Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of July and August.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts tagged law

Update from a victim of the police state

My online friend, George Donnelly, whom I blogged about previously (here, here, and here), posts an update about his situation and the efforts by the state to punish him for the heinous crime of filming his friend being assaulted by U.S. Marshals. Though his situation has improved, he’s not out of the woods yet. Spread this around so that people begin to learn the true nature of the state: it’s a criminal organization that obtains its funding and seeks its goals through initiatory violence rather than civilized, peaceful exchange and persuasion. It should be viewed not as a ‘necessary evil’ but as an unecessary and unfortunate detour on humanity’s journey toward civilized society. Stop defending it.

I Support Gun Control

“But, your Honor, I didn’t mean to shoot him!  I was just reaching for my other potentially lethal weapon to use on this prone unarmed man!”

Meanwhile, as Glenn Greenwald writes in “Rules of America’s rule of law,” Bradley Manning faces 52 years for leaking documentation of U.S. war crimes.  (By this standard, those who filmed the Oscar Grant shooting should probably feel lucky that they weren’t prosecuted.)  More prominently, Lindsay Lohan faces 90 days in the slammer essentially for self-destruction and other victimless crimes, and the public laughs at her.

Yeah, I support gun control.  Let’s start with taking them away from the police and the courts, who clearly have shown themselves unfit to play with such big toys, and then let’s talk about the Second Amendment.


Filed under: Gun Control, Law Tagged: bradleymanning, guncontrol, justice, oscargrant, police

‘Dozens’ of American Citizens Maybe Targeted for Assassination by Obama Administration

Glenn Greenwald was on “The Dylan Ratigan Show” at MSNBC discussing the Obama Administration’s extension of the previous administration’s extrajudicial assassination program to include citizens of the U.S. (h/t: Scott Horton – 3:28):

The Obama Administration has asserted the privilege to assassinate American citizens who the government believes to have joined anti-American organizations it labels as ‘terrorist groups’. The number of these Americans are in the dozens, the president’s advisor at the Department of Homeland Security said last week in an interview with The Washington Times.

“There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us,” John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, said in the interview. Eli Lake, who reported the interview, added:

The remarks came in response to questions about procedures used by the president to order lethal strikes on U.S. citizens who have joined al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

On Feb. 3, Dennis C. Blair, then director of national intelligence, said in congressional testimony that special permission must first be obtained by military or intelligence forces before what he termed “direct action” strikes against American citizens.

The Administration granted “special permission” in April—to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based cleric from New Mexico.

“The reasons for Awlaki’s impending assassination are vague, to say the least,” Jason Ditz wrote in April at AntiWar News.” Though officials have repeatedly accused Awlaki of being ‘in al-Qa’ida,’ he is not currently accused of any crimes and the only specific accusation against him is that he has criticized U.S. foreign policy, and that this has made it easier for al-Qa’ida to recruit.”

Mr. Lake’s report continued:

The main weapon in recent C.I.A. and U.S. military counterterrorism operations has been attacks with missile-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The administration has said it has killed dozens or perhaps scores of terrorists with these strikes over the past several years.

That practice was criticized in a report earlier this month authored by Philip Alston, the independent U.N. investigator on extrajudicial killings, who said the practice may violate international humanitarian law.

The American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Mr. Obama on April 28 warned that the current program to kill terrorists in foreign countries would create a precedent for other countries to kill suspected terrorists all over the world.

The American-born cleric and U.S. citizen who now resides in Yemen is thought to be high on the list of those targeted for killing by the United States.

Mr. Brennan would not comment on the details of lethal operations or the procedure for targeting Americans.

“If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response,” Mr. Brennan said. “If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms.”

Mr. Brennan added, “To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States. What we need to do is to apply the appropriate tool and the appropriate response.”

Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted the red herring used by Mr. Brennan to manufacture consent for this draconian, authoritarian policy of the worst kind [italics his]:

That theory—the whole world is a battlefield, even the U.S.—was the core premise that spawned 8 years of Bush/Cheney radicalism, and it has been adopted in full by the Obama Administration (indeed, it was that “whole-world-is-a-battlefield” theory which Elena Kagan explicitly endorsed during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General).

Mr. Lake noted at the end of his article:

Mr. Brennan toward the end of the interview acknowledged that, despite some differences, there is considerable continuity between the counterterrorism policies of President Bush and President Obama.

Mr. Greenwald added that the greatest extension of the Bush Administration to the current regime is the “due-process-free policy” of ‘criminal justice’—a policy that was widely criticized by the former administration for its execution of warrantless domestic surveillance on American citizens. He added how this is being exported to Afghanistan:

There, the U.S. last year compiled a “hit list” of 50 Afghan citizens whose assassination it authorized on the alleged ground (never charged or convicted) that they were drug “kingpins” or funding the Talbian [sic].

Afghan officials resisted this policy. To which, Mr. Greenwald wrote:

In other words, Afghans—the people we’re occupying in order to teach about Freedom and Democracy—are far more protective of due process and the rule of law for their own citizens than Americans are who meekly submit to Obama’s identical policy of assassination for their fellow citizens.  It might make more sense for Afghanistan to invade and occupy the U.S. in order to spread the rule of law and constitutional values here.

What makes all this most remarkable is the level of screeching protests Democrats engaged in when Bush merely wanted to eavesdrop on and detain Americans without any judicial oversight or due process.  Remember all that?  Click here and here for a quick refresher.  Yet here is Barack Obama doing far worse to them than that without any due process or judicial oversight—he’s targeting them for assassination—and there is barely a peep of protest from the same Party that spent years depicting “mere” warrantless eavesdropping and due-process-free detention to be the acts of a savage, lawless tyrant.

In all honesty, the ‘Team America’ bunch ought to be up in arms about this as well. If American exceptionalism is a valid concept, wouldn’t Americans have the greatest right to due process? Isn’t due process something inherently ‘American’ to those idiots? Or do they now have to admit that the concept of American exceptionalism is a silly superstition and that due process is a vital construct to defending the most fundamental rights of man—no matter what their passport says on the cover?

When we can accept that rights belong to humans and are not bestowed by geographical dirt, the “secret war” of assassination run amok in 75 countries by the Obama Administration—compared to 60 at the beginning of 2009 left active by his predecessor—in Yemen, Somalia, Philippines, Colombia and elsewhere in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, are absolutely wrong and ought not be tolerated by any person of any sort of virtue.


Filed under: Af-Pak War, International Affairs, National News, Political Science Tagged: ACLU, Af-Pak War, Afghanistan, Africa, airstrikes, al-Qaeda, al-Qaida, Anwar al-Awlaki, Bush Administration, Central Asia, CIA, civil liberties, Colombia, counterterrorism, Democrats, DHS, drones, due process, Eli Lake, extrajudicial assassinations, fascism, Glenn Greenwald, Homeland Security, human rights, international law, Jason Ditz, John Brennan, JSOC, law, liberals, libertarian, liberty, Middle East, Newspeak, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Philippines, progressives, Somalia, terrorism, US, War, War on Terror, Yemen

Weekend Briefing—25-27th June 2010

News and views from around the web posted to the Wonderland Wire:


Filed under: Daily Briefing Tagged: Af-Pak War, Afghanistan, airstrikes, Barry Eisler, Blackwater, Chicago Police, civil liberties, drone, embed journalists, extrajudicial assassination, generation gap, Glenn Greenwald, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, Hamid Karzai, Haqqani Network, India, Iraq, Jonathan Turley, Jones Act, journalism, Kasmir, law, media, Mesopotamian ruins, Mike Mullen, Mohamed Hassan Odaini, Monsanto, NYT, Obama Administration, Pakistan, PCHR, police brutality, settlements, South Korea, Sudan, tasers, terrorism, Toronto G20 Summit, Will Grigg, Xe, Yemen, Zionism

Arbitrary Government Kidnapping Under the Cloak of ‘Objectivity’

If Mohamed can become Josef, why not Joe Schmo?

21 June 2010 | InfoShop News

Mohamed Hassan Odaini, a Yemeni sent by his family to study in Pak, was kidnapped by the Islamabad government in 2002. He was 17 at the time and transferred to the captivity of the U.S. government at Guantánamo Bay, where he remains today. Though, the Obama Administration has no evidence to support justification of this prolonged kidnapping, it continuously fights hard in courts to block detainees from confronting their captors, Glenn Greenwald writes today at Salon [emphasis his]:

A federal court this month granted his habeas petition for release, finding that the evidence ”overwhelmingly supports Odaini’s contention that he is unlawfully detained.”  Worse, the court described the multiple times over the years — beginning in 2002 and occurring as recently as 2009 — when the U.S. Government itself concluded that Odaini was guilty of nothing, was mistakenly detained, and should be released (see here for the court’s description of that history).

