Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Team

Joseph Sarkissian analyzes the foreign policy team to which Rand Paul, heir-apparent to his father’s flock, delivered the libertarian faithful (they-who-do-not-question-but-yet-know-all-the-answers) when, this summer, he endorsed Mr. Wall Street Mitt Romney.

1. Eliot Cohen – Special adviser, author of Romney’s foreign policy white paper.

At least Eliot Cohen doesn’t pull any punches. He has overtly called for the removal of the Iranian regime by all means necessary, sans force. Good to know, but how do we pull that off? Cohen believes soft power would do the trick, but how long before that soft power necessitates hard power once the Iranian regime begins ramping up attacks against U.S. and Israeli assets? No regime like Iran’s will stand by idly as it is picked apart from the outside, and once the retaliatory bombings, assassination attempts, and other counter-intelligence measure are begun by Iran, the U.S. and Israel won’t be able to stand by either.

2. Dov Zakheim – Special adviser

Aside from also being hawkish on Iran and Iraq, Zakheim has a proven track record of sketchy behavior. Aside from the highly controversial disappearance of a massive amount of money while comptroller of the Pentagon, he runs Foreign Policy’s “Shadow Government” blog where he argues for even more aggressive drone strikes and rails against Obama’s foreign policy. Zakheim is a staunch supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that pushes hard for intervention in Iran and was adamant about the push for war in Iraq.

3. John Bolton – Trusted personal policy adviser, potential cabinet appointee

Mitt Romney once said of John Bolton that, “John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy.” If this is true, be very afraid. Bolton could be the most hawkish of Romney’s advisers. He is a signatory to numerous letters to presidents past and present, including one to Bill Clinton in 1998 from the defunct Neocon think tank, “Project for a New American Century (PNAC)” urging Clinton to get rid of Saddam. In a March letter to President Obama from Romney’s foreign policy team, Bolton signed off on statements saying the president is too soft on Iran, not supportive enough of Israel’s interests, should have left troops in Iraq, and has potentially crippled the U.S. military with budget cuts.

4. Robert Kagan, Special adviser

Who’s ready for some good old-fashioned regime change? If Robert Kagan gets his way, that’s what you can expect. Aside from wanting to oust Iranian leadership and cause massive conflict, Kagan is on the board of directors for the Foreign Policy Initiative, or as I like to call it, PNAC 2.0, where he served as a project director. A quintessential Neocon, Kagan has time and time again steadfastly supported the war in Iraq, saying that the war was a good idea, that Iraq was getting more secure in 2004, and that the Arab Spring can be attributed to U.S. efforts in Iraq. It’s hard to find someone more disillusioned in the policy community.

While some could chalk up all of Romney’s rhetoric to early election cycle hogwash, his advisers haven’t changed their tunes. Given that Mitt is about as informed as a table lamp on foreign policy, I shudder to think of the consequences of his team having carte blanche. Whether they suffer from groupthink – since many of them have worked and continue to work in the same place –or just a lack of ability to see the errors of their predictions, something has to balance them out. Hopefully that something is a loss at the polls in November.”

War On India: Naval Command Info Hacked By Chinese IP’s

The Indian Express reports on July 1, 2012:

“Hackers have broken into sensitive naval computer systems in and around Visakhapatnam, the headquarters of the Eastern Naval Command, and planted bugs that relayed confidential data to IP addresses in China.

The Eastern Naval Command plans operations and deployments in the South China Sea — the theatre of recent muscle-flexing by Beijing — and beyond. India’s first nuclear missile submarine, INS Arihant, is currently undergoing trials at the Command.

The extent of the loss is still being ascertained, and officials said it was “premature at this stage” to comment on the sensitivity of the compromised data. But the Navy has completed a Board of Inquiry (BoI) which is believed to have indicted at least six mid-level officers for procedural lapses that led to the security breach.

The naval computers were found infected with a virus that secretly collected and transmitted confidential files and documents to Chinese IP addresses. Strict disciplinary action against the indicted officers is imminent.

Responding to a questionnaire sent by The Sunday Express on whether highly classified data had been sent to IP addresses in China due to the bug, the Navy said: “An inquiry has been convened and findings of the report are awaited. It needs to be mentioned that there is a constant threat in the cyber domain from inimical hackers worldwide.”

