Impeachment if Obama protected those responsible for rape of Iraqi children, women?

[Liberty Star]

Will you support impeachment of Obama if turns out that he is protecting those responsible for rape of Iraqi children, women?

There is sufficient credible reporting from multiple sources suggesting that horrible acts including rape of detainee children, women by some US military prison guards/interrogators took place and US government has graphic photo evidence in its posession. Some related posts to add context on this poll question:

(Caution, news links below contain graphic language and some of the links may contain graphic rape photos of women that have not yet been authenticated or refuted by Obama administration officials)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2134319&postcount=1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2134542&postcount=21

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2135405&postcount=43



"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.usa1

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/

[silverhawks]

YES. There is no other option.

[Liberty Star]

I agree.

We have been lately paying huge price for extreme incompetence, to put it mildly. It's time to cleanse if we are to move forward with our heads high as Americans. From conception to execution of recent foreign occupation/war/"enhanced interrogations" policies, this was one of the worst period in our history if not the worst.

[Liberty Star]

This is little strange, why CNN, FOX, MSNBC had ignored such news that relate to what is essentially an American war/occupation when mainstream foreign media reported on them back in 04:


Photos show dead Iraqis, torture and rape

By Marian Wilkinson
United States Correspondent
Washington
May 14, 2004


Graphic new photographs and videotape of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison including images of dead Iraqis, prisoners being brutalised, tortured and forced to have sex, and female detainees being forced to expose their breasts have stunned members of Congress who saw them in a secure briefing room on Capitol Hill.

"There were some awful scenes", said Democrat senator Richard Durbin, "It felt you were descending into one of the wings of hell and sadly it was our own creation."

"Take the worse case and multiply it several times over," said Democrat senator Ron Wyden. "I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated."

Democrat senator Bill Nelson described for the first time the videotape that he said included poor quality images that may be evidence of attempts to sodomise prisoners.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289818093.html

[torchbearer]

Off with his head.

[Liberty Star]

Another post from link above:


The New York Times yesterday reported that the military intelligence brigade that took control of the interrogation centre was deployed direct from Afghanistan and brought with it harsh procedures it had developed there. The US military deems US military prisons in Afghanistan to be outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva conventions because it defines al-Qaida and Taliban fighters as "unlawful combatants".

In the Washington Post report, one detainee, Kasim Hilas, describes the rape of an Iraqi boy by a man in uniform, whose name has been blacked out of the statement, but who appears to be a translator working for the army.

"I saw [name blacked out] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid's ass," Mr Hilas told military investigators. "I couldn't see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures."

It is not clear from the testimony whether the rapist de scribed by Mr Hilas was working for a private contractor or was a US soldier. A private contractor was arrested after the Taguba investigation was completed, but was freed when it was discovered the army had no jurisdiction over him under military or Iraqi law.

Another inmate, Thaar Dawod, describes more abuse of teenage Iraqis. "They came with two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and Grainer [Corporal Charles Graner, one of the military policemen facing court martial] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures from top and bottom and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.usa1

Nudity and "sexual humiliation" were apparently authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. This is so sickening to even imagine but could it be that some degenerates among military guards/interrogators were using rape of detainees' children/wives, taking photos and then using those photos as an interrogation/manipulation tool?

We dont have many neocons here but if there is one reading this, would you allow above to happen in the so called "ticking bomb" scenario to save "thousands of lives"?

This is so sickening to imagine but I'm at the point of losing all faith in the moral cores of those who conceived and executed these wars and so called enhanced torture techniques in these prisons.

Obama administration has absoultely no legal, moral ground to hide pictures of torture and protect those responsible for overseeing these acts in foreign countries in our names.

If the enemy knows about it as they have to already with even more exaggerated details, we must know what's being done in our names and where we stand morally today. It will also help us understand what kinda of "freedoms" have been fueling insurgencies where we have these prisons and why we continue to need to keep spending more and more taxes on wars there?




Thu May 21, 2009

Senate Approves $91 Billion Funding Bill for Iraq, Afghan Wars
By Brian Faler May 22 (Bloomberg) -- The US Senate approved a $91 billion spending bill that would fund President Barack Obama's troop buildup in Afghanistan and block a lawsuit seeking to force the release of photos showing abuse of war prisoners.

These foreign spending bills have become broken records, we must be doing something wrong and we should gather all the facts to know what we are doing wrong.

[Liberty Star]

Excerpts from a related opinion piece published today:


May 23, 2009


Breaking News: U.S. Citizens Hate Torture and Are Acting to Stop It

by jill mclaughlin

Fortunately, it seems there is a segment of society that isn't allowing its conscience to be over-ridden with the terms of this debate; that actually wants to see the horror of torture stopped and wants to see those responsible held to account. An example of this can be found in reader's comments to a New York Times article in which its headline announces that 1 in 7 detainees released returned to terrorism. Readers comments ranged from pointing out that the headline is misleading in that 1 in 7 seems pretty low, to questioning how the U.S. knows these were terrorists to begin with since they were never charged with anything, to pointing out how torture can fuel anti-American sentiment.

When one reads the comments, one sees that not everyone is buying into the lies nor is everyone willing to go along. Read article and comments here. But this sentiment among the people, and it's a correct and just sentiment, has yet to break out visibly in a mass way.

On Thursday, May 28, World Can't Wait and War Criminals Watch will be going out with the demand that the torture photos be released and demand prosecutions for the war criminals responsible for what these photos show.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Breaking-News-U-S-Citize-by-jill-mclaughlin-090522-711.html

[Liberty Star]

The more one researches Iraq news, the more credible fears about the worst case scenarios start to appear. If such terrible statistics exist about rape of our own military women, would voiceless Iraqi detainee women or children be more or less protected with authorized use of "forced nudity" as an enhanced interrogation tool and culture of little or no accountability in a "war zone"?



