Judge Napolitano: Kavanaugh is an Enemy of the 4th Amendment

Judge Napolitano: Kavanaugh is an Enemy of the 4th Amendment

Today begins the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. At Mises University this year, during a talk on how the courts disregard natural law in America, Judge Andrew Napolitano looked at some troubling moments in Judge Kavanaugh's legal career.

Here is a clip from that lecture:

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Brett Kavanaugh and the Patriot Act

In a discussion on natural law, Napolitano noted that Judge Kavanaugh had established a record of supporting government surveillance on Americans, even when there was not probable cause to believe a crime was being committed.

Kavanaugh's support for abuse of government power in this case, has been buttressed by the Patriot Act, one of the most anti-Fourth-Amendment pieces of legislation passed in recent decades.

Napolitano goes on to outline the many ways the Patriot Act violates the natural rights behind the Fourth Amendment, concluding:

"What young lawyer was the scrivener when they were putting together the Patriot Act?"

It was, of course, Brett Kavanaugh.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Steve Hanke named ECAEF Gottfried von Haberler Professor by the European Center of Austrian Economics

08/30/2018Mises Institute

Congratulations to Dr. Steve Hanke, an Associate Scholar of the Mises Institute, for being named the "ECAEF Gottfried von Haberler Professor" by the European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.

The position is named for Gottfried von Haberler, a leading scholar in the Austrian tradition and a mentor to Dr. Hanke. 

Read more by Dr. Hanke here. He was recently a guest on Mises Weekends with Jeff Deist, which can be found here

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

It Turns out School Shooting Data Is Vastly Inflated

08/29/2018Ryan McMaken

On Monday, National Public Radio revealed that two-thirds of school shootings reported in 2015-2016 never actually happened.

Morning Edition reports:

This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, "nearly 240 schools ... reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting." The number is far higher than most other estimates.

But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization , assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government's Civil Rights Data Collection.

We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn't confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn't meet the government's parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn't respond to our inquiries.

The Education Department, asked for comment on our reporting, noted that it relies on school districts to provide accurate information in the survey responses and says it will update some of these data later this fall. But, officials added, the department has no plans to republish the existing publication .

...A separate investigation by the ACLU of Southern California also was able to confirm fewer than a dozen of the incidents in the government's report, while 59 percent were confirmed errors. ...

...Most of the school leaders NPR reached had little idea of how shootings got recorded for their schools. For example, the CRDC reports 26 shootings within the Ventura Unified School District in Southern California.

"I think someone pushed the wrong button," said Jeff Davis, an assistant superintendent there. The outgoing superintendent, Joe Richards, "has been here for almost 30 years and he doesn't remember any shooting," Davis added. "We are in this weird vortex of what's on this screen and what reality is."

Here's the report. The false claims appear on page 2:

Nearly 240 schools (0.2 percent of all schools) reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting, and over 100 schools (0.1 percent of all schools) reported a school-related homicide involving a student, faculty member, or staff member. About 1 out of every 100,000 students was enrolled in a school that reported a school-related shooting or school-related homicide during the 2015–16 school year.

The government's definition of shooting includes "any discharge of a weapon at school-sponsored events or on school buses" even if no one is hurt. It's true that few would welcome news that someone is firing guns at their child's school, even if it resulted in no injuries. And, as NPR reports, the number that would be a rate of shootings, and a level of violence, much higher than anyone else had ever found.

However, once data like this makes it into the news, the 240 incidents are reported as "shootings" which strongly implies the presence of physically harmed victims. Moreover, even if we include all firearm discharges into the data, it appears that a great many of schools that reported "shootings" can't remember them happening.

These sorts of substantial data discrepancies are part of a larger tendency not only to inflate the numbers, but also to blur the line between mass shooting, school shooting, and shootings that don't even take place near any classroom.

For example, back in February, at least one gun-control activist group was claiming that 18 "school shootings" had already occurred this year.

