cable 09KABUL1651, 06/23/09 MEETING, ASSISTANT AMB MUSSOMELI AND MOI exposes a U.S. cover-up of the prostitution of young Afghan boys. The U.S. misled the American media in an attempt to keep the sex trafficking out of the headlines. DynCorp, U.S. based corporation hired to train and support the build up of Afghan Police. DynCorp apparently threw a party where young boys were sold into sex slavery to the highest bidder.
Reporters were thrown off this story by DynCorp and told it would be harmful to report such a thing and that it could endanger lives. Quite the opposite is true. DynCorp is funded by U.S. tax dollars. isn’t it good to know that your tax dollars went to help old men purchase young boys as sex slaves?
The cable reveals a discussion between Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli and Afghan Minister Hanif Atmar on how to best keep this information out of the U.S. Media. The practice of the sale of young boys into sexual slavery is known as Bacha bazi.
Bacha Bazi (Persian: بچه بازی literally “playing with children”), also known as bacchá ‘ (from the Persian bacheh بچه “child, young man, calf”) is a practice recognized as sexual slavery and child prostitution in which prepubescent children and adolescents are sold to wealthy or powerful men for entertainment and sexual activities. This business thrives in southern Afghanistan, where many men keep them as status symbols. Some of the individuals involved report being forced into sex. The authorities are barely attempting to crack down on the practice as “un-Islamic and immoral acts” but many doubt it would be effective since many of the men are powerful and well-armed former commanders.
A documentary by Najibullah Quraishi about the practice was aired on PBS Frontline in the United States , and True Stories in the UK on 20 April 2010. This film premiered at the Royal Society of Arts on 29 March 2010.
The Government does not hate you. The Government does not like you. It is indifferent. The Government is not an entity with feelings, remorse, ethics or conscious. It is a collective of individuals working according to rigid flawed guidelines. The government is not an individual therefore the government as a whole has no rights whatsoever. People can have rights, this corporate entity called the United States has no rights. It functions to take rights and to oppress. There are often individuals within the government who wish to ‘do good’ but overall that is impossible. The nature of government prohibits any good for the very means of which the state reaches its ends is immoral.
Individuals who work within the government or are employed by the government may have rights, but no more than any other individual. This makes the actions of many of the states employees criminal by the very nature of their jobs. Marines and Soldiers often engage in murder and invasion. They justify this by stating that the non-individual ‘the state’ is responsible. What is the state? It is nothing more than these individuals acting in a criminal manner to assert force and control over other human beings. If a gangster claims they have the right to murder because the gang they belong to calls for this murder, do we accept that as a justified?
Police by the nature of their job simply defend the will of the state with force. They partake in what would be seen outside of the context of the state as extortion, theft, murder, assault and kidnapping on a daily basis. This is simply justified by stating ‘they were just doing their job.’ Even the youngest elementary school child is taught this is wrong. “Would you jump off a bridge if Jimmy told you to?” We learn that just because someone tells us to do something it is not justified. Somehow statist apologetics seem to defy those simple ethics.
These people who have committed crimes against humanity under the titles the government provides them would still exist in a system without government. The aim of eliminating government can be seen as an aim to end the unethical nature of the state. By eliminating the crux of the state which is the power of the Police and Military that uses force to obtain it’s will and command over others. The average person sees these as necessities for order. To bring up alternatives for order in a more ethical manner tends to bring up doomsday scenarios and a debate that compares anarchism to a certain utopia they have even failed to obtain through their force. As an anarchist I do not seek utopia, but to reject a system that is every bit as criminal as what it claims to oppose. I seek to oppose hierarchy, power over others and oppression. To claim that we must accept oppression on one level to avoid oppression on another level is inaccurate. This returns to the statist mindset that in order to end crime we must also partake in those crimes under the title of ‘Police.’ I am not asking for oppression or crime on any level, rather pointing at how we accept it on one level for a ‘greater good’ justified by ‘the will of the people’ or the ‘divine rights of kings.’
