, which is a problem. People have a right to their own property (defined broadly, as the Founders referred to it), but they do not have a right to kill. Some of you may disagree that abortion is murder, but the very fact that such a disagreement exists demonstrates that "dignity of all human life" is an ongoing debate in the country.

Although I will have to concede... this is obviously politics working its course in an election year.

>>Religious expression is under attack, particularly the free exercise clause. Groups like the ACLU sue Christians for having floats in parades, but then turn around and defend the right of religious Native Americans to express themselves in public.<<

Marcus, do you have a link or source for that?

Were the floats publically funded or not? If so, did that Christian group pay taxes?

There are several mitigating factors on something like that.

You can't expect to receive tax dollars if you don't pay into it.

The same for the Native American side.

It seems I was slightly mistaken. The Indians were homosexuals who were described as "holy people" in the parade. Here's the story: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41724

(Yes, I know WND is conservative, but check the facts if you're skeptical.)

And here's another example: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Jun/28/ln/ln22a.html

The ACLU sues Honolulu for allowing the Hawaiian Christian Coalition to disallow a homosexual group from participating (the ACLU maintains that the city co-sponsors it, but it sounds like all the city did was grant routes and basic protection, which is assumed in a city parade).

...

Now, if the ACLU was placing equal emphasis on removing any kind of spiritual representation in a publicly-funded event (including among the gay Indians), then that would be perfectly consistent with the famous Jeffersonian "wall of separation." But instead minority groups and smaller spiritual religions are allowed to speak their message, while Christians can't even put up a sign that says Merry Christmas.

This might be all anecdotal, but I think "Persecution" by David Limbaugh shows that the separation of church and state has become synonymous with "allow everything but Judeo-Christian symbols."

Government shouldn't sponsor religion, period. But think about this: Homosexuals can parade through San Francisco on an almost weekly basis; the KKK can walk through Skokie ("I hate Illinois Nazis!"); spiritual Indians are allowed to be in public events; ALL of these require certain governmental restrictions. So why are Christians targeted when these other groups are not?. After all, if we are to have the free expression of religion, and there are certain unavoidable obstacles to public events that involve using the government, then how can the ACLU justify that since the government was involved then Christianity cannot be? (The "unavoidable" aspects involve obtaining certain city permits and sometimes even police to comply with city regulations.)

It appears that since even public religious displays require certain governmental involvement (as even secular displays require) that the ACLU uses that as a reason to cry foul about the separation of church and state, which is an attempt to -restrict- the free exercise of religion.

I blame Bush for lying to the people about the rational for war. If that is treasonous I'm happy to be such, but you'll have to explain how being treasonous to a President is a crime.

A President lying and fabricating evidence to lead the nation into war under false pretenses IS a crime of treason, an I believe Geroge Bush is guilty of the crime and should stand impeachment, along with the ringleader, Big Dick Cheney, the gangster who works for th "defense" contractors...uh, permanment war footing in america.

Well, the WND story seems Denver's actions were dicriminatory. However they don't need a new amendment to protect what's already protected. Just because one is restricted by locals, doesn't mean one is in the wrong. Not only was the city violating their right to free speech, but to free exercise of religion.

The details of the Honolulu case are questionable. IF the city provided to this parade what it denied to other private parades, then they cannot discriminate based on religion or message. Technically, floats saying "F**k N***ERS" should even be permissible, even if inapproporiate. Which is why government shouldn't be partially or fully sponsoring parades in the first place.

However, if it provided services that were available to other parades but not used by those other parades, then it's a private matter and the Supreme Court is on their side. Being sued doesn't mean you're in the wrong. It doesn't call for a new amendment, just an application of the existing one.

If you're looking for new amendments to protect everyone's freedoms, I invite you to visit

http://freeamericaact.blogspot.com/

While religious liberty is still around, I have to agree that discrimination is a problem. The federal government, being paid for at taxpayer expense, belongs just as much to my religious friends as it does my aethist friends. Not everyone believes in God. Not everyone believes Martin Luther King was a good man, that Lincoln/Jefferson/Washington were good presidents but that doesn't stop government from naming streets or courthouses after them. But, if a sign even remotely religious is there, it's time to sue and remove it.