Women Soldiers Being Raped More than Killed By Enemy Fire

Rapists in the ranks

Sexual assaults are frequent, and frequently ignored, in the armed services.

By Jane Harman
March 31, 2008

The stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality: A female military recruit is pinned down at knifepoint and raped repeatedly in her own barracks. Her attackers hid their faces but she identified them by their uniforms; they were her fellow soldiers.
.. doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken

Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004. The DOD's newest report, released this month, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in 2007, but a recent shift from calendar-year reporting to fiscal-year reporting makes comparisons with data from previous years much more difficult.

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military.


Full article here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harman31mar31,0,5399612.story


If data cited by congresswoman Harman is grounded in facts, Obama and Congress better soon pull Rumsefled, Cheney, Gonzalez to quiz them under oath and investigate all these torture/rape allegations not just for sake of Iraqi victims but also for the good our own institutions. This matter needs to be shined in broad day light if accountability is to take place. Obama is speaking from all sides of his mouth on these issues.

Above article is somewhat ironic though because Harman was in the run to Chair Congressional Intel committee until she got broiled in wiretap scandal involving Iraq war cheerleader aipac's spy.

[zach]

If this becomes breaking news, then I will be interested in seeing what happens.

But yes, I agree with an impeachment if this is true.

Protecting those who rape is a disservice to humanity.

[ItsTime]

And what to do with Bush?

[Liberty Star]

If this becomes breaking news, then I will be interested in seeing what happens.

But yes, I agree with an impeachment if this is true.

Protecting those who rape is a disservice to humanity.

Breaking news is the nervousness and fear that seems to be shaking Cheney and other torture interrogation techniques advocates if these photos came out. As Hersh put it, they are "in terror".

Simple questions is if these photos just show some nude detainess being abused by "few bad apples" in US managed prisons around the world, that is not new news and such depictions have already been seen by US public. What interrogation acts are is those photos that prospect of their coming out has panicked anew them and forced from to try and stop their release all in the name of "transparency"?

[Dieseler]

I feel pretty sure he will throw everyone he needs to under the bus before he relinquishes the Kingship.
Look at the time line on this stuff, well, recent time line on this stuff.
Who brought it back to the forefront? He did.
Let it stew for awhile.
Who said finally that it was a bad idea to release the photos? He did.
Let it stew for awhile.
Then what happened? Photos were leaked.
Let it stew for awhile.
Just a big game played out over time.
Heads will roll eventually.
Question is, who's heads?

[Liberty Star]

Photos will come out eventually, keeping such electronic media based images that can be so easily replicated/transmitted is almost an impossible task considering the circumstances. They could have already been leaked to select sources and waiting for appropriate political conditions for release to public at large. Fight for public release usually starts when containment has already been breached to some degree.

[anaconda]

Ummm which House of Representatives will vote for the articles of impeachment? Not this one.

[klamath]

The more one researches Iraq news, the more credible fears about the worst case scenarios start to appear. If such terrible statistics exist about rape of our own military women, would voiceless Iraqi detainee women or children be more or less protected with authorized use of "forced nudity" as an enhanced interrogation tool and culture of little or no accountability in a "war zone"?



Full article here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harman31mar31,0,5399612.story


If data cited by congresswoman Harman is grounded in facts, Obama and Congress better soon pull Rumsefled, Cheney, Gonzalez to quiz them under oath and investigate all these torture/rape allegations not just for sake of Iraqi victims but also for the good our own institutions. This matter needs to be shined in broad day light if accountability is to take place. Obama is speaking from all sides of his mouth on these issues.

Above article is somewhat ironic though because Harman was in the run to Chair Congressional Intel committee until she got broiled in wiretap scandal involving Iraq war cheerleader aipac's spy.

Having been in the military I think you are getting carried away some of these stories. I know of women that have been raped in the military and I know of man that get accused of Rape wrongly but the system lists the accusation as part of the statistic.
If a male soldier calls a female soldier a "Chick" she can have him reported for sexual harrassment and that will be listed in the statistics.
It is taken very very serious and all soldiers are required to go to anti sexual assualt, anti sexual harressment classes several times a year. There are required posters on the walls of all military installations dealing with sexual assault and harassment.
I have never ever under any of the commands I served under was given the impression that sexual assault was not going to be taken seriously or condoned.

However saying what I have I believe the the command in abu graib did condone it as well certain military intelegence units did with the blessing from as far up as the VP or the POTUS. I believe other commands probably did as well. What I know is not the case is that the military is systemically full of rapist and torturers any more that the general population of the US and the RP forums. Our rules of engagement were very strict and I am sure many US military lives were lost because soldiers followed the ROE to their death.

[Liberty Star]

And what to do with Bush?

Allegations have to be investigated in a judicial manner and Buhs's reward will depend on how much Bush new or authorized. He could possibly plead ignorance or stupidity. But there are enough credible charges to start with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzalez and go where the truth and Justice take. Gitmo is called "Camp Justice" afterall, we could hold torture inquiry trials there if we feel like being ironical and transparent as a nation.



Ummm which House of Representatives will vote for the articles of impeachment? Not this one.

