Michael Steele (pictured with Florida RLC Vice Chairman Steve Smith) is in trouble.

This time he criticized a never-ending undeclared war, saying (correctly) that it is not a war the American people are interested in supporting. He further stated that the war doesn’t make much sense.

Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele is correct on these points. Predictably, neo-conservative pundit William Kristol and Congressman Tom Cole (primary opponent of RLC-endorsed candidate RJ Harris) have called for Chairman Steele to resign.

Congressman Ron Paul, Adviser to the Republican Liberty Caucus, put out a statement in support of Steele’s comments.

Here is Congressman Paul’s speech on the House floor from last week in opposition to the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan:

The question remains: When will this unsustainable, undeclared war end?

In the interim, congratulations to Chairman Michael Steele for questioning the Bush/Obama policy of endless foreign interventionism.

Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel a Lesson for
the Liberty Movement to Follow:
A(nother) Libertarian Defense of Israel

by Aaron Biterman

A recent article in The American Spectator by Philip Klein highlights Dr. Rand Paul’s view of Israel. In short, Rand Paul supports free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and “strongly objects to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration” toward the peace process, according to documents Klein obtained from the Paul campaign. Continues the Kentucky doctor, “Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations.” The younger Paul says, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”

The truth is that most Kentucky voters agree with the above-stated positions. Most Americans — especially those right of center — also agree with these positions. From a libertarian perspective, there is simply nothing objectionable about the above position statement. If you’re a minarchist and support the ability of the U.S. military to defend our borders against attacks, then it stands to reason that other countries should also be able to protect their borders.

But there is a vocal and growing fringe element within the libertarian/Constitutionalist movement (see DailyPaul.com to hear their rants and raves, or pick up a copy of the filthy American Free Press newspaper) who agree with left-wing radical Helen Thomas, who recently opined that all Israeli Jews should leave Israel and go back to Europe. (View her disgusting comments here.)

This article has been written to refute their bogus claims and defend a pro-Israel position from a libertarian perspective. (Other pro-Israel arguments have been made by libertarians, such as this excellent defense of Israel from Ilana Mercer.)

To Whom Does the Land Belong?

The prime argument driving the anti-Israel fervor is the claim that Jews belong somewhere other than Israel — that they have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel. Those individuals making this claim believe that the millions of Arabs from the 1948 exodus should be returned to their original homes in pre-1967 Israel based upon the libertarian conception of private property rights. This would clearly result in an Arab majority Israel.

I don’t agree with his argument for several reasons. In late 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. One party was willing to compromise and the other was not — a familiar trend in the seemingly never-ending feud.

When Israel was declared a state in 1948, most of the Arabs living within the boundaries were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. These Arabs were promised Jewish property after victorious Arab armies won the war. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Think 1939 to 1945 in Europe.

Of course, the day after Israel was declared a state (in 1948) it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. And it’s been on the defense ever since. It is hard to believe that any libertarian — a person who purports to believe in the right of self-defense, even for a nation — would deny that a nation like Israel should be permitted to defend itself against terrorists seeking to exterminate Jews in the Middle East and replace Israel with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy.

According to Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and his co-author Peter Schwartz, “Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no ‘right’ to establish a dictatorship.” The Palestinians elected a Hamas majority to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and now Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a radical Islamist terrorist organization that seeks to wipe Israel (and all Jews) off the face of the earth and replace it with an Islamic Palestine.

Concludes Brook and Schwartz, “Israel’s founders — like the homesteaders in the American West — earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights. Those Arabs who abandoned their land in order to join the military crusade against Israel forfeited all right to their property. And if there are any peaceful Arabs who were forcibly evicted from their property, they should be entitled to press their claims in the courts of Israel, which, unlike the Arab autocracies, has an independent, objective judiciary — a judiciary that recognizes the principle of property rights.”

