A LITTLE REBELLION

He Supports Everyone's Troops

The Cool, Calm Collected Mind of a Serial Killer

A chilling account of how casually the serial killers of the Drone Empire dispense death:

A little after 10:00 p.m., and a serial killer is getting ready to make his move. He has watched and waited for this moment for some time.

He watches his victim get out of a cab and dig in his pockets for money. Two of his children run out to the porch to greet their daddy. The killer presses a button and watches as the victim, the taxi driver and the two children are vaporized. Other people in the house, the man's wife, parents and three other children are badly injured and burnt by the high explosive.

The house next door partially collapses, killing an elderly woman and injuring her grandson. But this is just the beginning.

Neighbors and emergency personnel arrive and begin trying to help the victims. There is chaos...children screaming, people wailing and the cries of the burnt and injured. Several people are trapped under rubble.

When enough people have gathered, the killer presses the button again. Fifteen seconds later, all those at the scene are vaporized or blown to shreds. The killer high-fives his partner. In two hours he will be off work! They are planning on driving in to Las Vegas, have some cocktails, maybe pick up some girls.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Lockdown Sets Dangerous Precedent For Civil Liberties

New article for PolicyMic.

Now that the dust has finally settled after the horrific Boston bombings last week and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is finally in custody, the debate has shifted over to due process and Miranda rights for terrorism suspects. While this is an undoubtedly important topic, the fact that the Bill of Rights is even being debated is only part of larger issues on how the government responded after the bombing, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, and American complacency in the face of a growing police state.

For those of us ceasesly advocating for a free society and limits to government power, the sight of an entire city placed under martial law was incredibly disturbing and a scene — like Waco and Ruby Ridge before — that will be hard to forget. Businesses and schools were closed while public transit was padlocked. Paramilitary police patrolled residential neighborhoods in tanks, each of them armed with those "assault weapons" people keep complaining about. Military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices flew the skies. In full battle gear, they ordered people out of their homes, snipers perched and aimed from rooftops and their homes were searched.

No warrants. No constitutional authority. With little warning, the city was turned into a Constitution-free ghost town.

This unprecedented show of force from the state sent chills up my spine upon seeing the photos and scenes from the occupation. But besides the usual, consistent defenders of civil liberties, Americans seemed to either not care or openly cheered it on. Many have suggested throwing a parade for the paramilitary army that invaded Boston, while parents high-fived the robocops as they searched their homes. It seems as though whatever threat there is to "security," Americans have few reservations accepting security theater, even if it imposes martial law and essentially suspends constitutional liberties.

This is nothing new in America, of course; wars and "crises" always bring out the fear-mongering, restrictions on liberty and the growth of state power. Nearly every single abuse, violation, and usurpation of power in American history can be traced back to an administration using a "national emergency" to justify the suspension of civil liberties.

But these abuses could not go on for long if the people protested. Instead, the horizontal pressure is truly where the state is allowed to get away with this, as those of us who dare to defend such "archaic" principles as due process, warrants and the Bill of Rights are smeared, shouted down and even have their loyalties and patriotism questioned.  During the Nuremberg trials, Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering famously stated that "...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

But it is the exact opposite of this concept is what makes America, a supposed constitutional republic, unique. It is precisely during wars, disasters, crises, attacks and emergencies that civil liberties and constitutional law are supposed to matter the most. Security states are for kings and Caesars, not free societies. 

One of the most telling signs of the Boston lockdown was how much it showed how vulnerable we really are. The federal government has claimed the power to torture, launch preemptive war, indefinitely detain suspects, essentially spy on everyone, spent trillions on erecting a national-security state, and two guys with a pressure-cooker and a few guns (not even automatics, either) brought an entire city to its knees and unleashed a military-style occupation that would look familiar to those living in Fallujah or Okinawa. What if these guys actually knew what they were doing? What if there were ten of them instead of just two? Or plots in multiple plots simultaneously? I tremble at what would be unleashed.

Thankfully, the true heroism of private individuals shined under the darkness of martial law. Finally, after the siege was lifted and the marching troops began to disperse, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found by an average Joe doing the exact opposite of what he was previously under coercive order not to do. Just like with Flight 93, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, it was private individuals who played the key role in neutralizing a suspected terrorist.