Despite that, the Obama administration has refused to release him for the past 16 months, and fought vehemently in this habeas proceeding to keep him imprisoned.  As the court put it, the Obama DOJ argued “vehemently” that there was evidence that Odaini was part of Al Qaeda.  In fact, the Obama administration knew this was false.  This Washington Post article this weekend quotes an ”administration official” as saying:  ”The bottom line is: We don’t have anything on this kid.”  But after Obama decreed in January that no Yemeni detainees would be released — even completely innocent ones, and even though the Yemeni government wants their innocent prisoners returned – Obama DOJ lawyers basically lied to the court by claiming there was substantial evidence to prove that Odaini was part of Al Qaeda even though they know that is false.  In other words, the Obama administration is knowingly imprisoning a completely innocent human being who has been kept in a cage in an island prison, thousands of miles from his home, for the last 8 years, since he’s 18 years old, despite having done absolutely nothing wrong.

This not only paints the picture displaying this Kafka-esque reality taking shape in the U.S. criminal ‘injustice’ system, but the more dangerous consent being manufactured by the so-called ‘liberal’ elements of the intellectual class, Mr. Greenwald added [emphasis ours]:

I honestly don’t understand how any Obama DOJ lawyer or official could involve themselves with anything like this.  If you’re willing to work to keep a person whom you know is innocent imprisoned, what aren’t you willing to do? What decent human being wouldn’t be repulsed by this?  I don’t care how many times someone chants “Pragmatism” or “The Long Game” or whatever other all-purpose justifying mantras have been marketed to venerate the current President; these are repellent acts that have no justification.Of course, none of this is new for the Obama administration; it’s consistent with their course of conduct from the start.  I highlight this today only because there is an obvious, concerted effort by a slew of Democratic Beltway pundits over the last month or so to attack the so-called “Left” for daring to express displeasure with the Obama administration, and to demonize those objections as unserious, shrill, irrational, purist and all the other clichés long used by this same cadre of party apparatchiks for the same purpose.  This is all coming from a homogeneous clique of Democratic Party pundits who have strikingly similar demographics and background, most of whom supported the Iraq War, and who spend a great deal of time talking to one another in public and private and reinforcing their talking point platitudes, and have spent years railing against the Left.  Just look at who is purporting to lecture liberals on how to promote progressive goals.

The New Republic‘s Jonathan Chait—vocal Iraq War cheerleader (from a safe distance) who works for a magazine whose declared editorial mission is to have Joe Lieberman’s worldview “once again guide the Democratic Party”—has written yet another lecture chiding liberals for unfair and irrational discontent with his beloved leader.  Peter Connolly — a D.C. lobbyist and telecom lawyer for Holland & Knightpublished a screed this weekend at The Huffington Post condemning progressives who are mounting primary challenges against conservative Democratic incumbents for creating a terribly unjustified “civil war” in the Democratic Party, which, after all, is led by what he called that “unabashed liberal” Barack Obama.  Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter—the first known mainstream pundit to explicitly call for torture in the wake of the 9/11 attack and one of the creepiest Obama loyalists around—as been running around the country promoting his book by spouting “the typical warmed over Village sentiments, particularly as it relates to liberal critics of the President.”

Lanny Davis published a column this weekend arguing that “the Left” is a threat to good Democratic principles and that Obama should ”Sister Souljah” progressives who are criticizing himThe New York Times‘ conservative columnist Ross Douthat even adopts their script today by pronouncing liberal disenchantment with Obama to be “bizarrely disproportionate” and grounded in unrealistic expectations of Obama.  And a whole slew of other, similar Obama-defending Democratic Party loyalists (Jon Chait, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Bernstein)—for whom the excuses of ”not-enough-time-yet” and “Pragmatism” are now dry wells—have together invented a new one:  none of this is Obama’s fault because the Presidency is so weak and powerless (though Klein, to his credit, accurately acknowledges that that excuse is “less true on foreign policy than on domestic policy”).