These shootings were usually brought up in the context of massive news coverage of multi-victim mass shootings. Many of these, shootings, however, hardly fit the bill of what ordinary people would imagine a school shooting to be. For example, as John Cox and Steven Rich in the Washington Post reported, one often-cited list of school shootings included a case in which

On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.

Other cases include, according to CNN :

The list also includes multiple cases of single individuals being shot in apartments and dorms on the campus, including "an incident from Jan. 20, when at 1 a.m. a man was shot at a sorority event on the campus of Wake Forest University."

By May, media outlets were using this data and similar data to claim that 2018's tally was already up to 22.

These events are all certainly unfortunate, violent, and unjust, but describing them generally as "school shootings" is questionable. After all, the statistics are generally used with the intent of invoking images of mass shootings like the Columbine massacre.

Moreover, confusing mass shootings with a domestic shooting in an on-campus apartment blurs lines between suggested policy responses. Mass shootings such as the Parkland, Florida shooting are used to justify restrictions on high-capacity semi-automatic weapons. Most of the shootings listed in "school shooting" databases, however, are single-victim events that could be carried out with a small-caliber revolver. While murder is murder, these sorts of distinctions are relevant to the policy debate. After all, gun-control advocates themselves clearly think the sort of weapon is relevant since they tend to ignore homicides committed with weapons other than guns.

In addition to the fact that recent data on school violence appears to exaggerate school violence, evidence going back to the early nineties shows that school violence has declined over the period. In fact, forthcoming research from researcher James Alan Fox — publicized by Northeastern University — concludes: "Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today."

Nor should this be shocking for anyone familiar with homicide trends in the United States. Since the early nineties, homicide rates have been cut nearly in half. And while homicide rates have been increasing during the past two years, numbers remains well below where they were 25 years ago. And most of that increase in attributable to homicides in a small number of American big cities.

homicide1 (1)_0.png

Back in May, I did a FoxNews segment, with former Clinton aide Chris Hahn contending that school violence was at epidemic proportions. He insisted on ignoring all the trend data from the past 25 years, asserting that only the post-2014 data mattered. And yet here we are now seeing that the data he was largely going off of was fabricated. Naturally, he insisted on ignoring the overall homicide data and its obvious trend.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Mark Thornton Talks Red Tide and Skyscrapers on the Dangerous History Podcast

08/28/2018Mark Thornton

Mark Thornton recently joined CJ of the Dangerous History podcast to discuss his new book The Skyscraper Curse: And How Austrian Economists Predicted Every Major Economic Crisis of the Last Century, and his recent article on the government's role in Florida's recent red tide crisis. 

Listen here.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Bankruptcy: Turkey Now, America Later?

08/27/2018Ron Paul

President Trump recently imposed sanctions on Turkey to protest the Turkish government’s detention of an American pastor. Turkey has responded by increasing tariffs on US exports. The trade war is being blamed for the collapse of Turkey’s currency, the lira. While the sanctions may have played a role, Turkey’s currency crisis is rooted in the Turkish government’s fiscal and (especially) monetary policies.

In the past seven years, Turkey’s central bank has tripled the money supply and pushed interest rates down to 4.5 percent. While Turkey’s government did not adopt Ben Bernanke’s proposal to drop money from helicopters, Turkish politicians have taken advantage of easy money policies to increase subsidies for key voting blocs and special interests.

The results of the Turkish government’s inflation-fueled spending binge are not surprising to anyone familiar with Austrian economics or economic history. Turkey is now plagued with huge deficits, a collapsing currency, and a looming economic crisis, making it the next candidate for a European Union or Federal Reserve bailout.

Turkey’s combination of low interest rates, money creation, and massive government spending to “stimulate” the economy parallels the policies the US government has pursued for the past ten years. Without drastic changes in fiscal and monetary policies, economic trouble in America is around the corner.