Double Standards and the Need to Single Out Israel

The individuals leading the vocal anti-Israel movement within the broader coalition of pro-liberty activists claim they are interested in the quality of the lives led by the non-Jews living in the region who are being persecuted by the evil tyrant nation of Israel. But it’s rare to hear these same vocal anti-Israel critics talking about the fact that Jews cannot enter Mecca or Medina, that Jews cannot purchase or sell land in Jordan (nor can they become citizens), or that Jews and Israelis are banned from entering Saudi Arabia.

Not only do Arabs have representation in the Jewish Knesset (legislative branch of government), but Israel also offers one of the few safe havens for women and homosexuals who fear persecution (and humiliation and/or death) in many other parts of the Middle East.

The vocal anti-Israel voices within the broader liberty movement always single Israel out whenever they have an opportunity. They ignore the fact that Egypt, Jordan, and the Sudan are each on the top ten list of recipients of U.S. foreign aid, with Egypt receiving nearly $2 billion annually.

They don’t talk about anti-Semitism at all. Perhaps they believe it doesn’t exist. The truth is that worldwide, scores of anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) outbursts are recorded each month by monitoring groups, ranging from armed and other attacks on individuals and property to the desecration of cemeteries and Holocaust memorials and the daubing of anti-Semitic slogans on buildings, often those housing Jewish communal offices and synagogues.

In the U.S., for example, the number of anti-Semitic crimes went up from 969 in 2007 to 1,013 in 2008. Such episodes represent 66 percent of all religiously motivated crimes and 12 percent of all recorded hate crimes. These are unsettling numbers when we consider that Jews constitute approximately 2 percent of the general population. Anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab and Muslim world, manifested in every segment of society. Here (.pdf) are some examples from the Arab media alone.

As Ilana Mercer mentions in her defense of Israel, any libertarian who defends Israel recognizes its many imperfections. It is a quasi-socialist country which has violated human rights in the past via demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories. We don’t excuse this behavior and criticize the Israeli government when it oversteps the rule of law.

But Israel’s current air and naval blockade on Gaza — which is controlled by Hamas — is justified defense of Israel.  Clearly Hamas intends to acquire lethal weaponry to wipe Israel and its citizens off the map.  As is pointed out in The Washington Post, an organizer of the ‘humanitarian’ boat that was stopped by Israel last week admitted that the boat was meant to break Israel’s blockade, effectively ending their inspection process. If successful, weapons — no doubt meant to exterminate all Jews in Israel — could be obtained by the radical government in charge of Gaza.

Regardless, libertarians in the U.S. who support Israel do not support U.S. foreign aid for Israel (although many believe that the U.S. should help Israel with arms technology development), believing instead that private aid would be more than enough to defend Israel against its enemies.  Of course, they believe that foreign aid should also be cut off to all other countries as well.

Just as libertarians in the U.S. support a strong national defense of our own country, pro-Israel libertarians also support Israel’s right to defend herself against attack. The same libertarians defending Israel’s right to self-defense can simultaneously defend a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no contradiction, except by those who would have Israel wiped off the face of the earth due to an erroneous claim to ‘property rights’.   

Libertarians Should Support a Two-State Solution

A two-state solution is the sensible answer to the problem in the Middle East.

A two-state solution would create two separate states in the Western portion of the historic region of Palestine.  Israel would remain a Jewish state and Arabs would be given citizenship by a new Palestinian state. The new Palestinian state would also offer refugees citizenship, while Arab citizens of present-day Israel would be offered a choice of citizenship among the two states.

A one-state Palestine will, as Ilana Mercer put it, have “no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights.” Even worse, there is a huge threat that such a government will be run by radical dictators with an agenda that has little to do with protecting the rights of their citizens.  Such an endeavor would not only threaten the Middle East, but the world as well.

Why so many so-called freedom fighters continue to advocate this ‘solution’ — a one-party dictatorship state — is beyond me, but in the interim Israel will continue to defend itself — as any libertarian should expect it to.

When analyzing the situation in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the big picture. Over a period of many years, Israel has worked to reach an agreement — a compromise — but the other side has not.

