by Ron Paul
Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off.
For me it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades.
This issue is not only about mistakes that governments make. It is about the power they wield. If the government can legally kill, it can do just about anything else short of that. I no longer believe that government should be trusted with this power. All power is likely to be abused, and disproportionately so against the government’s own enemies.
This is not to argue that some of the convicted are not truly guilty of the charges and deserve the death penalty, which they might have received instantaneously if caught in the midst of a violent life-threatening act against a loved one in someone’s home.
The ineptness of government, the mistakes it is capable of making, the innocent people convicted, the power rush that judges might get from taking away life, the advantage of the rich over the poor are not the only things that influenced my change in attitude. The numbing effect on the executioner—that is, society—is also a factor. It contributes to the dehumanizing of society and the casual acceptance of the relative value of life. People realize this and most want no part of the process, except maybe out of vengeance.
Why are executions made sterile and easy, nothing more than a medical procedure? Would the public support execution by beheading on TV? No way. Killing in a deliberate manner, not out of immediate self-defense, fortunately, is not something most people want to gloat over. If individuals don’t want to watch it or participate in it, it indicates there’s something uncivilized about it.
Even the killing by our soldiers, though they have been conditioned to be killers, is a significant cause of psychological devastation and mental illness, which is obviously made worse when those killed are innocent bystanders written off as collateral damage. This is all tragic and indicates that taking life has consequences, even on the living.
The death penalty does have an effect on the society that endorses it. The more civilized the society is, the more likely it has moved away from a casual or careless administration of the death penalty. The more authoritarian a government becomes, the greater is the number of executions.
Those who are vocal supporters of the right to life of the unborn should be encouraged to rethink the issue of blanket support of the death penalty and their militant support for aggressive wars.
The Founders of this country, I would assume, supported the death penalty, though the way the Constitution was written, that decision was left to the individual states. They wrote only three federal crimes into the Constitution: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy, with slavery, including involuntary servitude, being added by the Thirteenth Amendment. In the Coinage Act of 1792, the death penalty was authorized for counterfeiting the currency. This is not an unexpected application of government power over life and death; too often it is used not against actual criminals but rather enemies of the state.
Consider the case of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. After he spread diplomatic documents, the long knives came out. Bill O’Reilly said that Assange was a traitor and “should be executed.” Sarah Palin said that he ought to be targeted “like the Taliban.” Ralph Peters of Fox News said, “I would execute leakers.” Mike Huckabee said, “I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Glenn Beck said Assange should be executed. G. Gordon Liddy said he should be put on a kill list.1
In the end, Assange is just one man with a laptop and he was merely releasing what is true, information that embarrassed many but harmed no one. And this is the man that so many think ought to be subject to the death penalty? Government always uses its power to punish its own enemies, but its enemies are not necessarily our enemies.
Plus, there is a terrible hypocrisy at work here. Is the government really the institution to stand in judgment? Just think of what it would be like if all those individuals in Washington responsible for counterfeiting our currency or forcing unconstitutional penalties on us through the tax system were to be punished with the death penalty. It wouldn’t be pretty. It’s best we change our system rather than think people such as Assange, or others digging for the truth, are treasonous and should be executed.
Though the individual states have discretion on how to punish those who commit violent crimes, at the national level the consistent right-to-life position should be to protect the unborn and oppose abortion, to reject the death penalty, and to firmly oppose our foreign policy that promotes an empire requiring aggressive wars that involve thousands of innocent people being killed. We would all be better off for it, and a society dedicated to peace, human life, and prosperity would more likely to be achieved.
Bedau, Hugo Adam. 2005. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacquette, Dale. 2009. Dialogues on the Ethics of Capital Punishment. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Most Americans know little about the Central Intelligence Agency. Too many of those who do know falsely believe it serves our national security interest. Today, if anyone criticizes the CIA or the principle of its existence, he is portrayed as being sympathetic to the terrorists.
But the CIA, for the most part, has had a failed record. Its credibility deservedly dropped after its participation in the lies told by the administration regarding the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have possessed. This is not to say there aren’t many agents in the CIA with very good intentions and a good record. Some have resigned in disgust. Others who have retired have been willing to speak out objectively and have been helpful in providing vital information about how the CIA has gone astray.
Intelligence gathering by governments about their enemies and potential enemies is an old practice that will continue as long as governments exist. Such intelligence gathering is a completely separate issue from the secret activities of the CIA that involve assassination, regime change, torture, secret rendition, and rigging foreign elections.
