The official blog of the Libertarian Party

Main | May 2005 »

April 29, 2005

Non-terror-related wiretaps on the rise

The use of court-authorized secret wiretaps skyrocketed in 2004, as state and federal judges approved every single law enforcement request for permission to listen in on private electronic communications.

In all, 1,710 applications for wiretaps were approved, an increase of 19 percent from the prior year. This number does not include court-ordered wiretaps for terrorism-related investigations. Those taps are handled under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and accounted for a record 1,754 in 2004.

Looking only at the non-terror-related wiretaps, federally approved taps increased by 26 percent in 2004 (to 730) and state-approved wiretaps increased by 13 percent, to 980.

Interestingly, three-quarters of the wiretaps were approved in four states -- New York, California, New Jersey and Florida -- according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which recently reported the year's figures to Congress.

Is it reasonable to believe that every single one of the requested non-terrorism-related wiretaps was actually warranted, no pun intended?

Or is it, rather, safe to assume that forcing law enforcement to "request" a warrant to install wiretaps is a mere symbolic gesture -- given that judges are obviously willing to simply take the law enforcement agencies at their word when they say the wiretaps are necessary, legitimate and appropriate?

Posted by at 03:18 PM | Comments (31)

April 28, 2005

Simplify the tax code. And while you're at it, quit spending so much money!

President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform has completed the first phase of examining the current federal tax system, coming to one very important conclusion: There are too many tax breaks, credits and deductions available.

Now, we could interpret this in several different ways, beginning with the assumption that the advisory commission is flat wrong, that any tax break is a good tax break. Or we could head straight to the opposite conclusion, that the tax code is abominably convoluted and should be simplified as quickly as possible by eliminating many of the available deductions and credits.

The bottom line is this: The best thing the federal government could do to ease Americans' tax burden would be to cut the amount of money that is spent -- not to find new and creative ways to take money from us.

Rather than trying to coerce Americans to buy hybrid vehicles or to use alternative fuels; rather than cutting taxes for people who get married or have children, thereby encouraging people to leap into marriage (and, often unadvisedly, to spawn); and rather than penalizing people for not making charitable contributions -- in short, rather than penalizing or rewarding people at tax time for making personal lifestyle decisions, the feds should simply levy a reasonable, fair tax on all Americans.

The question "What is a fair tax?" must, of course, be addressed at some point. For one proposed solution, known simply enough as the Fair Tax, go to www.FairTax.org.

But this much is certain:

Any tax reform must seek to simplify the tax code, and to make it more uniform.

As Henry David Thoreau famously wrote, "Simplify, simplify, simplify." Some wags have noted that Thoreau could easily have simplified his own dictum by sticking with one "simplify."

And bureaucrats have followed the same unfortunate trend: By trying too hard to encourage some behaviors and to punish others, by rewarding political allies and "key constituent groups", and by ostensibly trying to make taxes equitable, they have managed to abandon all pretext of simplicity.

One word: Simplify.

And while they're at it, they should simplify their spending habits, as well.

Instead of shuffling beleaguered Americans through a system of punishments and rewards -- ever feel like a laboratory mouse seeking to get fed and not to get shocked in this bureaucrat-devised labyrinth? -- the U.S. government should instead turn its focus to spending less of the taxpayers' money in the first place.

I, for one, could put up with a complicated tax code if only they wouldn't take such a hearty bite out of my paycheck.

And many Americans agree. That's why they want to keep every single one of the tax credits, deductions and breaks they can qualify for. But is it too much to ask for BOTH decreased government spending AND a simplified tax code? I don't think so.

[Read this Associated Press story about Bush's advisory commission's preliminary findings.]

Posted by at 03:32 PM | Comments (80)

The Growing Toll of the Iraqi Conflict

Although media coverage of the ongoing occupation of Iraq is sparse, American service members and contractors continue to die each day in the sustained violence.

To date, 1,564 American military personnel have died in the conflict that began as a preemptive war due to the threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Approximately 17,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been wounded seriously enough to have been evacuated from the combat arena.

In addition to military deaths, 84 American contractors have also lost their lives in Iraq. Last week, the North Carolina security firm, Blackwater, lost five employees in a missile attack. The 84 American civilians killed does not include government civilians attached to the CIA or other agencies.

The total human toll is unknown. There is no accurate accounting of how many Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. Hospitals in Iraq were ordered to stop counting the dead in December of 2003 at the direction of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Estimates of Iraqis killed range from 20,000 to over 100,000.

George W. Bush declared on May 1st, 2003 that, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed" and "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." Despite the declaration of victory nearly two years ago, the violence in Iraq is sustained.

It should be noted that our military continues to honorably and bravely serve even though they know the objections to the invasion of Iraq and are surrounded by a continued loss of life of those that they stand next to. They should be honored now and throughout history for their service to their country.

Posted by Shane Cory at 10:37 AM | Comments (31)

April 26, 2005

Privacy for OBL?

Although this was covered in the latest "Outrage of the Week," it is a must see, must comment item:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/osama.pdf

The FBI document was uncovered by a government watchdog group through the Freedom of Information Act.

Instead of simply releasing the document, the FBI instead chose to take advantage of a FOIA exemption in order to protect the identity of none other than Osama bin Laden.

Is this a case of a low-level government clerk on a redaction binge or is it the Bush admin's government secrecy run amok?

Posted by Shane Cory at 04:01 PM | Comments (35)

April 25, 2005

Rep. Ron Paul: Who is Better Off?

On April 6th, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas gave the following speech before the House of Representatives.

Just in case you missed this, it is well worth the read:

Who's Better Off?

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: "Aren't the people of Iraq better off?" The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to declare, "Mission Accomplished." But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we're now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or "supporting terrorists." It's implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn't support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real question ought to be: "Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?" Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn't be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don't like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it's already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect "our" oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn't make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it's easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don't want to hear asked, because they don't want to face up to the answer, is this: "Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?" The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It's strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it's difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there's another question that is equally important: "Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?"

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren't better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I'd say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein's rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it's more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we're supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let's hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There's no need for that. It's up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm

Posted by Shane Cory at 11:40 PM | Comments (14)

The DeLay Slide Continues

Over the weekend the Washington Post published an article detailing another round of ethics violations allegedly committed by Republican Congressman Tom Delay. In this instance the Post obtained receipts of airfare and rounds of golf paid for by Washington lobbyists.

This is yet another issue to add onto Rep. Delay's numerous ethics violations from the past. In 2004, Delay was admonished for giving special access to energy executives as part of a golf outing and fundraiser. Previously, the republican politician improperly used the Federal Aviation Administration to track democratic members of the Texas Legislature in order to force a redistricting vote.

Despite the ongoing discoveries by what Delay considers the "liberal media," few of his republican colleagues are requesting an investigation into the ethics accusations. Abiding by Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican," the GOP leadership, including the president, are failing to keep their own house in order.

Posted by Shane Cory at 08:54 PM | Comments (9)

April 23, 2005

Lp.org Goes Live With New Site

Welcome to the all new LP.org! While the look and feel of the site looks very similar to the old version, we've revamped the backend, updated the graphics and added quite a few new features.

First, is the much requested LP blog which you are now reading. Expect regular updates from an array of contributors in the coming weeks. Commenting will be enabled on all posts for at least ten days after posting. Additionally, we will be posting links to our RSS feeds for those interested (RSS and Java syndication for the main content and LP News will be coming as well).

The site is now on a dedicated dual Xeon powerhouse so visitors should not experience any lag time or long loads. In addition to the new server, there is an entirely new backend content management system (CMS). The new CMS will ease updates and permit quick redesigns in the coming years.

Along with the interactivity of the blog, we've added a daily poll that can be found on the front page (or simply click here).

As a separate service, we've setup a new site using Wikipedia software, LPedia.org. Consider it an online encyclopedia for the Libertarian Party written by the Libertarian community. Be sure to take the time and visit LPedia.org and add your own thoughts.

As the structure permits easy changes and quick implementation of add-ons, we are open to any suggestions that you may have.

Please take the time to explore the new site at your convenience and let us know what you think.

Posted by Shane Cory at 11:25 AM | Comments (32)

April 18, 2005

GOP Gaining Ground with Filibuster Block

Senate Republicans are moving forward with full force to block minority filibusters on judicial nominations. The issue gained momentum with the help of the GOP's base after the court ruling against the family of Florida woman, Terri Schiavo, and her subsequent death.

Embattled Congressmen Tom Delay expressed his feelings towards the judicial branch and state judiciaries with his recent comment that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Delay has subsequently apologized for the comment but his congressional colleagues in the Senate are moving the torch forward.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is looking to stir the pot in a coming telecast to groups of social conservatives through the Family Research Council.

Let us know how you feel about this GOP tactic on judicial nominations by commenting below.

Posted by Shane Cory at 04:33 PM | Comments (20)

Bush Admin Absolves Itself on Intelligence Failures

The presidential commission appointed to investigate intelligence failures related to Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction has released a report absolving the Bush administration of manipulating pre-war intelligence and puts all blame squarely on the back of the entire intelligence community.

The report contradicts the statements of many CIA analysts who felt the Bush administration and Vice President Dick Cheney specifically "cherry picked" intelligence that would support a case for war against Iraq. Cheney himself admitted on Meet the Press that he had made several visits to CIA headquarters during that time. Additionally, during the congressional hearings regarding "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame, three former CIA employees testified regarding Cheney's unprecedented visits and that he personally sat down at Langley and sifted through intelligence reports with analysts.

The commission's report is also seriously flawed when compared to historical facts. For instance, they report that the aluminum tubes which the administration presented as definitive proof of a reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program, where incorrectly assessed by "most agencies in the intelligence community." The commission failed to highlight that the Bush administration relied strongly upon the views of one unqualified scientist and that government scientists who disagreed with the assessment were instructed to "to remain silent." Despite the IAEA and the UN presenting an "air tight" case that the tubes were to be used as conventional rockets, the Bush administration clearly chose to ignore this evidence. This was not a case of failed intelligence but one of selective hearing.

The Bush administration through its manipulation of the media and its own government agencies is solely responsible for creating a false WMD threat which was the primary basis for war with Iraq.

Since the invasion of Iraq based upon the threat of weapons of mass destruction, over 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to have been killed, over 1,500 American military personnel have lost their lives and nearly 17,000 have been wounded.

Posted by Shane Cory at 04:16 PM | Comments (12)