This strikes at the heart of why civil liberties are so important, especially during those times when there is fear and panic. Civil liberties are so valuable because they exist to restrain the state and its core nature — a monopoly on crime control — always has the potential to turn into a police state. Fundamentally, the average and concerned citizen is a more effective agent for public safety, justice, and order than beefed-up government employees armed with the most advance military weaponry on the planet and very little regard for the Constitution they are supposed to uphold.

One of the biggest concerns over government abuse is the precedents they set, and with what happened in New England last week, federal, state, and local governments learned that there is very little they can't get away with.

Although the term is misused to the point of almost no definition, terrorism is essentially the use of violence to achieve political ends. Osama bin Laden, the kingpin of terror, wanted us to overreact, panic, bankrupt ourselves in bloody wars, and for Americans to feel the same iron-fist of a police state that had been imposed on Middle Eastern countries by the U.S. The Boston bombers had similar political goals.

Are we really willing to let terrorists win by saying and doing nothing when a city is put under martial law and politicians openly call for suspending the Constitution? Terrorists will never dismantle our society. Only our acquiescence and subservience to gross violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will.

Scenes From the Occupation of Watertown

 

The martial law imposed on New England last week was the pinnacle of security theatre. Although it did absolutely nothing to help catch and detain the Boston bombing suspect, it helped condition us for what's to come in the future. I think these paramilitary soldiers, in an armed invasion of an American city, were curious about what exactly they could get away with.

No warrants? Fine. Snipers on the roofs with their fingers on the trigger? Yep. Ordering people to shut off their phones and threatening to kill them if they don't? Of course. Illegal searches and seizures? It's for "safety" and "security," can't you see?

The only silver lining from footage like this is that it will hopefully turn more and more people against the state and the dangers that it poses to civil society, real order and liberty.

Well That Didn't Take Long

Barely two months after filibustering on the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours in defense of due process and against lawless domestic drone use, Rand Paul has changed his mind. It serves me right for ever writing one praiseworthy word about this political opportunist and weasel. I promise never to make that mistake again.

Martial Law in New England

The teeth of the U.S. fascist police state are really beginning to show. Here's a scene of the tax-feeding army that is now occupying New England. Via Lew Rockwell:

The empire has invaded the homeland--the chickens have come home to roost, as Malcolm X put it--with more than a million people ordered to cower in their homes. Businesses, schools, universities, public transport are all ordered to close. All homes and other property can be searched without warrants. By what authority? Blankout, as Rand used to say. Army-style police, and a police-style army, comb...ined with various secret police forces from the feds, state, and city, stomp around in total control, loving it. We have enhanced martial law, accompanied by media cheers. It's American fascism on display, with the usual crony capitalism operating behind the scenes. Domestic terrorism so benefits the internationally terroristic government.

Boston Marathon Bomb Coverage Reveals Media Hypocrisy and Double Standards

New article for PolicyMic.

Barely two days after the horrendous Boston Marathon bombing which has so far claimed three lives and injured over one hundred people, one of the most interesting and telling aspects of this tragedy has been how media coverage helps shape public perceptions over violence and terrorism.

Since the morning of the attacks, nearly every second of media coverage has been dedicated to the bombings, the investigation, speculations on who has been responsible, and most importantly, footage of the horror. There have been detailed accounts of victims' injuries and personal tales of heroism and hardship. Two brothers each lost a leg in the attack. Eight-year-old Martin Richards, who loved to play outside and climb trees, was the youngest victim to die.

It's easy to see why we have been so struck with grief and anger. It turns your gut sideways seeing this coverage, let alone those who personally experienced it. Americans rightfully want for those responsible to be brought to justice, named, and exposed for all to see.

Why? Because the terror was real, and the victims had names and faces. The media gave and continues to give intimate information regarding the bombings and those who have been harmed, and Americans understandably feel empathy and vulnerability at such a random, senseless act of mass murder.

But contrast this with the portrayal of the frequent tragedies, atrocities, and bombings that are committed by the U.S. government, and one can almost excuse the differences in outrage. In the last decade, the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq while bombing Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia, imposed blockades and sanctions that prevent the poor and elderly in foreign countries from acquiring food and medicine, and yet one can spend a great deal of time searching in vain for any faces, names, or accounts of the victims from the American press. Apparently, when cloaked in the alchemy of government power, these acts aren't terrorism or mass murder, just "foreign policy."

Why has the media covered this bombing with a fine-toothed comb, including bloody and grisly photos, yet it completely ignores the unspeakable violence when initiated by the state? There are perhaps too many answers to fit in here, but I think the one that stands out the most is that the former, private violence portrays the state in a heroic, fatherly role while the latter public violence embarrasses and harms state power.

While interview after interview describes the horror of the bombings and the glory of law enforcement and the military, these same institutions commit egregious acts of terror and violence on a daily basis far, far worse than the Boston bombings.

Just last week, eleven Pashtun children were killed in a U.S. air strike, and CNN did not show their faces, describe their childhoods, or show their grieving families. Nearly 5,000 individuals, an overwhelming number of them civilians, have met similar fates as those children due to U.S. drone strikes in multiple countries, leaving widows, orphans, and the daily terror and fear of robots dispensing death from the sky. The Iraq war led to one million deaths and millions of refugees.

Violence committed by the U.S. government, whether directly or indirectly, is simply not reported on. NPR and FOX News don't show footage or conduct interviews with the victims of the tens of thousands of paramilitary raids that are conducted annually in American homes. What about the five hundred people who were shot and killed last year in "gun-free" Chicago? Or the 16-year-old American citizen vaporized by a U.S. Hellfire missile? Or the nameless, faceless victims of the government's "war on drugs" rotting in prison for victimless crimes and the poor neighborhoods turned into warzones thanks to drug prohibition?

The reason that the victims of government violence are whitewashed or completely ignored is because reactions from the public would likely make it more difficult to implement policy. Americans are justifiably outraged over the Boston bombings, and the gruesome details provided by the media only enhanced these feelings. What if we were to see the true, ugly horror of war and state-condoned violence every night on TV — the missing limbs, the blood, the bodies, the sounds — just like we see during coverage of the Boston bombings?

But the media knows where its bread is buttered. In the last decade, and especially under the Obama administration, whistle-blowers and those attempting to expose government violence have been illegally detained, fired, and harassed. Challenging the state's ability to dispense lethal force means much less to say, a Washington Post reporter than White House access and Beltway cocktail parties.

The ultimate irony in the media's coverage, however, is that while the state self-aggrandizes and imposes security theater in the aftermath of the attacks, the incompetence of the government's ability to provide actual security is there for all to see. Despite the broad powers to torture, wage preventive, aggressive war, indefinitely detain suspects, and flood our streets with bulky and expensive military weaponry — and regarding the marathon specifically, the presence of bomb-sniffing dogs at the start and finishing lines and spotters on the roofs — they still could not prevent the attack. The backwards incentive structure of bureaucracy means that these agencies will likely get more money and power, not less.

All acts of violence and terrorism should be vehemently opposed, yet by far the biggest orchestrator of destruction is shielded from this condemnation by a subservient media. Whether the victims are innocent marathon runners, Amish entrepreneurs, or Afghan children, we should all be outraged. And when President Obama, speaking of the Boston bombings, says "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror," he should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

The Exception to the Rule

Stefan Molyneux on the alchemy behind state power:

If someone gives you a moral rule, the first thing to do is to examine not the rule, but the exception. Who is not bound by that rule? Who gets to do the exact opposite? It will always be those in power — that is why moral rules exist.

Any thinker who actually tries to apply universal moral rules universally is considered insane, bizarre, ridiculous — because the purpose of universal morality is the exception, the violation.

Governments disarm citizens by denying them weapons, while retaining monstrous weapons in the hands of the state.

It is the same with “morality.”

Open your mind. Open your eyes.

We can only avoid the traps we can see.

Taxation is Theft

The best way to understand the criminality and plunder of taxation this April 15th is to read a couple of classic essays from two of the greatest libertarians of all time: Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov. Understanding why taxation is theft writ large, violates individual liberty and rights, and helps feed the Leviathan welfare-warfare state helps undermine the destruction that is unleashed by state power and the alternatives that exist in a free society.

DHS Conducts Illegal Surveillance of Peaceful Protesters and Activists

New article for PolicyMic.

Ever since the beginning of the "War On Terror," the surveillance power of the U.S. government has greatly expanded into an apparatus of abuse that even George Orwell could have never imagined. Thanks to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), it was revealed last week that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been carefully and meticulously conducting surveillance on peaceful protesters and activists here at home.

This not only helps prove that war is the single greatest enabler of the expansion of government power and the restriction of individual liberties, but also shows the lengths that the U.S. government will go to to monitor any internal dissent to the permanent warfare state.

According to documents obtained by PCJF through a Freedom of Information Act request, the DHS has used its already dangerously broad post-9/11 powers to expand upon the definition of "domestic terrorist." Federal fusion centers — where the federal government shares information with local and state authorities — have been spending a vast majority of their time and budget on monitoring and attempting to disrupt constitutionally-protected acts of speech and protests, specifically "Ron Paul supporters, Occupy protesters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights."

The DHS has also been very concerned with the amount of media coverage any political rallies or protests receive.

For Americans worried about their civil liberties and why the U.S. government feels that has the right or need to conduct such heavy surveillance on peaceful protests, Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis only helps justify these worries and concerns. After claiming that his office "absolutely does not" spy on Americans, Davis then admitted that groups that are deemed "anti-government" are a threat and are indeed being monitored.

The Obama White House, that beacon of transparency and openness, recently informed a federal judge that it will not disclose any information on the secret court opinion concerning the U.S. government illegally spying on Americans. This despite revelations from Intelligence Committee member Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) that this surveillance "circumvented the spirit of the law" and blatantly violated the Fourth Amendment.

Every time the U.S. government has been questioned or challenged on its illegal surveillance programs, it has predictably hidden behind the rubric of "national security."

The "national security" justification, however, as evidenced by the groups that are being targeted by the DHS and other surveillance agencies, does not mean a threat to the security, safety, or freedoms of Americans but vocal (and growing) threats to the ability of the U.S. government to wage permanent war, expand the warfare state, and grow its power.

The groups and activists that have been targeted do not represent one specific political ideology. But what they do have in common is a rejection of the narrow Left-Right spectrum of debate that is allowed to exist in America and a general support for civil liberties and peace. They oppose a regime built on corporatism, authoritarian claims of state power, and aggressive war. There are, of course, too many vested interests to count that depend upon this welfare-warfare state, and this power will not be relinquished easily. Of course these protesters would be the ones subject to strict surveillance and attention from Washington, the heart of this power center.

The documents detailing this surveillance highlight two essential aspects that Americans must come to grips with if a free and prosperous society is what we desire. First, it is that war is by far the biggest excuse used to grow coercive state power as well as the tendency of administrations to expand upon their predecessors usurpations. President George W. Bush essentially ushered in this modern surveillance state with warrantless wiretapping and authoritarian legislation. President Obama has granted even more power to this police-state apparatus beyond even what the Bush administration claimed.

Secondly, the fact that groups from both the right and the left are being monitored should help dispel Americans of the largely fictitious, narrow, and arbitrary labels of "liberal" and "conservative" that keep us at each other's throats. Despite the rhetoric, the fundamental principles behind public policy changes little regardless of which wing of the imperial bird of prey happens to be in charge. One party initiates, the other consolidates.

The U.S. may be spying on Americans that threaten its power to impose global hegemony and shred the Bill of Rights, but as more and more Americans begin to reject the false Left-Right paradigm and look for solutions outside of this tiny box of approved opinion, the DHS may find that there are too many of us to monitor.

After all, what does it say about a government that feels so threatened by peaceful protesters and dissent?

Obama the Child Killer

Since the mainstream media will never show a single photograph or video from the countless wars the US government is currently engaged in, here is a photo of some of the eleven Afghan children that were killed in a recent NATO airstrike in Afghanistan.

This is what Empire and aggressive war looks like, payed for through taxation, borrowing, and inflating by the US government. This war has gone on for over a decade now, and incidents like this are the tragic, though predictable, consequence of the state's deadliest welfare program. And despite Caesar's lies that the Afghan war is winding down, the Pentagon has no plans of ever leaving Central Asia.

I posted this picture not to be intentionally controversial or outrageous, but only because so many Americans are sheltered from what war inflicts on the countries the US targets. Perhaps if more Americans saw these photos, these wars would come to an end or there would be at least more protesting. It's no wonder the media never shows these photos. After all, their propaganda and lies help the US government wage these campaigns of mass murder and destruction.

(via Scott Horton)

Nixon, Kissinger Were War Criminals

This is not news, but new Wikileaks cables confirm the bloody truth about these pair of mass murderers. There was Vietnam, of course, but what is lesser known are the secret and illegal US carpet-bombings of Laos and Cambodia. The Empire dropped more bombs on those poor countries than were dropped in the entire Pacific and European theatres of WW2 combined, not only leading to millions of deaths, but ushering in the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

To this day, Laos remains the most bombed country in world history, and hundreds of children per year are still dying and losing limbs thanks to the unexploded remnants of bombs left over.

Margaret Thatcher, RIP

I am rarely sad when a pol or head of state is finally sent to Hades, and today is no different.

Conservatives fawn over Miss Thatcher for supposedly "saving" Great Britain from socialism and the welfare state, which ironically was ushered in by another conservative hero, Winston Churchill. Conservatives always fail to recognize their foolishness and hypocrisy in their support for the warfare state and empire while occasionally offering modest attacks on the welfare state, but libertarians correctly see them as one in the same.

Both are part of the Predatory State, anti-social institutions that survive on initiating force against the innocent, and should be opposed root and branch if one endorses liberty, peace, economic growth, and civilization.

Sean Gabb at the UK Libertarian sump up Thatcher's legacy perfectly:

She started the transformation of this country into a politically correct police state. Her Government behaved with an almost gloating disregard for constitutional norms. She brought in money laundering laws that have now been extended to a general supervision over our financial dealings. She relaxed the conditions for searches and seizure by the police. She increased the numbers and powers of the police. She weakened trial by jury. She weakened the due process protections of the accused. She gave executive agencies the power to fine and punish without due process. She began the first steps towards total criminalisation of gun possession.

She did not cut government spending. Instead, she allowed the conversion of local government and the lower administration into a system of sinecures for the Enemy Class. She allowed political correctness to take hold in local government. When she did oppose this, it involved giving central government powers of supervision and control useful to a future politically correct government. She extended and tightened the laws constraining free speech about race and immigration.

Her encouragement of enterprise never amounted to more than a liking for big business corporatism. Genuine enterprise was progressively heaped with taxes and regulations that made it hard to do business. Big business, on the other hand, was showered with praise and legal indulgences. Indeed, her privatisation policies were less about introducing competition and choice into public services than in turning public monopolies into corporate monsters pampered by the State with subsidies and favourable regulations – corporate monsters that were expected in return to lavish financial rewards on the political class.

She virtually began the war on freedom of choice where smoking is concerned. She started the modern obsession with health and safety as an excuse for controlling our lives. She vastly expended state powers of supervision and control over parenting, and immensely expanded the numbers and powers of social workers.

She made the environmental nonsense politically fashionable. She was the first senior British politician to start wittering about climate change and ozone holes. She doubtless thought she was further stuffing the coal miners. In fact, she was a useful idiot for the ideology best suited to replace socialism as an excuse for Enemy Class domination.

She hardly cut taxes. She ruthlessly pushed the speed of European integration. Her militaristic foreign policy and slavish obedience to Washington mostly worked against the interests of this country. The one war she fought that might have some justification was only necessary because her own colleagues had effectively told the Argentine Government to invade the Falkland Islands.

Even her reforms of the trade union movement had malevolent effects. Before her, trade unions were run by ordinary working class people who used the strike and violence to achieve their ends. She ensured that the unions were taken over by the usual Enemy Class graduates. These were the only people capable of using the health and safety and workplace discrimination laws and so forth that were brought in to replace the older methods of advancing working class interests. The result has been the co-option of the trade unions to purposes that have done nothing at all to advance working class interests.

She was also quite the warmonger, threateningto nuke Argentina over some dinky islands off of South America. And Murray Rothbard, as usual, dispelled the myth of Thatcher (and her buddy Reagan) as some free-market savior.

Margaret Thatcher, RIP. For those of us who pray and fight for peace and human freedom, you will not be missed.

Another Reason to Oppose IP Monopoly

Big corporatist monsters like Monsanto are the biggest beneficiaries of patents (state-granted monopoly priviliges), so much so where virtually their entire revenue stream is spent on protecting this monopoly. Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc. spend billions suing and countersuing on patent enforcement and infringement.

Intellectual "property" is once again proving itself to be an artificial grant of monopoly created by the state. Anti-property, anti-free-market, and anti-competitive. Abolish IP!

The Future is Better Than You Think

(via 9GAG)

 

'86 Percent Of Americans Don't Want To Have A Country Anymore'

If only this wasn't satire:

"I already belong to a health club, a church, and the Kiwanis Club," Tammy Golden of Los Angeles wrote. "I'm a member of the Von's Grocery Super Savers, which gets me a discount on certain groceries. These are all well-managed organizations with real benefits. None of them send me a confusing bill once a year and make me work it out myself, then throw me in jail if I get it wrong."

U.S. Commandos in 75 Countries Are Teaching Militaries to Torture, Kill, and Abuse Civilians

New article for PolicyMic.

While aggressive war, drone strikes, and a global network of military bases are the most visible aspects of American hegemonic power, what is often overlooked is the U.S. policy of training, assisting, and subsidizing foreign militaries. Although these actions are largely covert and discreet, they serve the same purpose of hegemonic control, diminish peace and national security, and help contribute to the subjugation of foreign citizens.

The training of foreign militaries to serve the interests of the American state goes all the way back to at least the Cold War. The U.S. used taxpayer money and weapons to subsidize foreign governments and militaries that were "anti-communist" even if the regimes were incredibly brutal and ruthless. All an authoritarian had to do was refer to his political opponents as "communists" and the Americans came rushing in.

In nearly every continent, the U.S. taught extremely fascistic, right-wing governments the art of cracking down on domestic dissent, jailing and torturing political opponents, centralizing power, making deals beneficial to American corporations, and employing death squads. Cheaper and less visible than directly invading and overthrowing governments the U.S. didn't like, sock puppet dictators were the preferred means of implementing policy.

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 left very little justification for an American imperial position throughout the globe, yet those same Cold War policies were not only not discarded, but expanded upon. Back in 2010, President Obama and the Pentagon began implementing a strategy with a larger emphasis on "combat operations" and military-to-military coordination. U.S. Special Forces are now operating in (at least) 75 countries, teaching their governments more efficient means of subjugating their populations, creating chaos, and serving the interests of the American empire.

Syria is the most recent example of this policy. While publicly claiming that the U.S. is helping build schools and hospitals in Syria, the Associated Press and New York Times reports document that the U.S. is training and arming Syrian "rebels" opposing the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad. With the help of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, most of the weapons are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, many of whom belonging to groups that just a few years ago were killing U.S. Marines in Iraq.

President Obama, secretly and without the consent of Congress, sent more than 150 Special Forces to Jordan to train the anti-Assad fighters on the use of sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons.

What is even more disturbing is that the Syrian "rebels" have most likely already used chemical weapons, have a reputation for beheading prisoners, and that U.S. support is prolonging the conflict in the region. The reasons for U.S. intervention are of course complicated and multifaceted, but it most likely has to do with attempts to destabilize Iran's strongest ally and what the Romans called divide et impera.

Syria may be the most dangerous example of the Obama administration's enhanced policy of covert military training and assistance, but unfortunately it is nowhere near the only one. In Mali, along with building a brand new drone base, U.S. AFRICOM chief General Carter Ham admitted that while training Mali's military, they "skipped ethics." Targeting dissidents based on ethnicity and executing them is a staple of the U.S.-trained Mali government.

In Indonesia, the Obama administration resumed training and assisting an elite Indonesian military unit whose members have been convicted of massive human rights abuses in East Timor. U.S.-trained forces in Guatemala have incredibly close ties to some of the region's most violent drug cartels and are notorious for their brutal treatment of civilians during the Guatemalan civil war.

A report from the Washington Office on Latin America details a U.S. policy called "the Merida Initiative" designed to "help the region's militaries take on internal security roles" and use American police to train local police. Although President Obama publicly denounced the 2009 military coup in Honduras, Wikileaks cables later revealed that the Obama administration had members of the State Department meet with the illegitimate new Honduran "president" to help coordinate the implementation of the Merida Initiative.

The policy of militarizing, arming, and subsidizing foreign governments, especially those with well-known and documented human rights abuses and commissions of war crimes, appears to be a staple of the Obama administration's foreign policy. But these policies help contribute to the spread of dictatorships, humanitarian crises, and instability while making the possibility of resentment and blowback much more likely.

It is becoming more and more clear that the bipartisan consensus policy of military interventionism is a threat to peace and security. Neutrality and non-intervention, as the Founders recommended, is a far more practical alternative and is still the best way to spread the American values our politicians are so fond of endorsing.

Bradley Manning Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

New article for PolicyMic.

Last month, over 30,000 people signed a petition urging the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award former Army intelligence analyst and whistleblower Bradley Manning with the Nobel Peace Prize. Based on Manning's bravery, heroism, and treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, it is hard to think of a more deserving candidate for the prize.

While Manning has slipped off the media's radar as of late, his story is an inspiration to all of us fighting for justice, transparency, human rights, and peace. Manning is currently being prosecuted by the U.S. government for leaking classified documents which, like the Pentagon Papers, document the systemic corruption of American foreign policy.

As journalist Chris Hedges explains, Manning provided an "important window into the inner workings of imperial power," showing routine torture, the imprisonment of innocent Iraqis, the inhuman conditions of America's secret detention facilities, the use of State Department officials as spies, collusion with multinational corporations, and a multitude of war crimes.

The Iraq War logs and the Afghan War Diary contain footage of U.S. forces committing the types of horrendous atrocities that tend to accompany an aggressive war, including the famous "Collateral Murder" video in which U.S. Apache helicopters fire on innocent civilians, including children and a Reuters reporter.

Manning has been subjected to unbelievable cruel and inhumane treatment. Despite not being convicted of a crime, he has spent nearly 1,000 days in prison. Most of this time has been spent in windowless solitary confinement. Against the advice of multiple forensic psychiatrists, Manning was kept under "suicide watch" which meant being confined to his tiny cell for 23 hours a day and stripped of all clothing besides his underwear. They took his eyeglasses away. Guards would harass him every five minutes to ask if he was okay, even in the middle of the night.

Perhaps out of jealousy for their incompetence, the mainstream press has smeared, defamed, and dragged Manning through the mud. They have questioned his loyalty, his patriotism, his motives, and his sexuality (he happens to be gay).

Now that he has finally been given a trial, he has plead guilty to leaking the classified documents knowing full well he could spend up to twenty years in federal prison. Not content with this plea, U.S. prosecutors want to add "aiding the enemy" and lock him up for life. Prosecutors even plan onbringing in an anonymous witness who supposedly took part in the Osama bin Laden raid, claiming that bin Laden's computer contained some of the documents leaked by Manning.

But the case against Manning made by the U.S. government simply does not add up. Aiding the enemy? Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the publication of the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary had not revealedany sensitive intelligence sources or methods. McClatchy also reported that officials were overstating the supposed danger posed by the leaks.

Manning technically did leak classified documents, but he was very careful not to leak any information that would directly harm the security of the American people he wanted to wake up. If publishing classified material is worthy of two decades in prison, then the entire journalism profession would be in trouble. What about when the New York Times published intimate detailsabout President Obama's "kill lists" and targeted assassination program? Is publishing classified information okay only when sanctioned by the White House?

Manning told his superiors about what he saw, and they ignored him. So did the New York Times and Washington Post when he asked them to publish the leaks. Thankfully, Wikileaks eventually did.

It is clear that Manning's "crime" was holding up a mirror to the American establishment for all to see, and for this he became the biggest enemy of the U.S. government. This is why his treatment has been so inhumane and the prosecution to aggressive. They want to make an example of out of Manning for any others whose conscious compels them to speak out when witnessing war crimes, abuse, and officially-sanctioned corruption.

Just look at how the Obama administration has reacted to other whisteblowers as well. While invoking the century-old Espionage Act more times than his predecessors combined, Obama's other whistleblower targets include former CIA agent John Kirakou and former Foreign Services Officer Peter van Buren. Aaron Swartz and Jeremy Hammondwere targeted by the U.S. government. The message is clear: contradicting the empire and telling the truth will not be tolerated. Manning is the most visible aspect of this vice grip, an example to other possible whisteblowers on what awaits them.

In a way, Manning did "aid the enemy." The enemies of the American empire are truth and an engaged, informed public, which explains the U.S. government's ferocity in their prosecution. Despite the possibility of life in prison, harassment, and persecution, Manning, when given the chance to speak, knew what he was doing. He saw "bloodlust," corruption, and evil and simply couldn't take it any longer. His bravery and courage are not only heroic, but humbling.

It is truly a shame that while President "Kill List" enjoys swooning crowds, massive popularity, and a second term wielding the might of the war machine, Manning sits alone in a government cage. But perhaps Manning will be vindicated in the end. In the petition sent to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, there were hundreds of private notes from Americans showing full support, love and solidarity.

Manning deserves the highest recognition possible for what he has done. While Manning should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, this award doesn't even begin to honor the magnitude of humanitarianism of this true American hero.

War With North Korea: Kim Jong-Un is Not a Threat, Despite Hawkish U.S. Rhetoric

New article for PolicyMic.

Tensions in the Korean peninsula are dangerously high. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has made multiple threats, the U.S. is responding by beefing up its military presence, and even China is mobilizing troops near the North Korea border.

With war, and the possibility of an accident or mistake, a serious possibility, this reiterates the case that the U.S. should stop meddling and intervening in Korea and use diplomacy instead.

The hawkish response by the Pentagon in Korea is only adding to the tension and decreasing the chances of peace. Over the past few weeks, the U.S. has ran multiple war games near the Korean peninsula with nuclear-capable B-52 strategic heavy bombers and B-2 stealth bombers and has even sent Special Forces into North Korea. Flexing this type of muscle in a region riddled with tripwires for war is a dangerous gamble.

As Xu Ke argues in Xinhua Weekly, hostilities between North Korea and Washington are the result of what Ke calls "fragile relationship" between the two governments, based on "mistrust, misunderstanding and animosity."

America's "punishment-heavy approach" in dealing with Pyongyang has helped fuel this crisis. Pyongyang issued its "state of war" against South Korea in direct response to the aforementioned U.S.-South Korea war games. Rounds after rounds of economic sanctions by the U.S. have further isolated North Korea.

This has backed North Korea into a corner and forced it to resort to desperation in attempting to defend itself, including the pursuance of long-range missile capabilities.

While Washington is surrounding North Korea, running military exercises, and imposing sanctions, North Korea really has absolutely no means of carrying out the hawkish rhetoric Jong-Un is currently employing. North Korea lacks the technology to strike Guam or Hawaii, let alone the mainland U.S. Even the neighboring South Korean capital residents of Seoul are remaining calm, seeing North Korea's threats for what they are: empty threats aimed at getting food and aid packages and ultimately a peace treaty with the U.S.

If bordering South Korea isn't worried, why is the U.S.? As I argued last week for PolicyMic, part of it likely has to do with President Obama has been implementing his "Asia pivot" and militarizing the Pacific.

Also, whenever the war drums are beating, one will never go broke betting on our military-industrial-complex. The past two U.S. administrations have been warning about the supposed threat North Korea poses, which has coincided with increased spending for missile defense systems along the western U.S. Thankfully, these missile defense systems are government programs, so they are laughably inefficient and simply don't work. And since the North Korean threat isn't real, they pretty much cancel each other out.

The only practical way to avoid a disastrous war and increase the chances of long-term peace is to build trust, for the U.S. to the stop the saber-rattling, sit down with China and other countries in the regions, and use some diplomacy for a change.

Besides, what's the alternative? Nuclear war? America's political leaders may be well-dressed criminals, but they aren't foolish; just like the North Korean regime, they are nuclear-armed and interested in self-preservation. This may ironically be the reason that war and military confrontation will be avoided and cooler heads will prevail.

Are Drone Strikes Killing Terrorists or Creating Them?

It is hard to get credible data, but according to Hassan Abbas at the Asia Times, over half of drone strike victims are innocent civilians. This create resentment, blowback, and further radicalization inside the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a region already dominated by Islamism and the ruthless Taliban. In other words, it's another messy and bloody government war being waged by the American Empire, with little end in sight.