Democracy Now! November 28, 2011

I normally haven’t put any entire news stories by Democracy Now! on my blog but this one I felt was important to see and there may also be some viewers who are fans of independent filmmaker Michael Moore. After some headlines (Planned Parenthood being attacked by republicans again is one story) there is a long talk with Michael Moore about the Occupy Wall Street protest and more clips of police brutality that took place.

Democracy Now! November 28, 2011

Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled

This is a talk by NCSE's Eugenie Scott about the similar tactics of the evolution and global warming deniers. This took place September 15, 2011 in Glasgow, Scotland.

Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled

Police Brutality on Wall Street

Over at OccupyWallStreet they show video of a cop pepper spraying a group of unarmed, innocent women as they were pinned inside of a police line. This sickens me.




Here is a video showing more detail of the filthy pig in slow motion, highlighting his actions.

Police Brutality on Wall Street

A Message to Florida "pastor" Michael Stahl

A Message to Florida "pastor" Michael Stahl

REDACTED: Stop the Murder of Troy Anthony Davis!

Update 9-22-11: A little over two years after I wrote this post I am horribly saddened and angered to report that Troy Davis has been murdered. It happened September 21, 2011 at 11:08pm ET in Georgia after a last minute stay by the supreme court was rejected.

Before his murder Troy’s final words were the following:

Eyewitnesses described the mood in the execution chamber as "somber" as Davis was wheeled in strapped to a gurney. He declared his innocence a final time in the 1989 murder as witnesses and relatives of the victim -- off-duty Savannah, Ga., policeman Mark MacPhail -- looked on.

"I'd like to address the MacPhail family," Davis said, according to The Associated Press. "Let you know, despite the situation you are in, I'm not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.

"The incident that happened that night is not my fault," he added. "I did not have a gun. All I can ask ... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth.

"I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight," he said. "For those about to take my life, God have mercy on your souls. And may God bless your souls."

I was watching Bill Maher's Real Time and one of his guests was wearing a "I Am Troy" t-shirt. The guest mentioned some about the case so I went to the website and was shocked and sickened by the injustice!

I've copied the information from the PDF they have available about the case.

Please spread this far and wide.

NAACP Summary of the Troy Davis Case


The NAACP urges its members, constituents and friends to take action in the fight to save the life of Troy Anthony Davis. On October 24, 2008, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of execution to consider Troy Davis’ request for his second Federal Habeas petition, just three days prior to his third scheduled execution. On April 16, 2009 that request was denied. As Troy Davis faces execution for the murder of an off‐duty police officer in Georgia, we are reminded of the barriers to fairness that still plague our criminal justice system.

In 1991, Troy Davis was wrongfully convicted for the murder of an off‐duty police officer and sentenced to death in the state of Georgia, despite a lack of physical evidence presented at trial. The murder of Officer Mark MacPhail took place outside a Burger King restaurant in Savannah, Georgia. On the night Officer MacPhail was killed, he was working as a security guard at the Burger King. During the early morning hours, Officer MacPhail responded to the pleas of a homeless man, Mr. Larry Young, who was being harassed and threatened by Mr. Sylvester “Redd” Coles. Troy Davis, along with another man, also heard the commotion and followed the scuffle into the parking lot. Witnesses reported that once in the parking lot, Mr. Coles reached into his pants for a gun and threatened Mr. Young stating, “You don’t know me, don’t walk away from me, I’ll shoot you.” Mr. Young was then hit over the head with the gun as onlookers attempted to break up the altercation. Officer MacPhail heard Mr. Young’s cry for help and while approaching the scene was shot and killed by a .38 caliber firearm.

Hours before Officer MacPhail was killed, there was another shooting incident in the
neighborhood where Mr. Coles resided. A young man, Michael Cooper, was injured when the car in which he was riding came under fire. Both Coles and Davis were attending a nearby party at the time of that shooting. Afterwards, Coles was heard arguing with Mr. Joseph Blige, a passenger in the car that was shot at. It was reported that Blige exclaimed to Coles, “I thought y’all were trying to kill me,” implying that Blige thought Coles had shot at him in the car.

Shell casings from the earlier incident matched one shell casing found near Mr. Coles’ residence and where Officer MacPhail was shot. These shell cases were fired from a .38 caliber revolver. Despite this important evidence, a search of Mr. Coles’ residence was never conducted in efforts to find the murder weapon. In fact, although he initially denied it, Mr. Coles was ultimately forced to admit that he was carrying a .38 caliber revolver on the night of the shootings. Mr. Coles refused to produce the revolver for ballistics testing and the weapon has never been
recovered, and no evidence or witness testimony regarding the Cooper shooting was ever presented at Troy Davis’ trial.

Although Mr. Coles was the initial suspect in the case, police turned their focus to Troy Davis after Mr. Coles implicated him in the murder – although Mr. Coles was never able to describe the clothing Davis was wearing on the morning in question. In an apparent effort to save himself, Mr. Coles approached the police with his attorney and pointed the finger at Troy Davis after a highly‐visible police canvass of Coles’ neighborhood. Police then procured eyewitness statements that corroborated Mr. Coles’ claim.

Within an hour of Coles’ visit with law enforcement officers, a detective obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Davis. Before conducting an investigation, the detective released Mr. Davis’ name and photograph to members of the press, effectively identifying Mr. Davis as the perpetrator. Detective Ramsey then assembled a photo lineup that included Mr. Davis’ picture, but not one of Mr. Coles. This same photograph of Mr. Davis had been aired repeatedly in local television news program broadcasts, as well as published in local newspapers, corrupting the process in which eyewitnesses review suspects in a “line up.”

Most of the witnesses involved have claimed repeatedly they were subjected to police coercion and they were pressured by the police to point to Troy Davis as the perpetrator. No court has been willing to hear the new evidence in favor of Mr. Davis. In spite of this great injustice, his execution date is expected to be set soon. The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering procedural issues and may consider whether to grant Troy Davis clemency.

Seven of the nine witnesses have now recanted their testimony in affidavits. This is
noteworthy because in Georgia, a perjury conviction for obstructing justice carries a prison sentence of up to life in prison. Seven witnesses have put their personal freedom at stake in order to exonerate an innocent man. Some of the most compelling recanted testimony includes the following statements:

- Dorothy Ferrell explained she felt compelled to identify Mr. Davis because she was on parole and that Police Detective Ramsey suggested he would “help her” if she said Troy Davis shot Officer MacPhail.

- Harriet Murray identified Mr. Davis after a reenactment of the shooting, in which Mr. Coles was allowed to play the role of the innocent bystander because Mr. Davis was “the only one left.”

- Larry Young, the man who had been assaulted near the Burger King, said he “just
couldn’t tell who did what,” that “he has never been able to make sense of what
happened that night,” and “It was as much a blur now as it was then.”

- Jeffrey Sapp explained that false testimony was the result of police pressure. “They wanted me to tell them that Troy confessed to me about killing that officer…Troy never told me anything…they made it clear the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear.”

Mr. Davis' petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is an appeal of the decision by the Georgia Supreme Court which denied him a hearing to examine evidence of his innocence. In Herrera v. Collins (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court presumed that “a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional.”

The NAACP is requesting that the Court goes beyond the assumption and hold that the
constitution bars the execution of a defendant who is demonstrably innocent.
So far, Georgia lower courts have refused to grant an evidentiary hearing in the case, on the grounds that the new evidence does not meet Georgia state law standards relating to the applicability of recanted testimony. The dissenting State Supreme Court judges argued that the “application of the majority’s ‘categorical rule’ against recantation evidence ‘fails to allow an adequate inquiry into the fundamental question, whether or not an innocent person might be convicted or even, as in this case, might be put to death.’”

Davis' request for a hearing relies on the assertion that state law in Georgia surrounding a motion for a new trial creates a federally protected right involving his life and liberty. To ensure such a constitutional right is respected, the NAACP insists a hearing on his new evidence is required.

Finally, this case brings up a Fifth Amendment issue. Georgia’s failure to grant an evidentiary hearing to review the totality of the new evidence violates the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause. Without a hearing Mr. Davis could lose his life, even though the evidence clearly weighs in favor of his innocence. The execution of Mr. Davis would represent blatant disregard for principles of justice, equality and fairness embodied in our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed lower courts to look at the totality of new evidence, rather than looking at portions in isolation, which occurred in his case. If the
evidence is looked at cumulatively, the witness affidavits recanting their original testimony would clearly exonerate Troy Davis.

Davis' petition rightly asserts: “Society, thus, has an interest in ensuring that the executed who can produce substantial, admissible new evidence of their innocence are not executed without the opportunity to vindicate themselves through minimal due process required by our Constitution.”

