Bin Laden's Dead: So What?

Apparently, 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has been killed. This could and should be good news to anyone seeking an end to the wars we are fighting and closure for the victims of those atrocious attacks some 10 years ago. But I fear the death of bin Laden will do little more than fuel blind displays of nationalism and, in the short-term, appease those demanding results in the so-called "War on Terror."

Before I get as excited as those on the internet and elsewhere about Bib Laden's, I must question whether the death of this monster will lead to any real change in US foreign policy. For the death of bin Laden bringing no lasting effect is no good news at all.

Osama bin Laden's hate was fueled and recruitment was aided by US involvement and occupation in the Middle East. Does that mean he was innocent of his crimes? Not at all! It just means that the US helped create and aid the very enemy we then fought to destroy. Our own CIA reported such, and we would be wise to prevent such behavior in the future. We must not repeat our past mistakes, if we are to achieve real, lasting victory in our current aims to crack down on terrorism as well as be successful future endeavors. 

If we do not put a stop to a foreign policy that helped create and aid monsters like bin Laden, there is no victory in his death. Others like him will merely rise up to replace him.

Ten years ago we began our efforts to track down the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Since then we have developed an alarming appetite for war, seen our civil liberties trampled upon one by one, scores of lives have been lost, numerous dollars and resources have been spent, and our country looks far less like America and more and more like a tyrannical empire. Perhaps, bin Laden has had more success than many are willing to give him. Therefore, let us repair the damage done and return to constitutional governance. Let's act to prevent such atrocities in the future.

I would have preferred we'd dealt with bin Laden through the constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but we have brought him death nonetheless. Now let's put to death any policies that would bring about another bin Laden or aid his desired pursuits--such as taking the lives and liberties of others. If we do not, bin Laden is dead, but so what?

A Constitutionalist's Perspective on WikiLeaks

By now chances are that you have heard about the latest WikiLeaks release and have either formed an opinion or sought out the opinions of others. Originally, it was my intention to keep my mouth shut regarding the issue because there are plenty of folks out there giving their opinions and demanding you agree with them. Some have offered balanced assessments, while most--I feel--have spouted ridiculous untruths, based on misguided ideological or partisan bias.

(It is not my intention to get into the nuts and bolts of the released WikiLeaks content in this post. For a good overview I recommend this article. It gives a sample of the content and the situation surrounding it.)

To properly inform one's perspective on the issue, one mustn't be taken in with the alarmism being thrown around. Likewise, one must separate the judgment involved in the releasing of the leaks from the legality of the actions. 

The absurdity coming from many opponents rests on a major misunderstanding--one where personal feelings have clouded proper criticism. Many have called into question the wisdom in releasing documents that could harm US-foreign relations. Such questioning is fine, and I believe sensible people can find themselves on both sides of the fence. Some can find the actions of WikiLeaks to be foolish; others can find them harmless or even heroic. I am not asking anyone to fall into either camp. I am just asking for people not to buy into foolishness.

Congressman Peter King is one of the most vocal peddlers of such foolishness. His blatant disregard for reality and the First Amendment is alarming. King's call for WikiLeaks to be classified as a terrorist organization and statement that the releasing of the WikiLeaks files is "worse than a military attack" proves he is a bit off his rocker, operating in a different world that ignores reality and constitutional freedoms. Anyone who has seen the content of the leaks can easily recognize the treat is one of political embarrassment, not military logistics. Moreover, even Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted that the last WikiLeaks release--which actually did pertain to current military action--yielded no casualties or lasting military failures, contrary to the dooming prophecies of neocons, alarmists, and warmongers alike, who made such claims.


Globalists, administration officials, and neocons may very well have reason to be alarmed at the latest round of WikiLeaks releases, but the chances that our men and women in the military have reason to worry over the works is slim to none. Their only worry should stem from leadership in both parties being ever willing to put and keep them in harm's way.