If you have faith in these people to keep order and to find solutions with coercion why then do you not believe that this order can not be found outside of criminal means?
Those in the state that seek to keep order are just people. Individual human beings preforming a job under a misguided ethic. Once we have eliminated the hierarchy and oppression of the state it will still be people or individuals in non-coercive entities and through voluntary means providing similar services. There is a misunderstanding that somehow order is only found with these people if the state exists. The only tool for order is often seen as the state. This is partially because the state has educated us to believe such. Individuals have a difficult time perceiving a system outside of the systems that they have always known.
I am not one to say that a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) or Voluntary Contractual Arrangements are the definitive answer. In a truly non-coercive system we would see all and more. We would see amalgams of these as well as other concepts for protection defense and order. To state that we must choose one is the flaw of the statist. I n a truly liberated society I am not forced to choose between Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho Capitalism, but I am free to join in the systems of order I find most effective or appropriate. To cling to only one is the way of the state. This keeps the flaws of the system choose also with no option and no way out.
Society like the government is not an individual or an entity with rights to supersede the rights of the individual. Society however is a reality. We may each be individuals with rights but we often find we are interdependent. This interdependence creates society, markets, syndicates and all forms of interaction. To say that one solution is sufficient for all needs is to oversimplify reality. To embrace anarchism is to embrace the reality that there is no one perfect way to interact and to embrace that there are flaws in systems. To embrace the state is to embrace one way that is believed to be the only solution and to enforce that belief and way upon others.
The expectations of statists for anarchism are far above that which they have achieved with statism. It is the statist who will ask for a solution to a problem and when given one they are restricted to the statist idea that this is the only solution. They will then ask impossible tasks that they have even failed to find effective solutions for. One example is defense. The statist sees the state as the only solution. When one looks at anarchist solutions we see many options. The anarchist will often start with prevention and move to other solutions from there. The statist is limited to the government they grant a monopoly over the industry of aggression.
In closing I will state that to reject the state is not to stand in opposition to order or to ignore problems that exist, but to embrace the reality that there is no one way that will be the answer to all. We embrace that fact that people can bring solutions and that they should not be disregarded because they do not lead to utopia.
Just the other day, President Obama urged other countries to stop censoring the Internet. But now the United States Congress is trying to censor the Internet here at home. A new bill being debated this week would have the Attorney General create an Internet blacklist of sites that US Internet providers would be required to block.
This is the kind of heavy-handed censorship you’d expect from a dictatorship, where one man can decide what web sites you’re not allowed to visit. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to pass the bill this week — and Senators say they haven’t heard much in the way of objections! That’s why we need you to sign our urgent petition to Congress demanding they oppose the Internet blacklist.
Read more about the bill: COICA Fact Sheet.
“We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world,” says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.”
I urge you to sign the petition, but watch out with giving money to this group. It looks like the money may be going to the DNC so watch out before you donate. That’s your choice.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor’s Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their “posterity” to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed “the people of the United States,” for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of “the people” as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as “we,” nor as “people,” nor as “ourselves.” Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any “posterity.” It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.
Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the “posterity” of those who established it.
- Lysander Spooner
The militarized police state is here, has been here and is reality. One of the best examples in the United States of Orwellian Double Speak is the term “Peace Officer.” We use this to define an individual hired to use aggressive force against the citizens and throw them into cages. Most accept this and do not perceive is as an issue. Many defend it’s presence and declare it a ‘necessary evil.’ By declaring it a ‘necessary evil’ you have already acknowledged it is evil. Now one must reject the idea that evil is necessary.
We all commit abstract ‘crimes’ against the state, some are just lucky enough not to be caught. There is a double standard which favors those in the state to this which I briefly mentioned in another article called “Not All Are Equal In The Eyes Of The Law.” The reality is that police are under no obligation to protect you. They are to serve the will of the state. They are the power the state uses to assert its power over you. This was validated by the Supreme Court in 2005 when Justices ruled that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.To even claim we need police for ‘safety’ is a complete misunderstanding in what their purpose is.
