The Freedom Bulletin

Photo credits: McMaster, Lynch, McCollum (top L-R), Otter (bottom left) - public domain, McDonnell (bottom right) – Gage Skidmore, CC ASA 3.0

In the battle leading up to tomorrow’s vote on “health care reform” legislation, I have noticed a few brave people standing up for what they believe in. Despite several Democratic congressmen, including Dennis Kucinich, capitulating to President Obama, the following people have taken a stand for individual liberty in some way or another, and I salute them for it:

• Henry McMaster and Bill McCollum, Attorneys General of South Carolina and Florida – They are planning to file a lawsuit, if the bill passes, challenging the constitutionality of both the “cornhusker kickback” exempting Nebraska from paying Medicare costs and the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. McMaster calls the bill “the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember.” While I think the Durham-Humphrey Amendment is worse, “ObamaCare” is certainly right up there in terms of egregiousness and unconstitutionality.
• Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) – He plans to vote “no” over concerns about the un-democratic process being used to force the bill through Congress. Although he does not oppose the bill for the reason I do (the individual mandate), I admire him for being brave enough to do the right thing, even though it will certainly make him unpopular with a lot of people and perhaps even cost him his seat.
• The Idaho state legislature and Governor Butch Otter – Idaho became the first state to pass a law outlawing the individual mandate. Gov. Otter signed the Idaho Health Freedom Act into law on March 17. It blocks any attempt by the federal government to force people to buy health insurance and gives Idaho the power to sue to fight the mandate. Similar efforts are underway in 36 states. Utah has passed on such law which is just awaiting the governor’s signature, and Arizona’s legislature has also approved one, but it must be approved by voters this November before it becomes law. Which brings us to…
• The Virginia state legislature and Governor Bob McDonnell – Virginia’s legislature became the first to pass a bill banning the mandate, and Gov. McDonnell plans to sign it. As far as I know the bill hasn’t officially become law yet, which is why Idaho gets that honor.

Props to all these people and everyone who opposes “ObamaCare” and its unconstitutional individual mandate!

Thirty-nine Republican Senators – all but James Inhofe, who did not vote - voted that the individual mandate that everyone purchase health insurance might be unconstitutional. It’s about time!

Unfortunately, all 60 Democrats voted against this, which means that the bill is almost definitely going to be passed tomorrow morning. It makes me feel almost sick to my stomach thinking about that.

According to FoxNews,

The Senate voted 60-39 to reject Sen. John Ensign’s call to examine the constitutionality of a health care mandate central to the overhaul bill. The Nevada Republican wanted to determine whether it was constitutional for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

There should be no need to examine the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Anyone with an IQ above 50 would easily be able to see that it is unconstitutional. There is absolutely nothing in the commerce clause, elastic clause, or any other part of the Constitution that even comes close to giving the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase a product.

John Ensign is a hero for at least trying to stand up for freedom. Olympia Snowe seems to have come to her senses, too, and I praise her for that.

This is a sad moment for America. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are rolling in their graves. I can’t believe that we fought two wars (Revolutionary War and War of 1812) for our nation’s independence and liberty, only to have it come to this. Despicable.

Great news! People are finally fighting back against the naked machines! The Electronic Privacy Information Center launched a campaign today to suspend the use of whole body imaging devices – in other words, devices that show people’s naked bodies – as a method of airport security. Additionally, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced legislation in April to ban the naked machines.

Sadly, opposition to the naked machines arose only after the TSA reversed its policy of using them only on passengers who set off metal detectors or were randomly selected for additional screening. To an inexplicably small amount of media coverage, the TSA announced it is now planning to use the naked machines on all passengers, instead of metal detectors! In other words, if the TSA gets its way, people will have to have their naked bodies examined in order to board an airplane! This is more immoral, unconstitutional, and un-American than words can convey.

More people should have opposed these virtual strip searches long ago, but it’s better late than never. Needless to say, I enthusiastically support EPIC’s and Chaffetz’s campaigns against the naked machines. I also now have a second-favorite Congressman (after Ron Paul, of course).

I will blog back with a more detailed entry on why I oppose the naked machines and many of the TSA’s other policies.

For more information, see EPIC’s whole body imaging technology page.