Passing an amendment to ban flag burning is rather silly. But so was the supreme court decision. Not everyone believes you should have a right to burn someone else's flag in front of them (which was the case in question) In my opinion, it is not unconstitutional to make it a greater crime to destroy my property in a way that offends me then to just destroy the property.

Even if the president lied about a war, Congress is the body to blame for it. There was a time when this would have happened to. The president should not be impeached for lying about a war. This would be nothing more than an attempt by Congress to pass the buck. BTW, EVERY leader in history has lied about war, this is to be expected in order to keep morale high.

I actually agree with ~75% of the platform, so I'm more 'L' then 'R' or 'D'. In English class we learned that there are 3 types of audiences: friendly, neutral, or hostile. The LP writes these articles as if I was 'friendly' to every issue the LP takes. This isolates potential LP voters on issues that arent actually that important. When voters who align with the Republican party but are tired of say spending read these articles, it turns us off to the LP. The LP would be better to assume the audience is "nuetral" in the future.

In other words, try to write an article about your "values agenda" instead of attacking someone elses.

Well keep in mind that not all of us are members of the Libertarian Party (I, for instance, am a registered Republican, but am gradually warming to the LP), so you're not gonna get a monolithic conversation on here about issues. Even among members of the LP there are liberals and conservatives who divide over abortion, among other issues.

I think what the original article was doing was pointing out an aspect of potential ridicule among Republicans in Congress. Then, the author wrote that these are actually non-issues.

Granted, constant condemnation may lead to nihilism, but this is an instance where I don't think we're exactly going to devolve into Nietzche worshippers.

Since this blog is on the LP website, the issues are also readily available through the links on the site itself. Criticism (when constructive) often breeds discussion, which is the point of the blog (as I see it at least.)

I liked your points, though, zanatose. I think people largely look at Bush and hate him for whatever reason, then place blame on him for just that reason. He certainly led us into the war, and he is the commander-in-chief, so, if we deny the mountains of -credible- evidence for the invasion, he certainly would be worthy of serious blame. Personally I don't buy it though, and Congress can't exactly act as if they had no say in the matter.

Marcus Brutus

(Interesting choice for a name incidentally) When exactly did congress issue a Declaration of War as mandated by the Constitution, which is still - although the Neocons hate it, the supreme law of the land. It will be interesting to see what the "conservative" Supreme Court will do if anyone ever has the guts to challenge the Constitutionality of the "War Powers Act".

When did George Bush become Commander in Chief of anything other than the military?

I for one do not want "protection" from the government at the expense of my Liberty. I would rather die free than live as a subject.

As I see it we lost the so-called War on Terror September 12, 2001.

The choice of name was intentional; I'm doing research on early America and "Brutus" was the name that (allegedly) Robert Yates took as an anti-Federalist. I wanted to have something more creative than just "Steve."

As to your point... Congress -did- authorize the use of force in Iraq. I'm not sure if they did with Afghanistan (I was still a freshman in college then, too busy worrying about where to get drunk on the weekend), so you might have a valid point there.

The whole controversy, in my opinion, about the larger War on Terror is one of interpretation, not one of complete abandonment of the Constitution. I'm not trying to justify it by any means, but at the same time it's not fair to say that the neocons just don't believe in the supremacy of the Constitution.

Whether they are right, however, is a different issue...

Rubbish Marcus, it is perfectly fair. When you hold something as the supreme law of the land, you go by its dictums. You do not, on the other hand craft dubious legislation to try and end run it because it thwarts your agenda. Show me where in the Constitution there are provisions for pseudo-wars simply based on Congressional resolutions or the allocation of funds.

The Neocons are "One Worlders" who have launched an agenda via "false flag" crisis and the ruthless exploitation of fear to undermine our Constitutional Republic in favor of a "Democratic" socialistic plutocracy.

If you have chosen to take the name of an ANTI-Federalist - act like one Marcus, and do not support excuses for the hijacking of OUR country. THAT is one of the central differences between Republicans (or Republicrats) and Libertarians.

