Month: April 2013

Yesterday I attended a press conference held by the brand new Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, an educational 501(c)(3) that will collect and produce news and commentary on US foreign policy and put on seminars to teach primarily young people about non-interventionism.

As previously noted, the executive director of the Institute is Daniel McAdams, the foreign policy advisor to Paul when he was still in the House of Representatives. After Dan’s introduction, Ron Paul spoke, along with Rep. John Duncan (R-TN), the last Republican in Congress who voted against the Iraq War, Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC), and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) – all of whom are on the board of the Institute. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also spoke.

Aside from the educational website and seminars, the Institute will follow congressional votes and grade members of Congress according to their adherence to non-interventionism and protection of civil liberties.

That the Ron Paul Paul Institute’s primary focus will be foreign policy is very fitting. Paul’s two historic presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 invigorated the libertarian movement in an unprecedented way, bringing countless newbies and converts into the ideas of free markets, limited government and peace.

As much as Paul rejuvenated the libertarian movement, there still exists a longstanding habit among many leaders and organizations to underemphasize the importance of foreign policy. It’s harder to persuade people that flag-waving and militarism runs counter to peace, liberty and prosperity, I guess. So, there is a serious need for a more prominent stand on a non-interventionist foreign policy and that’s a demand the Ron Paul Institute seeks to fulfill.

Ron Paul helped popularize Randolph Bourne’s famous remark that “war is the health of the state.” That also happens to be Antiwar.com’s motto. Naturally, we’re excited to see where this goes.

Update: RT has posted a short segment of the press conference:

“You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you’re into it, there isn’t any backing out, whether it’s a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these — whatever it is,” Hagel said later during questioning. “Once you’re in, you can’t unwind it. You can’t just say, well, it’s not going as well as I thought it would go, so we’re going to get out.”

Gen. Dempsey said in his testimony that “before we take action, we have to be prepared for what comes next,” referring to the limited ability of the Washington to shape the reality on the ground even if the advice of people like John McCain is followed and the US military takes action to topple Assad.

“The use of force, especially in circumstances where ethnic and religious factors dominate is unlikely to produce predictable outcomes,” he said, adding that “unintended consequences are the rule with military interventions of this sort.”

While the Obama administration has acted to bolster the Syrian rebel opposition, sending non-lethal aid directly and lethal aid indirectly through client states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, I’ve argued this is largely a pittance for public consumption so that Obama gets to display his disapproval for the Assad regime’s violence and placate concerns of “humanitarian interventionists.” If it were more than this, the administration would undoubtedly already have sent what is called “decisive aid” – that is, weapons that would at least level the playing field between the rebels and the Syrian military.

Additionally, there are other policies which negate these actions, including the Obama administration’s decision to send the CIA to work with Iraq’s security forces to stem the flow of Islamist fighters going into Syria to join the rebellion. This is an example of Obama working with Maliki, a virtual ally of Assad, to fight the very militants the Assad regime is fighting.

As former CIA official and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi has said, “Obama has come around to the view that regime change is more fraught with dangers than letting Assad remain.” There is even some reason to believe that the war in Syria is draining the resources and credibility of Washington’s geo-political foes (Iran, Russia, etc.), thus serving as a further disincentive for direct military action by the US.

“The Obama administration does not intend to send a witness to testify at a Senate hearing next week on the legality of the U.S. targeted killing program,” McClatchy reports the White House as saying Wednesday.

The decision illustrates the limits of President Barack Obama’s pledge in his State of the Union speech on Feb. 12 to provide greater transparency into top-secret drone operations that have killed thousands of suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

…“We do not currently plan to send a witness to this hearing and have remained in close contact with the committee about how we can best provide them the information they require,” Caitlin Hayden, a National Security Council spokeswoman, wrote in an email to McClatchy.

The spokeswoman then declined to say why the President refuses to defend the legality of his drone war in a Senate hearing.

The administration’s intransigent refusal here emphasizes yet again that not only is the drone war itself secret, but it’s legal rationale is secret too. As Judge Napolitano put it bluntly, “How could a legal argument be classified?”

There isn’t any conceivable reason to believe making the legal rationale for the drone war public would unduly “reveal sources and methods.” Publicizing it could not possibly harm “national security.” Indeed, not even the National Security Council spokeswoman would openly make this argument; she simply refused to explain why the White House won’t testify to the drone war’s legality.

As US District Judge Colleen McMahon, who upheld the Obama administration’s ability to throw out legal cases by claiming disclosures would harm national security, said in her ruling, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

The leaked Justice Department memo that summarized the legal (if you can call it that) justification for the targeted killing program brazenly declared that even when there is no active intelligence indicating targeted individuals are carrying out a specific terrorist attack, the administration can drop a bomb on groups of often unidentified individuals.

Standard rules of international law demand that an imminent threat of an immediate attack is required in order to legally initiate the use of force in self-defense. But the Obama administration effectively rejects that stipulation, while refusing to allow any checks, balances, or transparency on the process.

Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, claimed further in March that drone war in Pakistan is illegal because it violates Pakistani sovereignty.

It is the fact that the drone war rests on a questionable legal basis – to put it generously – that Obama refuses to even publicize a legal opinion on it. If he were to make it public, it might face judicial scrutiny. And facing legal and public scrutiny when you’re engaging in criminal acts is the last thing you want.

In condemnation of the Boston Marathon bombings today, Obama said, “any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror.”

Embarrassingly, Obama inadvertently described his own drone war as terrorism, given that he “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials,” and has rejected the stipulation of disrupting an imminent threat of attack as a prerequisite to dropping bombs on large groups of unidentified individuals.

One might reasonably conclude that the two bombs that exploded near the finish line at the Boston Marathon are all there is and all there will be. According to the authorities, there were no other explosive devices found and all the abandoned bags and belongings left by people fleeing the scene have proved not to contain additional bombs or anything that can carry out more violence on the people of Boston.

The attack is over. And it seems the government thinks so too. But they are still ostentatiously beefing up security. Not to obstruct any further attacks, mind you. It’s simply for public consumption.

Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Col. Tim Alben this morning defended what some people refer to as “security theater”:

So I’m speaking to the public: you are going to see an enhanced presence from the Boston police, from the state police, from the national guard and from our law enforcement partners through the metropolitan Boston area over the next days and probably longer. That’s not for any particular reason other than to provide some comfort to the public who are using transportation centers or going about their business.

So we are engaged with the MBTA police in the “T” you will see more troopers, you’ll see national guardsmen there. You’ll MBTA police like you do every day, but that presence will be significantly enhanced. We’re doing that for the comfort of the public.

“That’s an interesting justification for intrusions on people’s free movement and the expenditure of public funds,” writes Tim Carney at The Washington Examiner. “Also, is it clear that armed guards with large rifles make people feel more comfortable?”