Ultimately public opinion dictates what "representatives" do even after considering all the manipulations of political system by special interest groups, politicians often are a reflection of the masses. If Clinton can be impeached over private oral sex affair, Bush/Cheney/Obama are not exempt from rebuke or punishment or above the law. Lindsay Graham need to remember a phrase he used to recite non stop during Clinton impeachment trial over Monica affair, "we are a nation of laws" still.

[Thesemindz]

Sure. He's evil. Feel free to waste your time and resources impeaching one evil man so they can replace him with another evil man.

You won't find good honorable men who want that job, because it's an evil oppresive position that allows you to exploit free people for personal gain.

I have an idea, let's create a Secretary of Gang Rape. I'm sure we'll get lots of well meaning, honorable men to apply for that job.

Impeach him if you want. I'd rather impeach the system.


-Rob

[Danke]

Sure. He's evil. Feel free to waste your time and resources impeaching one evil man so they can replace him with another evil man.

You won't find good honorable men who want that job, because it's an evil oppresive position that allows you to exploit free people for personal gain.


Ron Paul?

[anaconda]

Ultimately public opinion dictates what "representatives" do even after considering all the manipulations of political system by special interest groups, politicians often are a reflection of the masses.

If the House was stacked with Republicans this might be the case, like the Clinton impeachment of the late 90's. With respect to the "public opinion," look how the House voted only their second bailout vote, despite something like 70 per cent of Americans opposed. Collectively, people continue to vote for the politicians with the best campaign advertising, funded by special interest money. The sheep will not punish them accordingly for their votes, so they are not terribly accountable for their votes.

[klamath]

Allegations have to be investigated in a judicial manner and Buhs's reward will depend on how much Bush new or authorized. He could possibly plead ignorance or stupidity. But there are enough credible charges to start with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzalez and go where the truth and Justice take. Gitmo is called "Camp Justice" afterall, we could hold torture inquiry trials there if we feel like being ironical and transparent as a nation.




Ultimately public opinion dictates what "representatives" do even after considering all the manipulations of political system by special interest groups, politicians often are a reflection of the masses. If Clinton can be impeached over private oral sex affair, Bush/Cheney/Obama are not exempt from rebuke or punishment or above the law. Lindsay Graham need to remember a phrase he used to recite non stop during Clinton impeachment trial over Monica affair, "we are a nation of laws" still.

Clinton should have been convicted for obstruction of justice. Him getting by with it is why no congress will start impeachment for anything anymore. Clinton getting by with it opened the door to an even more empiralist presidency. He wasn't being tried on the stupid oral sex but trying lying about his whole stupid affair. He should have been impeached for starting a bombing campaign against Iraq the day congress was to have the impeachment vote. :mad:

[Brassmouth]

He won't be impeached.

[Thesemindz]

Ron Paul?

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/
Ron Paul supports taxation, inlcuding but not limited to the so-called "fair tax." Taxation in any form is nothing more than legalized theft. It is a person with sufficient force to compel others under duress to forfeit their assets to his hungers. The difference between the tax man and the highway man is only the color of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)).

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
Ron Paul supports a standing military. He may want them withdrawn from certain theatres of operation, but he still believes that the government should take your assets and use them to fund a massive violent monopoly, who's only true capabilities are offensive in nature.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
Ron Paul supports the criminalization of locomotion. He believes that a person who has committed no quantifiable harm to another, should be arrested simply for walking across an imaginary line that denotes nothing so much as where the violent authority of one totalitarian state is replaced by another. If he truly wanted to eliminate illegal immigration, all he'd have to advocate for is the complete cessation of all state subsidies. No "free" government education. No "free" government medical care. No "free" government housing. No "free" government anything. Then the only people coming are the ones who do want to work hard and take care of themselves. We could use more of those around. It might even cause some of our own undesirables to emmigrate.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
Ron Paul supports allowing people to "fully deduct health care costs from their taxes." While on it's face, this may seem admirable, this is simply another government funded medical care scheme. The government is still paying for the health care, it's just paying in the form of tax credits to the consumer. Giving someone back some of the money you stole from them in the first place is not admirable. This doesn't eliminate government funding of health care, it simply disguises it. As long as the state is funding health care, you will never have true competition. Health care providers will always inflate and disguise their costs when they know that the state will pick up the bill. And the state accomplishes that by stealing the money from you and I and everyone else through taxation and inflation.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
Ron Paul supports government prohibition of abortion. While I find abortion to be a truly abhorrent practice, you can't give the government the power to prohibit something without also giving them the power to enforce that prohibition. In doing so, you cede to the state limitless power to interfere in the private lives of citizens. This action would justify registering of pregnancies, or possibly even sexual behavior, state control over contraception, forced medical care of private citizens, even control over what people can eat or what physical activities they can participate in. There are many ways to cause a miscarriage, and in order to control them, the state would have to have universal authority over the activities of pregnant women and those around them. The real question is not, as Ron Paul puts it, "When does human life begin?" The real question is, "where would government intervention end?"

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
Ron Paul supports government education, is so much as he thinks that, "the smallest level of government possible best performs education." It does not. The free market best performs education. The smallest level of government is still a violent monopoly built on theft and oppression, and will pass it's values on to those placed in it's care.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/war-on-drugs/
Ron Paul supports drug prohibition. While he may advocate against the war on drugs, he simply thinks that, "local laws" are a better way to address the issue of people using recreational substances in a non violent manner voluntarily in a way that harms no one but themselves. The state has no legitimate authority in regulating self abuse, regardless of what the moral fascists would argue.

At the heart of the matter, Ron Paul may believe in limited government. He may believe in limited taxation. He may believe in a limited use of force. He may believe in limited coercion. He may believe in limited victimization of the innocent. He may believe in limited evil. Our founders may have as well, and yet in a little over two centuries, we have seen that dangerous servant become the fearful master. A call for limited evil is an acceptance of it.

Now, all that being said, Ron Paul also supports some ideas I agree with, such as the elimination of the income tax, fiat currency, and the welfare state. He also argues quite clearly at times against government redistribution of wealth and government oppression. But his support for the above positions is exactly the point I was making. If you support the need for a state, you support violence and theft under color of law. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


-Rob

[CCTelander]

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/
Ron Paul supports taxation, inlcuding but not limited to the so-called "fair tax." Taxation in any form is nothing more than legalized theft. It is a person with sufficient force to compel others under duress to forfeit their assets to his hungers. The difference between the tax man and the highway man is only the color of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)).

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
Ron Paul supports a standing military. He may want them withdrawn from certain theatres of operation, but he still believes that the government should take your assets and use them to fund a massive violent monopoly, who's only true capabilities are offensive in nature.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
Ron Paul supports the criminalization of locomotion. He believes that a person who has committed no quantifiable harm to another, should be arrested simply for walking across an imaginary line that denotes nothing so much as where the violent authority of one totalitarian state is replaced by another. If he truly wanted to eliminate illegal immigration, all he'd have to advocate for is the complete cessation of all state subsidies. No "free" government education. No "free" government medical care. No "free" government housing. No "free" government anything. Then the only people coming are the ones who do want to work hard and take care of themselves. We could use more of those around. It might even cause some of our own undesirables to emmigrate.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
Ron Paul supports allowing people to "fully deduct health care costs from their taxes." While on it's face, this may seem admirable, this is simply another government funded medical care scheme. The government is still paying for the health care, it's just paying in the form of tax credits to the consumer. Giving someone back some of the money you stole from them in the first place is not admirable. This doesn't eliminate government funding of health care, it simply disguises it. As long as the state is funding health care, you will never have true competition. Health care providers will always inflate and disguise their costs when they know that the state will pick up the bill. And the state accomplishes that by stealing the money from you and I and everyone else through taxation and inflation.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
Ron Paul supports government prohibition of abortion. While I find abortion to be a truly abhorrent practice, you can't give the government the power to prohibit something without also giving them the power to enforce that prohibition. In doing so, you cede to the state limitless power to interfere in the private lives of citizens. This action would justify registering of pregnancies, or possibly even sexual behavior, state control over contraception, forced medical care of private citizens, even control over what people can eat or what physical activities they can participate in. There are many ways to cause a miscarriage, and in order to control them, the state would have to have universal authority over the activities of pregnant women and those around them. The real question is not, as Ron Paul puts it, "When does human life begin?" The real question is, "where would government intervention end?"

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
Ron Paul supports government education, is so much as he thinks that, "the smallest level of government possible best performs education." It does not. The free market best performs education. The smallest level of government is still a violent monopoly built on theft and oppression, and will pass it's values on to those placed in it's care.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/war-on-drugs/
Ron Paul supports drug prohibition. While he may advocate against the war on drugs, he simply thinks that, "local laws" are a better way to address the issue of people using recreational substances in a non violent manner voluntarily in a way that harms no one but themselves. The state has no legitimate authority in regulating self abuse, regardless of what the moral fascists would argue.

At the heart of the matter, Ron Paul may believe in limited government. He may believe in limited taxation. He may believe in a limited use of force. He may believe in limited coercion. He may believe in limited victimization of the innocent. He may believe in limited evil. Our founders may have as well, and yet in a little over two centuries, we have seen that dangerous servant become the fearful master. A call for limited evil is an acceptance of it.

Now, all that being said, Ron Paul also supports some ideas I agree with, such as the elimination of the income tax, fiat currency, and the welfare state. He also argues quite clearly at times against government redistribution of wealth and government oppression. But his support for the above positions is exactly the point I was making. If you support the need for a state, you support violence and theft under color of law. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


-Rob


Hope you're wearing asbestos underwear, Rob! I have a feeling you're going to have a need for them. :D

[Thesemindz]

That's me, always making friends.


-Rob

[ghengis86]

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/
Ron Paul supports taxation, inlcuding but not limited to the so-called "fair tax." Taxation in any form is nothing more than legalized theft. It is a person with sufficient force to compel others under duress to forfeit their assets to his hungers. The difference between the tax man and the highway man is only the color of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)).

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
Ron Paul supports a standing military. He may want them withdrawn from certain theatres of operation, but he still believes that the government should take your assets and use them to fund a massive violent monopoly, who's only true capabilities are offensive in nature.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
Ron Paul supports the criminalization of locomotion. He believes that a person who has committed no quantifiable harm to another, should be arrested simply for walking across an imaginary line that denotes nothing so much as where the violent authority of one totalitarian state is replaced by another. If he truly wanted to eliminate illegal immigration, all he'd have to advocate for is the complete cessation of all state subsidies. No "free" government education. No "free" government medical care. No "free" government housing. No "free" government anything. Then the only people coming are the ones who do want to work hard and take care of themselves. We could use more of those around. It might even cause some of our own undesirables to emmigrate.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
Ron Paul supports allowing people to "fully deduct health care costs from their taxes." While on it's face, this may seem admirable, this is simply another government funded medical care scheme. The government is still paying for the health care, it's just paying in the form of tax credits to the consumer. Giving someone back some of the money you stole from them in the first place is not admirable. This doesn't eliminate government funding of health care, it simply disguises it. As long as the state is funding health care, you will never have true competition. Health care providers will always inflate and disguise their costs when they know that the state will pick up the bill. And the state accomplishes that by stealing the money from you and I and everyone else through taxation and inflation.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
Ron Paul supports government prohibition of abortion. While I find abortion to be a truly abhorrent practice, you can't give the government the power to prohibit something without also giving them the power to enforce that prohibition. In doing so, you cede to the state limitless power to interfere in the private lives of citizens. This action would justify registering of pregnancies, or possibly even sexual behavior, state control over contraception, forced medical care of private citizens, even control over what people can eat or what physical activities they can participate in. There are many ways to cause a miscarriage, and in order to control them, the state would have to have universal authority over the activities of pregnant women and those around them. The real question is not, as Ron Paul puts it, "When does human life begin?" The real question is, "where would government intervention end?"

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
Ron Paul supports government education, is so much as he thinks that, "the smallest level of government possible best performs education." It does not. The free market best performs education. The smallest level of government is still a violent monopoly built on theft and oppression, and will pass it's values on to those placed in it's care.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/war-on-drugs/
Ron Paul supports drug prohibition. While he may advocate against the war on drugs, he simply thinks that, "local laws" are a better way to address the issue of people using recreational substances in a non violent manner voluntarily in a way that harms no one but themselves. The state has no legitimate authority in regulating self abuse, regardless of what the moral fascists would argue.

At the heart of the matter, Ron Paul may believe in limited government. He may believe in limited taxation. He may believe in a limited use of force. He may believe in limited coercion. He may believe in limited victimization of the innocent. He may believe in limited evil. Our founders may have as well, and yet in a little over two centuries, we have seen that dangerous servant become the fearful master. A call for limited evil is an acceptance of it.

Now, all that being said, Ron Paul also supports some ideas I agree with, such as the elimination of the income tax, fiat currency, and the welfare state. He also argues quite clearly at times against government redistribution of wealth and government oppression. But his support for the above positions is exactly the point I was making. If you support the need for a state, you support violence and theft under color of law. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

-Rob

agreed, although minarchy would be a great first step

[CCTelander]

That's me, always making friends.


-Rob

Well, don't feel too bad about it. I seem to have the same effect on people. ;)

[Thesemindz]

agreed, although minarchy would be a great first step

Well, here's how I look at it.

If I'm going to get raped anyway, and I have even the illusion of a choice, yes, I'd opt to get raped by the least violent rapist, with the smallest member, and the most lubrication. But it's still rape.

So yes. Minarchism is a step in the right direction. As long as the people do not become complacent under it, because then it wil inevitably lead back to tyranny. And it is still inherently evil, and so I can not in good conscience advocate for it. But sure, minarchism is preferred to republicanism, just as it is in turn preferred to monarchism, and it is in turn preferred to despotism. But the difference is one of degree, not principle.


-Rob

[anaconda]

You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

I think RP pretty much just goes along making the case for the Constitution. If your local govt. is tyrannical: a) appeal to the federal courts or b) move to another competing community.

[Thesemindz]

I think RP pretty much just goes along making the case for the Constitution. If your local govt. is tyrannical: a) appeal to the federal courts or b) move to another competing community.

All government is tyrannical. It is theft and violence. It is unjustifiable and evil. If you support it, you support the initiation of force against innocent people for the personal gain of others. In any other sphere than government, people wouldn't argue about whether or not that's evil, or tell you to love it or leave it, or tell you to find a place with slightly less evil and live there, or tell you that we should choose the guy who supports the least amount of evil to be in charge.


-Rob

[andrewh817]

So he gets impeached..... THEN WHAT? The next puppet to step up will be controlled by the same interests he is. No matter who is in office, you lose in this system.

[anaconda]

All government is tyrannical. It is theft and violence. It is unjustifiable and evil. If you support it, you support the initiation of force against innocent people for the personal gain of others. In any other sphere than government, people wouldn't argue about whether or not that's evil, or tell you to love it or leave it, or tell you to find a place with slightly less evil and live there, or tell you that we should choose the guy who supports the least amount of evil to be in charge.


-Rob

If the tribe all voluntarily donates money to hire a constable, is it government or is it private outsourcing?

[Thesemindz]

If the tribe all voluntarily donates money to hire a constable, is it government or is it private outsourcing?

It's voluntary. It doesn't matter what you call it at that point. You can call it a pretty tea party. The point is that those people are choosing to contract for that work, and if they don't like the result, they can choose to contract with someone else. We don't have that option under the statist model. Payments aren't voluntary and competition isn't allowed.

Under a stateless society you would still have some "state-like" entitities which would exist, because some people would choose to pay a portion of their income to an individual or body of individuals who would then supply them with basic services, pay for their health care, set up a retirement account for them, and make decisions about their priviledges. And the stockholders of such a company could elect new officers for that company on a regular basis.

The key difference is that your decision to contract with such an organization wouldn't compel my financial or moral or material support of it.


-Rob

[anaconda]

It's voluntary. It doesn't matter what you call it at that point. You can call it a pretty tea party. The point is that those people are choosing to contract for that work, and if they don't like the result, they can choose to contract with someone else. We don't have that option under the statist model. Payments aren't voluntary and competition isn't allowed.

Under a stateless society you would still have some "state-like" entitities which would exist, because some people would choose to pay a portion of their income to an individual or body of individuals who would then supply them with basic services, pay for their health care, set up a retirement account for them, and make decisions about their priviledges. And the stockholders of such a company could elect new officers for that company on a regular basis.

The key difference is that your decision to contract with such an organization wouldn't compel my financial or moral or material support of it.


-Rob

Would you consider apportioned taxes voluntary? Would you consider a pre 1913 USA a decent model for a society? Just curious.

