Op-Eds

Security Theater: Fake Bullets Over Broadway

1 Comment
English: FBI Mobile Command Center in Washingt...
FBI Mobile Command Center in Washington DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested two New York City women, Noelle Velentzas and  Asia Siddiqui, on April 2. The two were charged with conspiring to build and detonate a bomb in the style of the 2013 Boston Marathon attack. After more than a year of talking about it, they hadn’t actually done anything about it. Reasonable people might conclude they just relished terror trash talk.

On April 10, the FBI arrested Topeka, Kansas resident John T. Booker as he attempted to arm a 1,000 pound bomb outside the US Army base at Fort Riley. The bomb was fake, as was the entire plan for the attack, drummed up and pushed at Booker by undercover federal agents. The FBI knew that Booker was mentally ill. In fact, two of its agents had taken Booker to a local Muslim imam in 2014 to procure counseling for him, telling the imam that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder.

G-Men Thwart Islamist Bomb Plot! Like a TV series that keeps getting renewed despite dismal ratings, some variant of that headline pops up every few days. And like that imaginary TV series — “How I Foiled Your Jihadist?” — the whole thing consists largely of recycled plot lines and cheap special effects.

What we’re watching is not a war on terror. It’s not desperate police work versus very dire, and very real, threats. It’s theater, scripted entirely for public consumption and for the purpose of maintaining the post-9/11 “homeland security” funding bonanza.

As of 2001, the FBI’s annual budget came to $3.3 billion (that’s $4.4 billion in inflated 2015 dollars). Its 2014 budget weighed in at nearly twice the spending: $8.3 billion. Director James Comey’s 2016 budget request would increase that to $8.48 billion. In his March statement to the US Senate committee evaluating that request, his top sales point was that “the terrorist threat against the United States remains persistent and acute.”

But that “terrorist threat” is, to all appearances, largely manufactured by the FBI itself. And as for real terrorist threats, we know how to reduce them: By ending the foreign military adventurism that has, each and every time, preceded and been used as justification for terror attacks on US soil.

The solution to terrorism isn’t to give James Comey more money to spend creating fake terrorists. It’s to give US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter less money to spend creating real ones.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Constitutional Convention: A Dangerous and Unnecessary Game

2 Comments
English: Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stea...
English: Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Supporters of a national constitutional convention, as provided for in Article V of the US Constitution, have gained the support of 27 state legislatures for the idea. They need 34.

Republicans and Democrats are at war both with each other and within their own parties over the proposal. Some Republicans want such a convention for the purpose of getting a “balanced budget” amendment.

Some Democrats also want a convention for the purpose of overturning the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and regulating political campaign spending.

Some members of both parties fear that a convention might get out of hand, producing unforeseen  results. History says these Cassandras are correct.

In May of 1787, delegates from 12 of the 13 states met in Philadelphia to propose amendments to the young nation’s Articles of Confederation. With Rhode Island boycotting and the Articles requiring ratification by all 13 states to amend, the idea looked dead on arrival.

But the Philadelphia convention was, in essence, the first stage of a coup d’etat. Instead of proposing amendments for unanimous consent, the delegates rolled out plans to abandon the Articles for an entirely new system of government, peremptorily re-setting the bar for their new “Constitution.” It would, they announced, become effective upon ratification by only nine states.

For better or worse, they pulled it off.  The US Constitution has been “the supreme law of the land” since 1789.

A new constitutional convention is a bad idea for two reasons, both rooted in our history.

The first reason, as outlined above, is that regardless of the reasons for calling such a convention, it would likely end up recommending amendments above and beyond — or contrary to — those its promoters contemplate. It could even go rogue, as Philadelphia’s cabal did.

The second reason is that, just as the existing Constitution  is more honored in the breach than in the observance, any amendments moved by a new convention and ratified by the states would be similarly treated. New government powers created by the new amendments would be vigorously used. New limits on government power so created would simply be ignored.

We don’t need a balanced budget amendment. If Congress wanted to balance the budget, it would do so. If the Constitution requires it to do so and forbids it to borrow money, the politicians will find a way. There will likely be an exception for times of war, so they’ll just declare war and never undeclare it. Or they’ll just print money and give it to themselves to spend, inflating the money in our pockets as a hidden tax.

As far as money in politics is concerned, there’s no chance whatsoever of reining that in. Money always finds open wallets to worm its way into, constitutions and laws notwithstanding.

If the promoters of a constitutional convention place so much importance on the US Constitution, perhaps they should turn their attention to making America’s politicians obey it as it exists. That would be a good start toward meaningful change.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Note to Media: Please Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian

7 Comments
English: United States Senate candidate , at a...
Rand Paul at a town hall meeting in Louisville, Kentucky during his 2010 campaign for US Senate. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia)

“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross,” Rand Paul said in 2010 during his Republican primary campaign for US Senate, “but I’m not a libertarian.”

Paul prevailed, beating GOP establishment favorite Trey Grayson in the Republican primary and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election. Now he’s preparing a 2016 presidential campaign and everyone, Paul included, seems to want to forget that disclaimer.

But it was true then and it’s true now. Rand Paul is no libertarian.

What is he? Among other things, the poster child for adopting a strict “no backsies” rule in American presidential politics.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts his finger on the problem with Paul: “For the life of me, I can’t figure out what he really believes — where he really stands, especially when it comes to foreign policy.”

Paul wants to avoid war with Iran. No, wait, he’s for wrecking any chance of avoiding war with Iran. No, wait, he just wants to “negotiate from a position of strength” with Iran — by signing a letter telling the Iranians that the US can’t be trusted to stick to its agreements.

Paul supports “respectful” relations with Russia, because unlike other politicians he understands that the Cold War is over. No, wait, maybe it isn’t over after all. We need to “isolate” Russia and “punish” Vladimir Putin.

Paul supports eliminating foreign aid, including aid to Israel (because strings attached to that aid tie Benjamin Netanyahu’s hands). No, wait, let’s just freeze foreign aid at current levels. No, wait, let’s increase foreign aid to Israel.

Paul opposes US airstrikes on Islamic State forces. No, wait, he supports airstrikes on Islamic State forces.

Paul opposes abortion, except when he doesn’t. Paul opposes same-sex marriage, except maybe not. Paul opposes marijuana legalization, except when he thinks it might be OK.

Libertarians argue constantly over what it means to be a libertarian. I bet I’ve heard a hundred definitions. All of those definitions describe consistent defenders of liberty. None of them describes someone who always says whatever he thinks the crowd he’s talking to wants to hear.

Some of Paul’s defenders claim he’s a “stealth libertarian,” pretending to be a conservative — but that once he’s in White House, he’ll reveal his true principles. They’re selling a pig in a poke. Buyer beware!

What is Rand Paul? A politician. A chameleon. A pander bear. The 2016 edition of Mitt Romney (you may remember how that turned out for Republicans).

Rand Paul is many things, but one thing he’s consistently not is a libertarian. Please stop calling him that.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY