next »

[neoboho]

Yea, but Howard, Alan Dulles was the CIA, innit?  No matter, Alan and John were both heavily invested in United Fruit. And the beef really wasn't land acquitsition by the Arbenz, but rather taxes.  Arbenz wanted to levy taxes on undeveloped land owned by foreigners. 

I could agree with you within a chronology, though.  1950s - Greece, Iran, Congo, Guatemala and so on were CIA operations.  That's well documented.  But in 1980 - it's not so clear.  Efrain Rioss-Mont, when he said "In Guatemala we kill subversives, and all Indians are subversive," his biggest foreign backers were members of a conservative evangelical sect in the US, "The Church of the Word." I think they were ideologically and financially intertwined with the Ollie North crowd, in fact.  Ex-Officio, isn't that the correct phrase?

[Hcberkowitz]

Yea, but Howard, Alan Dulles was the CIA, innit? 

Allen Dulles was Director of Central Intelligence, true. He reported to the President and National Security Council. If he (and his brother) ran amuck, the buck stops at Eisenhower's desk.

There have been enough Eisenhower Administration documents declassified that it was fairly clear that Eisenhower tracked his Cabinet and staff as or more closely than any other President, not surprisingly as he had the most experience as a staff officer and then as a senior commander supported by a staff. As an aside, he had his wartime chief of staff, Walter Bedell Smith, as DCI before Dulles. Smith had health problems and couldn't stay in the job.

A comment was made, technically dated I realize, that appointing Allen Welsh Dulles as DCI was taking the fastest telegrapher in the company and making him CEO of Western Union. From inside the intelligence community, he was not an extremely popular appointment, being seen as an operations officer without extensive policy experience.

I could agree with you within a chronology, though.  1950s - Greece, Iran, Congo, Guatemala and so on were CIA operations.  That's well documented.

CIA operations, or U.S. operations?  For that matter, could you clarify what you mean by Greece, since there was a significant Army presence in their conflict with Albania?

The Foreign Relations of the United States series has minutes, or at least summaries, of the approval of those covert actions by a higher-level committee and often the President. The committee name changed over time, ranging from the Operations Coordinating Board to the 303 Committee to the 54/12 Group to the Special Group (Counterinsurgency) to the Forty Committee, but I suspect I can, without too much searching, find documentation from above the pay grade of the DCI, ordering those actions. It's too easy to say "CIA", as if they had no oversight.

Now, if you want to talk about Sidney Gottlieb, that was unquestionably CIA initiative without higher-level authorization -- probably DDP rather than DCI level.

If there was an overall  lack of oversight, it was by Congress. Eisenhower made it very clear he did not want Congressional meddling in the secret world, and that was accepted.

But in 1980 - it's not so clear.  Efrain Rioss-Mont, when he said "In Guatemala we kill subversives, and all Indians are subversive," his biggest foreign backers were members of a conservative evangelical sect in the US, "The Church of the Word." I think they were ideologically and financially intertwined with the Ollie North crowd, in fact.  Ex-Officio, isn't that the correct phrase?

Interesting point. Remember that North, Poindexter,McFarland, Secord, Casey (personally but not under his CIA hat), etc. set up Iran-Contra as a circumvention of the Boland Amendment. There were as many loose cannons in the West Wing and EOB as in Langley. Had Casey not been a dying man when Iran-Contra came out, there's little question he could have been indicted; the violation of the Boland Amendment was less clear for the others, especially those like Secord and Singlaub, who were not government employees.

I detest North, but, again, I keep coming back to Truman's "the buck stops here". Why are we blaming staff and the CIA when the President had ultimate responsibility? This isn't a Democratic vs. Republican thing; LBJ, had we known the lies involved, was as deserving of impeachment over the Gulf of Tonkin as GWB is over Iraq. I suppose, with Reagan, there is always the question of "when did he know and when did he forget."

North was fired rather than allowed to resign. Now, I'm not familiar with the Church of the Word. Was his involvement while he was on the NSC staff, or after he left?

[PseudoCyAnts]

I didn't quite get Raimundo's point - other than stating the obvious.