The NAACP implores not only residents of Georgia, but also citizens and organizations
nationwide to stand up in support of Troy Davis’ right to freedom. It follows from some of the inherent principles of our legal system that, “every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper fact‐finder of his guilt with utmost certainty.” (Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 1970). The seven affidavits recanting witness testimony that led to Troy Davis’ incarceration raise serious doubts as to the validity of the conviction. While the NAACP abhors the killing of a
police officer, and grieves with Officer MacPhail’s family, we cannot condone the execution of an innocent man. Our nation has habitually followed the words of the English Jurist William Blackstone, who said, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

If we allow Troy Davis to die, we will knock down one of the pillars of our jurisdictional foundation.

REDACTED: Stop the Murder of Troy Anthony Davis!

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: The Social Contract

The social contract is an idea that's been around for centuries and has been expounded by some of the world's greatest thinkers: Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes. While I do not agree with each of these mens' ideas in their entirety there is no doubt about the impact these men have had on our political history. For this piece, however, I will not discuss these mens' views, only my own (with the help of some anarchist thinkers of course). My views on the social contract are often at odds with what these men believed, and this is especially the case with Hobbes.

I must be clear. I do not advocate the statist social contract which is forced upon people who live within the borders of the united states or any other government. I am talking about a bona fide contract written, and most importantly, agreed to, by all individuals involved. The grounding principle of Prime demands that each and every individual has the right to agree or disagree with each contract that is written. If they disagree they are free to live in a place where the rules are more to their liking. [1] Now that I've enlightened you about the nature of an actual social contract let us examine the principles of a true voluntary social contract, not the state's perversion of it.

The Statists' Social Contract

The statists' social contract isn't actually a contract at all. It is a case of mob rule and coercion plain and simple. To give a basic example, let's say 85% of voters vote to ban the use of alcohol on Sundays (typically called a blue law, based upon religious dogma), or choose to ban gay marriage, which has happened in several states. What happens to those who didn't vote, or voted no? They are forced at the point of a gun (metaphorically...sometimes) to obey these laws that are forced upon them that they had no involvement with. It is the same with speed limit laws, seat belt laws, and the list goes on and on. What is contractual about these laws? Nothing. To be a true contract the terms must be agreed upon by all parties involved. Anything less amounts to coercion and is immoral.

Voting aside, even the very acceptance of governmental authority is simply a given. It is not agreed upon.

To help make my point I shall quote David Friedman:

Government is an agency of legitimized coercion. The special characteristic that distinguishes governments from other agencies of coercion (such as ordinary criminal gangs) is that most people accept government coercion as normal and proper. The same act that is regarded as coercive when done by a private individual seems legitimate if done by an agent of the government.

If I yell 'Stop, thief!' at a stickup man escaping with my wallet, the bystanders may or may not help, but they will at least recognize the reasonableness of my act. If I yell 'Stop, thief!' at an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, leaving my house after informing me that he has just frozen my bank account, my neighbors will think I'm crazy. Objectively, the IRS is engaged in the same act as the thief. It seizes my resources without my permission. True, it claims to provide me with services in exchange for my taxes, but it insists on collecting the taxes whether or not I want the services. It is, perhaps, a fine point whether that is robbery or extortion. In either case, if it were the act of a private party, everyone would agree that it was a crime.

Suppose that a private employer, offering low wages for long hours of unpleasant work, failed to find enough workers and solved the problem by picking men at random and threatening to imprison them if they refused to work for him. He would be indicted on charges of kidnapping and extortion and acquitted on grounds of insanity. That is exactly how the government hires people to fight a war or sit on a jury.

It is often argued that government, or at least some particular government, is not merely legitimized but legitimate, that its actions only appear to be coercive. Such arguments often involve social contract theories – claims that the citizen is somehow contractually bound to obey the government. To those interested in that argument and its refutation I recommend No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.

Government is distinguished from other criminal gangs by being legitimized. It is distinguished from legitimate nongovernmental groups which may serve some of the same functions by the fact that it is coercive. Governments build roads. So, occasionally, do private individuals. But the private individuals must first buy the land at a price satisfactory to the seller. The government can and does set a price at which the owner is forced to sell.

Government is an agency of legitimized coercion. If the institutions which replace government perform their functions without coercion, they are not governments. If they occasionally act coercively but, when they do so, their actions are not regarded as legitimate, they are still not governments. [2]

Man, in his infinite ignorance, continues to believe that he has some kind of voluntary contract with the government but he does not. It is a false belief that he is adhering to and despite the evidence against this belief he persists in accepting it.

Even that revered document, the united states constitution, is not in anyway a valid contract. An anarchist who eloquently makes this point is the individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner who said in his essay No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between person living eighty years ago [This essay was written in 1869]. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between person who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, AS AN AGREEMENT, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. […]

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. […]

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” […]

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed “the people of the United States,” for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of “the people” as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as “we,” nor as “people,” nor as “ourselves.” Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any “posterity.” It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it. (emphasis in original) [3]

Without consent any and all contracts are null and void and are unenforceable and immoral.

The Social Contract as Demanded by Prime

It should be clear by now that in order to be a valid contract all parties involved must consent to the contract if it is to be enforceable. If someone disagrees with the contract they are free to find a different community to live in or further negotiations can take place until both sides are content.

Crime and Punishments

Only through the social contract can a person be ethically held to the rules of society. For the majority to force a man to not smoke in a restaurant without his consent, for example, is immoral. As Lysander Spooner said, “Vices are not crimes.” However, aside from these “vices” there are laws that should never be broken, such as no murder or theft, etc. because they violate the very essence of Prime. These rules are the very basis of a civil society and could not exist without them. Because they are the basis of natural human interaction these rules do not require a contract to be enforceable. With a more advanced civilization with more individuals, a more complex rule book must come into play and that is when the social contract is most useful.

So Many People, So Little Time

It may be objected to that it would not be possible to get everyone's opinion on the contracts that are written, but I don't see why this would be a stumbling block to this form of organization. Even today with the state census, forms are regularly sent out to everyone and I do not see why a copy of the proposed rules (or proposed changes to be agreed upon) cannot be sent to everyone in a given society. It could also be possible to have voting polls as we have today, the only difference being that the people are coming to acknowledge the contract and formally consenting to it by giving their signature. They are not voting to decide which laws to force on the minority as is done today.

If a person does not agree with a particular regulation, such as no using drugs while driving for instance, this law will be handled much differently in an anarchist society ruled by the Primacy of the individual then in today's. Let's give an example of this principle in practice. There is a law that is not agreed to by a particular man who often drives drunk, and he has for years gotten behind the wheel intoxicated but has never had an accident. In today's society this man would be arrested even though he has harmed no one. In a society ruled by the Primacy of the individual this man would not automatically be arrested so long as he made it home safely. Why punish the man for harming no one? On the other hand, if he does hurt someone he is automatically held liable because he caused injury to an innocent person, which leads me to the next topic.

Does No Agreement Mean No Enforcement?

A common question is what happens if someone hurts a person while engaging in an activity that most people want banned, such as the above scenario with a drunk driver who hits someone and hurts them? If he didn't agree to this rule is the man still held accountable for his actions, even though he didn't agree to the no drunk driving law? Yes, because he violated the very essence of Prime: no harm to another person, and the man will be judged according to the punishment/restitution guidelines for inflicting great bodily harm on another, whatever that may be in a given society.

In today's “nanny state” minded society this might seem outrageous but I don't see why this is. [4]

What good is a free society when people are banned from doing potentially harmful things that in most cases doesn't hurt anyone? The simple act of driving, by this reasoning, should be banned because of the potential for a serious accident or death. If societies actually acted logically and consistently they would ban every single potentially harmful action and not just ban drunk driving, but also target practice with guns, all use of tobacco and alcohol, sky diving, and the list goes on. In a truly free society actions should not be banned on the potential to cause harm, but only if harm has been done, or else what reason is there to punish someone? In the event that harm does come to another person that person who caused the harm should be held accountable.

The Real Statist Social Contract

In order to illustrate the kind of bad government and unethical “contract” that all people are forced to abide by in the united states, here is a sample of the real agreement between you and the U.S. government. If given the choice, would you agree to and sign such a document? [5]

Social Contract

Between an Individual and the United States Government

WHEREAS I wish to reside on the continent of North America, and

WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area on which I wish to reside, and

WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable, I agree to the following terms :

SECTION 1:
I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major transactions.

SECTION 2:
Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the Government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3:
I will limit my behavior as demanded by the Government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4:
In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5:
The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will allow me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6:
The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7:
The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8:
The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9:
I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time.