One can point to many abuses of power that have been caught on tape recently. Police are objecting more and more to being filmed. It is frightening that they wish to use aggressive force on citizens and not be held accountable for what is going on. What do they hide? Why is recording something they fear? The state backs them, like in Illinois where you can receive up to 15 years for filming a Cop. One thing that is essential is to film these people carrying out the states will. News reports of Children being slaughtered while they sleep like in the case of Aiyana Jones, violent abuse of citizens, murdering household pets and much more have been in recent headlines. Websites like Injustice Everywhere do a good job at collecting reports of the massive violations and criminal activity within these departments.
Military Surplus is being bought up in bulk by police departments for use against citizens. Often the true criminal activity taking place is by the Police Department. In the case of Joe Arpaio the power of the police force is used for self gain. Joe Arpaio is the criminal who is declared a national hero. Here we see business owners being forced to dump their resources into defending themselves against the allegations of the state. It does not matter if the business or individual is innocent or guilty, they have been crushed by court and lawyer fees attempting to defend themselves. The absence of conviction, or a declaration of ‘innocent’ does not serve as reparations to all the loss and damage. Some have opened their eyes now with talks about deploying drones and Army units on U.S. soil. The reality is that those are just minor concerns compared to what already exists.
There is the constant theft by the police of the citizens property. Not only are they the force necessary to maintain the extortion racket they call taxation, but they directly steal property. Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime. This property does not have to actually be used in a crime, only a claim has to be made. It can be the property of someone other than the individual the police stole it from.
In a system where people are detained in jail cells before being found guilty justice is a joke. “In jail awaiting trial.” Guilty until proven innocent is the American way. It is time we began to question the power of the government. ‘Big Government’ did not start with ‘ObamaCare’ or the ‘Patriot Act.’ The structure and foundation for the power of the state was accepted by giving up our liberty on what many perceive as a smaller scale by throwing that liberty away for what we were told was a little protection which in reality exists to defend and strengthen the state. Until we abolish this state ran monopoly they will continue to seize more power and trample on your rights.
I am uncertain of how much support H.R. 5741 will do in the house. Part of me sees it as ridiculous, but with the power individuals invest in the words written by these men and women labeled as “law” nothing shocks me. H.R. 5741 is labeled the “Universal National Service Act.” This is just another of the many examples of nationalism in the united states. It describes itself as a bill:
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
What wartime? We seem to be a nation that has been at war for decades. When we have no enemy we invent them. Prohibition has become the “War on Drugs.” We war against concepts like “terrorism.” Then we go to the endless oil wars in the middle east. We start out waring over an oil company and overthrowing governments in the 1950s’ and this has continued to build and spiral out of control.
As the empire grows taxation can only go so far until you must directly serve the state. We labeled our nationalism and defense of culture “homeland security” one of the most nationalist concepts in the United States. A war against people who have not paid homage to the state by paying the state for it’s freedom and legitimacy as a citizen. The Republicans mostly want those people out of the country. The Democrats want those people to be registered in the databases of the state. Both parties want to trap those people in the system and control over them so they can steal the products of their labor. Now they are seeking them to directly serve the state with the rest of us.
The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
This also seems to be giving more direct power to one office and title to determine how you will serve the state. You may be of the camp that President Obama means the best for us all, but I ask you what about when the Republicans regain control? What about the next George W. Bush?
We are looking at what seems to be mostly a new draft and forced servitude to the military in this bill. It also extends to other areas. What I spoke of in my articles pointing out the brainwashing of the individual by the state through it’s military is no doubt essential to making this happen. Read the article here. Devotion to the state will only increase at this point.
If something like this becomes law the brainwashing will not be limited to those who choose to be a part of it. It will be forced on a majority it seems. Every able bodied citizen shall be devoted to the state.