[Thesemindz]

Would you consider apportioned taxes voluntary?

No. The word "tax" can not be conflated in any way with the word "voluntary."

tax  /tæks/
–noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

It doesn't matter if it is apportioned. If it is not voluntary, it is theft. And theft, is evil.

I contract for a great number of goods and services in a voluntary fashion because I perceive a need and have gone out on my own to fill that need where I perceived the most value. My cable tv, my cellular phone, my home renters insurance, all were chosen by me for the services they could provide and how those services compared in a competitive market. I am voluntarily funding those services, because I choose to, not because someone has a gun to my head.


Would you consider a pre 1913 USA a decent model for a society? Just curious.

No.

Because prior to 1913, we had among other things, 1861, and the War of Northern Aggression, where the federal government of the United States chose to enforce its claim of proprietary ownership over the lives of people who had chosen to disassociate from what they saw as an oppressive state, and which ended not with the ascension of individual rights, but with the supression of them.

And prior to 1861, we had, among other things, 1833, and the Nullification Crisis, where the federal government decided that they had the right to use military force to invade any state which refused to abide by its protective tariffs, and which ended not with the ascension of individual rights, but with the supression of them.

And prior to 1833, we had, among other things, 1793, and the Whiskey Insurrection, where the federal government decided that in order to pay the debt it had accrued to foreign powers, it would increase it's theft of private moneys from private citizens, and which ended not with the ascension of individual rights, but with the supression of them.

And prior to 1793, we had, among other things, 1786, and Shay's Rebellion, where the state governments decided that in order to pay the debt they had accrued to foreign powers they would inflict taxes on the poor, and then seize their property when they failed to pay those taxes, and which ended not with the ascension of individual rights, but with the supression of them.

See a pattern?

There is no righteous or noble society that accepts the existence of a state. The state is violence and theft. It can not be constrained. It can not be limited. It can not be controlled. Any attempts to do so either accept evil as a necessary means to an ends, or refuse to recognize it for what it is.

A decent model for a society would be one in which all people are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without fear of violence from anyone, for any reason, so long as their actions did not interfere with the rights of any other soveriegn individual. A decent model for a society would be completely voluntary. A decent model for a society can not include the state, any state, in any form.


-Rob

[anaconda]

There is no righteous or noble society that accepts the existence of a state. The state is violence and theft. It can not be constrained. It can not be limited. It can not be controlled. Any attempts to do so either accept evil as a necessary means to an ends, or refuse to recognize it for what it is.

A decent model for a society would be one in which all people are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without fear of violence from anyone, for any reason, so long as their actions did not interfere with the rights of any other soveriegn individual. A decent model for a society would be completely voluntary. A decent model for a society can not include the state, any state, in any form.


Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting response. In your ideal society could there be any laws? If so, how would they become enacted?

[mrsat_98]

I support his impeachment irregardless.

[Thesemindz]

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting response. In your ideal society could there be any laws? If so, how would they become enacted?

Yes there would be. Understanding how law and order and systems of justice could exist in a stateless society is a complex discussion.

There have been many historical examples of extragovernmental justice systems. Take a look at the Lex Mercatoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Merchant). There are also numerous examples of private voluntary participation in dispute resolution practices, for instance EBay's policies to handle user conflicts. You could also do some research on the idea of Dispute Resolution Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization). Essentially they are an example of voluntary participation in private justice systems.

If you are at all interested, I'd recommend Practical Anarchy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3867604/FDR-5-Practical-Anarchy) and Everyday Anarchy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2873289/155325533) by Stefan Molyneux as they both address the issue of private justice.

You can also go here (http://ownyourfreedom.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html). Start at the bottom of the page. Read The Bigger Gun articles and The Problem of Evil articles. I wrote them myself. They answer the question explicitly.

Essentially what you will find is that -

most crime is the result of government action
most people are never the victim of criminal activity
the state does an awful job of preventing or resolving criminal activity
and private, voluntary systems of justice can and have addressed the question of security more effectively without relying on theft and coercive violence, and at a lower cost to the consumer

I'm happy to go into it with you, but it is a complex issue that requires some research to fully understand.


-Rob

[anaconda]

Yes there would be. Understanding how law and order and systems of justice could exist in a stateless society is a complex discussion.

There have been many historical examples of extragovernmental justice systems. Take a look at the Lex Mercatoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Merchant). There are also numerous examples of private voluntary participation in dispute resolution practices, for instance EBay's policies to handle user conflicts. You could also do some research on the idea of Dispute Resolution Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization). Essentially they are an example of voluntary participation in private justice systems.

If you are at all interested, I'd recommend Practical Anarchy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3867604/FDR-5-Practical-Anarchy) and Everyday Anarchy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2873289/155325533) by Stefan Molyneux as they both address the issue of private justice.

You can also go here (http://ownyourfreedom.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html). Start at the bottom of the page. Read The Bigger Gun articles and The Problem of Evil articles. I wrote them myself. They answer the question explicitly.

Essentially what you will find is that -

most crime is the result of government action
most people are never the victim of criminal activity
the state does an awful job of preventing or resolving criminal activity
and private, voluntary systems of justice can and have addressed the question of security more effectively without relying on theft and coercive violence, and at a lower cost to the consumer

I'm happy to go into it with you, but it is a complex issue that requires some research to fully understand.


-Rob

What happens if roving bands of thugs beat me within an inch of my life, kill my family, and steal my horses? What happens when I go to dispute resolution? I ask the bands of thugs to voluntarily attend with me but they refuse.

