The Washington Post is reporting that the torture ofhigh-value captive, Abu Zubaida produced nothing but false leads — in direct contradiction of suggestions by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who endorsed the torture program and use of waterboarding. Moreover, the report indicates that the Administration quickly learned that Zubaida was not the high-profile, highly placed Al Qaeda operative that they told the public. I discussed the latest developments on this segment of Countdown.
The greatest irony is that the only useful information came before the Bush Administration tortured the suspect. No plot was foiled as suggested by the torture and Zubaida was not as President George W. Bush had publicly described him, “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations.” It turns out that Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda,
The Bush torture program is a wonderful example of not just the time-proven junk that comes from torture, but also the value of legal process as a way to acquiring legitimate information in legitimate ways. Putting aside the obvious immorality of the program, the reports show how we tortured people for little more advantage than the visceral and political benefits of “getting tough on terrorism.” It turns out that we sold our collective soul pretty cheap in craeting this torture program. The question is now whether Obama will continue to buy into the same cover-up by continuing to block a special counsel.
For the full story, click here.
Bron: “where in the constitution does it talk about and allow for subsidies to farmers?”
I can’t recall the case, but I do remember that the property clause once trumped the establishment clause.
Perhaps an argument could be made….
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Gyges:
“Where does the Constitution say you can’t kill somebody? Or where does it say you can’t run a red light?”
Excellent point Gyges.
In fact, the constitution confers no power whatsoever to congress to promulgate a criminal law. Why? Because the States never specifically empowered the fed to do so.
But, I hear you ask, how did we get so many federal criminal laws?
Perhaps the author of one of the most respected horn books on criminal law can shed light on the topic:
Prof. Charles Whitebread:
in media res…
“The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date — 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call “states’ rights” and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That’s why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
SIYOM,
Bob
MikeS:
what prevents other competitors from getting into a market? If the profits are good you will have a lot of people trying to grab market share and prices should come down as competition insues.
“I do think they have a right to charge a fee if they want to for the use of their servers or what ever other capital stock they may have that we use.”
Bron,
They want to charge fees for the rapidity of your E mails and or signal reception. So let me get this straight, you’d be alright with a Major Corporation, paying money you couldn’t afford as a small business man, to then offer services that you would be unable to compete with due to lack of available funds? Doesn’t sound like a free market to me. As a small businessman you should see the value of government regulating the market to protect the small innovator from the corporate sharks. If that doesn’t happen, soon there will only be one major corporation running each business sector and able to set any prices they want. This is the real world problem unanswered by any of the Objectivist or Libertarian theorist.
Mike
Gyges:
what I am trying to say inperfectly is that farm and corporate subsidies are in my mind illegal under the original intent of the constitution.
Bron,
Where does the Constitution say you can’t kill somebody? Or where does it say you can’t run a red light?
Oh and since tax dollars were used to develop the internet I guess Microsoft is SOL. But how much of the infrastructure is now owned by private companies? I do think they have a right to charge a fee if they want to for the use of their servers or what ever other capital stock they may have that we use.
If Prof. Turley wanted to charge a fee I would be willing to pay as long as I thought it was reasonable, I have certainly learned a good deal and that is worth something.
But it would be my choice to use it or not use it. The government also has plans to tax the internet, you want them doing that? Check your phone bill for the tax they charge and how much of the other portion is due to government regulations?
Gyges/MikeA/MikeS:
I see all of your points and truly believe that true capitalism along with a restoration of real constitutional oversight would lead to a more just society.
One question to MikeA where in the constitution does it talk about and allow for subsidies to farmers?
To MikeS where does it say that rich people can get money from FEMA to rebuild after a hurricane?
To Gyges where does it say that I cant build an addition or a pool on my property?
I think you guys think that I am on board with corporate subsidies and other such nonsense, I can assure you I am not, why in the hell would I want my tax dollars going to some farmer not to grow peanuts or corn? Or to help orange growers advertise orange juice?
I also think all forms of taxes are way to high, how much money does it take to run a state?
Bron, picking up (again) on Mike S.’s point about peasants, the only free markets are vegetable stands operated by unsubsidized farmers.
“But ask yourself why are people seeking internet autonomy? Because it is a free market and has provided amazing contributions to our society. It is virtually the one place that people are truly free, from taxes, political correctness, thought police, government intrusion into our lives, etc. That is what I want for society as a whole.”
Bron,
Good point but don’t you realize that it’s the major internet corporate entities that are trying to gain control over the internet. It is capitalism out of control and in your type of free market society the various corporations would control the content. Government is what keeps the internet free.
I am against the extra tax on cigarettes and I don’t smoke either. I’m against it because it falls primarily on people with less resources. You need to get that this is the way the anti-tax faux conservatives get around the need to raise revenues. They use nuisance taxes that fall on the less affluent unfairly and then lower progressive income tax rates that balance the burden more fairly. This is usually Republican strategy, but many Democrats are guilty of it too.
In Florida where I live there is no State Income Tax, but a high sales tax, auto fees and all kinds of other fees that distribute the nurden of government unfairly. If you protest a ticket you have to pay a $69 court fee. Meanwhile police, firemen and teachers get low pay, while real estate moguls get tax breaks and incentives.
As for the RPA, have you noticed that most of the best places to live, seaside for instance, are taken up by the very, very rich, either for residence, hotel or industry. Without laws like this the natural resources owned by us all would all become private property and people will have to begin paying a fortune, or even be excluded from going to the beach. Are all regulations prudent, of course not, but we need them to ensure that rights of all the public are preserved.
While it is true that I’m greatly concerned about our constitutional rights, I believe that they are most threatened by capitalism without government oversight and regulation. See the current banking crisis. Government should represent all of us and not just corporations and the wealthy. The real meaning of “free market” as has been used by people with money and that has been true since Adam Smith
coined the term, is free market for the peasants and government largesse for the elite.
Mike
Bron,
I could be wrong about this, but I’m pretty sure most gov’t research grants go to universities and Research hospitals. The drug companies have to provide their own funding. That’s drugs are so expensive (until the patent is up and you can get a generic brand), the last number I heard cost wise was something like 800 million per ever new drug developed (I’m not sure if that factors in all the failures it takes to get one success). The companies have to recoup that cost, production costs, and make a profit. Now if you want to have a discussion as to the appropriateness of the government funding research, that’s another issue than drug companies. I don’t know where you stand on that, so I won’t make any assumptions.
I just want to remind you for every “bad” environmental law, there are scores of good ones that make sure your drinking water is clean, your air is pure, use of your property (you couldn’t get use from land contaminated by industrial by-products). Your right to do what you want with your property ends when it starts directly effecting MY life or property (thus noise ordinances, bans on keeping wild animals, etc.).
MikeS:
I cant deny that you do make some good points.
Granted there are some things that government should provide, roads, fire and rescue, military, etc. I dont think they should be involved in drug development though because that is funded by tax payer dollars and I dont get any benefit from the drug company (maybe I will if I have some sort of ailement later on).
The internet was developed for the military which in my mind is an acceptable use of tax payer dollars, providing for the security of the populace is a legitimate function of government. That it was given to the people is a good thing. And I agree that not one particular coporation should have control over the internet.
But ask yourself why are people seeking internet autonomy? Because it is a free market and has provided amazing contributions to our society. It is virtually the one place that people are truly free, from taxes, political correctness, thought police, government intrusion into our lives, etc. That is what I want for society as a whole.
Look at this site for example, you think my views are out in left field and I think that some of yours are but JT has pretty much let all opinions be expressed freely as long as they are cordial, he has provided a forum for free speech with no type of coercion.
For example the extra tax on cigarettes is a form of coercion it is soft paternalism. When government raised the tax on cigarettes recently they are trying to get people to quit (I dont smoke and never will because it is a bad habit that causes you to age prematurely and is not good for the heart and lungs). When and if national health care is implemented the government will be involved in every aspect of our lives and will do so logically because “they” are paying for it (even though we will be). I dont want to live in a society that will tell me I cannot eat a steak or smoke a cigar once in awhile. That is where all this stuff leads to eventually-the state is your master. I personally do not want a master, I am no ones bitch.
Almost everyone on this site appears to be pro-constitution so I cant understand the dichotomy. You are for individual freedom but you are willing to give it up for government control of health care and logically that is what has to happen. And I do believe the health care system is badly flawed and needs to be revamped so that there are some safety nets for people that cannot afford it.
For example here in Fairfax, Virgina property rights have basically been nullified because of what we call the Chesapeake Bay Act, there are some areas that are designated Resource Protected Areas (RPA) and you cannot build in them because they are buffer zones for the watersheds that connect to the Bay. So if you want to put a pool in or an addition or you want to level out your backyard, too bad if you have an RPA that you are encroaching. The science on this is bad because the farm communities are exempt and most of the Bays problems come from chicken and pig farms and run off from tilled fields. It has created a huge nightmare for the home owner who now must pay thousands of dollars to engineers (it is a soft tax) to help them navigate the permit waters. And these people are very sanctimonious about it, they are “saving” the environment (my ass).