That’s why Rand Paul stands by Israel and why you should, too.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron Biterman is Vice Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. As it is stated below this post, this article is just one opinion. We realize some RLC members will disagree with this opinion. If you would like to write a counter piece to be published in this blog, contact the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Only articles from dues-paying members of the RLC will be considered.

Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have come together to introduce bipartisan legislation to curb the never-ending war in Afghanistan.

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Congressmen Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have introduced legislation requiring the President to develop a flexible timetable to draw down U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The legislation would require the President to provide a plan for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan. The legislation also increases oversight by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) over work done by private contractors with records of waste, fraud and abuse in order to safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Senator Feingold has also offered a flexible timetable to draw down U.S. troops from Afghanistan as an amendment to the supplemental spending bill currently being considered by the Senate.

Although the legislation does not set a specific date for withdrawal, it’s a step in the right direction.  It was recently announced that over 1,000 young men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces have died in that war.

It’s long past time to end it.

There is a growing number of incumbent Members of Congress who “get it”. They understand that the Iraq War was a failure, that Americans are disgusted with the bailout votes, and that any increase in government spending will mean more taxation and debt.

The Club for Growth recently listed its report card on fiscal policy for 2009. The results show that several endorsed Republican Liberty Caucus scored 100% on their legislative barometer, including Congressmen Jeff Flake (AZ), John Shadegg (AZ), Paul Broun (GA), and Doug Lamborn (CO). Scoring 95% or higher are RLC-endorsed Congressmen Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom McClintock (CA), Jim Jordan (OH), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Ron Paul (TX), and Ed Royce (CA).

Of these, Broun (GA), Royce (CA), Garrett (NJ), Paul (TX), and Flake (AZ) did not vote for any of the bailouts. Chaffetz and McClintock were not in Congress during any of the bailouts, so they cannot be held responsible for those votes.

Several of these Members of Congress also either voted against the Iraq War or believe it was a mistake. Those in the former camp include Congressman Ron Paul. Those in the latter camp include Congressman Jeff Flake and Congressman Tom McClintock.

Although this is a small group of Congressmen, we are starting to make some progress.  If we elect just one or two of our Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidates to Congress in 2010, we will be even further on our path to a free society.

Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars.

They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars.

Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others’ perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war “neocons” and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate.

While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.

They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.

Despite its inherently irrational nature, this would be an understandable and even excusable position for them to take if the government of the United States were, in fact, the government which we are supposed to have under the Constitution and if the government still followed the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers. If that were the case and the government entered into a war, then it would be impossible for that war not to be undertaken justly and it would be traitorous to oppose it.

Most Republicans act on the assumption that we still live under a government which operates legitimately and constitutionally and that is the basis for their outrage with those who oppose the government’s actions. They are not awakened to how far we have drifted from legitimate, American-style, constitutional government and they are still acting on the mistaken assumption that we have the government which we ought to have and that its actions are legitimate on that basis.

So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don’t make the mistake of calling other Republicans “neocons” or warmongers just because they defend the nation’s actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions.

You can’t change the perception that the government is good by attacking the government because those who still believe the government is good will turn against you. It’s kind of a catch-22 situation.

You need to convince them not that our government is bad, but that the government we have is effectively not our government at all. You can do this by laying out for them what government ought to be under the Constitution and then let them see for themselves the shortcomings of government as it is compared to government as it should be.

The fact that the Democrats are in power also presents a valuable opportunity, because Republicans of all varieties are willing to believe that Democrats and their policies are evil. So if you go after big government and its excesses as products of Democrat policy you can get your foot in the door very easily.

It’s a short trip from condemning the actions of Obama and the Democrats to realizing that those actions are wrong even when they are the actions of Republicans. Patriotic Republicans who would never question the actions of their government under other circumstances will quickly change their tune when they are perceived to be the actions of Democrats or even of Republicans who are acting like Democrats.

Before you can even begin to discuss the war with them you need to lay this sort of groundwork and make them aware that our government is no longer operating on Constitutional principles. That is where you really disagree and once you resolve that disagreement by educating them, then the secondary issues of war and nation building and the tyranny of the security state will become ones on which you will soon find common ground.

