The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Killing in the Name of Democracy

An excerpt from "Attention Deficit Democracy"
by James Bovard

As the Bush administration tub-thumps for imposing democracy upon the entire world, many Americans have forgotten the long and bloody history of the U.S. government forcibly spreading "self-government." The following discussion, from the "Messianic Democracy" chapter of my new book, Attention Deficit Democracy, illustrates how Bush is not even close to the first U.S. president to kill in the name of democracy. (More information on the book is available at my Web site.)

The U.S. government's first experience with forcibly spreading democracy came in the wake of the Spanish-American War. When the U.S. government declared war on Spain in 1898, it pledged it would not annex foreign territory. But, after a swift victory, the United States annexed all of the Philippines. As Tony Smith, author of America's Mission, noted, "Ultimately, the democratization of the Philippines came to be the principle reason the Americans were there; now the United States had a moral purpose to its imperialism and could rest more easily."

President William McKinley proclaimed that, in the Philippines, the U.S. occupation would "assure the residents in every possible way [the] full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule." McKinley also promised to "Christianize" the Filipinos, as if he did not consider the large number of Filipino Catholics to be Christians. McKinley was devoted to forcibly spreading American values abroad at the same time that he championed high tariffs to stop Americans from buying foreign products.

The United States Christianized and civilized the Filipinos by authorizing American troops to kill any Filipino male 10 years old and older and by burning down and massacring entire villages. (Filipino resistance fighters also committed atrocities against American soldiers.) Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos died as the United States struggled to crush resistance to its rule in a conflict that dragged on for a decade and cost 4,000 American troops' lives. Despite the brutal U.S. suppression of the Filipino independence movement, President George W. Bush, in a 2003 speech in Manila, claimed credit for the United States bringing democracy to the Philippines: "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people. Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule."

President Woodrow Wilson raised tub-thumping for democracy to new levels. As soon as Wilson took office, he began saber-rattling against the Mexican government, outraged that Mexican President Victoriano Huerta had come to power via military force (during the Mexican civil war that broke out in 1910). Wilson announced in May 1914: "They say the Mexicans are not fitted for self-government; and to this I reply that, when properly directed, there is no people not fitted for self-government." Wilson summarized his Mexican policy: "I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men!" U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Walter Hines Page explained the U.S. government's attitude toward Latin America: "The United States will be here 200 years and it can continue to shoot men for that little space until they learn to vote and rule themselves." In order to cut off the Mexican government's tariff revenue, Wilson sent U.S. forces to seize the city of Veracruz, one of the most important Mexican ports. U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of Mexicans (while suffering 19 dead) and briefly rallied the Mexican opposition around the Mexican leader.

In 1916, U.S. Marines seized Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic. After the United States could not find any Dominican politicians who would accept orders from Washington, it installed its own military government to run the country for eight years. The previous year, the U.S. military had seized control of Haiti and dictated terms to that nation's president. When local residents rebelled against U.S. rule in 1918, thousands of Haitians were killed. Author Tony Smith observed, "What makes Wilson's [Latin American] policy even more annoying is that its primary motive seems to have been to reinforce the self-righteous vanity of the president."

After Wilson took the nation into World War I "to make the world safe for democracy," he acted as if fanning intolerance was the key to spreading democracy. Wilson increasingly demonized all those who did not support the war and his crusade to shape the postwar world. Wilson denounced Irish-Americans, German-Americans, and others, declaring, "Any man who carries a hyphen about him carries a dagger which he is ready to plunge into the vitals of the Republic." Wilson urged Americans to see military might as a supreme force for goodness, appealing in May 1918 for "force, force to the utmost, force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant force which shall make Right the law of the world." As Harvard professor Irving Babbitt commented: "Wilson, in the pursuit of his scheme for world service, was led to make light of the constitutional checks on his authority and to reach out almost automatically for unlimited power."

The deaths of more than 100,000 Americans in World War I did nothing to bring Wilson's idealistic visions to Earth. The 1919 Paris peace talks became a slaughter pen of Wilson's pretensions. One of Wilson's top aides, Henry White, later commented: "We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell's dirtiest work." Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, "The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs." Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that "idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way."

During the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. military interventions in Latin America were routinely portrayed as "missions to establish democracy." The U.S. military sometimes served as a collection agency for American corporations or banks that had made unwise investments or loans in politically unstable foreign lands. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler bitterly lamented of his 33 years of active service: "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. … I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street."

Franklin Roosevelt painted World War II as a crusade for democracy – hailing Stalin as a partner in liberation. FDR praised Stalin as "truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia" – as if the lack of bona fide elections in Russia was a mere technicality, since Stalin was the nation's favorite. Roosevelt praised Soviet Russia as one of the "freedom-loving Nations" and stressed that Stalin is "thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution." Harold Ickes, one of FDR's top aides, proclaimed that communism was "the antithesis of Nazism" because it was based on "belief in the control of the government, including the economic system, by the people themselves." The fact that the Soviet regime had been the most oppressive government in the world in the 1930s was irrelevant, as far as FDR was concerned.

President Eisenhower was no slacker on invoking democracy. In 1957, he declared, "We as a nation … have a job to do, a mission as the champion of human freedom. To conduct ourselves in all our international relations that we never compromise the fundamental principle that all peoples have a right to an independent government of their own full, free choice." Eisenhower was perfectly in tune with the Republican Party platform of 1952, which proclaimed, "We shall again make liberty into a beacon light of hope that will penetrate the dark places. … The policies we espouse will revive the contagious, liberating influences which are inherent in freedom."

But Eisenhower's idealism did not deter the CIA, fearing communism, from toppling at least two democratically elected regimes. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup that put the Shah in charge of Iran. In 1954, the CIA aided a military coup in Guatemala that crushed that nation's first constitutionally based government. The elected Guatemalan government and the United Fruit Company could not agree on the value of 400,000 acres that the Guatemalan government wanted to expropriate to distribute to small farmers. The Guatemalan government offered $1.2 million as compensation based on the "taxed value of the land; Washington insisted on behalf of United Fruit that the value was $15.9 million, that the company be reimbursed immediately and in full, and that [President Jacobo] Arbenz's insistence on taking the land was clear proof of his communist proclivities," as America's Mission noted. Yet, at the same time, the federal government was confiscating huge swaths of private land throughout American inner cities for urban renewal and highway projects, often paying owners pittances for the value of their homes. The fact that the U.S. government got miffed over a 1954 Guatemalan government buyout offer helped produce decades of repressive rule and the killings of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalan civilians.

From Attention Deficit Democracy by James Bovard. Copyright © 2006 by the author

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Won't Be Long Before Blogs Like This Are Illegal...

Read this and tell me what it's leading to...

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
by Declan McCullagh
Read original at:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: