The Freedom Bulletin

It seems like there have been a lot of cases in the news lately where the government arrests and prosecutes someone not for actually carrying out a crime, but merely planning or plotting to carry out a crime.

The suspect in the airplane “underwear bomb” plot that was foiled by the CIA turned out to be a CIA informant himself, and it’s unclear whether charges will end up being filed against anyone involved in the plot.

But last week, on May Day, five self-described anarchists were arrested for participating in a plot to blow up a bridge in Ohio. The FBI had been watching and working with them for months, and an undercover agent provided them with defective bombs which they placed on the bridge and punched in the code to detonate. To their surprise, nothing happened, and the FBI assured the public that no one was ever in danger.

Continue reading…

Back in December, Tarek Mehanna was convicted in federal court of supporting Al Qaeda and conspiring to murder U.S. troops in Iraq. He had posted numerous writings and videos on the Internet that the government characterized as pro-Al Qaeda and pro-jihad. In 2004, he traveled to Yemen, allegedly looking to attend a terrorist training camp (which he never attended).

On Thursday, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for these actions. He also gave a long, defiant speech in which he described his upbringing, the books and historical figures that influenced him, and his dedication to defending people who are being oppressed, which he says is happening to Muslims at the hands of the U.S. Here are some excerpts:

Continue reading…

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice have been distributing flyers to various businesses warning them about things that they should consider “suspicious” and alert law enforcement about. You can view them all at Public Intelligence. Some examples of actions considered suspicious:

• “Using cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name”
• “Travels illogical distance” (to stores, Internet cafes, etc.)
• “New customer who is not from the area”
• “Reluctance to provide complete personal information” or “demands identity ‘privacy’”
• Purchasing unusual combinations of items
• Purchasing large quantities (or small quantities on multiple occasions) of items
• Storing items in unusual containers
• For beauty/drug suppliers: “Only chemicals and no other beauty supplies purchased,” or “asks about boiling or making liquid more concentrated.”
• For electronics stores: “Purchases quantities of prepaid or disposable cell phones,” or shows “unusual interest” in voice or data encryption, VOIP, voice privacy, means to shield IP address, or tracking of phone locations.
• For farm supply stores: “Possessing little knowledge of crops, soil composition, field size, application methods, or fertilizers” or “failing to state legitimate agricultural use for product.”
• For financial institutions: “A lack of evidence of legitimate business activity,” “unusual mixed deposits of money orders, third-party checks, and/or payroll checks into a business account,” “transactions being conducted in bursts of activities,” or “bulk cash and monetary instrument transactions.”
• For hobby shops: “Inquiring about remote controls and model aircraft payload capacity and maximum range,” “possessing little knowledge of the activity for which the purchase is intended,” or “demonstrating no interest or enthusiasm for the hobby or sport.”
• For home improvement stores: Purchasing “large quantity of watches, electronic timers, or kitchen timers,” “night-vision equipment and camouflage apparel,” or “pipe(s)…when vague about their use.”
• For hotels, “Requests specific room assignments or locations,” “refuse cleaning service over an extended time,” “use entrances and exits that avoid the lobby,” and “do not leave their room.”
• For Internet cafes: “Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others,” “always pay cash,” or “signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.”
• For military surplus stores: “Make bulk purchases of items to include weatherproofed ammunition or match containers, Meals Ready to Eat, night vision devices, night flashlights, gas masks, high capacity magazines, bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles.”
• For rental properties: “Refuse maintenance or service over an extended time” or “receive an unusual amount of package deliveries.”
• For storage facilities: “Discarding clothing or shoes in new condition,” “entering or leaving storage facility at unusual times,” or “avoiding contact with rental facility personnel.”

Under this initiative, called Communities Against Terrorism, store owners are also encouraged to “require valid ID from all new customers” and “keep records of purchases.”

At least they remember to add, “Some of these activities, taken individually, could be innocent,” and “It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.”