Sources, however, confirmed that classified data had been leaked, and the breach had possibly occurred because of the use of pen drives that are prohibited in naval offices. The virus was found hidden in the pen drives that were being used to transfer data from standalone computers to other systems, said a person familiar with the investigation.”

War On India: Time Calls Manmohan Singh Underachiever

The Indian Express reports on Time Magazine’s July 16, 2012 cover::

“79-year-old Singh is featured on the cover of TIME magazine’s Asia edition, which will be out next week. With his portrait in the background, the title on the cover reads ‘The Underachiever – India needs a reboot’.

This is the globalist’ showing their hand, after having taken down PM Manmohan Singh’s blue-eyed boy, Rajat Gupta, who was the man at the head of the global management consulting firm, McKinsey, during the period of the economic liberalization of India.

Gupta later served on the board of Goldman Sachs, but had nothing to do with the company beyond that, and very little to do with the financial collapse. But he was brown, a foreigner, rich, and the poster-boy for the outsourcing revolution, which means the establishment could associate the loss of American jobs on him, with the approval of OccuptWallStreet. And so it was,

But it’s important to realize that Gupta’s alleged insider trading has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or with the housing bubble and toxic mortgages and the related concerns of OWS.

Gupta’s conviction is red meat for the socialists, but it will do nothing to reverse the dire impact of globalization here, in Africa, or in many areas of India.

It was ultimately globalist power-play to let the Indians on Wall Street know who’s boss.

I suspect the real target was actually Indian billionaire, Mukesh Ambani, chief of Reliance, and a signatory of FriendsofRajat.com. The prosecution was trying to get an email of Ambani’s read in court. And, of course, Rajaratnam’s chat about “off-shore” funds, even if they were after tax, draws the public eye yet again to the money-laundering and stashes of money, eliciting more howls to go after banking secrecy laws.

It’s all very cleverly done.

Goldman threw Gupta to the wolves to keep the cops out of the big boss’s office, where massive evidence of fraud as well as the siphoning of fraudulently obtained money from the US economy lies.

Meanwhile, it also hires an even bigger Indian billionaire than Ambani, Lakshmi Mittal, to sit on its board.  Both Gupta and Mittal have asked the Indian PM for more growth…on the lines of 10%.

So one more strike in the continuing low-intensity psy war on India, about which I’ve blogged before.

1. Wikileaks embarrasses and weakens the Indian government by showing it it as corrupt and a tool of foreign governments (like anyone didn’t know!)

2. WL co-opts popular anger against corruption and turns it away from its roots in the middle-class Hindu heartland campaign of Baba Ramdev (equivalent to the original Tea Party) into the Anna Hazare (equivalent to the Koch-funded Tea Party) trojan-horse movement, whose real intention was to set up a foreign NGO-dominated super-government (Jana Lokpal) answerable to international bodies, not Indian authorities.

3. Meanwhile, Wikileaks hints at Indian Swiss bank accounts (Mukesh Ambani, be warned), diverting anger away from the Anglo-Jewish mafia that actually dominates the world economy and engineered the financial collapse.

4.  BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy is fired from Harvard for an article he wrote in India. Just as with Gupta, the implication is that national sovereignty has been eliminated. The globalists can topple and destabilize any government using the pretext of “human rights’ or “corruption”, whereas their real motivation is to prise open the economy to the fullest possible to suck it dry through extractive finance.

Webster Tarpley On Rand Paul’s Romney Endorsement

Tarpley has some sharp words about Rand and Ron Paul.  I don’t fully agree with all of his assessment, but two things he said were spot on.  The campaign was highly nepotistic, for a public campaign at the national level. Two. Soliciting donations from people under the guise of running a viable campaign, while actually not doing anything of the sort, is truly stealing the “widow’s mite” and…hate to say it but I will…despicable.

However, opposing government unions is not simply ruling class “union-busting.”  There are unions and unions.  Voluntary associations for the purpose of bargaining are perfectly good things. I support them. But government workers who make twice (and more) the salaries of the private sector are ALREADY a protected class.  Unions for them add another layer of unaccountability.

So, yes Tarpley is off-base on that.

And yes, he has placed the most malign construction on Ron Paul’s actions.

But, let’s face it. The Pauls brought have brought it on themselves.

It is dispiriting. But burying one’s head in the sand about all of this would be dishonest. I prefer being dispirited.

