The Conscience of Abe’s Turn freedom of speech, defense, and life

I just got finished watching The U.S. vs. John Lennon, an inspiring and provocative film about John Lennon’s peace advocacy, and how the government attacked him for it. This documentary follows Lennon’s life after the Beatles, until his death in 1980, includes interviews with Yoko Ono and many others, and touches on freedom of speech, drug freedom, peace and military warfare, and the politics of power.

As I watched it, several themes impressed me. But nothing impressed me more than that so little has changed since then. In a very real sense, we are replaying, repeating, reliving history. This film makes real that the abuses and perversions of justice that we see today occurred decades ago, and in essentially the same form: public beatings of peaceful protesters, restriction of speech around high-profile political events, abuse of government power for personal and political gain, censorship, political appeals to “patriotism,” fear-mongering against immigrants and “aliens,” all in order to support direct government attacks on the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. Have we made that little progress?

Some quotes from the film:  read more »

Nine secret, Bush-era documents that the Obama administration released this week demonstrate the hubris of a powerful government and the danger posed by it.

Some of these documents are among the dozens of memos that the ACLU has been suing the Department of Justice to release. To echo Glenn Greenwald from last year: “Yet again, the ACLU has performed the function which Congress and the media are intended to perform but do not.”

One of the legal opinions, written in October 2001 by John Yoo, a lawyer with the Office of Legal Counsel, one who needs a Conscience, argued that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military activities inside the United States. That is, the federal government thought it could get away with illegal searches and seizures and spying on innocent U.S. citizens, all without a warrant, as long as it could make it look like part of a military operation.

Yoo also advised that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war,” without saying specifically how that might play out, adding that the fight against “terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”  read more »

The Orwellian term is “Child Protective Services,” or something similar. After all, who could possibly be against protecting children? Or “service”? But as it frequently is with government agencies, maybe a different term would be more accurate. Maybe: “Child Paternalism Services.”

Stephen. C. Smith describes what happens after the Maine DHHS serves you with a “substantiation” notice:  read more »

From Rediff.com: “Pakistan frees terrorists due to lack of evidence.” This article describes a crime report that explored how the Pakistani police have been unable to build a case against “a large number” of “dreaded terrorists” from Al-Qaeda and other organizations. Because they didn’t have evidence against them, they had to let them go.

The article goes on to relay that “most of them have vanished into thin air soon after their release and were probably planning or participating in more attacks… [A]s many as ’121 high-profile terrorists were released between 2002 and 2007. In each case, the prosecution’s case was not strong enough.’”  read more »

Jacob Hornberger hit the nail on the head regarding the relationship between economic rights and civil rights, speaking about a talk James Bovard gave at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Economic Liberty Lecture Series last month.

There is no question but that liberals have a blind spot when it comes to economic liberty. They honestly believe that socialistic and interventionist programs are necessary to help the poor and equalize wealth. They cannot see the fundamental immorality of using force to make people do the right thing. They cannot see that their methods actually end up harming the very people they purport to want to help [just like drug prohibition]…  read more »

As you may know, The Conscience of Abe’s Turn was inspired not by George W. Bush, but by civil-rights abuses during Bill Clinton’s administration, some as portrayed in James Bovard’s book Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years. In a thoughtful article at the Future of Freedom Foundation website, James Bovard looks back at the last Democratic president’s record on Fourth-Amendment civil rights.

The Clinton administration consistently championed the right of government employees to stick their noses almost anywhere — into people’s email, car, house, or personal effects. Clintonites set off one false alarm after another to justify extending government’s right to intrude. The administration consistently sought to exploit technological development in order to maximize government’s control over the citizenry…

The prohibition against unreasonable searches is the key to the Fourth Amendment.

As law professor Jeffrey Standen observed in an article he wrote for Legal Times, each extension of government power makes further extensions “reasonable” — since “reasonable” is defined on a sliding scale by however much intrusion people will tolerate from the government. The Clinton administration often sounded as if the only searches that were unreasonable were the ones that government officials did not care to do.

(Click here to read the whole article.)

The article gets specific on many of the ways the Clinton administration fomented fear and fought to redefine the Fourth Amendment to give government enforcers more power over citizens. True, George W. Bush presided over some of the worst civil-rights abuses today’s citizens have ever seen. But we shouldn’t just assume that Bush’s Democratic successor will be a civil-rights proponent, because Obama—as Clinton before him, as any president, being in charge of the enforcement branch of the federal government—has a vested interest in promoting government power over systematic protections of our civil rights. Be aware.

Always watching!
-TimK

P.S. Thanks to libertarian policy analyst Doug Bandow for the pointer.

One of the things that always gets me about TV and movie crime dramas is that the good guys (usually cops, but sometimes PI’s) pull out their guns for the stupidest of reasons. One of the first rules about using a gun—which cops are supposed to know—is never to point it at anything you wouldn’t be willing to put a hole in. This includes other people. You never draw your weapon, except to point it; and you never point it, except to shoot. So in the crime dramas, when the cop pulls out a gun and points it at an unarmed civilian, that’s unrealistic… Or is it?  read more »

A reviewer of The Conscience of Abe’s Turn called it “a fairly overblown story that my mind could not completely wrap around… I can’t understand why a group of professionals who are supposed to be so brilliant are holding protests and playing hippy saboteurs rather than just contacting the Feds and getting their problems solved.” Here’s the real-life analogue, and the real-life reason: because the Feds create problems, not solve them. Just ask Yolanda Madden’s father, interviewed in this new civil-rights video from KopBusters.  read more »

Radley Balko posted a quick link to this Boston Herald article, which reports:

[Massachusetts state] trooper “Kathleen T. Carney was stripped of her service weapon and cruiser last week after a Dec. 1 duty status hearing stemming from allegations of brutality in the drunken-driving arrest of a 35-year-old Quincy woman, Patricia J. Dooling, on the night of Aug. 28…

There are several points in this article that ring a bell.  read more »

Here’s the story, as handed down by the family of Yolanda Madden:

The police in Odessa, Texas persuaded (or maybe forced) an informant to plant drugs on Yolanda Madden. This informant later testified in federal court that he had planted the false drug evidence. Other evidence (hair and urine) exonerated Yolanda. Even so, she is currently serving an multi-year prison sentence.

This is a story, of course, that many of us have heard many times before. The names and details change, but the story is largely the same. Because this is how drug prohibition works— Or rather, this is how drug prohibition fails us. If you’ve read the Abe’s Turn series, you have surely noticed it also infused with the spirit of these real-life stories.

The pattern of growing police power in order to combat fear, instead of actual crime, and Americans’ nonchalant acceptance of that power, is gradually eroding our security as free citizens. It is one of the most overlooked critical issues in American politics today.

But wait! There’s more to the story!  read more »