The Freedom Bulletin

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.

How did I miss this? A couple weeks ago, in the wake of the now-infamous Christmas Day terror attempt, Senator Joe Lieberman said…

“There have been privacy concerns expressed about the use of these whole body imaging devices, but I think those privacy concerns, which are, frankly, mild, have to fall in the face of the ability of these machines to detect material like this, explosive on this individual. Just think about it. Three hundred people could have been killed and untold more on the ground in Michigan if this plane had crashed.”

Right. So forcing all people to have their nude bodies examined in order to fly on an airplane is a “mild” privacy concern? What on earth would Senator Lieberman consider to be a major privacy concern, then? With the exception of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the use of virtual strip searches on all air travelers would be the worst government action in U.S. history and one of the worst in world history.

I would much rather 300 people die  – even if I was one of those 300 people – than the dignity and sexual innocence of millions of people, and the liberty of all people, be taken away.

The fundamental duty of the government is not to keep people safe but to preserve liberty. For the government to actively take liberty away is inexcusable and is an infinitely worse wrong than merely allowing terrorist attacks to happen.