Why Ron Paul Libertarianism Never Crossed The Chasm..

Will Wilkinson in The New Republic:

“Thanks to Ron Paul, libertarianism of a certain stripe may be more popular than ever, and its influence on the Tea Party and the broader conservative movement is not hard to see. All the same, this brand of libertarianism is never going to “cross the chasm,” as the marketing folks like to say. It’s destined to remain a minority creed, and that’s not because most Americans are stupid or immoral. It’s because libertarians have done a terrible job countering the widespread suspicion that theirs is a uselessly abstract ideology of privilege for socially obtuse adolescent white guys. Ron Paul sure isn’t helping.”

Desi Divas: Dr. Vijayanthimala Bali

Celebrated Tamil and Hindi film actress, classical dancer/singer/choreographer, and research scholar,  wife of Dr. Bali of Chennai, twice elected to the Lok Sabha (Lower house of Indian parliament) and appointed to the Rajya Sabha (upper house), Dr. Vyjayanthimala  Bali(VIE-juh-yun-thee-mah-lah Bah-lee). [born, August 13, 1936]

Since the Western media doesn’t educate so much as propagandize in favor of western state interests, and  in service of those interests misrepresents the cultures that get in its way as inferior or degraded, I decided that I would add a category to my blog – desi beauties  – to celebrate beautiful brilliant women who exemplify the best Indian tradition.

Anarcho-Capitalism: Dead End Libertarianism

In The Contradiction in Anarchism Robert J. Bidinotto powerfully elaborates the central and most obvious problem with anarcho-capitalism – who will define the rules by which members of an an-cap society would abide and how competing court systems, competing police forces, and competing definitions of every term in the legal system would coordinate without degeneration into inner city gang war-fare….

[Which is of course the case already with the inter-state (international) system.]

“Today, a “legal monopoly” exists to put shady private detectives and private extortionists behind bars. It serves as a final arbiter on the use of force in society. We all agree it does a less-than-exemplary job much of the time; but it’s there. What happens when it isn’t? Or worse: when the shady detective or extortionist has replaced it, in a marketplace where profits depend on satisfying the subjective desires of emotional clients?

Anarchists say this scenario is unrealistically pessimistic: it assumes people are going to want to do the wrong thing. In fact, people “naturally” seek their rational self-interest, they declare, once government is out of the way. They would try to cooperate, work things out.

Well, if they did, why would they need any agency — governmental or private? Why wouldn’t five billion people naturally cooperate on this planet without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes?………

…….if the government has been constitutionally limited, the masses are typically thwarted in having their way at the expense of others.  They can’t use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents themselves are limited by the Constitution. Our Founders were geniuses at limiting power. It’s  taken lovers of coercion over 200 years to subvert our Founder’s system to its current state; and still, our system is far from being totalitarian.

[Lila: It is totalitarian already and became so in the last thirty years at top speed, but that’s irrelevant to his point]

In the market, by contrast, what’s to stop thugs, and by what standard? Surely no private company would deliberately handcuff itself, with separations and divisions of powers, and checks and balances. Such silly, inefficient “gridlock” and “red tape” would only make it less competitive…….

Anarchists proclaim faith that in the marketplace, all the “protection” companies would rationally work everything out. All companies in the private sector, they assert, have a vested interest in peace. Their reputations and profits, you see, rest on the need for mutual cooperation, not violence.

Oh? What about a reputation for customer satisfaction — and the profits that go with getting results? I guess anarchists have no experience in the private sector with shyster lawyers, protection rackets, software pirates and the like. Aren’t they, too, responding to market demand?

If the “demand” for peace is paramount, please explain the bloody history of the world.

Anarcho-capitalists forget their own Austrian economics. It was Von Mises who described the marketplace as the ultimate democracy, where “sovereign consumers voted with their dollars” to fulfill their desires. Not necessarily good desires, mind you: just “desires.” Whatever they happened to be. The market was itself amoral: it simply satisfied the desires of the greatest number. (That’s why Howard Stern sells better than Isaac Stern.)

[Lila: I believe that mechanisms might arise in a society of a different quality than the one we have now. That is, my disbelief in the viability of anarcho-capitalism is a practical one, resulting from my observation that people themselves lack the moral qualities and self-restraint necessary for society to function without government.  It is not a theoretical disbelief in the possibility of a functioning an-cap society, as it is with this author.]

