Glenn Greenwald is Not a Libertarian (Yet)

On one of his side blogs, Glenn Greenwald writes an interesting post on “frequently told lies” about himself. One lie, he says, is that he is a libertarian, and he certainly is correct, as several public positions he documents are blatantly anti-libertarian.

Yet Greenwald is very much a “civil libertarian”; in fact, he is proud to be a “civil liberties extremist”. This is why libertarians so frequently applaud his work. It’s a bit confusing for us, though, why he supports liberty in some cases and not others. Is “economic liberty” or any kind of liberty less important? Why is my right to work for an employer on terms we agree to, for example, less of a right than free speech? If I want to take a job for $5 an hour, shouldn't that be just as much of a right as free speech?

This is where the non-aggression principle is so instructive. It is the foundation of libertarianism, and very difficult to reject. In short, it states that using force is unjustified except in self-defense. Any other use of force is a violation of someone’s ownership in their body and their other property. Therefore, just as it would be illegitimate for the government to outlaw my speech, it would be just as illegitimate for them to outlaw trade.

For another example, take Social Security, which Greenwald doesn't want to cut at all. Forcing me to participate in a retirement savings program is no more legitimate than, say, forcing me to participate in some religion. Civil liberties and economic liberties are really the same thing: it’s all liberty. As Ron Paul has correctly urged, we had best stop separating the two. It’s both inconsistent and unjust.

It’s my hope that Greenwald winds up becoming a consistent libertarian.  What he wrote further down in his post, is similar to the process all of us go through on the way to becoming libertarians, and thus may be reason for optimism (emphasis mine):

I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.

…When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution.

How Americans Are Repudiating the Rule of Law

Rand Paul's (Mostly) Fake Victory

It is with great sadness that, upon further reflection and research, I report Rand Paul's epic filibuster didn't actually accomplish very much at all.

Let's re-cap the exchanges between Paul and the Administration:

Rand Paul asks on February 20th:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

Attorney General Eric Holder responds March 4th:

 "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.... It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."

In other words, yes, the President does claim that power.

Unfortunately, Paul's question in the February 20th letter did not exclude imminent, immediate threats, which he and most others agree the President has the Constitutional authority to respond with force. So, Holder was able to answer that question instead of the real question, does the President have the power to kill an American citizen on American soil, who is not actively engaged in combat?

Following the filibuster holder finally responded: "no".

"Hooray!" declared Rand Paul, claiming victory as he first heard the answer during a TV interview. Not only did the filibuster draw much attention to this neglected issue, we actually got an answer, and it was a good one.

Right?

Not so fast. It didn't take long for some people to realize the White House response dropped the word "actively" and beyond that left so much wiggle room as to not really be an answer at all. It's all in the key phrase "engaged in combat", which as Willaim Grigg reminds us, can mean whatever the President wants:

"Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. 

Glenn Greenwald's echos the same concerns in a Tweet this morning:

 Until we know how the OLC memos define "engaged in combat", Holder's letter to Paul tells us nothing meaningful

Unfortunately, this didn't stop Rand Paul from claiming victory, even though it was fake.

None of this would be a problem were it not for what happened after 9/11, explains Jacob Hornberger:

The problem occurred on 9/11, when Americans permitted President Bush to get away with treating the 9/11 attacks as an act of war. But they weren’t, any more than the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center constituted an act of war … or Timothy McVeigh’s terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City … or the Unibomber’s acts of terrorism …  or any other act of terrorism. Again, terrorism is a federal criminal offense, which is why accused terrorists are indicted and prosecuted in federal district court. 

Once Bush was permitted to get away with labeling his “war on terrorism” a real war, like World War II, he decreed that he now possessed the extraordinary powers associated with a military commander-in-chief, which necessarily includes killing enemy soldiers. In the war on terrorism, he said, the terrorists are the enemy soldiers or “enemy combatants.” In war, it’s legal to kill the enemy. 

Bush’s position was fully endorsed by President Obama. It will also undoubtedly be fully endorsed by Hillary Clinton if she is elected president four years from now. 

Equally important, both Bush and Obama have always emphasized that in the war on terrorism, the entire world is the battlefield. That includes the United States. Therefore, it logically follows that whatever powers Bush and Obama claim, as a wartime commander in chief, to kill people overseas extends to the United States. Again, in the war on terrorism, as U.S. officials have never ceased to remind us, the entire world is the battlefield. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the entire world includes the United States. 