Government only takes away rights.
By the way Wal-Mart has a perscription drug plan that may help you save some money on the angina meds.
“Look at the internet for example right now it is about as free a market as you can get, there is very little regulation and no real taxation and look at it.”
Bron,
The Internet was developed by the Federal Government. It never would have happened as a free entity if it had been developed by private business. Why? That’s obvious they would have charged for everything to make money, while at the same time controlling content. The latter is what the major internet players want to do now, hence the battle for internet autonomy.
Most of the drugs created are done through government funded research and then handed over to the drug companies for free and they then make a profit on it. This is true for many industries where government funding has driven discovery.
“I know there are bad actors in business, I see them regularly at all levels and they are to be ridiculed but the vast number of businessmen and women are honest and upstanding, wanting nothing more than an even playing field.”
What you say may be true for small companies but it isn’t for major corporations, which is how they got that way in the first place. A corporations main responsibility is to produce profits for its’ shareholders. Lately, this has become even more confused by the need to drive up stock prices, connected with the CEO’s, COO’s, CFO’s etc. income dictated by stock options. Instead of innovating and maintaining the security of the firm, the emphasis is on quarterly profits and the driving force is the greed of the top executives. That’s why you see Circuit City in bankruptcy, because last year they fired their most experienced and best paid sales staff to spike the quarterly profits. Guess what sales tanked.
Now I don’t know what you heard in Gordon Brown’s speech, but I do know a lot about Socialism and Communism. Why, unlike most people who come at it academically, I had to deal with actual socialists and communist during my Union Activist days in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Some were nice people, but in the main they were followers of their particular party lines and too me that is stupid. Socialism in essence is complete government control over all the means of production and of the ensuing market.
To have government provide certain services that benefit people as a whole is not socialism despite what Rand or other conservative know-nothings tell you. No one on the Left who is not a Socialist (Communism is a subset)believes in that. Even the so-called “socialist” states like Denmark, Sweden, etc. do not believe in controlling the means of production and so are in no way socialist except in the feeble minds of some, supposedly conservative thinkers which are trying to scare people.
I personally believe that certain services should be run by the government because the government can do it better and more humanely. Health Care is not one of these since the proposals for health care are insurance based, just as is flood insurance for instance. That the government can do a better job is obvious. For one reason there is the great disparity in overhead costs which I mentioned in my previous posts. The second reason is that private insurers in their drive to make profits try to deny reasonable services to those in need.
Just as an example from my personal experience. I use a lot of Nitroglycerin each month to control my angina. My drug plan, which is a good one, has on record a prescription from my Doctor specifying how much I need monthly. Frequently if I have a bad month with angina I run out before months end and have to pay 4x as much to get my refill because my drug plan won’t recognize that people with angina have their ups and downs. Angina is heart pain and very unpleasant, luckily I can afford the extra price, but what about someone like me who can’t. I can assure you that the nature of Angina is such that without Nitro, that someone would wind up making a 911 call and perhaps taken to the ER, not to say the 10% of the time they suffer a heart attack.
The best reason for national health care is that it would make our businesses competitive with all the major industrial countries that already have it, because employers cost per employee would drop. now as a good capitalist you might say my employee’s health is none of my business, but then you might well be up a creek when a key employee takes sick and is frequently unavailable. it’s in your business interests to ensure that that person is getting the best health care possible.
As to the other services I cite Railroads, Airlines, mail delivery, police, fire people, EMS, armed forces, prisons, road building, etc. There have been boondoggles and overpricing of all of the above when run by private enterprise. They are services, not means of production and government can do it better and cheaper. In doing so government would in no way be socialistic in the true sense.
You are responding to a myth and a bogeyman that doesn’t exist, but is put out there as propaganda by people who want our world run by a rich elite and would be the first to put you out of business if it would be profitable. As usual, don’t take what I have to say as gospel but use it as a direction for doing research on your own.
Mike.
Mike A.,
Thank you for your comments which put some needed historical perspective on my comments.
MikeA & MikeS:
I have thought a good deal about free markets and I understand that we really dont have one now and havent for a long time. I honestly believe that you and I spending our money as we see fit is better than the government allocating resources for various industries and social programs.
Look at the internet for example right now it is about as free a market as you can get, there is very little regulation and no real taxation and look at it. In about 15 years we have gone from dial up to DSL with amazing new services produced. I can meet with engineers in India with go to meeting and I can send PDF drawings to my clients for submission. It is all so fantastic and produced by individuals trying to make a buck. Look at all the people that have been put to work, that make money on company stock (or at least will when the market comes back). And think about all the industries that are yet to be invented, the fabulous ideas that we have yet to even think about or cant because the technology is not yet here that will lead to those miraculous break throughs. All that is a product of economic and political freedom and everyone can participate to the level of their abilities.
I just have a small little company and would like to grow in the future and I truly believe the best way is in an environment of economic freedom. I know there are bad actors in business, I see them regularly at all levels and they are to be ridiculed but the vast number of businessmen and women are honest and upstanding, wanting nothing more than an even playing field. I think government is the problem and causes, through the Federal reserve the constant boom and bust that we experience (MikeS had a link that talked about that issue).
I want people as happy and healthy as you guys do, I just think the private sector can do it better than government. People are people, the government dosent have a monopoly on good people trying to do the right thing any more than the private sector does. All things being equal and no disrespect to people that are engaged in public service, I will trust the businessman to produce what I need for a fair price every time over the government because they [government] are not spending their money, they are spending our money.
In conclusion I heard Gordon Browns speech, or at least a part of it, and it was about the new world order and the classic “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” although phrased a little differently. So I have a feeling we are pretty much going to get socialism in this country. So we shall see how this experiment works out, I hope not like all the other times but one never knows.
Anyway I will never believe (unless I see tangible evidence to the contrary) that government control of the means of production will provide a better lifestyle to more people than capitalism.
Thanks Mike S. and Mike A.
I missed reading much about Mr. Holmes and so many others. Thanks for the Holmes quote.
Bron, I write only to supplement Mike S.’s excellent post with some observations from legal history on the myth of the “free market.” Here are but three examples:
1. We are all familiar with the corporation as the preferred vehicle for conducting business. The predecessor was the chartered company, a grant by the sovereign (read the king) to a favored or politically powerful group of individuals to engage in a particular business, typically to the exclusion of others (recall the East India Company). This permitted the creation of monopolies and phenomenal wealth, for both the sovereign and the favored groups. The issuance of such charters eventually became a function of state government, but were not initially granted as a matter of right.
2. During the industrial revolution, the courts accommodated public policy which favored unrestricted growth of new industry by fashioning doctrines to protect nascent technologies (the railroads are a great example) from liability claims. The rules relating to assumed risk, contributory negligence and fellow servant were all developed to reduce exposure for damages resulting from negligent acts and hazardous activities.
3. The adoption of workers’ compensation laws was not a response to demands by labor, but by business owners seeking to restrict the right to sue for injuries arising out of dangerous working conditions.
4. Forget what you have heard recently about the “sanctity” of contracts. Contracts are revised, amended and entirely abrogated on a daily basis in our bankruptcy courts. Reorganization plans proposed for insolvent businesses can be “crammed down” (if they meet certain statutory criteria) even agsinst the wishes of objecting creditors, and unsecured creditors (typically small business providers of goods and services) are frequently left with nothing even if the debtor business continues to operate.
The point is that state and local governments have always found ways to aid business development and have routinely utilized tax dollars for that purpose. When business gets out of control, we impose regulations (e.g., antitrust laws, securities laws) to restore balance.
The concept of a “free market” is an ideal. The Randian concept of the “rational” individual is an ideal. Neither matches reality. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, “The life of the law is not logic, but experience.” Our experience teaches us that neither individuals nor institutions are rational. Therefore, it is necessary to impose restrictions for the common good as we perceive it from time to time.
“I agree we dont have a free market economy because of the federal reserve bank (something Thomas Jefferson warned us about) and other things.”
Bron,
Your point is correct but doesn’t look beyond itself. We have a Federal Reserve because we’ve never had a free market.
Free Market’s are a mythology coined by Adam Smith, who it turns out believed that markets should be controlled, and then used by the wealthy as a mantra to ensure just the opposite.
Look at the panoply of American History. Until the end of slavery a free market didn’t exist because the South had the advantage of slave labor, thus skewing the marketplace. During the war Lincoln granted generous Rights of Way to develop a transcontinental railroad. This government intervention made rich men, richer and they promptly took over the government and used their right of Way in land grabs.
The genocide of Native Americans from the start was done by the government for the benefit of the wealthy. The US interventions in the Caribbean, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Latin America and the Philippines had the same results. This is true also of our ME policy. Besides that, the government passed numerous laws through time all to benefit the wealthy and to impoverish the rest.
The Federal Reserve is an extra-Governmental Agency by and for the bankers. The only government control is that the chairman is appointed by the President for a six year term.