When they understand that you are defending the Republic as it ought to be rather than attacking the Republic as it is they will understand that you are allies, not enemies.

In his historical tour de force, On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenal traces the process of centralization of power in Europe from the fall of Rome. He paints a picture of an unstoppable centripetal force, power, whose ever tightening grip on humanity was hastened first by the increasing power of monarchs and then by the rise of democracy.   Prior to mass rule that began with the French revolution and Napoleon, war was limited by the resources of local feudal rulers.  Total war became possible with the rise of democracy and nationalistic centralization. The great wars of the twentieth century which saw unprecedented numbers killed were the product of nationalism, mass rule and socialism, indeed, of national socialism and socialism in one country.  These last are the ideologies of both the Democratic and Republican parties today.

For a century the United States showed that in the absence of centralization economic progress would come quicker, the public made better off, and war limited to local expansionism.  But the Civil War began a process of Progressive centralization, and elite Americans of the Gilded Age after the Civil War, envious of the status of German universities, sent their sons to graduate school in Germany and were surprised when they returned advocating ideas that would forestall freedom and progress.  Not having access to the ideas of von Mises, Hayek and Schumpeter, elite Americans adopted German historicism, according to which they, as an expert elite, deserved power and that power ought to be centralized to that end. They chose to remake America in Germany’s image fifty years before the rise of Hitler.

We live with the heritage of their nationalist and now internationalist Progressivism.  Progress has slowed; retirement savings are insufficient to cover the needs of the largest cohort of retirees in the history of the world; the Progressive health care system has faltered and  been redesigned to  restrict care; and for the past forty years Americans have seen the”promise of American life”, an ever increasing standard of living, betrayed and slowed to a halt as the Federal Reserve Bank and the federal government  have transferred ever more resources to banks and speculators.

De Jouvenal saw the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the ultimate success of “power” in the United States.  But the process has taken longer and become more intense as the centralizers’ ideas, one after the next, have failed and destroyed sections of America’s freedom and affluence.  The nation retains its preeminent role because of  the nineteenth century’s gains and because its diminishing sphere of private initiative remains larger than under the rigid socialism that dominates Europe and the rest of the world.

No one can calculate the damage that power has done to the nation.  It is probable that, based on the absence of real wage growth since the gold standard was abolished in 1971 and the 2% compounded growth of real wages between 1800 and 1971,  the real hourly wage today is but 40% of what it might have been without the depredations of the federal and state governments.  But Americans are relatively worse off than that because of increases in taxes at the state and federal levels.

Both parties, Republican and Democratic, have participated in the relentless expansion of power.  The Republican is the more likely of the two to be transformed from a socialistic, elitist party, to one that represents freedom and decentralization. Hence, there is no more important task in politics today than that which the Republican Liberty Caucus has set before itself: to reform the GOP and transform it into a party of freedom and decentralization; to overturn the process of centralization of power; and to reestablish America as a land of freedom.

Given the low quality of public debate and the domination of the public media, this is a difficult task. Struggle we must.

Chris Moody at Cato blogs about a panel held at Cato in which three Members of Congress admit that most Republican Members of Congress now recognize it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

Check it out.

So why are the NRSC, NRCC, and Republican National Committee still propping up Dick Cheney and Karl Rove again?

The Alameda County Republican Party (ACRP) in California has a history of hostility, lawsuits, and in-fighting. But the November 17th monthly meeting is shaping up to be a war zone.

Last week, the ACRP Executive Committee gave their approval (4 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstain) to a resolution that would make a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the county party.

To pass, the resolution must receive 2/3rds approval from County Committee members at the November 17th meeting in San Leandro.

The county party is lead by RLC member Jerry Salcido, and most of its officers are also RLC members.  Looking at the Alameda County GOP Central Committee, I see at least 12-15 RLC members, too.  I guess we’ll find out if we have a majority on November 17.

Hopefully other county Republican Parties also consider adopting this proposed resolution.