But still, people should not be as paranoid and nosy as these flyers encourage them to be. Terrorism does happen, but it is rare, and preventing it should not come at the cost of people’s anonymity and privacy. No one should have to present an ID to buy something in a store, and stores should not track what people purchase any more than is needed to keep track of their inventories or learn general sales trends. Stores, airports, banks, and the other establishments targeted by these flyers are public places, so no one can expect to have complete privacy there. But I would not want to live in a society where, whenever someone is out in public, their actions are scrutinized and monitored to make sure that they conform to what is considered “normal.” People already have too little privacy in what we do, what we say, where we go, and what we buy. We need to push back and demand a greater sphere of our lives within which we can act in anonymity and therefore true freedom.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Ron Paul took a break from the campaign trail this week to introduce and speak on the House floor about a piece of legislation to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This provision allows the government to indefinitely detain, without trial, people who allegedly “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” President Obama wrote in a signing statement that he would not use this law against U.S. citizens, but the bill’s vague language makes it possible that it could indeed be used against U.S. citizens one day.

Paul said that Section 1021 “provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely … Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation.”

Thank you Congressman Paul for fighting for liberty both on in the presidential campaign and in Congress!

It seems like President Obama is not going to release any photo or video evidence of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Obama said on 60 Minutes today, “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of someone who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence, or as a propaganda tool.”

While it makes sense to withhold gruesome photos out of respect for the dead (even bin Laden deserves respect in death), I don’t believe in keeping information secret merely because it could be incendiary.

I think that the best solution would be for the government to make the photo and/or video available to people who want to find it, without any fanfare, without any gloating or editorial comments, and without displaying it prominently. The photo shouldn’t end up being plastered on the front page of the White House website or all over newspapers or television. It is dishonorable and classless to plaster pictures of someone’s dead body anywhere, or for that matter, to celebrate someone’s death. But the government shouldn’t expect people to blindly trust them, nor should they censor information out of fear of how people will react to it. In my opinion, Obama should release the photo in a tactful, neutral way and allow people to form their own opinions.

…Could the TSA please stop the full-body scanners and pat-downs???

Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghsnistan wouldn’t hurt, either.

Some interesting links on Osama’s death:

• A roundup of libertarian reactions from the Humble Libertarian
• Did WikiLeaks trigger the raid that killed bin Laden?
• Obituary in the Boston Globe

President Obama said a few days ago that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. According to Obama…

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Later, he added that he was “was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom” of the plan but merely the Constitutional right to do so.

I, believe it or not, agree with Obama.

Building a mosque near Ground Zero is not the greatest idea. It is a little strange and not very fitting to have a mosque right near the site of the worst act of terrorism in American history, which was committed by terrorists who happened to be Muslims. If I was in charge of building the mosque, I would choose a different location.

But it would not violate anyone’s rights to build the mosque. If you buy a plot of land, you have the right to build whatever you want there, even if most people disapprove of it. New York City could offer to buy up the land and turn it into a public memorial, but as long as the mosque developers own the land, they can build whatever they want.

Newt Gingrich compared building a mosque near Ground Zero to putting Nazi signs next to the Holocaust museum. Although I am a Newt fan, I have to object to this particular analogy. Nazism is the ideology that is responsible for the Holocaust, while Islam itself is not responsible for 9/11, just certain individuals who happened to be radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, while all Nazis are, well, Nazis. Putting a pro-terrorism memorial or terrorist training camp at Ground Zero, now that would be the equivalent of Nazi signs at the Holocaust museum.

In conclusion, although perhaps not a wise idea, there is no Constitutional or moral reason why a mosque near Ground Zero should be forbidden. The First Amendment gives people the freedoms of, among other things, religion and speech. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism in American history. The feelings of its victims are important, and the potential Mosque builders should take them into account. But in America, we do not and should not deny people the right to practice their religion just because this would offend people.