The article is a reminder of one written about ten days ago by Mr. Greenwald, where he opines that these efforts by the intellectual class are to create the actions of this president as a default standard of objectivity and the manufacturing of consent by the media is some virtuous form of realism. It’s irrelevant if the status quo is full of lies, cognitive dissonance, cult of personality or outright evil stupidity. It’s the moral application of ‘might is right’; that what is ought to be acceptable simply because it is the policy of the powerful [emphasis ours]:

Because that’s what journalists do who are eager to show how “balanced” and centrist they are.  [Marc Ambinder] is correct that the series of habeas defeats for the Government ”demolish the myth of the right that all detainees are cutthroat super terrorists” (a view reflected by the constant conflation between “Guantanamo detainee” and ”Terrorist,” i.e., the refusal to recognize the distinction between accused Terrorist and Terrorist, as though all detainees are, by definition, Terrorists).  But he can’t simply point out that reality negates this belief of the Right, because that would mean he’s being imbalanced, biased and (the greatest sin of all) a non-centrist.  So he then has to concoct a totally ludicrous view and attribute it the “left”—and then proceed to mock and criticize it—to prove that he’s in the center, with equal distaste for both extremes,  and thus reasonable and pragmatic.  That’s what most journalists believe “objectivity” requires, and it’s to be achieved at all costs, including a complete departure from reality.

So what is the reality?

The reality is that when it becomes known that evidence is lacking or non-existent to support detention of those kidnapped overseas, the U.S. Congress dreams up legislation to demand prolonged detention, Andy Worthington—leading journalist on the U.S. government’s kidnapping policies and legal proceedings—recently noted. When unconstitutional, unilateral executive policy becomes federal law, judicial review becomes exponentially more difficult. What Mr. Greenwald screams from the highest mountain, that ought to be the centerpiece of all serious discussion of the functions of government–especially military policy and law enforcement—is that there is a dominant narrative among the ignorant existing as: if you don’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

The recent joint-agency executive branch Final Report of President Obama’s Guantánamo Review Task Force [.pdf], Mr. Worthington wrote, “was supposed to provide a cogent and definitive analysis of the status of the remaining 181 prisoners, given that it took eleven months to complete”, but “revealed institutional caution, credulity regarding the contributions of the intelligence services, an inability to address fundamental problems with the legislation that authorized President Bush’s detention policies in the first place, and a willingness to bend to the demands of political expediency”. He added [emphasis ours]:

In analyzing the cases of the 97 Yemenis at Guantánamo during the course of the report, the Task Force advised that five be prosecuted and 26 be held indefinitely, but approved the other 66 for release. Seven of these men were freed last year, but Obama bowed to political pressure and halted all further releases to Yemen in January, just weeks before the report was published, in response to a wave of hysteria that greeted the discovery that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day plane bomber from Nigeria, had trained in Yemen.

[...]

Sadly, this example of political expediency is just one of many on the part of Obama administration in the last year that have dashed the high hopes held by many of us in January 2009. Other examples include Obama vetoing White House Counsel Greg Craig’s plan to bring some Uighurs to live in the U.S. last spring, his decision to revive the reviled military commissions trial system (which he suspended on his first day in office), and his support of indefinite detention without charge or trial, which he announced in a major national security speech last May, when most of George W. Bush’s cards, which Obama had taken off the table, were put back on again.

The narrative ought to be: if the U.S. government is adamant about asserting such kidnapping, rendition and torture policies against non-citizens on the other side of the world, what makes an American citizen immune from such treatment? The ignorant beliefs are usually coupled with meanings of what being a citizen of the U.S. means, but to use citizenship as an extension of indemnity is to acknowledge and accept the sovereignty of the U.S. government over the U.S. territory more than any other, not less. This logic leads to arbitrary, indefinite, prolonged detention of U.S. citizens without even valid allegations—let alone, hard evidence—presented before them or in a court of law more justifiable.


Filed under: International Affairs, National News, Political Science Tagged: Abdulmutallab, Af-Pak War, Afghanistan, Andy Worthington, centrism, civil liberties, Department of Justice, DOJ, Eric Holder, Ezra Klein, fascism, Geneva Conventions, Glenn Greenwald, Greg Craig, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, human rights, indefinite detention, intellectual class, international law, Jonathan Alter, Jonathan Bernstein, Jonathan Chait, journalism, Lanny Davis, law, liberty, Manufacturing Consent, media, Military Commissions Act, Mohamed Hassan Odaini, Newspeak, Obama, Obama Adminsitration, Pakistan, Peter Connolly, prolonged detention, propaganda, Ross Douthat, US, US Congress, War on Terror, Yemen

‘Pro-Peace’ Congressman Called Out for Enabling Israel Atrocities

Alan Grayson got grilled by Scott Horton on U.S. military welfare for Israel and blowback.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) brought a K-Street knife to a logical gunfight when he was interviewed by Scott Horton at AntiWar Radio, last week (23:29):

Rep. Grayson was on to discuss his “The War is Making You Poor” act [.pdf], introduced last month to the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill “does three things”, according to his website:

1) It limits the amount of funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
2) It eliminates the federal income tax on the first $35,000 of every American’s income ($70,000 for married couples), and
3) It cuts the Federal deficit by $15.9 billion.

Is it a radical bill in the absolute sense? No, but movement by Congress to defund a war, in just about any sense, gauges the pulse on whether Capitol Hill will move to muscle the Pentagon and the White House to shut down an overseas operation. In other words, the tolerance for taxation is—like just about any bill that isn’t of abolition—an element of the bil, but the ship has sailed on the precedence for legitimizing taxation, legally; the bill passing wouldn’t hurt in the sense that aggression is lessened in the ‘a little less pregnant’ manner. “All State wars…”—Murray Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty [.pdf]—”involve increased aggression against the State’s own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State.”

If one goes to his YouTube channel, that person would find a wealth of provocative statements by Rep. Grayson to people of all ranks—some warranted, some silly. Most notably, he co-sponsored the totality of Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) bill to audit the Federal Reserve, which was “gutted” in the U.S. Senate after passing in the House. An enemy of central banking, Rep. Grayson is not, but closer to Dr. Paul than just about anyone else on Capitol Hill, regarding the Fed and the American Empire. Or is he?

Mr. Horton moved on from the bill Rep. Grayson introduced to a simple question: do Palestinians have the natural right to life in Gaza? Rep. Grayson eventually answered ‘yes’, but he was either lying or his J.D. is unqualified; a first-year law student can tell you that the difference between a ‘natural right’ and a ‘privilege’ is primarily that natural rights are inalienable. Therefore the unlawful blockade of the Gaza Strip, which is—according to Amnesty International—”suffocating” the Gazans, would be wrong. That which is not right and definitely wrong has no morally or logically connecting proof, yet the congressman is incessant to justify the blockade. He even goes so far as to assert that Israel’s occupation of Gaza is over, which Chris Guiness, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency’s director in Gaza, recently refuted about as well as one can—that controlling foreign borders and seashores define an occupation.

The reason why the occupation is denied, as Mr. Guiness indirectly pointed out, is that occupation legitimizes resistance, according to international law. Acknowledging the occupation de-legitimizes the use of force by the Israel Navy against the passengers of the Mavi Marmara. Being a U.S. congressman, voting to continuously fund Israel after its Navy unlawfully shoots an American citizen in the head, repeatedly, and authorizes said action as ‘legitimate’, raises an ‘congressional ethics’ question—not a matter of mere opinion. Mr. Horton connects this to 9/11 as blowback for unconditional blank checks to the Israeli government.

Rep. Grayson acted as if he wonders why Mr. Horton was getting heated to the fact that he couldn’t answer straight questions and logically connect them to his position on supporting the State of Israel with continued welfare. His comments reached the point where he called for an elevated level of respect because of his status as a member of the House. He had the nerve to respond with amounted to ‘Don’t you know who you’re talking to, little boy! I’m a congressMAN!’

I’ll admit that I was shocked when Rep. Grayson voted in support of House Resolution 867, “calling on the president and the secretary of state to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’”—known as the “Goldstone Report“, which condemned the war crimes of the Israeli government and Hamas during Operation Cast Lead, headed by self-professed Zionist jurist Richard Goldstone. The so-called “conflict”—more accurately referred to as the ‘U.S.-Israeli Gaza Massacre’—resulted in over 1,400 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths, the ‘wanton destruction‘ of almost 40,000 Gazan homes and left tens of thousands homeless. Of the nearly 1,200 dead non-combatants, hundreds were children.