Signed: ____________________________________ Date: ___________

Author Unknown

References

1. As was explained by David Friedman in The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Is the State Necessary?, having various communities that have different laws and contracts isn't any different than what we now have when different countries, and even states within the same country, often have conflicting and/or differing laws. The only difference is that in an anarchist society those laws will be fully agreed upon, not coerced.

2. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company, 1989; 112-113

3. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner, Kessinger Publishing, 2004; 1-3

4. I can understand and sympathize with those who have lost loved ones over drunk driving and the pain they are going though, which spurs the understandable quest to stop drunk driving, but they are still doing what all other political groups do: force their views on others through the force of the vote (ie. the state), which is anti-Prime.

5. In Francois Tremblay's book, “But Who Will Build the Roads?”: Market Anarchy Explained, I learned of this “real” social contract that's been drafted to illustrate the true “social contract” that all people are forced to abide by in the united states. I found this version here. I hope this helps in opening your eyes to your lack of true freedom.

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: The Social Contract

Noam Chomsky On 9/11

From chomsky.info,

Was There an Alternative? Looking Back on 9/11 a Decade Later, by Noam Chomsky

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the horrendous atrocities of September 11, 2001, which, it is commonly held, changed the world. On May 1st, the presumed mastermind of the crime, Osama bin Laden, was assassinated in Pakistan by a team of elite US commandos, Navy SEALs, after he was captured, unarmed and undefended, in Operation Geronimo.

A number of analysts have observed that although bin Laden was finally killed, he won some major successes in his war against the U.S. "He repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them," Eric Margolis writes. "'Bleeding the U.S.,' in his words." The United States, first under George W. Bush and then Barack Obama, rushed right into bin Laden's trap... Grotesquely overblown military outlays and debt addiction... may be the most pernicious legacy of the man who thought he could defeat the United States" -- particularly when the debt is being cynically exploited by the far right, with the collusion of the Democrat establishment, to undermine what remains of social programs, public education, unions, and, in general, remaining barriers to corporate tyranny.

That Washington was bent on fulfilling bin Laden's fervent wishes was evident at once. As discussed in my book 9-11, written shortly after those attacks occurred, anyone with knowledge of the region could recognize "that a massive assault on a Muslim population would be the answer to the prayers of bin Laden and his associates, and would lead the U.S. and its allies into a 'diabolical trap,' as the French foreign minister put it."

The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, wrote shortly after that "bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. [He] is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world," and largely succeeded: "U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally." And arguably remains so, even after his death.

The First 9/11

Was there an alternative? There is every likelihood that the Jihadi movement, much of it highly critical of bin Laden, could have been split and undermined after 9/11. The "crime against humanity," as it was rightly called, could have been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the likely suspects. That was recognized at the time, but no such idea was even considered.

In 9-11, I quoted Robert Fisk's conclusion that the "horrendous crime" of 9/11 was committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty," an accurate judgment. It is useful to bear in mind that the crimes could have been even worse. Suppose, for example, that the attack had gone as far as bombing the White House, killing the president, imposing a brutal military dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands while establishing an international terror center that helped impose similar torture-and-terror states elsewhere and carried out an international assassination campaign; and as an extra fillip, brought in a team of economists -- call them "the Kandahar boys" -- who quickly drove the economy into one of the worst depressions in its history. That, plainly, would have been a lot worse than 9/11.

Unfortunately, it is not a thought experiment. It happened. The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called "the first 9/11": September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet's brutal regime in office. The goal, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the "virus" that might encourage all those "foreigners [who] are out to screw us" to take over their own resources and in other ways to pursue an intolerable policy of independent development. In the background was the conclusion of the National Security Council that, if the US could not control Latin America, it could not expect "to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world."

The first 9/11, unlike the second, did not change the world. It was "nothing of very great consequence," as Henry Kissinger assured his boss a few days later.

These events of little consequence were not limited to the military coup that destroyed Chilean democracy and set in motion the horror story that followed. The first 9/11 was just one act in a drama which began in 1962, when John F. Kennedy shifted the mission of the Latin American military from "hemispheric defense" -- an anachronistic holdover from World War II -- to "internal security," a concept with a chilling interpretation in U.S.-dominated Latin American circles.

