Free Amina Farah Ali

Amina Farah Ali is an American citizen living in Minnesota currently being tried for allegedly sending aid to al-Shabaab, a political group in Somalia that has been fighting (like pretty much everyone in Somalia) with the corrupt, cruel, unpopular U.S. sponsored puppet government there.

She refused to stand for the judge, one Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis. He has banned her from the courtroom. Apparently he thinks the traditional show of respect for the court is more important than following the U.S. Constitution, which states in the Sixth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights: "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his offense."

The Constitution lies in shreds on the floor of Judge Davis's federal court, in more ways than this. While that has always been the way of our national government, while that is simply part of the gruel of law, it is always instructive to look at the details.

I don't see how any honest interpretation of the Constitution allows for Ms. Ali and people like her to be accused of any crime at all. The laws she is being prosecuted under are devoid of any basis in the Constitution. They violate international law and all all reasonable standards of ethical behavior.

In this supposed land of the free this law makes it illegal to send funds or supplies to foreign political groups the U.S. government does not like. You can, conversely, send funds and supplies to foreign political groups the U.S. does like. Even accepting, as I do, that Congress has broad power to do what is "necessary and proper" to carry out its Constitutional duties, this law makes a mockery of several sections of the Constitution.

It is also yet another instance of the U.S. government claiming jurisdiction beyond its own borders, a policy that has always infuriated the various nations we have interfered with and made war upon.

Did Ali, in raising $2,100 in pledges to send to Somalia to fight against a gang of thugs flooded with tens of millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer provided "support", commit treason? This is the main question that needs to be asked. If she did not commit treason, then the law and the prosecution, in fact all the acts of Congress, President Obama, and their court system, are simply overreach.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear about treason (the Funding Fathers having just escaped with their lives from being treasonable to King George): "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." [Article III, Section 3] Note the word only. It colors the entire section.

Ms. Ali has certainly not levied war against the United States of America. Perhaps she gave aid and comfort to al-Shabaab, but al-Shabaab is the de facto government of Somalia, not the "transitional" U.S. paid puppet government. According to many treaties we have signed the U.S. is supposed to recognize de facto governments. Not hire thugs to set up puppet regimes.

Al-Shabab is certainly an enemy of the U.S.-made inflatable-doll "government" of Somalia, but anyone in their right mind in Somalia would be. Who wants to be bossed around by a government that you can't even vote for or against. By that, I mean the U.S. government. If Somalia is U.S. territory, shouldn't they get at least two U.S. Senators, a proportional number of Representatives, food stamps, and Social Security? I've noticed food stamps really cut down on opposition to the government.

Suppose I were elected President. No, I'm not running. But I would recognize the de facto government, maybe governments, of Somalia. That is the right thing to do. And suddenly Ms. Ali there is no longer aiding an alleged enemy of the U.S., but an ally.

Making list of enemies in foreign civil wars might seem necessary. I wish General Franco had been declared an enemy of the U.S. in 1936, then we probably could have skipped that entire World War II thing, and the Holocaust, and the occupation of Palestine by Israel. But the Catholic Church loved Franco and its adherents mostly voted Democratic in the U.S., so President Franklin Roosevelt maintained neutrality. So I admit there is a pragmatic argument to be made, but there is also a Constitution to try to keep out of the shredding machine.

Treason is a serious thing. Spying for a foreign nation might amount to treason, even if we were not at war with the nation spied for. But American citizens also have the right of free speech. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has declared that money is speech, at least when rich people and corporations corrupt the electoral process with it. If money is speech, then it seems to me Ms. Ali was engaging in speech, not treason. Of course you can expect the jackals of our Supreme Court to say that money is speech when they want it to be, and not when they don't want it to be.

We Americans are supposed to have a right to disagree with our government. They call that free speech. We also have a right to assemble with people who agree with us; that is the right to assembly.

If liking or not liking some political group in a foreign nation becomes treason, then free speech goes out the window. If Congress can declare foreign groups to be enemies for purpose of treason, what would prevent it from declaring domestic groups to be enemies for purpose of treason, except for decency, which is not something you want to rely on from politicians?

As far as treason goes, I think the only reasonable interpretation of the word "Enemy" is a nation with which we are at war. If the U.S. Congress had recognized al-Shabaab as the government of Somalia and then declared war on Somalia, I might not agree with them, but I could agree that once war is declared, the U.S. has a clear enemy, and it could be treason to aid them.

If al-Shabaab made an attack on or within U.S. territory, the Federal Government would have clear cause to deal with the crime, and with any American citizens aiding in the crime. You don't need to invoke the treason clause.

Neither of those situations fits the facts of Ms. Ali's case. She likes a particular "faction," really the de facto government, of Somalia. She sends them some help. Her actions are political, and do not constitute treason. American history is full of cases where our citizens, of their own initiative, have given verbal or material support to political factions outside the U.S. It is our right as human beings, and I believe it is a right covered by the Ninth Amendment (which is too little asserted):

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Note: my defense of Ms. Ali's rights in no way is meant to endorse or support al-Shabaab or any other armed faction in Somalia. I think they should all declare a peace and organize their society in a peaceful, humane manner.

Supreme Court Rules on Gun Control Laws

Before plunging into a commentary on this week's Supreme Court decision on gun control, note that I added two book reviews to iiipublishing.com, of Memoirs by Harry S. Truman and of How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos.

I am in agreement with the basic line of reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in their opinion that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does recognize the right of an individual citizen to own firearms, within reason. [See full text of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER]

Liberals, and other gun-control advocates, have long argued that the right to be armed only applies to a "well regulated militia." Before examining the issue, here is the full 2nd Amendment (Ratified December 15, 1791":

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This section of the Constitution, like the rest of it, was not handed down by some God, but was created by a committee of men (in this case, white, prosperous, male men). I think guns are a problem for our society. I find some of the arguments for gun-control to be strong. The problem for the gun-control advocates is that they want the 2nd Amendment to have a meaning different than what it actually has. Even in law books I have noted arguments that simply ignore history and contextual clues to the meaning of this important section of our Constitution.

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, you should try to amend the Constitution. Misreading the Amendment just shows people how dishonest you are.

Think back to the general context of the writing of the Constitution and the subsequent ratification of the Bill of Rights. Each state had its own government, and they were united under the Articles of Confederation during the Revolutionary War. Most people were content for the States to merely be confederated, but some wanted a stronger central government, in particular the wealthiest, most powerful and most conservative families. In the late 1780's in many States debtors and creditors were practically at war with each other; the economy was limping along; and the debts of most States and the national government that had accumulated in the Revolutionary War were mostly unpaid. In Pennsylvania the legislature had been taken over by small farmers, to the discomfort of its previous controllers, the merchants of Philadelphia. Then Shays' Rebellion took place in Massachusetts. Rebellion against England was one thing; rebellion against the ruling classes of the States was intolerable to them.

A convention to amend the Articles of Confederation had been called to take place in Annapolis [Annapolis Convention], with the sole purpose of the agenda being to facilitate trade and commerce. But a quorum did not show up. Panicked by Shays Rebellion, the representatives of the most powerful men in the Americas then met in secret and decided that to insure their rule and the security of their private property, the Articles would have to be thoroughly re-written, with much power taken away from the States and invested in the national government. Yet there were many conflicts of interest among these ruling men, and in some cases they did look to the good of the entire nation. The result was the proposed U.S. Constitution.

A majority of citizens did not like the proposed Constitution, if only because it was new and strange. When allowed to vote on it, a majority voted against it. However, by combining the use of some pretty dishonest tactics with a promise to add a Bill of Rights to the document as soon as possible, eventually all the states chose to join the new national government [and all states believed they could voluntarily leave a government that they voluntarily joined].

So when you look at the first ten amendments to the Constitution, what you are seeing is a manifestation of the concerns of those who opposed a strong central government. They wanted individual rights protected, and one of the most sacred individual rights is to have a say in decisions that are going to be applied to you. Just as citizens did not want decisions made for them in London, they did not want very many decisions made for them by a distant national government.

In particular, they remembered that the London government had sought to disarm them at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. To be disarmed is to be defeated. To be disarmed when another party is armed is to be the slave of that other party.

People feared a strong central government. They did not want the Army of the United States of America to be the sole possessor of armaments. They wanted the states to have militias. And within the states they did not want one political faction disarming another political faction. The best way to insure that is to allow individuals to own weapons or to store the weapons owned by the militias in their own homes. As people had learned in the Revolutionary War, if all the arms were in one place, they were easily seized.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Note it does not say "being necessary to the security of a free Nation," or "being necessary to the security of an individual." A free state is one that cannot have its rights, or the rights of its citizens, trampled on by the national government, or a foreign power, or the national government in league with a foreign power.

I am frankly surprised that the Supreme Court does not want to disarm all Americans. It seems like the very model of an unelected, dictatorial government. But note that 4 members of the Supreme Court did vote to disarm the citizens.

Guns are dangerous. People get killed by accident every year, and many are killed in anger by people who regret such actions later. But intelligence is dangerous, and electing people to govern for us is dangerous; danger lurks even in things we create for our own safety.

If we want to minimize people's desire to own hand guns for self defense, we must first make them feel secure. If we want to minimize crime, we need to minimize economic injustice and maximize education and opportunity. People may have forgotten about the dangers of government, but they cannot forget about the dangers posed by criminals. There are other ways to limit the dangers of weapons besides the draconian gun laws of cities like the District of Columbia.

I am a critic of the Supreme Court as an institution, but in this particular case five people who are actually part of the court made the right decision.

Democracy or Republic: Ron Paul's Liberty is Your Death

To my surprise an essay I wrote back in 2002, America: Republic or Democracy, has become pretty popular on the net. It comes up high at Google search, given you type in republic, democracy, and America for search terms. About 750 people looked at it in September, which is trivial by Paris Hilton standards but not bad for a political essay at an obscure Web site.

I noted another essay on the same topic, A Republic, Not a Democracy, by Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, which was written back in 2000. Ron Paul comes out squarely against democracy. That in itself should be ugly enough to stop a presidential campaign in its tracks. But there are a few things I agree with Ron Paul on. He's a serious guy. Instead of dismissing his argument, I am going to dissect it. If you are squeamish now is a good time to click over to something funny at YouTube.

Ron Paul claims "Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny." He defends the Republican system as being on the same order as the Bill of Rights. He claims the individual rights of minorities are endangered by majority rule or democracy.

But only a fool would swallow such reasoning. What a Republic always establishes is the rule of the few over the many. It does not protect everyone's individual rights: it protects the rights of the ruling minority. The Liberty of the minority becomes the subjugation of the majority. The only thing Ron Paul and I agree upon, within this topic, is that the federal government, under the Constitution, was designed that way.

The minority of 1789 given power by the U.S. Constitution were mainly descendants of European aristocrats, though some were from merchant families or had made it in the U.S. despite humbler ancestry. Who were they establishing power over? Women, for sure. Native American Indians. Slaves from Africa. White slaves (indentured servants). And, in fact, most white men, because most white men did not have enough property to qualify to vote.

Liberty is an ugly thing when it is the liberty to own slaves, to prevent women from owning property, to grab Indian lands protected by treaties, and to crush poorer white men under your boot with laws and a swarm of lawyers.

How many slaves did Patrick Henry own when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death?" Over forty.

Ron Paul is the sort of spineless pawn of the rich (I think he is rich himself) whose job as a politician is to shift all costs to the working citizens and all profits to the investor and managerial class. His freedom is your slavery.

I'll take democracy any day. I believe the rights of individuals and minority groups are important. But I don't see where that obligates me to assign to the rich the right to write laws that make them even richer and make the bulk of us poorer.

If one of Patrick Henry's slaves, or George Washington's slaves, or Thomas Jefferson's slaves had said, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death," it would ring through the centuries with a sweeter sound.

Ron Paul's advocacy against democracy is advocacy for bad government. It advocates special privileges for the rich that are denied the rest of us.