Many places are calling it the Slavery Bill. I would be more eager to compare it to other nationalist movements. Our sense of nationalism is strong especially with the right in certain areas. The left has embraced a certain nationalist devotion to the new Obama administration. These two factions both devoted to the state show how more and more are coming to worship the state.
The state is defending it’s ability to continue to keep its secrets and continue on with it’s lies by going after Bradley Manning for his heroic act of speaking the truth. I will take the side of openness and truth over the state and it’s secrecy and lies.
Please donate and help this poor brave young man who the state is trying to lock up. They wish to take his life from him by forcing him to spend it in their prison cell.
This is the shining example of what the state is. The murderers are hailed heroes and are going unpunished while those who speak the truth are labeled a danger and a criminal.
Washington D.C., July 27, 2010 – At 4PM EST on July 27, the Bradley Manning Support Network (www.bradleymanning.org) will begin accepting online donations for the legal defense of Private First Class Bradley Manning.
The Network, a grassroots initiative formed to defend and support accused whistleblower Pfc. Bradley Manning, has partnered with Courage to Resist, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting military objectors.
Manning, a 22 year old intelligence analyst stationed in Iraq, stands accused of disclosing a classified video depicting American troops shooting civilians from an Apache helicopter in 2007. Eleven adults are killed in the video, including two Reuters employees, and two children critically injured. The video, available at www.collateralmurder.com, was published by WikiLeaks on April 5, 2010. No charges have been filed against the soldiers in the video.
Bradley Manning faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted of the charges against him.
Please visit the site and support Bradley Manning: Press release: Legal Fund Established to Fight Imprisonment of Accused WikiLeaks Whistleblower « Help Bradley Manning.
The heat outside is almost unbearable. As I drive up and down the Avenue I see an older woman leaning out of an apartment window in front of a fan sweating and trying to get some kind of relief from the heat. With the heat the streets seemed to be filling with more and more people. As you drive down the avenue in Northeast Kansas City you will most likely see women in prostitution. The uncritical perspective seems to believe that those of us who wish to stand up for these women somehow are pro-prostitution or want to see these women on the street. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many in Kansas City who are actually fighting to help these women. Then there seems to be a group with disdain for these women who just want to rid the city of these people.
The dialogue on this has shown the exact same sentiment as we see in Arizona. There is one group that seems to look down on these people and wishes to make them vanish. This is the voice of the uncritical mind that accepts that “law” is good because it just is. There is no spine to the movement out of that they pay some police officer to pretend to have. The pious religiosity they have towards the words written by other men shows the lack of any defense outside of their want to hire men with guns to hide behind badges in order to enforce their will.
They have attacked other people with false claims. They call the opposition “outsiders” in some lie they have created that we who live in the northeast somehow do not and that should discredit what we say. They have repeatedly attacked Nick Pickrell online for not living in the Northeast long enough. The group that is actually out there working to clean up the very problem they complain about is the group that comes under attack. Perhaps if Nick Pickrell and those at Cherith Brook were using his guns to force those people into cages they would support them also.
I have strong feelings on the issue on multiple levels. First as a human-being, second as an anarchist . As an anarchist I am opposed to the power of the state especially the power of the police to enforce morality. I have an issue with human beings holding power over other humans so from the social-cultural aspect I also oppose the dynamic of the Neighborhood Association and the power they wield over others. The neighborhood association is closed to many people. If one owns a home they can partake. Renters and other people in Northeast Kansas City are excluded from any voice or power. This leaves out the majority of the minorities voices, and in Northeast Kansas City the minorities are the majority. It has become rule of the wealthy and privileged. This shows the great cultural divide of the mostly white upper class and upper middle class asserting it’s rule and desire over the lower income people of Northeast Kansas City.