Thus, there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Obama claims the authority to assassinate the enemy not only abroad but also right here in the United States. After all, ask yourself: why would he say that he lacks the authority to wage war here in the United States when the United States is part of the worldwide battlefield in the global war on terrorism? 

Eric Holder’s initial statements confirm that position. Saying that the president isn’t currently planning to assassinate Americans isn’t the same thing as saying that the president lacks the legal authority to assassinate Americans. Instead, it’s saying the exact opposite. It’s saying that while the president does, in fact, have the authority to assassinate Americans, he’s simply not choosing to exercise that authority at the present time. However, if there is another major terrorist attack on American soil or some other big crisis, then, as Holder makes clear, all bets are off and the president might well expand his assassinations to American terrorists operating within the United States. 

What about Holder’s supplemental letter read yesterday by White House Press Secretary Carney? A careful reading of it reveals that it’s simply a clever device to obfuscate Obama’s real position. It’s saying that the president lacks the authority to use a drone to assassinate an innocent American—i.e., an American “not engaged in combat on American soil.” 

But neither Bush nor Obama have ever claimed the authority to assassinate innocent Americans. The authority they have always claimed has been to assassinate guilty Americans (and guilty foreigners)—that is, those people who are guilty of being terrorists.
Well, guess who decides whether a person is a terrorist. You got it! The president makes that determination. And once he decides that a person is a terrorist in his global “war on terrorism,” that’s the end of the discussion. The assassination is carried out by his loyal military and intelligence forces, and that’s the end of the matter. Under our post-9/11 system of government, neither the president nor the military nor the CIA is required to explain, justify, or even acknowledge the assassination.

If we are going to strike at the root of this problem, we will have to deal with this issue. War is the health of the state. The "war on terrorism", which is war on a tactic, is necessarily endless and claims the whole earth as battlefield. The extraordinary powers of a state reserved for a time of war have thus become permanent and can be used anywhere, thanks to the "war on terror". What more could a state pursuing its own self-interest ask for?

In this context, Obama's alarming claims of power make sense. The legal case for them is airtight, as neocon Charles Krauthammer explains. The only place Krauthammer is wrong is in mixing up which planet we and him live on. The trouble started with our erroneous response to 9/11. Terrorism is a crime, not a war.

Does Obama Claim Legal Power to Kill American Citizens on American Soil Without Due Process?

He won’t answer. It’s alarming that this is now a serious question, and more alarming that it’s treated as a mundane controversy rather than an impeachable offence. Americans have pretty much lost all of the exceptionalism (liberty) they once had. We really have to start from scratch; the Republican Party won’t save us, even if led by someone relatively decent like Rand Paul.

DOJ Memo Justifying Assassination of American Citizens Analyzed

Glenn Greenwald has published an important piece analyzing the White House’s attempt to justify its claim to powers of assassinating American citizens. It’s just incredible that so many Democrats and Republicans are silent or supportive of Obama and/or this extreme, dangerous policy of his. As delusional as the average voter and partisan voter is, up till recently I would have expected at least this sort of policy to face significant opposition.

This just goes to show how entirely partisan Democrats were being in their opposition to Bush’s unconstitutional actions. And Republicans’ minimal opposition is sure to dry up as soon as the next Republican enters office. Only libertarians and a tiny minority of others on the ‘left’ (like Greenwald) and ‘right’ are consistently standing against this trashing of a long tradition of critical checks on government powers .

Anyone that continues to support Obama and his ilk is an enemy of liberty and a supporter of present and, by creating precedent, future tyranny.

Inside Glenn Greenwald’s Mind: Highlights from his recent Q&A

For libertarians Glenn Greenwald is an interesting and important journalist, despite the fact that he is decidedly not libertarian on numerous issues. What probably attracts us to him is that he spends most of his time fighting the same battles that we fight, and he does so very well.

In this post I will highlight what supporters of liberty will find most interesting from Greenwald’s answers to a recent Q&A with his readers. (Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to submit a question; maybe next time).

On Changing the World:

I would say this: one indisputable lesson that history teaches is that any structures built by human beings - no matter how formidable or invulnerable they may seem - can be radically altered, or even torn down and replaced, by other human beings who tap into passions and find the right strategy. So resignation - defeatism - is always irrational and baseless, even when it's tempting.