Looking back to what I can remember of Rep. Grayson’s comments on the Fed, the wars, Israel and belittling Mr. Horton’s status as a human being of a lesser kind, it dawned on me: his position on everything is about being a nationalist, not a champion of any higher virtue. What set him off about the Fed was TARP money going to “foreigners” and lack of power in the hands of U.S. politicians. His rhetoric against the U.S. wars are always related to the U.S. economy, which he wants fully controlled by the U.S. Congress—via the complete nationalization of the Federal Reserve and its money monopoly. His support for funding Israel and the U.S. whitewashing its war crimes are rationalized with lunatic relations to the Cuban Missile Crisis and simultaneously saying that Gazan children have a natural right to life, but the State of Israel has the right to starve those children to death if the Israel Lobby can put enough money in the pockets of Democratic Party politicians with a talking points memo that keeps everyone on the same page.

Furthermore, I’m convinced that Rep. Grayson has little-to-no clue of how U.S. policy toward the State of Israel is incompatible with the objective of the U.S. government’s prosperity and the betterment of American people—the Realpolitik aspects of the issue, best regularly articulated by Professor Stephen Walt.

Remember, reason isn’t right in Washington. Might makes right and political might being on the side with the most unified narrative, no matter how it defies reason. This is displayed best in his pleas for Mr. Horton to agree with him, if for any other reason, to have a unified narrative among soi disant pro-peace people.

Listen to the full interview here.


Filed under: International Affairs, Political Science Tagged: Afghanistan, Africa, Alan Grayson, Amnesty International, antiwar movement, AntiWar radio, Audit the Fed bill, Chris Guiness, Federal Reserve, Gaza blockade, Gaza Massacre, Goldstone Report, HR 1207, HR 867, human rights, international law, Iraq War, Israel, Israel lobby, law, libertarian, Middle East, Murray Rothbard, Newspeak, Operation Cast lead, realpolitik, Ron Paul, Scott Horton, Stephen Walt, TARP, taxation, The War is Making You Poor Act, US Congress, Zionism

Report: Human Experimentation at the Heart of Bush Administration Torture Program

Jason Leopold reports on the Physicians for Human Rights report, “Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation Program.”

Continue reading at Little Alex in Wonderland …

More on BP’s Fate in a Free Market

Kevin Carson’s repsponse to comments on his previous post, “BP Would Be Toast in a Truly Free Market.”

7 June 2010 | C4SS

Having read some interesting commentary on my previous column on BP, I thought I’d do a follow-up to clarify and expand on a few things.

Shawn Wilbur, a leading scholar in the history of the individualist/mutualist tradition in addition to being an anarchist himself, agrees that oil companies like BP would be far less able to externalize costs on the public in a free market order, absent such privileges as caps on liability.  But he goes on to raise the issue of the “many kinds of value and interest” that are not adequately represented by markets:

“After all, sea turtles and brown pelicans don’t get any more of a vote in the market than they do in elections or campaign contributions. Private property conventions tend to establish a separation of interests not reflected in, or respected by, the circulatory systems of the biosphere …”

Gary Chartier, a market anarchist professor at La Sierra University, commented that since sea turtles lack any means of effectively asserting or defending rights on their own behalf, their interests in any system—whether under statism, market anarchy, or any other kind of anarchy—depend entirely on the existence of human beings who identify those interests with their own.

I would add that the present system includes many structural barriers that prevent humans who value the interests of other species or of the ecosystem from expressing that valuation in the marketplace.  For example, federal lease auctions allow only companies from the relevant industry (lumber, mining, etc.) to bid on access to federal land.  That means conservationists who value holding land out of use are banned from the bidding process, that the winning bid is hence lower than it likely would otherwise have been, and that resource extraction is artificially profitable.  Federal preemption of vacant land means, likewise, that the privileged access granted by the federal government is uncontested by other previous claimants.

Were vacant land not preempted by the state and then granted on a privileged basis, then the oil, mining and lumber companies could establish legitimate homestead rights only over the land that they were capable of effectively developing and fully prepared to economically exploit at any given time.  In the meantime, other groups might have homesteaded significant parcels of land with the intention of homesteading it.  As Wilbur himself states in the comments under his post, “active conservation”—like “a wildlife corridor, or critical wetland, or scenic area”—is “pretty obviously a use.”  In a free market regime with open homesteading, lumber and other extractive industries would have to buy out such competition at whatever price the latter demanded, if they were willing to sell at all.