I did not ever intend to attack individual candidates in their race here in Northeast Kansas City. I do however wish to attack the power and rule the upper middle class holds and attempts to assert over other people in the Northeast. As a resident of Northeast Kansas City I live in Scarritt, and I wish for this neighborhood to one day reflect what I know is possible. I see the extremes here in the northeast. I see the women stuck in prostitution, the homeless and the so-called criminal element every day. I also see a group of people whose only solution to the problems of other human beings is to get rid of the people who have these problems.
I also have a problem with the power of the johns over the women in this situation, but that is really for another article in that I am not debating the power difference in prostitution but in the power elites that create and influence local legislation.
In this area no Republican stands a chance at gaining the power here, so it’s mostly the local Democrat party who claims to be liberal. What kind of liberal wants to lock up people living in poverty? Oh it’s not someone that is truly liberal just those who use the title and associate it with their patriarchal party of power.
I will be voting in the Democrat primaries in August. I will at least try to stop the ones who have been most influential and outspoken with their crusade to further victimize the women in prostitution in northeast Kansas City.
British officer: You call yourself a patriot, and a loyal subject to King
George?Hawkeye: I don’t call myself “subject” to much of
anything.Hawkeye explains the foundational tenet of the American worldview to a self-important armed government functionary offended by the frontiersman’s principled defiance; from the 1992 version of Last of the Mohicans.
Marilyn Levias, a 19-year-old Seattle girl involved in a jaywalking incident during which a police officer assaulted another 17-year-old girl, displayed “a dangerous refusal to observe a cardinal rule that civilians simply must comply with instructions from police officers,” insists Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.
For this, Miss Levias faces a gross misdemeanor charge of “Obstructing a Police Officer.” During the confrontation, Levias’s 17-year-old friend, Angel L. Rosenthal, intervened on her behalf and was punched in the face by officer Ian P. Walsh. As is typically the case when a Mundane’s face obstructs the trajectory of a police officer’s fist, the victim is the one facing criminal charges.
In announcing the criminal charge against Levias, City Attorney Holmes offered the mildest possible limp-wristed swipe at the Seattle Police Department by saying that the incident illustrates the need “for de-escalation training for officers.” Holmes also cited an observation by Judge Michael Spearman, auditor for the police department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, that “The use of force in a [jaywalking] situation as a best practice is questionable.
“Even this timid and tentative criticism was an unbearable affront to the delicate sensibilities of Rich O’Neill, president of Seattle’s Armed Tax-Feeders Guild.
“Force was not used in a jay-walking incident! Force was used because the individuals involved assaulted a uniformed police officer,” protested O’Neill.
The “assault” in question occurred when the teenage girls tried to free themselves from Walsh’s clutches after he had needlessly laid hands on them. They were uncooperative, not threatening.
Yet to O’Neill, who is apparently so Emo that his last name should be Philips, jaywalking occupies the same continuum as violent crime.
Accordingly, the use of overwhelming force is entirely appropriate: “Officers are trained to enforce the law and not to ‘de-escalate’ walk away simply because a violator objects to being stopped. That would simply lead to lawlessness.
“Indeed: If we don’t permit police officers to slug jaywalking teenage girls in the face, the terrorists will win.
There are evil axioms embedded in the statements of both Holmes and O’Neill. First of all, both assume that there is a dichotomy between police and “civilians” – which of necessity means that the former should be regarded as military, or at least para-military, in nature. Holmes reinforced that assumption by referring to the Mayor of Seattle as “commander in chief” of the city’s police.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the idea that “civilians” are to render instant, unqualified obedience to any armed individual in a government-issued costume is the chief characteristic of the martial law mind-set.
Read the Full Article by William Norman Grigg: The Police State’s ‘Cardinal Rule’: The Mundane Must Submit by William Norman Grigg.
Mike Ferguson, the Libertarian spokesman sent out this letter today in regards to the MIAC incident.
Missouri Libertarian Party Welcomes Resolution to MIAC Memo Controversy
Regarding Third Parties, Commends MPS Director John Britt for Responding
Positively to Concerns About Political Profiling