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?

I apologize for the lack of posts over the last few days. I’ve been in Orlando on vacation with my family, and didn’t have as much free time as I expected. I’m leaving again tomorrow for the Virgin Islands, but as that will be a more relaxing (and hopefully hurricane free) vacation, I expect to have more time to update the site.

This seems like a good time to mention that I am looking for more contributors to LibertyNow.com. If you are pro-Liberty and would be interested in contributing articles or just general posts to this site, I would love to hear from you. If you are interested, please email me directly at danny[at]libertynow.com.

Steve at BachTalk.net makes a great point in this recent post from his blog.

I heard the director of public relations at the Saudi Arabian Embassy speak today.
…
He then pointed out that there are/were only two countries in the world in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions: Iraq and Israel. The U.S. invaded Iraq for being in violation of 16 Security Council resolutions, yet we provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and relentless support for Israel.

You know, I really wish more people would listen to what Arabs from the middle east, or even the terrorists themselves list as the reasons that they hate us. Our unrelenting support for Israel, their not-so-innocent mortal enemy, always seems to be at the top of the list. Other reasons, provided by Bin Laden, include US troops being stationed on their holy soil, and UN sanctions that had been imposed on Iraq, resulting in the death of thousands.

Funny, “our freedoms” never even make the top 10.

The foreign policy decisions of the United States government for the past 30+ years is the reason that we are losing our freedoms to this “war on terrorism” today. Every time we provide foreign or military aid, we are choosing a side, potentially creating an enemy. Every time our military kills an innocent Arab, we are creating new terrorists.

Our foreign policy of interventionalism is fueling this worldwide hatred of our country! How many terrorist attacks occur in Switzerland??

Stopping our aid to Israel would be a great start to reducing terrorism. Fighting terror with war only plays into the hands of our enemies, delivering them more recruits and guaranteeing that this “war on terror” will never end.

Ahead of the G8 summit, which kicks off Wednesday in Scotland, several organizations dedicated to ending worldwide poverty have been getting lots of attention. These organizations, which include Live8, One, and more, hope the recent outpouring of support for their cause will pressure the world leaders at the G8 to appropriate funds to ending poverty, particularly in African countries.

If the statistics can be believed, they are staggering. Over a billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day and every day, 30,000 children die due to extreme poverty.

There are obviously millions of people who are rightfully sickened by these statistics, to the point that they’re driven to do something about it. It is just unfortunate that they are spending so much effort lobbying politicians, instead of devoting their time to methods that could actually help achieve their goals.

As you would probably guess, I am not in favor of the government taxing its citizens and redistributing the money to other countries, but in this case that is beside the point. This is a lost cause from the beginning. Government is no more capable of ending world poverty than it is capable of ending domestic poverty, drug use, or terrorism.

First of all, this is really an uphill battle because they are trying to get eight governments to agree to do something. Even if that happens over this three day summit, it will take years before each of those governments appropriates all of the aid money they promise.

Once the money is appropriated, like all government programs, they’ll find out they need more than expected. Much more than necessary will go to bureaucracy, leaving less for the poor. With such a huge budget, it will be difficult to track where all the money goes. This creates huge holes for corrupt government officials. We need to look no further than the recent Iraq Oil-for-food scandal, or the squandering of previous African aid money for examples.

For a solution that will work, these activists should look towards the free market. The governments should only be asked to reduce or eliminate current tariffs or trade restrictions to these countries.

With apparently millions of activists waiting to be mobilized, just imagine the amount of money that could be raised privately, or the number of new volunteers that could be recruited into such a noble cause. Private organizations are notoriously more efficient with money, and can no doubt do more-with-less.

If the US government would stop subsidizing domestic farms and end all tariffs and trade restrictions to these countries, the benefits would be huge. Companies would have an incentive to move into these countries to take advantage of the cheap labor and overall low manufacturing costs. This would provide jobs to the citizens and would improve the overall quality of life. One needs to only look at China to see how an economy in a similar position can thrive.

