The US government detained innocent filmmaker, Cyrus Kar, from Los Angeles in an Iraqi prison for 54 days. Mr. Kar and his cameraman were in Iraq filming a documentary on Cyrus the Great. They were detained after a taxi in which they were riding passed through a check point, and was found to contain around 35 washing machine timers. These timers could be used by insurgents to make bombs.

The driver of the taxi, who was also detained, admitted that the timers were his, but Kar and his cameraman were still detained. Kar, who happens to be a US veteran, was left in solitary confinement for 54 days and released Sunday, after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit.

Kar seems to have taken it well, saying he has “the highest regard for our men in uniform,” but he also says that “they knew from the get-go that we were nothing more than filmmakers.” He alleges that “they put us in a cell and forgot us.”

I don’t believe that this innocent citizen was intentionally left in prison for almost two months. This is just an example of one unacceptable side effect that occurs due to inefficiencies that naturally happen with huge bureaucracies, like our government. Every soldier stationed at this prison probably knew that Mr. Kar was innocent, yet he wasn’t released. Why? There is certainly paperwork involved, approvals from higher ranking officials required, and numerous other bottlenecks in the process.

This instance proves that the system for processing detainees does not work, or at the very least that processing and releasing the innocent is not a priority. This gentleman was only released Sunday because the ACLU and newspapers started talking about it. How many Iraqi’s, who are known to be innocent, have been detained for longer than this?

This process is clearly broken and has got to be fixed. There is simply no excuse for holding a person for one minute after his innocence has been proven. I’m sure anyone would agree with that statement, regardless of their party affiliation.

Why, then, do we not see a priority being placed on fixing it? This has been an ongoing problem, in Iraq as well as in Guantanamo. Again, I fear the answer lies in bureaucracy. How many people have to discuss what needs to be changed? Who has to approve the changes? How many people have to be involved to discuss how to implement the changes? Because of the sheer size of this government, it could take years to put in place a change that everyone agrees should happen.

It’s important to note that this is not just a problem with Iraq and the defense department, it is a problem throughout our government. During the Jefferson admistration, secretary of state James Madison negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with a core of less than a dozen employees in the state department. How long would it have taken them to fix this problem?

As Tim West at LibertyForSale.com pointed out earlier today, the Libertarian Party has published an exit strategy for Iraq.

The plan is detailed, thorough, convincing, and feasible. Highlights include:

• Begin troop withdrawal immediately, at a rate of 11,600 per month. At this rate all troops would be home in a year.
• Relocate 30,000 troops to other Middle Eastern countries.
• Negotiate a settlement with the mainstream faction of the insurgency to polarize extremists.
• Provide aid to the Iraqi government for creation of viable infrastruction.

I don’t believe that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there we need a strategy for leaving. Bush claims that setting a time table for withdrawing troops will only encourage the “terrorists” to wait us out. However, evidence shows that many of these “terrorists” are Iraqi citizens who have lost loved ones in the war, and are driven by the US occupation. If the US started withdrawing troops, it is likely that alone would cause a decrease in violence.

This exit strategy from the Libertarian party is excellent, and I am thrilled to see them release it. I encourage you to read it through, and if you agree with it sign this list on the LP’s web site showing your support.

After stating that the purpose of this blog is to provide libertarian commentary on current events, I almost feel obligated to comment on tonight’s speech by President Bush. However, I don’t feel like he brought up anything new and relatively little that is blog-worthy.

He continues to link Iraq to terrorism, without mentioning that terrorism was almost non-existent there before we invaded. He mentions that if he succeeds, terrorist organizations will “lose recruits,” without mentioning the number of “terrorists” that he created by invading and occupying that country.

He didn’t clarify why we overthrew a government that posed us no threat. He made no mention of why the reasons for taking this country to war changed when it was confirmed that there were no weapons. He provided no excuses for proactively seeking out reasons to take us to war, instead of examining evidence and concluding that war was the only option.

I am convinced that Bush’s belief in empirical, neo-con ideologies led us into the war in Iraq. Based in his ideology, Bush believed that what the middle east needed was a democracy. Citizens in other middle eastern countries would see this flourishing democracy and eventually, like a seed, freedom would spread across the region, bringing an end to terrorism.

Iraq just happened to be the easiest target for this “seed of democracy.” They were already in violation of UN resolutions, so international support would be relatively easy to gain. We had intelligence that could arguably point to their having weapons of mass destruction, and possessing WMD’s means they could be considered a threat to us.

If Bush would admit that these were his reasons, I would have a lot more respect for him. And I would still go to my grave screaming that he is wrong.

Instead of the truth, all we get is rhetoric and hypocrisies that can lead us only to conclude that our commander in chief is either a liar, or an idiot.

Did he really believe there were weapons? Did he really believe Iraq was a threat to us? Did he really believe that war was the only option? Does he really believe that they hate us for our freedom?

Bush doesn’t believe any of that. I believe that Bush know’s the truth, but he is out to sell a war. A war that we are in because of his twisted neo-con beliefs, and his twisted definition of freedom. He believes that by overthrowing countries and interfering throughout the world, we can end terrorism. Unfortunately, that is what causes it.