DavidV

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to make a fundamental and clear statement about the rights of man. The rights are fundamental because all Congressional acts are subservient to them and clear because, unlike the complex legal code, the basic rights were intended to be known by all.


Having lived through war, the Founders recognized that during war, it is necessary to suspend the normal function of law, as "law" is a concept that is only possible in civil society. But they also recognized the danger of allowing any exception that would lead to the violation of rights. So, they provided strict limits: the President is the Commander in Chief, but he may only act with the consent of Congress, and that consent expires after two years. Furthermore, Congress has the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal, which authorizes specific individuals to attack specific groups and bring them to admiralty courts. In both cases, enemies were to be explicitly identified by Congress and enjoyed the protection of the rules of war.

We may argue about how practical these principles are and how earnestly they were followed from the start, but it is worth considering how grossly they are violated in the so-called "war on terror" going on today:

There is no actual war: "Terror" is an emotion, not a group of people. Therefore, no actual "war" (which requires clearly identified parties) is possible. This makes a congressional declaration of war impossible.

There is no enemy: The Constitution provides for Letters of Marque and Reprisal in cases where a war is not possible or desirable. But there is no enemy in the "war on terror." "Al Qaeda" is a quasi-mythical entity which has more existence as an entity in the minds of those who hate/fear and/or admire it than as a physical organization of material command and support. Most of its "followers" are non-violent. Many more advocate violence (not admirable but not an act of war) than practice it. Many of those killed as "terrorists" have only some vague emotional bond with its ideology, others none at all. Certainly there is no physical network in which all such individual can be proven to be involved.

Killings are extra-judicial: The executive branch has created a new category of enemy: the "unlawful combatant." This person is exempt from both civil protections as well as the rules of war. (By the way, the purpose of so-called "rules of war" is not to protect the enemy, as in any conflict at least one party is by definition willing to violate rights. Their purpose is enable peaceful coexistence possible afterward. By contrast, the historical purpose of disregarding the laws of war is to dehumanize the enemy and thus make post-conflict peaceful coexistence impossible.)

No one is off limits: in a war, combatants and non-combatants are clearly defined, and non-combatants are off-limits. While this is never perfectly practiced, at least the enemy and the conflict are clearly identified and so are violations can be exposed. But by identifying an emotion as the enemy, no end to the conflict is possible, and no one is off-limits.

For example, the U.S. government has no problem killing its own citizens without any judicial process for advocating violence outside of the country. That is a crime within U.S. territory, but not an act of war when conducted abroad, so it violates both the legal rights of U.S. citizens and the sovereignty of other nations.

Most "terrorists" tried in the U.S. since 9/11 were actually recruited and provided with their targets and plots by the FBI. They are not guilty of plotting any attack, as the government did that for them, but of the emotion of hate and/or the desire to spread fear in the public. In fact it is the U.S. government that terrorizes the public by finding peaceful but angry people and training them to be terrorists - and then prosecuting them for the same thing.

Guilt is tautological: While the "war on terror" is nominally against "terrorism," it is actually defined not in terms of any particular action, but by the potential emotion created in the (hypothetical) victim. The ultimate result is that anyone may be imprisoned or assassinated for the sole reason that something they thing did scared someone. Until there is a fundamental change to human nature, no end is possible for such a conflict.

Why was Anwar al-Awlaki (and his 16-year old son) killed? Because he is a terrorist. How do we know that? Because he is dead. If he were not guilty, he would not have been assassinated. No legal proof is needed because this is a military decision, and military decisions are outside the realm of civil law. Why is killing unarmed U.S. citizens for their violent rhetoric a military matter? Because we're in a "war on terror" and fear is now an act of war.

Conclusion:

The ultimate purpose of making an emotion the enemy is to take the rules of military action (which are properly outside the realm of civil law) out of the limited context of war and allow them to be applied to anyone. Thus is justified endless war, unchecked expansion of the power and size of the state, and a total end round around Constitutional checks on the State's power to violate individual rights.

You are welcome to provide a better image. It was the best I could find on short notice. I'll post the PSD if you like.

The forum rules prohibite "profane" content, which means "to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt. They do not prohibit profanity. I would futher say "we are not children here," but I do not accept the premise that secrets (or concepts) should be kept hidden from children either.

So I will say that I believe in effective communitication, whatever that entails. If your communication is full of fallacies, emotional appeals, dishonesty, or irrelevancies, then it doesn't matter how decorous it is. But as we are human beings with different levels of maturity and education and strong emotions, I do not object to appropriate use of profanity. And I think it's silly to self-censor the name of a television show.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1245

Many people are uncritically accepting the government's and the media's lies without doing much research. Some facts:

WikiLeaks is a four year old organization based outside of the U.S.
Over the last four years, WikiLeaks has published many leaked documents, most of it having nothing to do with the United State government.
WikiLeaks does not obtain any information, illegally or otherwise. It only publishes information which is provided do it anonymously by third parties.
U.S. law applies within the United States. The United States is not a global dictatorship (yet.)
A group of foreign citizens doing something in a foreign country cannot be guilty of treason. Treason is something that applies to U.S. citizens living under United States law.
Major U.S. newspapers are publishing the same materials which was published by WikiLeaks without any consequences. This is because the U.S. government feels that there will be less of an outrage if it violates the rights of a group of unknowns rather than a major newspaper.
The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing secret government documents by the media is protected by the first amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
There is no evidence of anyone ever being harmed by the leaks. The leaked cables are carefully selected and edited before release.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people died and are still dying because the U.S. government lied.