What you perceive as obvious is not so clear on the right-side of the political bipolarity.  I was remiss not posting the citation to the relevant  Barr Op/Ed. Here it is:

Bob Barr, "Wary eye on South America: Simmering tensions on a vital continent should concern us, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 19, 2008

You need also consider that Raimondo is probably attempting to push Barr towards stronger libertarian values, as well as reminding his readers that classic libertarianism is antithetical to the use of force, unless it is clearly self-defense, and does not also target non-responsible parties. Raimondo has always been adamantly anti-war.  He was vehemently opposed to the Serbian War, and was a part of the anti-Vietnam war right, which also offers illumination on why he is anti-Chavez.  He considers Marxism to be an uncommon evil.  I really have a hard time disagreeing with him on that account, as I'd be on one of the first trains out to a labor or reeducation camp were I to find myself a citizen of a Marxist government.  Think about it.  Would your likely turn be on the first, second or third train?  I don't believe that Chavez is a Marxist though, and I didn't have much problem with his nationalising the Oil industry, because it represented illegitimate property rights to national resources, for which the Venezuelan people had not been properly compensated.  Raimondo's libertarian point of view leans too hard into the von Mises' wing, which elevates private property ownership well beyond what is natural, moral, and realisable without a vigorous interventionist state.  Governmental non-possession of real property is not arguable using Original Constitutional Intent either, as without a Federal Government's right and power to possess real property, several other enumerated Constitutional governmental powers and duties are nugatory, and it is irrational to suggest that a Constitutional clause was at its origins, without substance.

Raimondo could very well have motives which are not as transparent, especially to individuals who are not familiar with Bob Barr, and do not instinctually understand what should be innately axiomatic and/or flow as their corollaries in libertarian theory.  Although he seldom mentions it,  Raimondo understands why governmental prohibitions against citizens' choices in ingested poisons is illegitimate action that has far-reaching unintended consequences.  It isn't the purchasing of illegal drugs that funds terrorism, as the Bush Administration oft claims; it is the War on Drugs itself, which is the culprit.  The War on Drugs, keeps the lawful side of the marketplace from entering into the business, greatly inflates the price of the product, and is the cause for substandard product being sold without methods available for consumer recourse.  On the supplier-side, it offers a steady capital stream, and vast underworld connections that reach out to global weapons merchants.  It is the government's distortion of the marketplace, concomitant with its impotence to significantly curtail domestic demand, that is the cause for the majority of evil existing on the supplier side of the drug market.  Bob Barr claims to be a libertarian, and has tempered his stated views about the use of medicinal marijuana, but he is still very anti-libertarian regarding his view about drugs.  This is an issue that Raimondo is unlikely to directly address, unless explicitly forced to state his position.  It is much like his views regarding gay rights, as he seems to still possess vestiges of homophobia, yet will if pressed, amusingly state with forceful clarity, something to the effect that even fags have a right to freely choose their consensual sexual behaviors, if they do not attempt to coerce themselves upon him.

Barr on the other hand, is still a wide-stanced drug warrior at heart, and that is a primary reason for his support of Columbia:

As the world's largest producer by far of cocaine, Colombia occupies a pivotal position in the U.S. effort to stem the tide of illicit drug trafficking in our country. While his predecessors offered lip-service and inconsistent support for American law enforcement's efforts to seriously limit the cocaine coming to the U.S. from Colombia, President Uribe literally has placed his own life in danger by going after the drug production and financing networks that have taken hold in his country over the last four decades. In fact, on the day in August 2002 he was sworn into office, mortar attacks in Bogota targeting the presidential palace resulted in 21 deaths and 125 injuries to innocent civilians. Attacks on the civilian population continue, although the security situation in the major cities is significantly improved over that which prevailed when Mr. Uribe took office.

The Colombian leader has gone beyond going after the leftist guerrillas that operate hand-in-glove with the murderous drug organizations in his country. He also has moved vigorously against right-wing, extremist paramilitary organizations...

Recognizing Colombia's essential role in our country's campaign against illicit trafficking in cocaine, the Bush administration and prior Congresses have responded to Mr. Uribe's efforts by funding "Plan Colombia" to the tune over its seven-year lifespan of more than $5.0 billion. While critics interpret the fact that Colombian-processed cocaine stills arrives in our country as evidence Plan Colombia should be defunded or dramatically reduced, in reality this support for Colombia's efforts will continue as an essential component of our anti-drug program...

Still, the fact that Mr. Uribe's efforts targeting right-wing paramilitary groups have not instantaneously and completely destroyed those groups apparently remains a stumbling block to securing support from many Democratic leaders on the Hill.

Bob Barr, "No way to treat a friend", BobBarr2008 dot com campaign website, reprint first published in The Washington Times, June 09, 2007

Barr is either lying about Uribe's targeting Columbia's paramilitary right, or he is woefully uninformed.  Uribe received strong support from Columbian paramilitary groups, and as far as I am aware, has adamantly refused to extradite any of those identified as members of terrorist organisations to the US for prosecution, and instead opted for their public renunciation of their past and clemency.  Uribe's targeting of Columbia's paramilitary groups was not to prosecute them for the criminal acts, but instead to recruit them as a part of his power base.  Anyone who believes this would be opposed by hard-headed American right-siders, including many holding powerful positions in the Bush Administration, is a fool.

I feel that Ron Paul's association with libertarianism reaches close to being personally defamatory, because he is not a libertarian, and holds many views antithetical to it.  Paul weasels on the 14th Amendment, by playing the game of original intent, which is reprehensible in this context, because no matter what one believes about original intent, the 14th Amendment is lawful addendum which intercedes.  It cannot just be hurdled over selectively to advance arguments of state's rights in an effort to control the sexual  and procreative behaviors of the citizenry.  Paul's claim that he believes the lawfulness of abortion should be a state's right, is directly contradictory to his numerous sponsorships and cosponsorships for bill proposals that define a fetus at the moment of conception as a person in the context of the 14th amendment.  Because he attempted to do this without using the Constitutional amendment process including text clearly amending the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, his claim to always strictly adhere to the Constitution is questionable. It is a blatant attempt to alter the meaning of the sentence without amending it:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States    and of the State wherein they reside.

Paul dances around with his "small-government" ideology here too. Were this idea to hold force as law,  it would require tremendous increases in enforcement bureaucracies, the judiciary and penal institutions, because upon its enactment, all subsequent miscarriages would need be investigated for potential crimes of homicide and manslaughter. A state which did not aggressively investigate miscarriages would experience the federal government being shoved down its throat, predicated by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  Paul's vociferous anti-immigration screeds and remedies are also bigger government proposals, oppositional to libertarian theory. The audacious hypocrisy of Paul, and his ability to get away with it is astounding.  Yet as bad as Paul is, Barr does not even come close to being as libertarian as Ron Paul.

Bob Barr is just a dishonest and cowardly new-righty, disguised in conservatism's mantle, who arrogantly refuses to own up to his own responsibility for the present-day manifestation of evil that is contemporary conservatism. He now flees headlong into the libertarian party, laughably claiming it is a Big Three-Ring Circus Tent of Inclusiveness, just like the GOP, and that it's quite alright to agree to disagree with foundational libertarian precepts, as he befouls this party, just as he did the Republican Party.

Never forget that Barr was for the PATRIOT Bill, before he was against it, and understand that he was a driving force behind the jacking of the 1995-96 congressional anti-terror legislation, which negated all substantive proposals to stem the rise of international terror, while it gutted habeas corpus rights for humans incarcerated in America.

[neoboho]

My bad, Howard.  Put Greece in the 60s column.

BTW, did you view the old PBS series "Sydney Reiley: Ace of Spies?"  The loved the series, and it pleased me to read that Flemming probably based the James Bond character on Reiley.

[neoboho]

Why is it that Libertarians tend to spend a lot of time defining the concept, Pseudocyants?  Is it that von Mises set a standard that few are likely to represent?  But here's an amusing anecdote (to me, anyway).  On a Usenet debate with a Libertarian, I mentioned that von Mises was a Ukranian Jew (which is a plus, the way I measure things).  My opponent strongly objected, correcting me "No he wasn't, he was born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire!" 

One big problem with most South American societies is the almost total lack of upward mobility.  If you are born into the upper classes, you can enjoy the fruits of previlege.  Born poor, however, the only avenue of upward mobility is either the military or Marxism (class - revolution).  At least that was true in 1960, when a Venezuelan classmate who had served as the Minister of Health in Guatemala stated it in a Health Education class we were both attending.  It may be broader now - illegal drug production certainly offers upward mobility, as well as immigration, legal or illegal.  So it does boil down to the ownership of the means of productions, as Marx tells us.  The most jaded capitalist will wax all misty talking about the wonderful human spirit which strives for growth, improvement and progress.  If that spirit is stiffled, we are told, the society is oppressive and decaying.  What do you want to be when you grow up, pobrecito?  A Marxist, a Drug Lord, a Generalissimo or a service worker in Laguna Beach?