* * *Anarchists think the “invisible hand” of the marketplace will work in the place of government. But read what Adam Smith had to say about businessmen in that famous “invisible hand” passage. Smith knew that government was a precondition of the market, and of the working of the “invisible hand.” Without government, the “invisible hand” becomes a closed fist, wielded by the most powerful gang(s) to emerge. Why? Because government prevents competing forces from defining — and enforcing — their own private “interests” subjectively and arbitrarily.

Even if 99 percent of “protection agents” behave rationally, all you’d need is one “secessionist” outlaw agency, with it’s own novel interpretation of “rights” and “justice,” tailored to appeal to some “customer base” of bigots, religious fanatics, disgruntled blue collar workers or amoral tycoons with money to burn. …..

Oops — did I say “outlaw?” Under anarchy, there is no final determiner of the law.” There would be no final standard for settling disputes, e. g., a Constitution. That would be a “monopoly legal system,” you see. That’s because anarchists support the unilateral right of any individual or group to secede from a governing framework. (After all — wrote anarchist Lysander Spooner a century ago — I didn’t sign the Constitution, did I?)

So whose laws, rules, definitions and interpretations are going to be final?

……From a practical standpoint, a “protection agency” which could not enforce retribution or restitution against a wrong-doer would be a paper tiger. Who would pay for such toothless “protection”? Who would stand to lose?

But who would stand to gain under this option? Only the thugs, who would unilaterally declare themselves immune from anyone’s arrest, prosecution or punishment. Either as individuals or in gangs, they would use force, unconstrained by the self- limitations adopted by the “good” agencies.

[Lila: That is already the case in criminal-capitalist America. The extent of judicial corruption and subversion of law by lawyers themselves, using the letter of the law to destroy its spirit, makes large parts of corporate America no more than gangland writ large.]

In short, under this option, the good would unilaterally restrain themselves, while the bad would assume the right to use force without self-limitation, and with no fear of retaliation. This option would mean de facto pacifism by the moral, in the face of the immoral.

[Lila: This is precisely what an-cap libertarians iend up advocating, whether they are aware of it or not. ]

…If you have no final arbiter, your de facto pacifism gives society’s thugs a carte blanche — which means society will be run by brute force and thugs — which is immoral.

If you do establish some final arbiter, with the power to enforce its verdicts against all “competitors,” then you have — voila! — a final “legal monopoly” on the proper use of force… which anarchists declare to be immoral.

Anarchists can’t evade this dilemma by making excursions to ancient Iceland or to science-fiction Utopias of the future. The fact that the Icelandic model didn’t last, ought to tell us something about the viability of any science-fiction model of the future.

[Lila: I have no problem with referencing ancient Icelandic or Irish or Indian societies that did not have government. In fact, I think we should be examining every possible variation of social organization we can find. But the idea that we we can eliminate government altogether when multinational corporations already operate like huge governments, as a law unto themselves, is deluded. Will these MNC’s simply restrain themselves or will their managements become more powerful, less accountable, and more likely to operate like bandits, looting from themselves as well as from their clients and rivals?  The answer is staring at us, in the form of such rapacious organizations as Goldman Sachs..]

So, who would really rule the anarcho-capitalist utopia? The same guys who rule it now. They would be elevated by the same popular constituency that now elects them. The only difference would be is that under anarcho-capitalism, there’d be no institutional limits on their behavior……

The answer to unlimited government is not the “unlimited democracy” of the Misesian marketplace. Mises knew better (read his Bureaucracy). But anarchist rationalists, like Rothbard, haven’t yet figured out that “force” is not just like any other good or service on the marketplace.

[Lila: I think Rothbard was smart enough to figure this out. I mean, this is  common sense.  No.  I figure there’s more going on with Rothbard – and the cult of Rothbard – than meets the eye.  Even David Friedman, another an-cap,  finds a certain dishonesty in the way Rothbard treats his material. And he’s not alone. I blogged a few years ago about misrepresentation of a Chinese thinker, Sima Qian, by Rothbard noted by Roderick Long. Then there is Rothbard’s treatment of Rand, and also of Adam Smith….]

PsyWar: COINTELPRO Infiltration Of Dissidents

From the War at Home Archive:

“False Media Stories: COINTELPRO documents expose frequent collusion between news media personnel and the FBI to publish false and distorted material at the Bureau’s behest. The FBI routinely leaked derogatory information to its collaborators in the news media. It also created newspaper and magazine articles and television “documentaries” which the media knowingly or unknowingly carried as their own. Copies were sent anonymously or under bogus letterhead to activists’ financial backers, employers, business associates, families, neighbors, church officials, school administrators, landlords, and whomever else might cause them trouble.

One FBI media fabrication claimed that Jean Seberg, a white film star active in anti-racist causes, was pregnant by a prominent Black leader. The Bureau leaked the story anonymously to columnist Joyce Haber and also had it passed to her by a “friendly” source in the Los Angeles Times editorial staff. The item appeared without attribution in Haber’s nationally syndicated column of May 19, 1970. Seberg’s husband has sued the FBI as responsible for her resulting stillbirth, nervous breakdown, and suicide.

Bogus Leaflets, Pamphlets, and Other Publications: COINTELPRO documents show that the FBI routinely put out phony leaflets, posters, pamphlets, newspapers, and other publications in the name of movement groups. The purpose was to discredit the groups and turn them against one another.

FBI cartoon leaflets were used to divide and disrupt the main national anti-war coalition of the late 1960s. Similar fliers were circulated in 1968 and 1969 in the name of the Black Panthers and the United Slaves (US), a rival Black nationalist group based in Southern California. The phony Panther/US leaflets, together with other covert operations, were credited with subverting a fragile truce between the two groups and igniting an explosion of internecine violence that left four Panthers dead, many more wounded, and a once-flourishing regional Black movement decimated.

Another major COINTELPRO operation involved a children’s coloring book which the Black Panther Party had rejected as anti-white and gratuitously violent. The FBI revised the coloring book to make it even more offensive. Its field offices then distributed thousands of copies anonymously or under phony organizational letterheads. Many backers of the Party’s program of free breakfasts for children withdrew their support after the FBI conned them into believing that the bogus coloring book was being used in the program.

Forged Correspondence: Former employees have confirmed that the FBI has the capacity to produce state-of-the-art forgery. This capacity was used under COINTELPRO to create snitch jackets and bogus communications that exacerbated differences among activists and disrupted their work.

One such forgery intimidated civil rights worker Muhammed Kenyatta (Donald Jackson), causing him to abandon promising projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Kenyatta had foundation grants to form Black economic cooperatives and open a “Black and Proud School” for dropouts. He was also a student organizer at nearby Tougaloo College. In the winter of 1969, after an extended campaign of FBI and police harassment, Kenyatta received a letter, purportedly from the Tougaloo College Defense Committee, which “directed” that he cease his political activities immediately. If he did not “heed our diplomatic and well-thought-out warning,” the committee would consider taking measures “which would have a more direct effect and which would not be as cordial as this note.” Kenyatta and his wife left. Only years later did they learn it was not Tougaloo students, but FBI covert operators who had driven them out.

Later in 1969, FBI agents fabricated a letter to the mainly white organizers of a proposed Washington, D.C. anti-war rally demanding that they pay the local Black community a $20,000 “security bond.” This attempted extortion was composed in the name of the local Black United Front (BUF) and signed with the forged signature of its leader. FBI informers inside the BUF then tried to get the group to back such a demand, and Bureau contacts in the media made sure the story received wide publicity.

The Senate Intelligence Committee uncovered a series of FBI letters sent to top Panther leaders throughout 1970 in the name of Connie Mathews, an intermediary between the Black Panther Party’s national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. These exquisite forgeries were prepared on pilfered stationery in Panther vernacular expertly simulated by the FBI’s Washington, D.C. laboratory. Each was forwarded to an FBI Legal Attache at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country that Mathews was due to travel through and then posted at just the right time “in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau.” The FBI enhanced the eerie authenticity of these fabrications by lacing them with esoteric personal tidbits culled from electronic surveillance of Panther homes and offices. Combined with other forgeries, anonymous letters and phone calls, and the covert intervention of FBI and police infiltrators, the Mathews correspondence succeeded in inflaming intra-party mistrust and rivalry until it erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the organization in the winter of 1971.

Anonymous Letters and Telephone Calls: During the 1960s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from the FBI. Some were unsigned, while others bore bogus names or purported to come from unidentified activists in phony or actual organizations.

Many of these bogus communications promoted racial divisions and fears, often by exploiting and exacerbating tensions between Jewish and Black activists. One such FBI-concocted letter went to SDS members who had joined Black students protesting New York University’s discharge of a Black teacher in 1969. The supposed author, an unnamed “SDS member,” urged whites to break ranks and abandon the Black students because of alleged anti-Semitic slurs by the fired teacher and his supporters.

Other anonymous letters and phone calls falsely accused movement leaders of collaboration with the authorities, corruption, or sexual affairs with other activists’ mates. The letter on the next page was used to provoke “a lasting distrust” between a Black civil rights leader and his wife. Its FBI authors hoped that his “concern over what to do about it” would “detract from his time spent in the plots and plans of his organization.” As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman active in civil rights and anti-war work filed for divorce soon after receiving the FBI-authored letter reproduced on page 50.

Still other anonymous FBI communications were designed to intimidate dissidents, disrupt coalitions, and provoke violence. Calls to Stokely Carmichael’s mother warning of a fictitious Black Panther murder plot drove him to leave the country in September 1968. Similar anonymous FBI telephone threats to SNCC leader James Forman were instrumental in thwarting efforts to bring the two groups together.

The Chicago FBI made effective use of anonymous letters to sabotage the Panthers efforts to build alliances with previously apolitical Black street gangs. The most extensive of these operations involved the Black P. Stone Nation, or “Blackstone Rangers,” a powerful confederation of several thousand local Black youth. Early in 1969, as FBI and police infiltrators in the Rangers spread rumors of an impending Panther attack, the Bureau sent Ranger chief Jeff Fort an incendiary note signed “a black brother you don’t know.” Fort’s supposed friend warned that “The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there’s supposed to be a hit out for you.” Another FBI-concocted anonymous “black man” then informed Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton of a Ranger plot “to get you out of the way.” These fabrications squelched promising talks between the two groups and enabled Chicago Panther security chief William O’Neal, an FBI-paid provocateur, to instigate a series of armed confrontations from which the Panthers barely managed to escape without serious casualties.

Pressure Through Employers, Landlords, and Others: FBI records reveal repeated maneuvers to generate pressure on dissidents from their parents, children, spouses, landlords, employers, college administrators, church superiors, welfare agencies, credit bureaus, and the like. Anonymous letters and telephone calls were often used to this end. Confidential official communications were effective in bringing to bear the Bureau’s immense power and authority.

Agents’ reports indicate that such FBI intervention denied Martin Luther King, Jr., and other 1960s activists any number of foundation grants and public speaking engagements. It also deprived alternative newspapers of their printers, suppliers, and distributors and cost them crucial advertising revenues when major record companies were persuaded to take their business elsewhere. Similar government manipulation may underlie steps recently taken by some insurance companies to cancel policies held by churches giving sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.

Tampering With Mail and Telephone Service: The FBI and CIA routinely used mail covers (the recording of names and addresses) and electronic surveillance in order to spy on 1960s movements. The CIA alone admitted to photographing the outside of 2.7 million pieces of first-class mail during the 1960s and to opening almost 215,000. Government agencies also tampered with mail, altering, delaying, or “disappearing” it. Activists were quick to blame one another, and infiltrators easily exploited the situation to exacerbate their tensions.

Dissidents’ telephone communications often were similarly obstructed. The SDS Regional Office in Washington, D.C., for instance, mysteriously lost its phone service the week preceding virtually every national anti-war demonstration in the late 1960s.

Disinformation to Prevent or Disrupt Movement Meetings and Activities: A favorite COINTELPRO tactic uncovered by Senate investigators was to advertise a non-existent political event, or to misinform people of the time and place of an actual one. They reported a variety of disruptive FBI “dirty tricks” designed to cast blame on the organizers of movement events.”

Comment

Some of my experiences of internet harassment over the past five years sound a lot like this stuff. But in my case, I’m pretty sure that the people involved were private individuals, who maybe used some of their government connections or authority. At some point, one ex-CIA official [ a guy who had a history of out-of-control behavior and had had run-ins with the law] was actually writing nasty stuff on this blog, and may have been behind a few other things.

But the rest was private. Which suggests that between corporations (correction: criminal corporations) and  government (correction: unconstitutional governments), there’s not much to choose.