Alameda County Republican Party — Proposed Resolution
Submitted by: Walter Stanley III, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido

“Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and

Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and

Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and

Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and

Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and

Whereas, torture, even if referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and

Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and

Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and

Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and

Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and

Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and

Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and

Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and

Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and

Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and

Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and

Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and

Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and

Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called “neo-conservatives” is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and

Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.

Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies.

According to an article from The Associated Press, “Guantanamo [is] a political win GOP needed.” The story is referencing the vote in the Senate that occurred earlier today. In a vote of 90 to 6, the Senate overwhelmingly opposed President Obama’s effort to close the prison that harbors accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Every Republican member of the Senate passed on the opportunity to recognize that terrorist combatants do have Constitutional rights and that protections of the Bill of Rights apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S. regardless of where in the world that jurisdiction prevails.

As you know, one of Barack Obama’s first acts as president was to order the closing of the controversial prison for terrorist suspects within a year. Obama had campaigned on the issue, but Republicans pounced on what they correctly asserted to be a critical flaw: the lack of detailed plans for where the roughly 240 detainees would go if the Cuban prison were shut down.

On that point, the town of Hardin, Montana (pop. 3,400) has volunteered to house 40% of the detainees (about 100 of them) in a state prison facility that is vacant.

Greg Smith, Economic Development Director in Hardin, says that there are 464 beds in the facility and over 120 jobs could be created by moving those prisoners to Hardin.  With flat land, a state-of-the-art corrections facility, and a Mayor (and City Council) willing to house the suspects, all it would have taken was a simple Senate vote in favor of closing Gitmo.

That vote, however, would require Senators to have a backbone and LEAD the country — something foreign to them.  Only six Senators, all from the far left wing of the Democrat Party, had the courage to vote in favor of the funding to move the captives to U.S. soil.

Why should we house these accused terrorists in the U.S.? The fact is that housing them in Gitmo has denied the terrorist suspects their constitutional rights and there is simply no possibility that piecemeal changes in law could create a legal system at Guantanamo equal to the U.S. criminal justice or courts martial systems.

Additionally, the detentions of the terrorist suspects are only temporary expedients that apply only in the field of combat according to U.S. law. Since we’re not at war with Cuba, the legitimate idea of temporarily detaining combatants in a war zone does not apply.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the abuses at Guantanamo Bay carried out at the beckon call of high-level government officials include widespread abuse:

• solitary confinement of detainees for periods exceeding a year;
• sleep deprivation of detainees for days, weeks, or months;
• exposure of detainees to prolonged temperature extremes;
• beatings of detainees;
• threats of transfer to a foreign country for torture;
• torture in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases abroad before transfer to Guantánamo;
• sexual harassment and rape or threat of rape against detainees;
• deprivation of medical treatment for serious conditions, or treatment granted only for “cooperating”; and
• “short-shackling,” where wrists and ankles are bound together and to the floor for hours or day.

I realize these suspects are accused of being terrorists and several of them were involved in the 911 attacks. I have tremendous sympathy for victims (and their families) of these accused terrorists and am quite convinced that the detainees at Gitmo are quite literally the scum of the earth.

That said, those accused of crimes in a nation governed by the rule of law are entitled to equal treatment under the law and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as well as protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives are entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment includes “… nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”.  Further, the Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from “cruel and unusual punishment” by government.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote that “[t]here are … four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.” They include:

- The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
- “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
- “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
- “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”

The torture procedures that the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, and the spineless Democrats who purport to be civil libertarians have gone along with violate constitutional protections and are clearly ‘cruel and unusual’ tactics under the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The types of torture that have been used against suspected terrorists also violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (both signed by the U.S.).

Moreover, the techniques are not effective. According to the U.S. Army Interrogation Field Manuel 34-52 (1992), “Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights,

“If someone has information, they are just as likely, if not more so, to disclose the information after non-abusive interrogation tactics. Second, many who are interrogated do not have information to give. Third, whether or not a person has information, he or she will likely confess to anything to stop torture; thus the information obtained is never reliable.”