In the recently published Cambridge University History of the Cold War, Latin American scholar John Coatsworth writes that from that time to "the Soviet collapse in 1990, the numbers of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of non-violent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites," including many religious martyrs and mass slaughter as well, always supported or initiated in Washington. The last major violent act was the brutal murder of six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, a few days after the Berlin Wall fell. The perpetrators were an elite Salvadorean battalion, which had already left a shocking trail of blood, fresh from renewed training at the JFK School of Special Warfare, acting on direct orders of the high command of the U.S. client state.

The consequences of this hemispheric plague still, of course, reverberate.

From Kidnapping and Torture to Assassination

All of this, and much more like it, is dismissed as of little consequence, and forgotten. Those whose mission is to rule the world enjoy a more comforting picture, articulated well enough in the current issue of the prestigious (and valuable) journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The lead article discusses "the visionary international order" of the "second half of the twentieth century" marked by "the universalization of an American vision of commercial prosperity." There is something to that account, but it does not quite convey the perception of those at the wrong end of the guns.

The same is true of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, which brings to an end at least a phase in the "war on terror" re-declared by President George W. Bush on the second 9/11. Let us turn to a few thoughts on that event and its significance.

On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy SEALs, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition -- except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, whom they shot in self-defense when she "lunged" at them, according to the White House.

A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in the Atlantic. Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing bin Laden alive: "The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive."

The authors add: "For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance." Furthermore, "capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges." Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing -- an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

As the Atlantic inquiry observes, "The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive." That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who "told German TV that the U.S. raid was 'quite clearly a violation of international law' and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial," contrasting Schmidt with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who "defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel... that the assault had been 'lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.'"

The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama's claim that "justice was done" as an "absurdity" that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law. Pakistan law "requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the 'right to life' mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing."

Robertson usefully reminds us that "[i]t was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden -- the Nazi leadership -- the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution 'would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride... the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear.'"

Eric Margolis comments that "Washington has never made public the evidence of its claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks," presumably one reason why "polls show that fully a third of American respondents believe that the U.S. government and/or Israel were behind 9/11," while in the Muslim world skepticism is much higher. "An open trial in the U.S. or at the Hague would have exposed these claims to the light of day," he continues, a practical reason why Washington should have followed the law.

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as "among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks," could say only that "investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan."

What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn't know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to permit a trial of bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus, it is not true, as President Obama claimed in his White House statement after bin Laden's death, that "[w]e quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda."

There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies -- and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus, the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden's role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted.

There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my "confession" that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.

Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one's judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.

Crimes of Aggression

It is worth adding that bin Laden's responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He had some experience with assassinations. He had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls as they left the mosque -- one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of "wrong agency." Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks.

One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the U.S. exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. At the Chilcot hearings investigating the background to the invasion of Iraq, for example, the former head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5 testified that both British and U.S. intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat, that the invasion was likely to increase terror, and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an "attack on Islam." As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.

It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos had landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he was not a "suspect" but the "decider" who gave the orders to invade Iraq -- that is, to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and its national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.

Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the "supreme international crime" -- the crime of aggression. That crime was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "[i]nvasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State ... ." No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.

We might also do well to recall Jackson's eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

It is also clear that announced intentions are irrelevant, even if they are truly believed. Internal records reveal that Japanese fascists apparently did believe that, by ravaging China, they were laboring to turn it into an "earthly paradise." And although it may be difficult to imagine, it is conceivable that Bush and company believed they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam's nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.

We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the "supreme international crime" including all the evils that follow, or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and the allies were guilty of judicial murder.

The Imperial Mentality and 9/11

A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his accomplice Luis Posada Carriles and many other associates in international terrorism. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch." The coincidence of these deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine -- "already ... a de facto rule of international relations," according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison -- which revokes "the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists."

Allison refers to the pronouncement of Bush II, directed at the Taliban, that "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves." Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror -- for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate. When Bush issued this new "de facto rule of international relations," no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and the murder of its criminal presidents.

None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson's principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the U.S. is self-immunized against international law and conventions -- as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear.

It is also worth thinking about the name given to the bin Laden operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him "Geronimo" -- the Apache Indian chief who led the courageous resistance to the invaders of Apache lands.

The casual choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk ... We might react differently if the Luftwaffe had called its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

The examples mentioned would fall under the category of "American exceptionalism," were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one's own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality.