Anyway, this kind of history of government infiltration of activist groups  should make people very wary about their communications. The email in your inbox can be forged and your own name could be tacked onto things you never wrote.  With all the powers at their disposal, if the government decided to frame someone, they would be able to get or create all kinds of incriminating stuff.

That’s why I don’t buy the Gupta verdict at all. With five years of investigation by two different outfits, with thousands of wire-taps, they only got him talking to Raj once? And even then, there was nothing illegal in that conversation….

Von Mises On Minarchism

Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, 280-281:

“The concepts of freedom and bondage make sense only when referring to the way in which government operates. It would be highly inexpedient and misleading to say that a man is not free because, if he wants to stay alive, his power to choose between a drink of water and one of potassium cyanide is restricted by nature. It would be no less inconvenient to call a man unfree
because the law imposes sanctions upon his desire to kill another man
and because the police and the penal courts enforce them. As far as the government—the social apparatus of compulsion and oppression—confines the exercise of its violence and the threat of such violence to the suppression and prevention of antisocial action, there prevails what reasonably and meaningfully can be called liberty. What is restrained is merely conduct that is bound to disintegrate social cooperation and civilization, thus throwing all people back to conditions that existed at the time homo sapiens emerged from the purely animal existence of its nonhuman ancestors……

In the market economy, the laissez-faire type of social organization, there is a sphere within which the individual is free to choose between various modes of acting without being restrained by the threat of being punished. If, however, the government does more than protect people against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of antisocial individuals, it reduces the sphere of the individual’s freedom to act beyond the degree to which it is restricted by praxeological law. Thus we may define freedom as that state of affairs in which the individual’s discretion to choose is not constrained by governmental violence beyond the margin within which the praxeological law restricts it anyway.”

First US State Recognizes Jury Nullification

When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries — both grand and petit — was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant — and the validity of the law in question.

In contemporary America, however, trial by jury has been all but abolished in practice. Reviewing recent Supreme Court rulings, legal commentator Adam Liptak of the New York Times observes that in its just-completed term, the High Court “has turned its attention away from criminal trials, which are vanishingly rare, and toward the real world of criminal justice, in which plea bargains are the norm and harsh sentences commonplace.” (Emphasis added.)

The fact that the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, which is supposedly sacrosanct, has become all but extinct illustrates the extent to which the U.S. “justice” system has become Sovietized.

After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, the jury system — which had been established under Czar Alexander II in 1864 — was abolished and replaced with “People’s Courts” composed of a judge and a panel of two to six Party-appointed “assessors” who heard all of the evidence and decided all questions of both fact and law. The assessors “became known as `nodders’ for simply nodding in agreement with the judge,” wrote federal Judge John C. Coughenour in an article published by the Seattle University Law Review. “People’s assessors virtually always agreed with judges; acquittals were virtually nonexistent…. [U]nlike our adversarial system, the Soviet inquisitorial criminal justice system neither prioritized nor emphasized the rights of individual defendants, but instead paid homage to the interests of the state.”

One very telling measure of the Regime’s fear of citizen juries — especially those informed of their right to nullify unjust laws — is found in the efforts expended by prosecutors to prevent cases from going to trial.

In his 1998 book (co-written with Lawrence M. Stratton) The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts points out that “the vast majority of felony cases are settled with a plea bargain….” Many, perhaps most, “felonies” today involve no offenses against persons or property, no criminal intent, and are usually a product of an opportunistic prosecutor’s malicious creativity in confecting a criminal offense.

It is common for prosecutors to multiply charges as a way of terrorizing an innocent defendant into accepting a plea. Very rarely do we see a defendant with the means to defend himself in such circumstances. For the average citizen who finds himself targeted by an ambitious prosecutor, a plea bargain usually seems like the only relatively palatable alternative to the expense of a trial and the possibility of a long time in prison. At the bargaining table, “I’m all in” for the prosecutor means that, should he lose, he would sacrifice a little prestige, with the taxpayers absorbing all of the expenses; the defendant stands to lose everything and faces the prospect of utter ruin.

This is why so many innocent people are willing to deal. For the State, the most attractive feature of such arrangements is the fact that it keeps such cases away from juries. And we’re left with a “justice” apparatus that functions, in the words of legal scholar John Langbein, like “the ancient system of judicial torture,” which relied on self-incrimination through duress, rather than conviction on the basis of sound evidence.”