Skip to main content

More government idiocy on containing the spread of information

US citizens prohibited from even handling scientific manuscripts originating in Iran.

Sort of a governmental form of Sha'ria law: 

Major scientific journal publisher Reed Elsevier and others are vowing to obey thelatest US sanctions against Iran in their day-to-day operations, implementing bizarre policies aimed at following the letter of the law.
The sanctions ban Americans from having any contact with anything written in whole or part by Iranian government employees. Though Elsevier is a Dutch company, it has plenty of American employees, particularly as relates to its English language publications.
So the company has had to introduce a series of zero tolerance policies that its American-born employees cannot have any interaction with the physical manuscripts of Iranians, and also advises managers to “reject outright” any manuscripts from Iran if they can’t find a non-American employee to handle it. The company is concerned that journal editors could be held personally liable by the US government for acquiring the taint of handling Iranian manuscripts.
An over-reaction from Elsevier?  Possibly.  But since the US Government has asserted the power to issue national security letters to anyone violating its policies, letters that the recipient cannot challenge or even tell anyone else about (that's a crime, remember), this policy may not have sprung directly from the minds of the publisher.

Should the US Government be able to make the flow of information on an international basis illegal?

Funny, we didn't even do that with Soviet papers of nuclear physics during the height of the Cold War.

We didn't do that when India was developing nuclear weapons.

We didn't do that when Israel was (illegally, according to international law) developing nuclear weapons.

I am, apparently, an unreasonable Libertarian dogmatist for pointing out that this policy (a) makes no sense when European and Asian nations are not doing anything similar; (b) actually inhibits our own passive intelligence gathering about the Iranians; and (c) is another example of why the current administration is by far not just the worst administration on civil liberties in the history of the nation, but is also the most dangerous in terms wanting to stop the free flow of information to and between its citizens.

I will say it again:  the Obama administration routinely (almost daily) pursues policies that would make Richard Nixon cringe, and gets a pass on them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...