[anaconda]

most people are never the victim of criminal activity

I've had a number of things stolen from me and have been assaulted more than once. And I don't even live in bad neighborhoods. I think a lot of other people have been more victimized than me by criminal behavior from individuals. I think if I asked the police dept. here in Oakland, CA if there is a lot of crime here they would be able to report a great amount.

[romeno182]

here some of the photos:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Australian_TV_station_releases_new_Abu_0215.html

caution, strong content

[Pepsi]

Also use this

Military Police Document Reveals Integration with Local Law Enforcement

http://www.infowars.com/military-police-document-reveals-integration-with-local-law-enforcement/

[Thesemindz]

What happens if roving bands of thugs beat me within an inch of my life, kill my family, and steal my horses? What happens when I go to dispute resolution? I ask the bands of thugs to voluntarily attend with me but they refuse.

Did you read any of the information I presented?


-Rob

[Thesemindz]

I've had a number of things stolen from me and have been assaulted more than once. And I don't even live in bad neighborhoods. I think a lot of other people have been more victimized than me by criminal behavior from individuals. I think if I asked the police dept. here in Oakland, CA if there is a lot of crime here they would be able to report a great amount.

That is very unfortunate and certainly does occur. However, the statistics are very clear. I quote and link to them in my article. While violent crime does occur, statistically most people will not suffer from it, and statistically those crimes which do occur are almost never solved.


-Rob

[Liberty Star]

Having been in the military I think you are getting carried away some of these stories. I know of women that have been raped in the military and I know of man that get accused of Rape wrongly but the system lists the accusation as part of the statistic.
If a male soldier calls a female soldier a "Chick" she can have him reported for sexual harrassment and that will be listed in the statistics.
It is taken very very serious and all soldiers are required to go to anti sexual assualt, anti sexual harressment classes several times a year. There are required posters on the walls of all military installations dealing with sexual assault and harassment.
I have never ever under any of the commands I served under was given the impression that sexual assault was not going to be taken seriously or condoned.

However saying what I have I believe the the command in abu graib did condone it as well certain military intelegence units did with the blessing from as far up as the VP or the POTUS. I believe other commands probably did as well. What I know is not the case is that the military is systemically full of rapist and torturers any more that the general population of the US and the RP forums. Our rules of engagement were very strict and I am sure many US military lives were lost because soldiers followed the ROE to their death.


I don't disgaree with your view on military code of conduct, preventive measures that have been instituted and your observation on Abu Ghraib lapses. And I don't necessarily agree with assertions made in the Jane Harman article in LA Times, she could have other motives also possibly as she was put under investigation or monitoring apparently by Bush administration. Nonetheless, if data she is citing is gounded in facts, that is still quite troubling. I didn't see DoD challenging her numbers, but frankly I didn't search for any rebuttals either. I cited prison guards/interrogators in my statement. It is also true that lately we have been lowering standards and issuing crinimnal background waivers to fill military recruitment quotas.

In any case, I feel strongly that American public has every right to know to what extent abuses were made in our name in these prisons. We funded all these projects afterall and continue to fund war efforts in other countries.



Sure. He's evil. Feel free to waste your time and resources impeaching one evil man so they can replace him with another evil man.

You won't find good honorable men who want that job, because it's an evil oppresive position that allows you to exploit free people for personal gain.

I have an idea, let's create a Secretary of Gang Rape. I'm sure we'll get lots of well meaning, honorable men to apply for that job.

Impeach him if you want. I'd rather impeach the system.


-Rob

System is deeply flawed, so I would agree with the implication there. But corrupt system won't be replaced overnight, durable change can't take place without education and awareness of the masses. Obama is a popular product of this system and a key instrument, exposing any serious misconduct on his part is very much a step in the right direction. Obama should be hammered hard on these issues for accountability or we'll never get better governance.

I can be idealist and perfectionist too. How do you propose system be changed to fix urgent issues we're facing? Besides, pointing out current gross misconduct of an administration on issues where there may be broad public support and advocating a better system are not two mutually exclusive goals.

[Thesemindz]

System is deeply flawed, so I would agree with the implication there. But corrupt system won't be replaced overnight, durable change can't take place without education and awareness of the masses. Obama is a popular product of this system and a key instrument, exposing any serious misconduct on his part is very much a step in the right direction. Obama should be hammered hard on these issues for accountability or we'll never get better governance.

And there's the difference. You want better governance. I want none at all.


I can be idealist and perfectionist too.

And condescending as well I see.


How do you propose system be changed to fix urgent issues we're facing? Besides, pointing out current gross misconduct of an administration on issues where there may be broad public support and advocating a better system are not two mutually exclusive goals.

I propose that we do our best to educate everyone as to the inherent evil in the state system. Over time, people will abandon it, while at the same time it collapses under it's own weight.

It isn't so much a matter of what with or how we replace the current system. The current system will fail. All on its own. Possibly even soon. In the meantime, we need to be educating people as to how they can live as free men and women.

If you want to bash the current system or administration and complain about its evils, feel free. You think pointing out where it is wrong will make things better, and I don't even completely disagree with you. I just think it's more important to point out why statism is evil, rather than pointing out why Obama is evil, although I certainly agree he is.


-Rob

[Liberty Star]

And there's the difference. You want better governance. I want none at all.



And condescending as well I see.



I propose that we do our best to educate everyone as to the inherent evil in the state system. Over time, people will abandon it, while at the same time it collapses under it's own weight.

It isn't so much a matter of what with or how we replace the current system. The current system will fail. All on its own. Possibly even soon. In the meantime, we need to be educating people as to how they can live as free men and women.