I think the power of ideas is often underrated. Convincing fellow citizens to see and care about the problems you see and finding ways to persuade them to act is crucial. So is a willingness to sacrifice. And to create new ways of activism, even ones that people look askance at, rather than being wedded to the approved conventional means of political change (the ballot box).

On Ideological Labels:

I won't say they have no meaning: they can be useful in some limited sense. But for me, they obfuscate far more than clarify. It could just be my own personal experience - people have tried to apply almost every political label to me since I began writing, and it's clearly just a shorthand means of trying to dismiss my arguments without having to engage them on the merits - so I just generally dislike them.

On Obama and the Inauguration:

I found the reactions to that Inaugural ritual creepy and depressing for two reasons:

(1) I can't believe how reflexively and reliably many progressives cheer for Obama's speeches and pretend that they signify anything substantive given how many times he's said things that had no bearing on what he does. I do agree speeches on their own can be important - that's the power of ideas I referenced above - but viewing one of Obama's speeches as reflective of his actual intent is the consummate case of Lucy and the football.

(2) This has been the case for a couple decades now, but everything about the inaugural festivities reeks of empire and royalty. It's pure Versailles - so gaudy and overwrought. It's particularly gross when the country is suffering so much financially. But that's precisely when people love their monarchs and royal families - it gives them a fantastical escape.

But the police state created in DC, and the marching and dancing troupes that parade before the waving Leader, and the ecstasy over his presence, are really unhealthy. The one exception was the 2008 inauguration - electing the first black president was something really worth celebrating given the country's history with race - but everything else is wretched. I had to ignore it.

Political leaders really aren't meant to be revered. It's unhealthy and dangerous.

On Politicians: Do they really believe what they are saying?

One of the things every good litigator will tell you they have to learn to do is first themselves believe what they want to convince others of. So yes, I think most of these government officials believe in their own virtue and that of the government they serve, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (and their own bad acts).

Most people don't want to believe that they are evil - they want to believe they're good - and so that desire can easily trump truth when it comes to shaping perceptions.

Her husband's secretary of state is on record as having said that the slaughter of a million Iraqi children as a result of US policy was "worth it" in terms of US objectives in the region.

The administration she serves in has its own abundant record of horrible acts. But they believe they are Good people, and therefore their acts are for the Good.

On Gun Control:

Like most policies, gun control can be motivated by some noble sentiments and some ignominious ones. I do think there is an authoritarian faction that wants to restrict guns for the same reason they want to have government control the lives of people in so many other realms, and I'd definitely include Feinstein and Lieberman in that group.

But the fact that some people support Policy X with bad motives doesn't mean Policy X is wrong.

[Reader Question] Glenn what is your view on the current gun debate in the US. I know from previous blogs that you were in favor of gun ownership in Brazil, does that hold for the US? – gregmcinerney

I wasn't exactly against gun control in Brazil. That was a post I wrote really early on after I began blogging, and I was really writing because of how impressed I was with the quality of the public debate that took place over that public referendum.

When it began, large majorities favored gun control. After they were told that the police were failing to protect them (which they already knew) and that their banning guns would leave them defenseless, huge numbers changed their mind. I was just writing to comment the rationality and substantive nature of that debate.

I don't write about or opine on every issue because I'm often ambivalent, or I don't feel I know enough to take up readers' time by writing about it, or because I think others have more valuable things to say. Gun control is one of those issues for me. I definitely see the reasons for wanting to ban especially the most menacing firearms, but it's a bit like the War on Drugs to me: I just can't imagine the government successfully taking guns out of the hands of criminals or even deranged people without very, very invasive and abusive measures, and even then, I'm not so sure it could work.

On Nuclear Weapons Proliferation:

I'm not sure it can be managed. Efforts to stop the spread of technology and knowledge are notoriously difficult. It's very hard to detect, and even harder to stop - and that will only get worse as the technology becomes more accessible. I also don't believe that countries will voluntarily give up their nuclear arsenals. Ultimately, efforts are more important to manage a world with nuclear weapons.

On Supporting Military Interventionism:

For me, this is a bit like the "ticking time bomb" torture question (though much more reasonable). There are interventions I'd support in the abstract: if the humanitarian suffering were truly extreme and widespread; there was widespread international support and involvement; the authorization was extremely limited (to end the acute humanitarian suffering); the harms could be minimized; the benefits of the intervention outweighed both the short-and long-term harms; and there was no reason to doubt that humanitarianism was the goal of the intervening actors.