As I mentioned in another post, one reason the ecosystem in West Virginia has had so little protection against mountaintop removal, is that the property rights of small owners had so little protection against expropriation, and the surrounding communities had been robbed of so much of their common law protection against tortious action by the mining companies against their air and water.  As chronicled in the movie “Matewan,” the first white homesteaders in West Virginia—who mostly lacked formal title to their land, having settled when government was still quite irregular—were later expropriated by the mining companies, who could afford to buy both good lawyers and bad legislators.

Iain McKay, principal author of An Anarchist FAQ, raises the question of how a free market liability regime, which only operates after the fact, could prevent something like the Deepwater Horizons disaster from happening in the first place.  And would the threat of penalties after the fact be sufficient to deter such bad behavior—especially given the normal human tendency to underestimate risk and the cognitive bias toward gambling on huge potential payoffs?  By the time tort damages were imposed, even if they meant a corporate death sentence, the damage would already have been done.

True enough—but how is that different from any other system?  I don’t think there’s any system that would address pollution ex ante. The regulatory state was supposed to prevent risky behavior ex ante, and we see how that turned out. If the point is to “deter people… doing potentially dangerous things,” by definition the approach is of behavior modification based on the anticipated consequences of one’s actions ex post. And I expect the threat of a “corporate death sentence” with all assets liquidated to pay the full cleanup costs and economic damages from a big spill (in addition to cleaning out the bank accounts of execs personally guilty of deliberate criminal negligence) is at least as effective as the threat of a fine from the U.S. Enviroment Protection Agency for inadequate safety measures.

There’s no system in which the operations would not be carried out by human beings with a tendency to underestimate long-term cost and risks compared to short-term gratification.

If market anarchy is to be compared justly either to statism or to other forms of anarchy, it must be compared to the alternatives as they would likely be administered by actual, grubby human beings.  It is not intellectually honest to compare a market anarchy run with an average level of human competence to a regulatory state run with some never-yet-attained level of ideal efficiency.

Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society, contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective. Mr. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.


Filed under: National News, Political Science Tagged: anarchism, anti-Statism, BP, C4SS, capitalism, corporatism, EPA, free market, Gary Chartier, Gulf oil spill, Iain McKay, Kevin Carson, land grants, law, libertarian, limited liability, market-anarchism, Shawn Wilbur, state capitalism, US

Daily Briefing—6th-7th June 2010

News and views from around the web posted to the Wonderland Wire:


Filed under: Daily Briefing Tagged: Afghanistan, Andy Worthington, ATT, Bagram Air Base, BP, BP Gulf oil spill, Britain, caste system, China, EU, European Union, FDA, Freedom Flotilla, G20, Gaza blockade, Gitmo, global bank tax, Guantanamo Bay, Gulf oil spill, habeas corpus, Hamid Karzai, Hugo Chavez, human rights, IDF, international law, Iran, IRGC, Israel, labor unions, law, Mike Adams, Pakistan, peace jirgas, Reliance of India, Sapin, Taliban, torture, Turkey, UN, UN Security Council, UNHRC, UNSC, Venezuela, Wikileaks, Yemen

Weekend Briefing—4th-5th June 2010

News and views from around the web posted to the Wonderland Wire:


Filed under: Daily Briefing Tagged: Afghanistan, Anene Ejikeme, Bagram Air Base, BP, BP Gulf oil spill, corporate personhood, Dahr Jamail, David Uhlmann, DEA, DPRK, Egypt, financial crisis, Free Gaza Movement, Freedom Flotilla, Gaza, Gaza blockade, Gulf oil spill, Gustavo Cadevila, illegal immigration, indefinite detention, Iraq, Iraq War, Israel, Issandr El Amrani, Japan, Jeremy Scahill, JSOC, KBR, law, limited liability, military industrial complex, MJ Rosenberg, MV Rachel Corrie, Naoto Kan, Niger Delta, Nigeria, Noah Shachtman, North Korea, Obama Administration, oil spills, Pat Buchanan, PTSD, Recep Erdgoan, South Korea, Thomas Knapp, Turkey, Wall Street, Washington lobbyists, West Africa, Will Grigg