Was I trying to justify their interpretation? I believe I specifically said I was not. The methods that the neocons are taking are based upon their interpretation of the Constitution and the powers it grants, NOT an attempt to abandon the Constitution in favor of maintaining power; that was (and to a certain extent still is) the agenda of the Progressives.

Two clauses found in Article I:

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations."

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"

Now, given that al-Qaeda had bombed the USS Cole in 2000 and our embassy in 1998; that Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush in 1993; and that al-Qaeda itself had attacked us on 9/11, I think Congress had the power to declare these people enemies of the United States. With al-Qaeda, is it a "pseudo-war" because they are not a state entity? If that's the case do we just ignore them attacking us because they aren't a sovereign nation, and thus we don't have the right to fight them?

Again I reiterate: I am NOT trying to defend the neocons with the war or anything, but I am able to see their rationale for the process this War on Terror has taken. And in that sense, saying they are deliberately abandoning the Constitution is incorrect: If you say they are interpreting it incorrectly, given historical evidence (particularly from its authors) and precedence, then you would have a very valid point.

I just hate it when people attack the Bush administration by saying "They're deliberately dodging the rules of the Constitution!" or any derivative of that. It's simply not true. They believe in the supremacy of the Constitution, and they have interpreted it in such a way that allows the U.S. (in their minds) to fight an enemy that is not a sovereign nation. Is that wrong? Looks like it. The Constitution isn't meant to be interpreted in a million different ways to fit a particular agenda. THAT, to me, is the basis for dissenting in this case, and for seeking to take back the proper limitation of government from the current administration. It is not, however, a reason to say they don't care about the Constitution. Were that the case, then why would they try to justify their actions with the Constitution? Unless one's instinct is to believe in conspiracies, then it seems prevailing evidence discredits the anti-Constitution argument.

I will maintain my thought process that led me to name myself "Marcus Brutus," but I'm not going to let myself be blinded by hyperbole either. If I'm going to dissent from the Bush administration on the grounds of maintaining the limits of the Constitution, I'm not going to make ad hominem presumptions, but rather make a diligent effort to understand why they think the way they do and demonstrate how their logic is flawed and contrary to what the Founders intended; I'm not going to establish from the beginning that because they are wrong then they must be trying to skirt the Constitution.

Marcus, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama had nothing to do with Iraq. It is not the job of the United States to protect the world. If that was the case, we should be in many countries, not just Iraq.

The Bush administration has stepped way beyond its authority, and I think it's shameful that people are still making excuses for them.

For the third time I will state, I am not defending the neocons. Fourthly, I am NOT DEFENDING THE NEOCONS. Is it so tragic that I can actually understand their argument AND disagree with it? Or is understanding the direct predecessor to agreement?

And no, it is not the job of the United States to protect the world. I agree with you on that. But we were also talking about the Constitution and whether certain powers were granted to the administration for this war. It is THEIR interpretation that they are fully within the limits laid forth by the Constitution. I may not agree with that, you may not agree with that, but that is what THEY believe. That's all I have been saying: What they believe, not a justification. To say things like "they've overstepped their authority" or "they are sidestepping the Constitution" without a willingness to discuss their rationale seems to be a conversation ender rather than something for discussion.

I think I'll probably just stop posting on this particular thread because I'm afraid I'll start to look like a Bushite if I keep describing the administration's rationale. I certainly don't want to make enemies while I'm still an infant on this board. :)

No Marcus, I do not believe you are a Neocon or are defending the Neocons, I too understand what they are up to. I disagree with them. I do not conditionally defend the tenants of the Constitution I defend it 100% of the time. Mr. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and every other last member of the Executive along with both the Legislative and Judicial took a solemn oath to do the same, period. They absolutely DO NOT "...believe in the supremacy of the Constitution..." their deeds reflect the EXACT opposite of their hollow, cynical words, and I believe one of them called it "...Just a godamn piece of paper..." (yes, I think it WAS Bush who said it anyone else would have been intelligent enough to realize it was written on parchment).

The logic on going to "War" is non-sensical, Al Quida began life as more of a CRIMINAL organization than a state sanctioned one (although we are beginning to change that with our war mongering policies). Do we go to war against nations based solely on body count? Italy should be grateful that the Mafia didn't blow up the FBI and DOJ buildings I guess.

How do you win "War's" against enemies you can't readily identify? I guess you could Nuke the entire Middle East, that would solve it. Oh, by then the oil fields would be gone and all those opportunities for the IMF and World Bank to get their claws into the region would also be gone. COULD THAT be the Real reason we are at "War"?

One thing is certain George Bush is almost better in creating Islamic states than Mohammed himself was, first Afghanistan now Iraq...

The worst thing anyone can be, according to our current government:

A gay married couple driving a car with no seatbelts, lighting a cigarrette with a burning American flag.

Is flag burning really such a problem? Hold on, let me go look out the window... darn, can't see anything in my neighborhood...too much smoke from all those burning flags.

Bread and circuses people.

The cigarette has to be a marijuana cigarette.

My whole point with the Neocon thing was that it's crucial to understand an argument in order to discredit it with efficacy. I hate it when people start throwing around phrases, catchwords, and hyperbole all in the name of protesting against something, because all they end up doing is making fools out of themselves.

This whole disagreement, from my point of view, was based on my attempt to encourage everyone to protest on the basis of knowing your enemy and his intentions rather than just protesting out of principle alone. Princples are definitely important (we're the party of principle), but pragmatism dictates that you need to know -why- you are fighting against something, and what specifically you need to discredit.

I recently sent this e-mail to some of my friends:

With "values" becoming such an important word in politics these days, I thought I would examine a value that almost everyone could agree on: the right of individuals to own property. What I learned shocked me; that right no longer exists in the United States of America. Between last year's Supreme Court decision on Kelo v. New London, which basically legalized eminent domain abuse, and civil asset forfeiture laws, the government can seize your property or assets almost indiscriminately. Many of us are familiar with civil asset forfeiture from illegal drug laws. What you probably don't know is that civil asset forfeiture can be used to seize your property even if you are not accused of a crime:

Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary. (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm)

It gets better, if the value of your property (which includes not only real estate, but also cars, money, etc) is under 1/2 million dollars, you won't get a trial, either:

Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. В§ 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value. (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm)

States are now beginning to use civil asset forfeiture in laws other than those involving illegal drugs. This practice is simply a power grab and is strictly prohibited by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, as well as the 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th Amendments). While our representatives argue over divisive, ancillary issues, the basic foundation of our rights and freedoms are eroding away. For more information on civil asset forfeiture, go to the following links:
www.fear.org
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Property_Rights/Forfeiture/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html

Marcus, if you wish to know your "enemy" here is a way you can. Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration power-wielders could be traced back to political philosophers Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter, go read their philosophies. Then check out the project for the New American Century it is all laid out there - even the necessity for 9/11.

The official policy of the Bush Administration is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade. Chief among them are: 1) the policy of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., whenever the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be attacked, without provocation. (A later corollary would rethink the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be employed in these regional wars.) 2) international treaties and opinion will be ignored whenever they are not seen to serve U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia." In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of "shock & awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons) keeping the outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."

Sound familiar?

I've read the neoconservative literature. I used to BE a neoconservative. I bought the entire thing, and believed it with all of my heart. Thus, I know what they believe and what they don't. As for Leo Strauss, I know that many of the neocons might look to him for inspiration, but that they have also misunderstood his message with regard to foreign policy. Not to sound cocky, but I feel that because I've read all of this and tried to put myself in their shoes, then I'm in a unique position to point out policy shortcomings and blatant errors of judgment with regard to the neocons.

People who just read libertarian literature or news stories dealing with the horrors of the Iraq war are in such a poor position to criticize that they end up making the entire anti-war effort appear full of ignorant radical hippies. There's a great intellectual argument against the neocon policy, an argument that is both more informed (by definition) and more effective in disproving current Bush polices.

Cindy Sheehan only draws attention to herself, and people who march in the street spitting hyperbole and invective will never achieve their goal. If the LP, or just people in general, would take the time to read the things that they disagree with, they'd find themselves both more informed and capable of pointing out key problems rather than just screaming in the street with cardboard signs.