I just don't think those circumstances prevail often at all. Very, very rarely, in fact. Add to that the unanticipated consequences - such as how the Libyan intervention worsened instability and suffering in Mali - and that usually tips the scales for me.

I am typically skeptical or opposed myself, however, I note the Mali intervention (for example) is small-scale, is supported by numerous authorities (not just the Western usual suspects, but Russia, China, the African Union, neighboring countries) and aims at regime stability rather than subversion as in Iraq or Libya.

The problem with interventions is they rarely stayed confined to their original structure or goal. Remember that Obama swore Libya would only be about a no-fly zone over Benghazi and wouldn't be about regime change. None of that was true.

On Fixing American Media:

That's not going to happen. That's not their business model. I gave up on that goal a long time ago. Developing alternatives to that - using the internet and other forms of developing new media - is the only real way that will happen.

Of course some isolated journalists even at establishment venues do this already. And it's sometimes possible to infiltrate those venues and do it. But as a general proposition, establishment media exists to support the establishment, not to challenge it.

I’d definitely quibble with and disagree with a few points he made here, but overall it’s pretty good stuff. Once again his original post is here.

Democrats Work for the 1%

Democrats like to portray themselves as being for the "99%" while painting Republicans as being for the "1%". In reality both parties primarily work for the elite; however, yesterday, the Republicans acted in the interest of the people while a majority of House Democrats did the opposite.

Glenn Greenwald has a great piece "Protectors of Wall Street" out this morning. Here's the portion on auditing the fed:

If you believe the Federal Reserve has done a fine job of managing monetary policy and trust it to continue to exert vast power with no accountability or transparency, then you are probably content with the status quo. But yesterday, “a powerful left-right coalition” in the House of Representatives — defying the Fed as well as a likely White House veto — voted overwhelmingly to enact Rep. Ron Paul’s bill to subject the Fed’s monetary policy to audits by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan and independent congressional agency. As Dennis Kucinich, one of 89 Democrats to vote for the bill, put it: “It’s time that we stood up to the Federal Reserve that right now acts like some kind of high, exalted priesthood, unaccountable to democracy.” 

Despite the large bipartisan House majority in favor of the bill, it is almost certain, as Reuters put it, “to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate.” That’s because “Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, at one time expressed support for an audit — though he reportedly has changed his mind.” Indeed, despite substantial Democratic support for the bill (including some from the progressive wing, such as Kucinich, Jerry Nadler and Raul Grijalva), “every top Democratic leader [in the House] voted against the bill, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland.” As former Alan Grayson aide Matt Stoller documented yesterday, Democratic leaders did not merely oppose the bill but actively whipped against it, meaning they sought to pressure caucus members to stay in line and oppose it; but as he observes: “The Democratic leaders, despite whipping, barely got a majority of the caucus to vote no. This is a massive failure on their part, and shows how weak they are.” 

It was this same left-right coalition, led by Paul and joined by liberal Democrats such as Alan Grayson, that succeeded in enacting an Audit the Fed bill back in 2010. Even though that 2010 bill was substantially weakened by the same forces that oppose the bill now — the Fed, the White House, and party leadership — that audit, once completed, “revealed 16 trillion dollars in secret bank bailouts and has raised more questions about the quasi-private agency’s opaque operations” and independently showed that the Fed ignored rules to aid the largest banks. Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose watered-down Audit the Fed amendment is what passed in the Senate in 2010, said this about the audit revelations:

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. . . . “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

The argument has always been that the Fed must be able to act with independence and secrecy and that transparency would undermine its credibility and lead to political interference in monetary policy; especially now, the ostensible concern is that Republicans will impede necessary measures. But as Stoller points out, none of the parade of horribles about which the Fed warned resulted from the 2010 audit, and more to the point, the Fed — prime enablers of banks, crony capitalism and oligarchy — has proven that it deserves neither the trust nor the credibility which it had previously commanded. It’s remarkable to watch the Democratic Party become its most devoted defenders. As Stoller said about yesterday’s vote: “It’s so tiresome to see the Democratic leadership take the side of Wall Street, over and over and over.”

 Needless to say the Republicans are essentially as bad as the Democrats in general. But it's a myth that they work for the elite more than the Democrats.