Quoth the AP article: “Republicans have searched mightily for a good political issue this year as their traditional three Gs — gays, guns and God — have lost some steam. Now a fourth G — Guantanamo Bay — is handing them big boost.”

The issue of Guantanamo may be giving Republicans a boost in popular support, but it is at the sacrifice of the U.S. Constitution and a respect for the rule of law.

Over the last eight years, the Bush Administration has systematically dismantled some of the most important rights and protections of the United States Constitution.

The time to stand up for the Constitution is NOW.  Americans oppose the Bush-Cheney torture policies and a free nation based on the rule of law requires more of its government and its elected officials.

Senator Jim DeMint has an impressive record in the Senate. The Junior Senator from South Carolina’s main work since his election in 2005 has centered on opposing the increase of federal government spending, both under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He has been particularly hostile to bailouts for banks and other corporations. DeMint is also a vocal proponent of Right to Work laws and, as such, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that would strip workers of secret ballot elections.

However, DeMint leaves much to be desired on social issues. According to the Charleston City Paper, “DeMint’s office has reasserted his commitment to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.” DeMint’s position is not particularly popular: only a small majority (54%) of gay marriage opponents favor amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, according to a 2006 survey.

Opines the paper: “DeMint’s strong support for states rights, while also seeking federal involvement on gay marriage may be indicative of a larger struggle between the religious and libertarian elements of the Republican Party as it rebrands itself.”

So just like the Democrats, DeMint simply picks and chooses what issues he wants government to take an activist role in.

Gay marriage is just the most recent example of the social conservatives’ war on individual choice. And it is but one example of some social conservatives’ interest in nationalizing issues that should not be decided by the federal government.

A 2006 survey of 2,003 adults found that 55% prefer that abortion laws be decided at the national level rather than each state deciding for itself. This desire for a national policy prescription extends to other social issues, too. Despite growing antipathy toward Congress and low levels of trust in the federal government generally, majorities or pluralities also favored a national (rather than state-by-state) approach to policymaking on stem cell research, gay marriage and whether creationism should be taught in the schools along with evolution.

It isn’t just abortion and gay marriage where social conservatives want government to intervene.  In 2006, the Family Research Council surveyed its members on immigration, and, by a ratio of 9 to 1, they believe illegal immigrants should be “detected, arrested and returned to their country of origin.”

I’m not saying that illegal immigration should be tolerated (it shouldn’t be) — although Congress has tolerated it for decades.

But a rational approach to the issue does not entail rounding up millions of people and sending them away.

A Pew poll from 2006, cited by the San Francisco Chronicle, found that two-thirds of white evangelicals consider new immigrants to be a burden and a threat to American culture.  The poll didn’t even include the word ‘illegal’.

Some evangelicals seem to have massive problem with gays and immigrants — and they think the government can (and should) solve their concerns.

How about foreign policy?

Surely the religious right doesn’t want government to intervene there, right?

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.  In fact, it was with the blessing of many social conservatives who supported unwavering authority for the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq, detaining terrorist suspects without due process rights, and torture policies.

This despite the fact that Christian Just War Theory stresses necessary cause, right intention, last report, and legitimate authority when governments wage a war. And the fact that the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war powers.

Yet the small (quiet) group of Christian evangelicals who questioned the Bush Administration’s policies on Iraq and waterboarding were labeled unpatriotic, anti-American, and bad Christians.

Voltaire once said, “Of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance the most.”  Many Christians have been tolerant of others, and a few social conservatives have been able to align with libertarians via the Ron Paul movement.

Those Christians have stayed true to their principles while recognizing that government is not the solution to these complex social problems that plague society.  They need to wake up their socially conservative, evangelical brethren to the fact that using government as a tool of social coercion is unethical–indeed, anti-religious.

“I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance,” said Thomas Jefferson.

Social conservatives need to practice a bit more tolerance and wake up to the fact that asking government to solve these social dilemmas is no different than activists on the left asking government for handouts.

And no different than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.