If you want to bash the current system or administration and complain about its evils, feel free. You think pointing out where it is wrong will make things better, and I don't even completely disagree with you. I just think it's more important to point out why statism is evil, rather than pointing out why Obama is evil, although I certainly agree he is.


-Rob

You have competely misread intent wrt comment on being idealistic and perfectionist; I used to aspire for that way of looking at things and still do.

We have a difference of opinion here if you are advocating "no governance" at all. I'm not that adventurous and I suspect big majority of Americans would never be convinced to embrace that level of "freedom" that negates any governance at all. Libertarian movement is the fastest growing movement in America today and it's great time to sell smaller, limited government that establishes a healthy balance between preserving individual liberties and modern day necessary minimal governance. I'm not convinced personally that no governance is a practical attainable solution for America, I could be wrong but you can start be convincing with some arguments how it will be better than minimal government. Much of audience here is pretty open minded, if you can sell your idea to even majority here, there will be realistic chance that American public can be sold on the solution.
As for current system, it is already very close to fail state, so I would agree there. But we disgaree on the solution.

[Pepsi]

Tell Congress that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Must Resign

https://fs6.formsite.com/exposeobama/form717277403/secure_index.html

[Thesemindz]

You have competely misread intent wrt comment on being idealistic and perfectionist; I used to aspire for that way of looking at things and still do.

If that is the case, then I apologize.


We have a difference of opinion here if you are advocating "no governance" at all. I'm not that adventurous and I suspect big majority of Americans would never be convinced to embrace that level of "freedom" that negates any governance at all. Libertarian movement is the fastest growing movement in America today and it's great time to sell smaller, limited government that establishes a healthy balance between preserving individual liberties and modern day necessary minimal governance. I'm not convinced personally that no governance is a practical attainable solution for America, I could be wrong but you can start be convincing with some arguments how it will be better than minimal government. Much of audience here is pretty open minded, if you can sell your idea to even majority here, there will be realistic chance that American public can be sold on the solution.

I am advocating no governance at all, and I don't think that's all that far fetched. In fact, I think anarcho-capitalism will be the ultimate result of the philosophical evolution of society. It's really pretty simple. If you subscribe to the zero aggression principle, you can't also subscribe to the concept of government, even limited government, because governments are, inherent to their very nature, violence against other people. Government is evil. And calling for limited evil, or constitutional evil, or less intrusive evil, is simply unacceptable. I'm not calling for "minimal government." I'm advocating for no government.


As for current system, it is already very close to fail state, so I would agree there. But we disgaree on the solution.

I think our government will probably fail on the order of about fifty years from now. I'll be surprised if it takes less than five or more than two hundred, but either way, it will fail. It's an unsustainable system.

Will anarchy replace it? Maybe not right away. But I'm convinced that over time, as people realize the inherent evil of the state, and the complete lack of necessity for it, statism will become a thing of history books.


-Rob

[Pepsi]

Investigate and Prosecute the Iraq-Torture Scandal

http://www.democrats.com/iraq-torture-petition?cid=ZGVtczI1NzczNmRlbXM=

[idirtify]

All government is tyrannical. It is theft and violence. It is unjustifiable and evil. If you support it, you support the initiation of force against innocent people for the personal gain of others. In any other sphere than government, people wouldn't argue about whether or not that's evil, or tell you to love it or leave it, or tell you to find a place with slightly less evil and live there, or tell you that we should choose the guy who supports the least amount of evil to be in charge.


-Rob

The great thing about the RP movements is that a great number of people are discovering (and bound to discover) that all government is tyrannical. While RP may never express this directly, his principles are based in it. He may occasionally express his personal pro-life beliefs and such (and even interject suspicious comments that advocate for “some kind of local laws”), but he is introducing great numbers of people to ideas which all have their basis in the reality that all government is tyrannical. He does this by spending the vast majority of his words on principles of liberty and commonly dropping names like Spooner and Mises and Rand and Rothbard. Who else could possibly deliver these principles and drop these names and reach so many people? While my libertarian self winces at his abortion comments, my scientific self (that recognizes the science of political sociology) tells me to support him. It may behoove anyone who vehemently opposes/criticizes RP & Co’s representation of “government”, by such things as associating it with “evil”, to keep this in mind. IOW it may not be productive for anyone who opposes government to oppose RP.

[Liberty Star]

I am advocating no governance at all, and I don't think that's all that far fetched. In fact, I think anarcho-capitalism will be the ultimate result of the philosophical evolution of society. It's really pretty simple. If you subscribe to the zero aggression principle, you can't also subscribe to the concept of government, even limited government, because governments are, inherent to their very nature, violence against other people. Government is evil. And calling for limited evil, or constitutional evil, or less intrusive evil, is simply unacceptable. I'm not calling for "minimal government." I'm advocating for no government.



I think our government will probably fail on the order of about fifty years from now. I'll be surprised if it takes less than five or more than two hundred, but either way, it will fail. It's an unsustainable system.

Will anarchy replace it? Maybe not right away. But I'm convinced that over time, as people realize the inherent evil of the state, and the complete lack of necessity for it, statism will become a thing of history books.


-Rob

Given the gross faults of governance we have seen lately, I should agree with your view.. but I don't think it will work in America. I can't think of any great society that has implemented "no governance" in last couple of thousand years, chaos of complete lack of structure does not appeal to modern man ( and woman) I'm afraid or we should have some examples in our view. I dislike big, oppressive, ever expanding government but is "law of the jungle" the alternative? I beg to differ on that. Lets agree to disagree on that.

[Pepsi]

yes Impeach him