The very large and growing federal debt will cause a major crisis as the government’s debt burden will be unsustainable. Instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, politicians can be expected to pressure the Federal Reserve to do their dirty work for them via inflation. We may even see the Fed “experiment” with negative interest rates, which would punish Americans for saving. The monetization of the federal debt will erode the dollar’s purchasing power and decimate middle-and-working-class Americans who are already seeing any gains in their incomes eaten away by inflation.

If we are lucky, the next Fed-caused downturn will cause only a resurgence of 1970s-style stagflation. The more likely scenario is the type of widespread economic chaos not seen in America since the Great Depression. The growth of cultural Marxism, the widespread entitlement mentality, and the willingness of partisans of various sides to use force against their political opponents suggests that this economic crisis will result in civil unrest that will be used to justify new crackdowns on individual liberty.

Those who understand the causes of, and cures for, our current predicament have two responsibilities. First, prepare a plan to protect your family when the crisis occurs. Second, do all you can to spread the truth in hopes the liberty movement reaches critical mass so it can force Congress to make the changes necessary to avert disaster.

Since the crisis will result in a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status, individuals should consider alternatives such as gold and other precious metals. Restoring a free-market monetary system should be a priority for the liberty movement. Other priorities include ending our interventionist foreign policy, cutting spending in all areas, rolling back the surveillance state, protecting all civil liberties, and auditing (and ending) the Federal Reserve. If we do our jobs, we can build a society of peace, prosperity, and liberty atop the ashes of the welfare-warfare state.

Reprinted with permission.


Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Walter Block Talks Space Capitalism on CSPAN

08/27/2018Walter Block

At Freedom Fest, Walter Block was interviewed by CSPAN's Book TV to discuss his new book Space Capitalism: How Humans Will Colonize Planets, Moons, and Asteroids.

Click here to watch Dr. Block make the case for privatizing the final frontier. 

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Is the Sharing Economy Exploitative?

08/24/2018Per Bylund

There's a whole lot of buzz about the sharing economy. Many seem to think it is something new, with some calling for a 'new economics' to explain it while others deride the 'gig economy' as a higher level of exploitation, inequality, and poverty. Neither is a good analysis.

First things first: the sharing economy was facilitated by advances in technology alongside consumer preferences changing from goods to services and thus from ownership to lease. These are not separate processes, but mutually constituting changes where each increases the other.

The advances in technology that brought about the sharing economy are those that allow for cheaper, faster, and more accurate communication, verification of factual claims, decentralized corroborated trust/reputation etc. They overall lower transaction costs by making information both available and trustable. The terrifying idea of 'getting into a car with a stranger' is no longer a problem if that stranger's reputation can be tracked, is publicly available, and is backed up by the experiences of many others doing the same thing (as with Uber, Lyft).

The availability of such information also means we don't need to rely only on first-hand (or second-hand through family and friends) trusted experience, but can, as it were, rely on the experience of unknown others - third-hand trust. This changes our behavior because the cost of making a mistake is much lower: getting into the car of a shady Uber driver is on average much less of a risk than doing the same as a hitchhiker or even taking a regular taxi. This change of behavior in response to 'outsourced' trust means the technology can progress further.

The sharing economy, as the term implies, also means we can 'share' (make available) productive resources in much more effective ways. In a sense, it undermines the materialist view of value creation by dissolving the difference between 'personal' property and private ownership of the means of production: your personal car can now be both your personal property and your source of income - and you, as the owner, decide when and how. It doesn't change the economic categories, but releases the economic analysis from the material goods.

This is all well and proper, since the economy is about the creation and distribution of *value* and not of material things. As value is subjective, so is the distinction between consumer good and production good. Everything can be both, and what is what depends on how you use it.

In other words, the effect of the sharing economy on the study of economics may (and likely is) the liberation of economic analysis from materialist biases. Economics becomes the subjectivist social science it was always meant to be. So in terms of economic theory, the sharing economy can help make the study of economics what it should be and always should have been: the study of the creation and distribution of [subjective] value and the unplanned social orders that emerge in the prosperity-creating process.

But what about exploitation?

I find the argument that the 'gig economy' makes people accept lower wages highly fascinating. Suddenly it is a problem to these critics, mainly on the left, that 'workers' own their own capital.

When personal property becomes capital, a source of income, then the obvious implication is a decentralization of capital ownership.

I'm not saying companies like Uber are in any sense perfect. They could certainly go further, by e.g. implementing free pricing between drivers and riders. Why not allow drivers to set their required minimum to provide a ride? Why not allow riders to set their max to get a ride? (This may actually be the next step in the sharing economy - an open-marketization of fares and fees.) The common argument that drivers (which is usually the example used) don't make a 'living wage' is also a bias that remains from the materialist and industrialist view of economy. It assumes that a job is all about the salary, and that what matters is the monetary outcome of it. But many of those who choose to drive for a ride-share company do so because it is a *flexible* type of work, which is itself a value.

Sure, it may not be as high-paying as 'full-time' employment, but any choice includes a trade-off of value: to many, flexible work hours make up for the lower pay; for others, it doesn't - so they instead seek traditional employment. The solution to the low wages in the sharing economy is not regulation, but more competition - and proper market wages. In fact, the reason ride-sharing companies can pay low wages (which, judging from my discussions with many a driver, exceed those earned by taxi drivers!) is the regulations already in place: primarily the barriers to entry in ride-sharing and elsewhere that keep overall wages down by providing employers with artificial influence (power). The expected outcome of the low-transaction cost economy should be the ultimate gig economy, where all or most hierarchies (such as firms) dissolve into market relations - and where those who (choose to) work earn a market wage. What stands in the way for this development is not employers or even capital owners, but those artificial restrictions that produce their privilege.

It is a sad irony, really, that those restrictions - regulations - that are intended to protect workers from employers (in the industrial age) is what stands in the way for worker liberation in the new era.

Formatted from Twitter. 
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Jeff Sessions Wants to Confiscate Your Guns

08/23/2018Ryan McMaken

At least some of them.

Last week, US Attorney General announced he plans to step up prosecutions of people who make "undetectable" firearms, such as the 3D-printed guns that have recently received attention. According to the AG's web site:

Statement of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on State of Washington v. U.S. Department of State:

The Department of Justice yesterday filed a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction in the State of Washington v. U.S. Department of State, a case about 3D printed guns.

After the filing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the following statement:

"Under federal law, it is illegal to manufacture or possess plastic firearms that are undetectable. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five years in prison. Such firearms present a significant risk to public safety, and the Department of Justice will use every available tool to vigorously enforce this prohibition. We will work with federal, state and local law enforcement to identify any possible cases for prosecution.

"We will not stand for the evasion, especially the flouting, of current law and will take action to ensure that individuals who violate the law by making plastic firearms and rendering them undetectable, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Considering that sessions has also pledged to step up prosecutions of persons who use marijuana where it is legal under state law, one might be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions's favorite past time is locking peaceful Americans in prison. Sessions was so unhinged in his drive to intervene in state legal affairs that even GOP senators had to intervene to get the Trump administration to back off.

This, however, should not be surprising. As Mike Maharrey has pointed out, the Trump administration has been enthusiastically prosecuting a war on private gun ownership in recent years:

[D]uring Trump’s first term, ATF enforcement of federal gun laws increased in every single category compared to the last year Obama was in the White House.

We can start with the number of firearms cases investigated. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That’s 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81% increase. (See Footnote 1)

We see similar increases in other enforcement categories during Trump’s first year. There were 786 more cases recommended for prosecution, 789 more indicted cases, and 630 more defendants convicted. (See Footnote 2)

The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92% of the cases investigated by the ATF involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90%.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment was no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber,  and continued to ramp up enforcement of federal gun control.

It's unlikely, however, that Trump will receive any flack from this from Republicans. It's the usual song and dance: these are "illegal" guns, after all. So, respect for peaceful exchange and private property rights can just go right out the window. It's the usual blind spot of the "law and order" conservative.

But what's the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one? It's the same difference between a legal or illegal drug — or a legal and illegal immigrant. It's a totally completely arbitrary designation made up by legislators. If an employer wants to offer a job to a worker without the proper government paperwork? Well, that's "illegal," and the right of free contract goes right in the garbage. Someone wants to sell you a gun without filling out the proper government paperwork? Well, that's punishable with years in a government cage. That fact that all parties involved might be peaceful otherwise-law-abiding citizens is meaningless to government prosecutors.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Tax Evasion Is Not the Crime, Taxation Is

08/23/2018TJ Roberts

On August 21st, 2018, a jury found Paul Manafort guilty of eight counts of tax and bank fraud. To summarize the convictions, Manafort managed to pay less in taxes by declining to disclose the existence of various bank accounts that he holds to the federal government. Manafort could die in a jail cell for tax evasion. No one should be cheering for this, for tax evasion is nothing more than resisting theft and keeping what is yours.

Taxation Is Robbery

Taxpayers do not sign any contract agreeing to pay the government taxes for "services rendered." Consent is not required. In matters of taxation, one either hands over tax money to the State or the state throws the tax "cheat" in a cage. Taxation is nothing more than the violent expropriation of one’s private property to the State. Moreover, through taxation, the State claims legitimate ownership over the property of every potential taxpayer.  If we take this to its natural conclusion, taxation is just any other form of robbery, and tax evasion is simply resisting theft.

A "Crime" Without a Victim

A true crime implies a victim. For a crime to occur, however, one must deliberately violate the self-ownership and private property rights of another person or persons. In matters of taxation, tax evasion is not the crime, taxation is. If one calls a bank and informs them that they will rob the bank the very next day, it would be entirely logical for the bank to move its money elsewhere. In the same way this is the case, it is entirely logical for a property owner to move their funds to countries with lower taxes so that they may avoid the oppressively higher taxes one experiences in the United States.

When one is convicted of tax evasion, the State is punishing an individual for acting in their own self interest; the State is punishing an individual for protecting their own property from theft. While the power-elites may have declared tax evasion criminal, it is only through man-made legislation that inherently violates the natural rights of every self-owning person.

Tax Evasion Laws as Political Tools

The US tax code exceeds 70,000 pages. It takes more than 3 billion hours per year just to comply with the tax code. The IRS is fortunately unable to punish every instance of tax evasion. No bureaucracy is large enough to detect every violation and rectify said violation. It is quite clear that the IRS will use tax evasion law as a means to take down people the government doesn’t like, but is unable to convict of a crime. One of the earlier instances of this was the imprisonment of mobster Al Capone. Now, the State is doing the same thing to Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.

“The FBI always gets their guy” is a common mantra in the justice community. But this is only the case because America’s laws are so intricate that it is easy to find proof that someone has committed at least one felony. The FBI always gets their guy not because they are just, but because they investigate persons in search of a crime. In a true system of justice, they would only investigate crimes (actual crimes with actual victims, mind you) in search of a person.

In other words, tax evasion is the mere crime of attempting to keep what is yours. The only way to accept the legitimacy of such a charge is to accept the legitimacy of a monopoly on violence systematically stealing the property of the people. Those who are convicted of tax evasion should not be seen as crooks. Rather, they should be seen as victims of the omnipotent State.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Defense Distributed: The Death of Gun Control?

08/23/2018José Niño

Is gun control on its deathbed?

Cody Wilson, founder of the 3D printable gun activist group Defense Distributed, recently won a landmark case against the State Department. Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) reached a settlement with the Department of Justice that now allows for people to 3D print firearms without government interference.