I just came across this column by Dianne Williamson of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette about Philip Markoff, the accused Craigslist killer, and how his fiancee, Megan McAllister, issued a statement earlier this week in support of him. While there does seem to be a lot of evidence against Markoff, I am really dismayed by the media’s and the public’s widespread disregard for a defendant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Williamson’s column had one sentence in particular that really stuck out to me. She writes,

“I hate to burst Megan’s bubble, but the only person who stands to make big bucks by selling a false story is Philip Markoff’s defense lawyer.”

I passed over this sentence quickly the first time I read it. But then I did a double take as I realized that what Williamson is saying is that defense lawyers always lie and prosecutors and police always tell the truth.

I can think of tons of people, besides defense attorneys, who stand to make big bucks by selling false stories. The prosecutor and the DA could lie in order to secure a conviction and/or make themselves look good. The police could lie to newspapers and be paid for the information they provide. People who knew Markoff could decide to lie to the press, and so could victims or people who knew them. Legal commentators could lie in order to appear more dramatic and attract more viewers/readers. Any of the aforementioned people could get a book deal and exaggerate the facts to sell more books.

I found it ironic that right after the sentence I quoted above, Williamson mentions Wendy Murphy. Immediately after claiming that only Markoff’s defense attorney stands to make money by lying about the case, she gives a counterexample to her claim by mentioning (and then extensively quoting) a former prosecutor and victim’s rights advocate who has lied about at least one high-profile case on national TV.

I’m not saying that any of these people actually are lying in this case, or even that they are likely to. But it’s possible, in any high-profile legal case, that such a thing could happen. And despite how difficult this is for some people to believe,  it’s also possible that defense lawyers might sometimes be telling the truth.

I do not consider myself a liberal. But when I read about the torture techniques that the CIA has been using against terror suspects, I was outraged. After 9/11, according to the Associated Press, detainees were questioned while naked, chained, and hooded, and if they refused to submit they were deprived of food, slapped, slammed into fake walls, doused in water, forced into stress positions, and waterboarded. At night they were chained in a standing position, naked or wearing diapers. They almost put one prisoner, who had a fear of insects, into a confinement box filled with caterpillars. Nudity and sleep deprivation are forbidden by the U.S. Army Field Manual. However, that didn’t seem to stop anyone.

Memos describing this horrific treatment were just released by the Justice Department in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, and Barack Obama decided to end the aforementioned torture methods. “We have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them (the memos) never take place again,” he said. I can’t believe I’m saying this because I usually don’t agree with anything he does, but I agree with Obama’s decision.

Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike should be outraged that agents representing America, a nation known as the land of the free, tortured and took away the dignity of people who hadn’t been convicted of crimes. America should be the nation that stands up for freedom, but instead we took people’s freedom away, making us essentially no better than the terrorists we were trying to stop. Yes, this torture might have helped stop terrorist attacks and save lives, but even if it definitely did, that does not make it right. As a deontologist, I believe that it is never morally acceptable to violate people’s rights, regardless of the consequences. I hate when people try to justify something merely by saying “it saves lives.” Well, maybe it does, but if it violates an innocent person’s rights (which the terror suspects might not be, but we don’t know because they hadn’t been tried by a court of law) then it’s wrong no matter how many lives it saves.

Although I think Bush is okay overall (not the best, but okay), I really disagree with him and his supporters on this particular issue. “The use of these techniques does not inflict either physical or psychological damage,” David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer, said to Fox News. Really? Being stripped naked, shoved into walls, smacked around, and being made to feel like you’re drowning to death doesn’t inflict psychological damage?

Then Rivkin went on to say that the release of the memos made the torture techniques “essentially unusable in the future.” And that’s bad why?

Dana Perino, Bush’s former press secretary, told the Washington Times that “We kept this country safe for 7 1/2 years and it’s time they gave us some credit for it.” Maybe, but the government’s purpose isn’t to keep America safe ; it’s to keep it free. The Patriot Act, excessive airport security, and now torture show that the Bush administration failed miserably in doing that. The government is supposed to serve the people. It needs to stop treating us like a parent treats a child, and start treating us like an employee treats a boss.

Unfortunately Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder do not intend to prosecute the perpetrators of these heinous acts, but the ACLU is saying that they should, and I agree. “There can be no more excuses for putting off criminal investigations of officials who authorized torture, lawyers who justified it and interrogators who broke the law,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

I think that what happened was not only torture, but it was immoral, unconstitutional, and unjustifiable. It would be a travesty of justice if no one was punished for this. And I am not saying this as a libertarian, but simply as a patriotic American. There is no point in fighting terrorists if we are going to act just like terrorists ourselves.