Unfortunately Marcus, the main thrust of the Libertarian Party at this moment seems to be less in formulating intelligent, intellectual arguments to define and correct the problems of our times, but more in trying to dilute our message, in order to pander for votes by playing with the platform and arguing over some pledge or another. I think a lot of disenfranchised Dems and Republicans are coming over here and want to modify us into accepting some of their Socialist garbage such as Social Security and excessive taxation. I may have to end up in the Constitution Party in spite of all their religious crap.

However welcome aboard, anyone who has broken through the mind numbing zombieism of the Neocons has my respect.

Marcus' assessment of the LP's attitude toward the War in Iraq is correct. I am a member of the LP, but I almost did not join because the party seems anti-war just to be anti-war. There are many things wrong with the War in Iraq, not the least of which is it is not a "war" as defined under the Constitution. As far as President Bush's treatment of privacy, please read Richard A. Epstein's "Executive Power on Steroids" (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5557) to see how the President has overstepped his constitutional powers. Congress declares war and makes laws. The President executes the war and enforces the laws. For all practical purposes, the executive branch has declared war and decided which laws apply to it when carrying out the war.

However, Iraq is just a symptom of the problem. The U.S. Constitution is simply ignored by our government. Property rights in our country have been destroyed. The 6th Amendment and the principle of habeus corpus have been disregarded in the War on Terror. The 4th Amendment is under attack by "no knock search warrants." The IRS ignores the 7th Amendment. The War on Drugs has led to a militarization of our police forces. The list goes on and on. All these abuses have happened with the Republicans and Democrats in power. It seems to me that the LP could concentrate a lot less on Iraq and, as Chuck said, define and offer solutions for the other enormous problems facing our nation.

(There seems to be a problem with your web site. Every time I tried to sign in with "share e-mail" checked, I got back to where I started, informed that I had not signed in. Only by checking "Don't sign in" could I get this far. I knew that you libertarians had your own meanings for words, but this is ludicrous.)

I wanted to enter your discussion about the fact that we have too much government in the USA. With this undeniable fact I emphatically agree. However, Libertarianism can never hope to conquer tyranny because of the fatal flaws in its logic that play always into the hands of the tyrants.

Libertarians tend to believe in self-ownership. But the real test of ownership is the ability to sell (or even destroy) what we think we own. But the selling of oneself is the definition of slavery. There are many willing to do this, as is proven by the millions of slaves now under the care of Massa Uncle Sam. And they dutifully vote for whoever promises the most in bread & circuses, and will always outnumber principled people (who generally cannot agree with each other) on election day.

There also seems to be a very high percentage of atheists among the Libertarians, or, more correctly, pagans devoted to self-worship. When I am the highest authority, my authority is equal to that of anyone else. But my authority to determine that I have the right to be left alone is no greater than the authority of Joe Tyrant who determine that HE has a right not to leave me alone, and we are left with "might makes right", the law of the jungle, wherein all have the "right" to eat or be eaten.

It is easy to talk about and claim rights, but who defines them? Government? No. The individual? See the above paragraph. There is but one possible answer: We get our rights from our Creator, and He defines them. God exists, whether or not we condescend to acknowlege the fact. And His authorship of our being, gives Him certain rights over us, including the right to establish rules by which we ought to live. These rules are commonly called (gasp!) the Ten Commandments.

Do you wonder why so many of you libertarians agree with our tyrannical leaders that the Ten Commandments must be banished from public life? I don't wonder about the tyrants-- The Decalogue stands in the way of tyranny, subjecting government officials to an authority higher than themselves.

You see, we have the right to life solely because our Creator has forbidden murder. We have the right to property only because our Maker forbids theft. And so on. The Ten Commandments are mankind's most basic Bill of Rights. Governments can recognize those rights and honor them (by acknowledging and submitting itself to their Source), or it can trample on our rights (by refusing to acknowledge same), but no government can grant, invent, or repeal rights, only privileges.

Anyone who claims to be in favor of human liberty, but against God and His Commandments is therefore a living contradiction, like someone who wants reward without labor, effects without causes, or movement without a mover. And he will never be a threat to tyrants.

Dave Melechinsky