Defense Distributed’s clash with the State Department originated in 2013 , when the State Department demanded that Defense Distributed remove the files for its Liberator pistol. Although Defense Distributed initially complied with the State Department’s demands, they did not go out without a fight. In 2015, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation teamed up to fight the State Department’s mandate.

Fast forward to the present and Defense Distributed initially channeled its inner David against the federal government Goliath. However, Defense Distributed could not enjoy a proper victory celebration after federal judge Robert S. Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order on the publication of 3D blueprints.

A Game-Changing Victory

A temporary hiccup, the latest restraining order placed on Defense Distributed may end up being an exercise in futility when it’s all said and done.

In the 21st century, technology is frequently changing the rules of politics, in which traditional forms of political control are slowly being phased out.

Defense Distributed’s initial triumph against the State was a much needed moral victory for gun rights activists.

In present times, gun rights have been under assault at the state and federal level. With blatant calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment and a bipartisan consensus rallying around the need for sweeping gun control legislation, gun rights appeared to be on the chopping block.

Despite the roadbloacks ahead, Defense Distributed has given concerned owners a bit of breathing room and is opening up new avenues for human freedom.

Crypto-Anarchy in Action

Defense Distributed’s endeavors are one of the most poignant expressions of crypto-anarchism, the realization of anarchy in cyberspace.

Timothy May, author of The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, shares one of the most powerful aspects of crypto-anarchism: “Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds and the social power structure, so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions.”

The history of humanity is one of power-hungry individuals using coercive institutions like the State to subjugate people and control their livelihoods. Eventually, certain groups who grew tired of the status quo of oppression rose up and attempted to create new political orders.

But two major junctures in economic history have fundamentally changed citizens’ relationships with their governments—the emergence of industrial capitalism in the 19th century and the Internet’s arrival in the late 20th century. Now, when governments try to curtail a certain activities, the market finds a way meet consumer demands.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

In Washington, the Truth has Refugee Status

08/22/2018James Bovard

“Truth isn’t truth,” declared Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, on Meet the Press on Sunday. Giuliani’s comment — the weirdest absolution yet proffered for Trump — is the “Trump era’s epitaph,” according to a Washington Post columnist. But truth really is defined differently inside the Beltway.

Trump could face a “perjury trap” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller because of the unique way that the FBI defines reality — and the truth. The FBI rarely records interviews and instead relies on written summaries (known as Form 302s) which “are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations,” the New York Times noted last year. Though defense attorneys routinely debunk the accuracy and credibility of 302s, prosecutors continue touting FBI interview summaries as the voice of God. Even if Trump made factually correct comments to Mueller, he could still face legal peril if his statements failed to harmonize with FBI “trust me on what I heard” memos containing contrary assertions.

Though other federal agencies cannot play the 302 game, they have plenty of options for editing the public record. Inside the Beltway, “plausible deniability” (a phrase first publicly used by CIA chief Allen Dulles in the 1950s) is “close enough for government work” to truth.

Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 to boost self-government by entitling Americans to learn what Washington did in their name. But FOIA is derided nowadays as a “Freedom From Information Act” that begets merely a mirage of transparency. Last year, individuals who filed FOIA requests “received censored files or nothing in 78 percent” of the time, according to the Associated Press. Federal agencies with the most power — such as the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department — are among the worst FOIA abusers.

Federal agencies also maximize their discretion in defining truth via almost 50 million decisions to classify information each year. And the Justice Department can totally suppress embarrassing facts on the most contentious issues (such as torture or assassinations) by invoking the “state secrets” doctrine. The George W. Bush administration routinely invoked “state secrets” to seek “blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs,” according to a study by the Constitution Project. A federal appeals court slammed the Obama administration’s use of “state secrets”: “According to the government’s theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and the limits of the law.” Government’s sway over damning information is boundless — at least until some scofflaw like Edward Snowden obliterates federal credibility.

Read the full article at The Hill
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here
Shield icon power-market-v2