I am truly saddened by the extent of poverty that exists in Africa today, but it is just depressing to know that so many people are putting their faith in government, an institution with an absolutely pitiful track record, to solve this crisis.

UPDATE: Just found this article by Alister Heath through the Free Market News Network. He makes my point much more eloquently than I ever could.

I’ve spent some time over the last couple of days reading web sites and blogs that are dedicated to reforming the Libertarian party. I am not entirely sure yet which side of the fence I fall on, so I want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that I see with each approach.

The Libertarian party currently has the reputation of being extreme and non-compromising. If a moderate Democrat or Republican looks at the Libertarian platform, which states that all drugs should be legal and Social Security should be terminated, they would consider the word “extreme” to be a major understatement. There is also a perception, which I don’t feel is entirely accurate, that party members are not willing to accept any compromised solution that results in more government than the goals set forth in platform would allow.

The reformers believe that the party is too radical, and would like to bring it more into the mainstream. They would accomplish this by basically taking the “smaller government” side of current political issues, reducing the size of government over time in small steps. For example, they would campaign for medical marijuana, private accounts for Social Security, and eliminating pork spending.

In theory, this would expand the party’s base, making room for new members and politicians who would be willing to cut spending and legalize marijuana, but perhaps would not be ready to repeal the income tax and eliminate the FDA.

Read the rest of this entry…

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.

Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian presidential candiate, has posted a re-print of a great article by Thomas M. Sipos on his blog. Mr. Sipos provides an interesting perspective on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. I recommend you check it out.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided against the file sharing application in MGM v. Grokster. What follows is the rant that I promised yesterday, if this happened.

For those of you who aren’t up to speed on this one, I’ll try to summarize. Grokster is a software program that allows consumers to share files across the internet. It is “peer-to-peer” software, which means that users connect directly to other users in order to search for and exchange files. File information is never sent to a central Grokster server, and Grokster has no knowledge or control over the files that consumers exchange using their software.

According to MGM, and not really denied by Grokster, a large majority of the files that are exchanged using the software are copyrighted music and movies. Grokster stressed the benefits of peer-to-peer technology over the more common ways of exchanging files, which depend on a central server. They claimed that their technology has considerable uses other than to facilitate the exchange of copyrighted material.

I have read through the Opinion of the Court, and it appears that Grokster didn’t do a whole lot to help themselves. It is obvious that they did little to discourage the exchange of copyrighted material, and there is considerable evidence that they used the availability of free copyrighted material as a selling point of their software to help attract more users, which translated into more advertising dollars.

So, the Supreme Court decided that Grokster went too far. Their decision claims that this is not an indictment against all types of file sharing software. It is not a decision against any company or application that facilitates the sharing of copyrighted material. It is just Grokster. Clearly, they went too far.

Basically, today, the Supreme Court drew a line. A very fuzzy line. A line that will be moved, shortened, twisted, and bent so often over time that it will disappear entirely. What eventually happens when the Supreme Court draws these fuzzy lines was made painfully clear just last week, when the line that was “public use” disappeared and became, instead, “private use”.

Read the rest of this entry…

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court tomorrow. Several important decisions will be announced, and possibly one or two retirements, on the last day before a three month summer break.

Most people are looking for a resignation announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and has thyroid cancer. I guess it is also possible, but less likely, that Sandra Day O’Conner, 75, or John Paul Stevens, 85 will step down as well.

I am most concerned, however, with the decisions that will come down. A big one concerns internet file sharing, and will decide if software makers who create file sharing applications are liable if users of their software share copyrighted material. If they are found to be liable, look for a new rant from me.

Another case deals with the “Ten Commandments” issue. Are state buildings, such as courthouses and capitol buildings allowed to display the Commandments? I believe this is a states issue and should not be made illegal by the federal courts.

Let’s hope the Justices come down on the side of liberty and personal freedom, but based on recent history, I’m not holding my breath.