What you think of as the “Free Market” is in reality a rigged game that benefits only the rich. I know that Ayn dressed it up in all sorts of fancy clothing, but it is dressed like whore at heart. It has nothing to do with capitalism, as it’s practiced in this world, except as a phony shield to cover up the greed and excess of some wealthy people.
Regarding Health Care check the statistics. The cost of overhead for medicaid and medicaid is 3%, while it is about 20% with the private insurers. What entitles someone that’s rich to get better health care than I can afford? Why should his children’s teeth be straighter? My wife and I have been lucky to have excellent health coverage and to be honest without it I personally would have died 27 years ago with my first heart attack. I have spent more time in Hospital ER’s than you want to know about, both as a patient and in my work. The difference in care for less affluent people is so significant that the lack of equalization is sort of a passive genocide.
I am still supporting my youngest daughter who is still in school, yet she has aged out of my health plan. The cheapest basic medical plan I can find her, that delivers good protection is $2,400 a year. I already spend more than 20% of my fixed (modest)income on her and have laid out more than $5,000 in the last year for dental work. I don’t believe that just because you’ve been successful businesswise
your kids are entitled to better health care than mine. I’ve been self-supporting since I was 18. Worked my ass off all my life, often with two jobs. Worked my way through college and grad school. Unfortunately, I became disabled at the age of 60 and had to retire. These years would have been my best earning period because as I became sick I was due to take over the running of a major NYC non-profit. Not putting yours down, I will match my hard work with yours or anyone else. There is no logical reason why we all should not be entitled to excellent health care.
The socialism bogeyman you raise is just that a fantasy. Please do some research and understand what socialism really is and if you do you will see that National Health Care isn’t in the ballpark. You’ve got a good and open mind. Please use it to get out beyond Randian fantasy and look at the real world clearly. The only socialism in America is socialism for the rich, everyone else gets shafted by a non
existent Free Market.
Mike
Jill:
I dont think it is as bad as you think it is, although it may be worse than I think it is. The relative unemployment is only about 5-7% I think they say at any one time there are about 3-4% unemployed, people that just dont want to work.
Not all of the banks are “zombies” some are very well capitalized and did not engage in bad loans. I know some industries have been hit very hard but I think things are starting to turn around a little bit. I wish Bush had not done the TARP that was very stupid, actually I think it was criminal and if he is tried for anything it should be for screwing up the economy (so if you can send him down the river for torture good on you).
I am sorry for people who have lost their jobs, but you know what I lost mine about 16 years ago and started a company of my own, I make more money, have more free time and actually like what I do now. I hope these people look at a lost job as an opportunity to become a small business owner. HP started in a garage and look at it now. Small businesses create many jobs and offer much opportunity to an individual. Thomas Jefferson would be on board with the idea, not too much power in the hands of a single corporation but spread out.
People need to do for themselves and if they cant then a little help is necessary to get over the bad times. But they should at least try before running to Uncle Sam.
Lottakatz,
I think you made many excellent points. I add to your list the basic research done by our universities and the NIH that is taken by private industry and sold back to us at greatly inflated prices. We are paying for our health care in the most stupid, expensive, dangerous and immoral way possible. I mentioned Germany as a possible way to go because they do cover everyone but do it through private insurers. It might be the way the US would be most likely to cover everyone because the private companies would still be in business.
Bron,
I am not against profit. There is no reason why everyone can’t be covered and everyone in the healthcare industry still make plenty of money. I can’t really agree that we are the best economy in the world. We are collapsing as we speak. Our banks are zombies, many of our people are starving, homeless and without their basic needs being met. We are losing around 600,000 jobs a month with little to no social safety net. Check out Dean Baker’s blog if you have time and see what you think of what he’s writing. He’s funny but he backs up his claims.
I think your idea of sending the armband to PNAC is great. It makes a strong statement and I think it’s admirable of you to have thought about doing this type of protest.
Jill:
I agree we dont have a free market economy because of the federal reserve bank (something Thomas Jefferson warned us about) and other things.
What is wrong with profit? It has given us the best economy in the world and we are generaly a free society. Political freedom and economic freedom are tied together.
On another note my wife just found a NSDAP armband in pristine condition given to her by her aunt (a member of the DAR and Dames of the Magna Carta I might add, I dont know if there is any connection) who had traveled in Germany in the early thirties. This is an original authentic piece that for the right price, I would be willing to send to PNAC with the blessings of all on this blog. If they are going to act the part they should look the part as well. Otherwise I will burn it and remember the terrible things that were done to individuals in the name of National Socialism.