Perhaps the assassination was perceived by the administration as an "act of vengeance," as Robertson concludes. And perhaps the rejection of the legal option of a trial reflects a difference between the moral culture of 1945 and today, as he suggests. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the "supreme international crime" in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination is another illustration of the important fact that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.

This article is adapted from 9-11: Was There an Alternative?, the 10th-anniversary edition of 9-11, by Noam Chomsky, published by Seven Stories Press, September 2011.

Noam Chomsky On 9/11

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: The Subjectivity of Morality

The debate over whether or not morality is subjective or objective is a long one and with this post it is my goal is to explain the reasons why I believe there is no such thing as an objective set of morals. My second goal is to explain what I believe is the best way to achieve a standard form of morality in such a world.








Let's Define Our Terms

In order to make my position completely clear we must first define our terms. I define objective as,

The view that the objects of the most basic concepts of ethics (which may be supposed to be values, obligations, duties, oughts, rights, or what not) exist, or that facts about them hold, objectively and that similarly worded ethical statements by different persons make the same factual claims (and thus do not concern merely the speaker’s feelings). To say that a fact is objective, or that something has objective existence, is usually to say that its holding or existence is not derivative from its being thought to hold or exist. (emphasis mine) [1]

Subjective is defined as,

Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual. [2]

Given these definitions objectivism regards things that exist independently from the human mind. Because of the fact of Prime (that all things depend upon a conscious agent to bring things into existence, which include moral values) it logically follows that subjective morality is the only form of morality in existence.

Other than purely philosophical reasoning to come to this conclusion one can also look around at the world and clearly see that morality is subjective. Actions that most people would consider entirely immoral are not, according to certain people and at certain times. Such examples include killing, rape, theft, and slavery. Some of these acts have been considered simply an aspect of life, particularly regarding slavery, at some point in time, or in a certain part of the world. Slavery was taken for granted in America until a few hundred years ago so where was the near universal condemnation of slavery if morality is truly objective? According to the Yanomamo rape is not considered a crime and is "standard behavior" and "is simply what happens” even when most people are appalled at this monstrous act against women. [3] Why do governments call the murder of innocent civilians “collateral damage” and justify it because they also killed some “bad guys” in the process? Isn't murder always murder? According to the government it's apparently not. Is theft always wrong? According to the government it's not when your hard-earned income is stolen from you with each paycheck you receive. It's called income tax. Did you agree to have this money taken from you? They just took it, didn't they? Then how in the world could that not be considered theft? Other than this example, is theft always wrong? I would argue no. Who would want to punish a child who steals some food because they are homeless and starving? Wouldn't this act of theft be dealt with very differently than a robber who breaks into a man's home and steals his television? I think we all can see an enormous difference between these two situations. In the first, punishment seems wrong because the theft feels justified. In the second, the theft is completely unnecessary and immoral.

The Basis of Morality in a Relative World

Now that I have defined and explained my reasoning behind my view that only subjective morality exists the next question is exactly how we achieve some standard of morality given the fact that people have differing views on morality.

Due to the fact that there is no evidence of any gods (and even if there were, morality would still be relative: the famed Euthyphro Dilemma) and government has proven itself to be an immoral and oftentimes violent institution, that leaves only three means by which morality is produced: through the evolutionary process (ie. our innate morality); through some form of philosophic reasoning ( through Prime [“treat others as you would want to be treated”]); finally you have a more concrete basis for morality through the social contract, where each individual in a society comes together to choose what values are important to them and each individual chooses to either agree or disagree with those choices.

An Objection Answered

It may be argued that no society has ever been created where all its inhabitants come together to agree to the rules of society through the social contract. The first problem with this argument is that it is disingenuous. Just because something has not been tried before doesn't automatically rule it out as a possibility. Second, the fact is such a society has been tried before, in Medieval Iceland, and was very successful. [4] Therefore, this objection fails on all counts.

Conclusion

I have given my reasoning why there is no such thing as objective morality based upon the fact of the Primacy of the individual. I've also shown how individuals in a society can come together and form a social contract to give a foundation for their moral views and to create a basis for the enforcement of those rules.



1. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, edited by Robert Audi, Cambridge University Press, 2005; 284

2. Dictionary.com: Subjective - accessed 8-29-11

3. The Science of Good & Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, by Michael Shermer, Henry Holt, 2004; 90

4. ”But Who Will Build the Roads?”: Market Anarchy Explained, by Francois Tremblay, Xlibris, 2007; 242

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: The Subjectivity of Morality

ACLU Report: A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years after 9/11

The American Civil Liberties Union has recently released a report highlighting the dangers of government on our freedoms since the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.