Many people are uncritically accepting the government's and the media's lies without doing much research. Some facts:

WikiLeaks is a four year old organization based outside of the U.S.
Over the last four years, WikiLeaks has published many leaked documents, most of it having nothing to do with the United State government.
WikiLeaks does not obtain any information, illegally or otherwise. It only publishes information which is provided do it anonymously by third parties.
U.S. law applies within the United States. The United States is not a global dictatorship (yet.)
A group of foreign citizens doing something in a foreign country cannot be guilty of treason. Treason is something that applies to U.S. citizens living under United States law.
Major U.S. newspapers are publishing the same materials which was published by WikiLeaks without any consequences. This is because the U.S. government feels that there will be less of an outrage if it violates the rights of a group of unknowns rather than a major newspaper.
The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing secret government documents by the media is protected by the first amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
There is no evidence of anyone ever being harmed by the leaks. The leaked cables are carefully selected and edited before release.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people died and are still dying because the U.S. government lied.

Many people are uncritically accepting the government's and the media's lies without doing much research. Some facts:

WikiLeaks is a four year old organization based outside of the U.S.
Over the last four years, WikiLeaks has published many leaked documents, most of it having nothing to do with the United State government.
WikiLeaks does not obtain any information, illegally or otherwise. It only publishes information which is provided do it anonymously by third parties.
U.S. law applies within the United States. The United States is not a global dictatorship (yet.)
A group of foreign citizens doing something in a foreign country cannot be guilty of treason. Treason is something that applies to U.S. citizens living under United States law.
Major U.S. newspapers are publishing the same materials which was published by WikiLeaks without any consequences. This is because the U.S. government feels that there will be less of an outrage if it violates the rights of a group of unknowns rather than a major newspaper.
The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing secret government documents by the media is protected by the first amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
There is no evidence of anyone ever being harmed by the leaks. The leaked cables are carefully selected and edited before release.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people died and are still dying because the U.S. government lied.

According to Peikoff's ultimatum, McCaskey has fundamental disagreements with "the philosophic principles at issue." He states that disagreement with the ideas presented in the book is disagreement with Objectivism. Then he equivocates disagreement with "denouncement." The only evidence of McCaskey's criticism we have is McCaskey's review, which does not disagree with the philosophic ideas of the book at all, but questions the historical claims.

My conclusions:

On the issue of the factual errors in the book: McCaskey is very likely correct here, given his credentials and reputation. Anyway, this issue is a red herring, since disagreement on the factual claims of the book is not mentioned in Peikoff's letter - it is the philosophical ideas that Peikoff claims were attacked.

On the nature of McCaskey's "denouncing" Peikoff/Harriman:

Of course, it's possible that McCaskey denounced Peikoff and Harriman in private. This would be grounds for Peikoff to make a personal judgment about McCaskey. But to demand that a public organization to take his claims on faith, while refusing (as he does in the letter) to discuss them is irrational and unjust.

Furthermore, disagreement with some of a person's ideas is course not the same as denouncing that person.

Finally, this kind of behavior seems to be a pattern with Peikoff. I have had conversations with some of the people Peikoff denounced, and whatever their flaws, his characterization of their views and character are obviously false.

To conclude, Peikoff is acting irrationally on this matter, and ARI should kick him out and ask McCaskey to return. While it's premature to conclude that ARI is a "corrupt" organization, I would not expect much intellectual progress to come from ARI affiliated intellectuals as long as people like Peikoff dominate their policy. Their intolerance for disagreement is incompatible with intellectual innovation.

According to Peikoff's ultimatum, McCaskey has fundamental disagreements with "the philosophic principles at issue." He states that disagreement with the ideas presented in the book is disagreement with Objectivism. Then he equivocates disagreement with "denouncement." The only evidence of McCaskey's criticism we have is McCaskey's review, which does not disagree with the philosophic ideas of the book at all, but questions the historical claims.

My conclusions:

On the issue of the factual errors in the book: McCaskey is very likely correct here, given his credentials and reputation. Anyway, this issue is a red herring, since disagreement on the factual claims of the book is not mentioned in Peikoff's letter - it is the philosophical ideas that Peikoff claims were attacked.

On the nature of McCaskey's "denouncing" Peikoff/Harriman:

Of course, it's possible that McCaskey denounced Peikoff and Harriman in private. This would be grounds for Peikoff to make a personal judgment about McCaskey. But to demand that a public organization to take his claims on faith, while refusing (as he does in the letter) to discuss them is irrational and unjust.

Furthermore, disagreement with some of a person's ideas is course not the same as denouncing that person.

Finally, this kind of behavior seems to be a pattern with Peikoff. I have had conversations with some of the people Peikoff denounced, and whatever their flaws, his characterization of their views and character are obviously false.

To conclude, Peikoff is acting irrationally on this matter, and ARI should kick him out and ask McCaskey to return. While it's premature to conclude that ARI is a "corrupt" organization, I would not expect much intellectual progress to come from ARI affiliated intellectuals as long as people like Peikoff dominate their policy. Their intolerance for disagreement is incompatible with intellectual innovation.