Legitimate intelligence should be a narrowly defined and tightly controlled process. If it isn’t, by its very nature it can get totally out of control with clandestine operations. An all-powerful, all-secret intelligence agency can become a government unto itself.
The CIA was officially established in 1947 by the National Security Act. It replaced the Office of Strategic Services, which was started during World War II. Intelligence gathering as we know it today was never part of our early history; especially when a declared war was not being fought. Since its creation, the CIA has been responsible for instigating every manner of political instability abroad, wildly exaggerating threats to the United States (as it did with the Soviet Union), and going around both Congress and the White House to achieve its own bureaucratic and political priorities. Today, the intelligence operation is huge, complex, and out of control.
The first major use of the CIA to interfere in the election process of a country was in 1953 with the overthrow of the duly elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosadeck. Our numerous CIA involvements have included assassination, assisting coups, rigging elections, and holding mock elections.1 Overthrowing foreign governments is illegal under international law and common law. It’s illegal under U.S. law and the Constitution. Morally it has no place in a country that professes to be a constitutional republic.
The CIA’s involvement abroad is unbelievably complex and pervasive. It is not thoroughly monitored by Congress and even our presidents don’t have full knowledge of what the CIA does, si
nce it has the ability to self-finance. The CIA is an active participant in waging wars, with control of the drone bombing of any country seen as a potential enemy in the future. Obviously, this is a dangerous power to wield, especially in secret. Rigging elections and secretly killing our supposed enemies is now seen as a relatively acceptable policy. Using contractors to carry out clandestine operations makes it even harder for the CIA’s activities to be monitored or understood. To say the least, with its ability to self-finance, the CIA, including its parent organization and sister agencies, is a uniquely powerful entity.
In 2004, as a consequence of 9/11, Congress created the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). This office is theoretically supposed to be in charge of the CIA and sixteen agencies of the U.S. intelligence community. Its size and scope make it virtually impossible for the DNI to be an efficient protector of all our interests and to supervise all the agencies’ activities.
To operate all these spy agencies costs American taxpayers an estimated $80 billion per year.2 I say “estimated” because precise numbers are secret information and difficult even for members of Congress to get. Yet when these agencies get a significant lead like a phone call from the father of a potential terrorist, as was the case with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, no one acts on it. It seems we’re not getting our money’s worth when it comes to the intelligence we’re paying for.
As always, whenever anything fails in Washington, the answer is more government and more money. We certainly did that after 9/11 with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. One thing is for certain: The intelligence agencies may not improve, but the American people will not only lose more of their money through higher taxes, but personal liberties will also be attacked. Legislation like the Patriot Act can be passed easily after any attack—serious like 9/11 or almost silly ones, like the underwear bomber.
Intelligence-gathering shortcomings are met with ever more panic and spending mania. Eighty billion dollars is not enough. We need much more. We don’t have too many bureaucrats involved; we need more. Where does it end? At total government control and utter bankruptcy? They never want to ask or admit that we’re endangered as a consequence of our foreign policy. They don’t want to change that. They believe that with greater and more pervasive spying we can compensate for a policy that will inevitably generate more people around the world who will want to harm us. Treating the symptoms will not cure the disease.
In a truly free republic, there would be no need for superspy agencies. The threats would be fewer and concern for violating the civil liberties and privacy of citizens would be paramount. I don’t argue for a complete abolishment of intelligence gathering, but I do strongly object to the size and scope of what has developed in this country. Most of the time, common sense, warnings that come to us, and information in the public domain can do as well as the current ineptness or deliberate deception of the proactive activities of the CIA and its involvement in the affairs of other nations.
Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland spend minuscule amounts on military preparation. Costa Rica has no military at all. These countries are not threatened, because they are regarded as nonaggressive. They naturally are far less threatened—though they are “free and prosperous”—by outsiders wanting to terrorize their citizens.
The failure of our spy agencies to warn us of major events is an obvious shortcoming and to be expected from a complex, massively bureaucratic system. But what occurred leading up to the Iraq War and how the CIA was used to produce false intelligence at the urging of the politicians who wanted the war is more than a disgrace. It’s immoral—and illegal. It’s amazing to me that the outrage over this is not more palpable.
Today, the United States beats the war drums against a host of countries that we are antagonizing and provoking. Intelligence assessments claim that countries from Pakistan to Yemen, Iran, and North Korea are all planning to do us harm one way or another. The CIA is not serving our security interests by participating in this charade of overblown danger.
The old fallback has always been that the Congress has ultimate control through the appropriations process. There’s evidence that the CIA can do its own funding through illegal drug trafficking.3 Instead of trying to stop drugs, the CIA is capable of benefiting from the size of drug operations around the world. Congress in these circumstances is totally ineffective on oversight.
Generally, though, Congress never cuts back on the CIA budget, even when members suspect corruption and waste. Not supporting the CIA and its activities is considered un-American and unpatriotic. It’s similar to the continued appropriations of money for illegal undeclared wars. Many of the antiwar members of Congress who want the wars to end can’t vote against the funding or they will be accused of “not supporting the troops.” Political pressure from whomever is President prompts his party members to support bad wars and intelligence operations even if they are out of control.
The suicide bombing attack against the CIA outpost on a military base in Khost, Afghanistan, on December 30, 2009, should have surprised no one. Seven CIA agents were killed. The agents were only following orders, doing what they were told to do. The tragedy is that the people who ordered the CIA to drone-bomb North Waziristan (Pakistan) are implementing a deeply flawed, immoral policy of preventive war against the people of Pakistan.
It’s the ultimate tragedy to see any American killed. It’s quite rare for a CIA agent to be killed, yet hundreds if not thousands of people are killed around the world by our CIA agents and military, supposedly making us all “safe and secure” here at home. Some people are being murdered on orders of our own government around the world, so we can expect the violence to continue and the retaliation against the CIA to increase.4
Changing the whole notion of the intelligence agencies is crucial. Since the motivation and acceptance of CIA activity is to protect us from potential suicide bombers, this cannot be reversed unless we get an answer to this question: Why are some willing to commit suicide to do us harm? I believe the answer relates directly to the recklessness of U.S. foreign policy. If we don’t get this answer, the fix is in—tyranny. If the truth be known, we would all be safer if the CIA in its current form were to be abolished.
Faddis, Charles S. 2010. Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.
Weiner, Tim. 2008. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Anchor Books.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
I strongly believe in the principle of peaceful civil disobedience. It is one way that the impulse to liberty checks the powerful. I have not participated in it—except by refusing to participate in the usual congressional vote-trading games—but I support those who have, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Many war resisters have been arrested and imprisoned all the way back to the Civil War and even all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. Protests against slavery and segregation have prompted many to peacefully demonstrate and challenge the law. Protests against the tax code and the unconstitutional monetary system are growing more frequent.
Any protest, even when protected by the Constitution, is regarded by those in power as a dangerous challenge to the authority of the state. It is indeed that. Much good has come from these protests, and sadly, many good people have been imprisoned for years and sometimes for life because of their protests.
Though I have not chosen this method of protest and instead have chosen to promote change through education and political action, I admire people who do so as long as it’s nonviolent and the participants understand exactly what is at stake. It’s conceivable that someday I might consider it the only option. What tactic one chooses is strictly a personal choice. The greatest benefit of civil disobedience is the publicity it generates. This serves as an educational tool, so eventually it will help to change bad laws or stop an ill-conceived war. Although limited, it is more practical to believe that just because a protester is morally and constitutionally right, jus
tice will be achieved in the courts.
However, our courts are just as “corrupted” with bad ideas as are the executive and the legislative branches of our government. Great changes have been achieved through civil disobedience, and the heroes who engaged in it deserve our gratitude. Their real reward comes from the inner satisfaction of pursuing the truth as they see it—not from a sense of sacrificing for the greater good.
Admiring someone who practices peaceful civil disobedience and perseveres for long periods doesn’t mean that one has to agree with that individual’s entire philosophy. I like what Martin Luther King, Jr., did to eliminate state-enforced segregation; the use of the boycott is a great tool to promote peaceful change, and King spoke out brilliantly against the unconstitutional and pointless slaughter of the Vietnam War. I do not believe, however, that his economic views were supportive of the free market. Even as he became more radical, and correct, on the Vietnam War, he moved to the left on economic issues.
This is regrettable but also highly conventional. In my view, there is a general tendency for people who are correct on war to be wrong on economics, and the same tendency for people who are correct on economics to be wrong on war. As sure as a person is willing to stand up against the Iraq war for its cost and militarization, he will be arguing for expanded and tax-paid health care at home. And sure as a person denounces big government at home, he will argue for dramatic expansions of military power. If we had a consistent philosophy of peace and freedom, we would oppose both socialism and war and be willing to fight against all forms of statism, whether domestic or international.