Clearly, if we are to value freedom, we must not compromise it even when the situation proves difficult. We must protect the freedom of speech and press at all costs, especially when doing so is unpopular. This does not mean, however, that we must agree with the content of that speech or press or even the decision of those producing the content to produce it.

What is being lost in the public discourse is that the wisdom of the leaks can be questioned while upholding the right for the information to be made public. We need not demonize to show disapproval. Calling the releases foolish is one thing, calling it terrorism is quite another. That is where many of the critics fail. Instead of merely disagreeing with the decision for the information to be released and offering their reasons why, many critics demonize WikiLeaks and create unfounded claims against the release of said information.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision of WikiLeaks to release the information; there is no right to call their actions terrorism. Once again: calling something unwise or reckless is one thing; claiming terrorism and calling for a suspension of constitutional rights is quite another.

Over the past week I have seen utter hysteria over these new leaks. Looking at them objectively, I laugh at how bent out of shape some are getting over the incident--especially considering how tame the leaks are compared to the last batch. What I find most alarming is how quickly people are willing to label the action of WikiLeaks "terrorism" and completely throw the Constitution out when considering the matter. Moreover, the true colors of many pundits and politicians is being well displayed. We see how globalist many are in their concerns, how deep neoconservatism has imbeded itself into modern political thought, and how much of a battle those of us who desire a humble and constitutional foreign policy still have to fight.

When considering the WikiLeaks issue I was reminded of my hero Thomas Jefferson's words to Charles Yancey where he wrote, "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."

I think we know where Mr. Jefferson would have sided on the issue.

I leave you with the words of Ron Holland, which echo my own sentiments:

I join with real conservatives not the false neocon war advocates hoping these leaks do not threaten our troops or necessary intelligence operatives. Still Americans must understand it is Washington and economic interests that have actually placed our troops at risks in foreign military wars and occupations not in the real interests of the United States, the nations invaded or civilians killed.

McCain's Unconstitutional Desire for the NY Car Bomber

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock, you're probably aware of the failed terrorist attempt to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square over the weekend. This act is disgusting in nature, completely unjustifiable, and should be dealt with properly. But, sadly, some in our government are already showing their disregard for the Constitution when discussing the situation.

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain plainly vocalized his views regarding the Justice Department's actions. According to Sen. McCain, "It would have been a serious mistake to have read the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing his Miranda rights." The Arizona senator went on to explain that only after receiving "all the information we have" and finding out what the attack is "all about" should we even consider reading the suspect his rights.

So, in essence, the senator would like to gut the rights reading process of all its significance. His approach amounts to the following: Find out if one's rights will get in the way. If they don't, go ahead and let them have them. If they do, let the Constitution be damned.

Of course, the argument over the rights of terrorists is no new one; we have faced it a number of times, including the controversy around last year's Christmas Eve bomber case. But where those cases centered around the issue of whether or not a non-citizen had constitutional rights, this particular case does not.

The Times Square terror suspect is an American citizen, and there is no denying his constitutional rights of due process warrant protection. Making this claim is in no way an act of sympathy toward the would-be murderer or a call to impede justice. Rather, it is a call for justice as required by the Constitution--a justice that doesn't dissolve liberty or the rule of law.

If the suspect is truly guilty, he will face a number of charges that carry with them the death penalty. McCain even admits that he thinks justice will be served through traditional channels. Therefore, his concern is obviously unmerited, if it is justice he seeks. Still, wanting to squeeze information from the suspect without constitutional restrictions, McCain is dissatisfied with granting a US citizen his rights.

In a country gone mad, rights have become the enemy and disregard for the rule of law has become the desired norm. When the desire is for even US citizens to be denied basic rights, we are truly in danger.

I am confident that justice will be served, and I am confident that the Constitution will aid in carrying it out. Otherwise, we will merely see injustice on the part of the state. The Constitution protects liberty for us all. When its protection is eroded, even for undeserving terrorists, we all suffer in the long run.

Was Joe Stack a Terrorist? by the Southern Avenger