The ACLU writes,

An ACLU report release to coincide with the 10th anniversary of 9/11 warns that a decade after the attacks, the United States is at risk of enshrining a permanent state of emergency in which core values must be subordinated to ever-expanding claims of national security.

You can download the full report here.

ACLU Report: A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years after 9/11

Writing The Tao of Arizona Atheist Has Been an Enlightening Experience

Since March of 2011 I've been compiling a series of posts I've decided to call The Tao of Arizona Atheist. It is a series that I hope helps to better explain my personal philosophy and my reasons for holding the views I do (and answering some critics' objections). It's been a lot of fun writing these and at this point I've written seven posts and I have four more in the works but I may decide to add more at some point in the future.

The reason I decided to create this series was to better explain my own views on certain subjects for the benefit of some of those who might be curious and for my critics but an unexpected outcome also occurred to me. Not only does this series help to answer critics and explain my views but it also helps me to better understand the connections between the various aspects of my philosophy. I've thought a lot about my views over the years but I'd never written anything this detailed about them and having to explain the logical threads between them has helped to clarify and organize my own thoughts as it relates to my philosophy.

Because philosophy is so often of a personal nature these posts may be revised and changed over time should new evidence come to light that necessitates changing my mind on an issue. My views haven't changed much over the years, but if they do I will edit and note it in the revised post the date of any changes made.

I hope this series has been interesting and informative. I've noticed in my visitor logs that two of the most read posts in this series looks to be on Atheism and Anarchism. I hope all my readers and anyone who has come across my blog has enjoyed this series as much as I've enjoyed writing them. If anyone has any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Having said all that, I'd like to address some confusion that seems to have cropped up about my post on Atheism. I noticed at Atheist Think Tank there was a thread about the definition of atheism and a poster linked to my post.

It seems that a poster who goes by the name of “Deus” has argued that those atheists who use the definition of atheism being nothing but the lack of belief in gods are wrong and linked to my post as an example. He wrote,

It seem that in Atheist circles people are under the impression that Atheism can absolutely only mean lack of belief however that is clearly false

So why is this misconception so widely spread?

Someone else named Peter B. responded and argued,

Yes. [Arizona Atheist] is saying that the definition "lack of belief" is the most logical and universal and thus the most useful, but not the only possible one. At least not "absolutely." I mean: If you would like to think that you have found a common "atheist misconception" be my guest. I simply can not see how you can conclude this from the evidence presented.

Independently of whether you are right or wrong on this matter: Why does it even matter? After all, it does seem to be the most inclusive and universal definition, doesn't it? Or can you think of any world-view that would not fall under this broad definition and yet still could be defined as "atheism"? Or the opposite: Would a position that has "lack of belief" as only characteristic be something other than "atheism"?

I personally would see that very simple definition as the most useful in any discussion on this topic, and i might argue very similar to the author of your source, even though i full accept that there are other possible definitions.

Allow me to clarify my views. Yes, I acknowledge other atheists use other definitions of atheism but I believe they are redundant, such as the “strong” and “weak” variations, or are wrong, such as arguing that atheism also entails the disbelief in supernatural phenomenon. Given the argument I presented I believe that my definition is the most logical, but also is the correct one.

I also find it odd that two out of the four sources “Deus” linked to argue that atheism is the “belief” or “doctrine” that there is no god. No, sorry. Atheism is not a belief, so I'm not really sure where he was going with that. Three out of the four definitions he links to actually agree with me when they also define atheism as a “disbelief” or “lack of belief” in gods or supreme beings so he failed to cite any reasons why I am wrong.

Writing The Tao of Arizona Atheist Has Been an Enlightening Experience

Beltaine’s Fire

I was contacted by a member of the atheist/anarchist band called Beltaine’s Fire. Their style of music isn't quite the kind I listen to but it has a good beat (at least the one song I listened to called Crime and Punishment). If anyone out there might be interested please give this group their support.

You can view the band's webpage here and you can listen to samples of their music here.

Thanks!

Photo Credit: www.beltainesfire.com

Beltaine’s Fire

The Lucifer Effect – September 2011

The police beat a homeless and mentally ill man to death and refuse to release the tape of the beating, despite much public protest.





Here is another man beat by police for no reason.

The Lucifer Effect – September 2011