Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog


  March 7, 2013

Crisis: End of the rule of law in the US?
"If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago. The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate."
-- William Hazlitt







Sections

Introduction   
1. Crisis: End of the rule of law in the US?
About ME/CFS

Introduction:

The trouble with my eyes is roughly the same, so this is again a very brief Nederlog. It is  a follow-up of today's earlier Nederlog, called "Crisis: On civilization and capitalism in the US", with a very interesting graphical video that shows how the distribution of wealth has changed in the US.

This Nederlog also links to a video, that has a similar title as the earlier Nederlog "Crisis: End of the rule of law in Great Britain?"

1. End of the rule of law in the US?

It is an item from The Young Turks, and praises Rand Paul, who is the son of Ron Paul and a libertarian and a Republican, who - like his father - is a strong proponent of the US Constitution, that indeed is failling apart because both Bush Jr.'s and Obama's governments destroy it, using the pretext of "the war on terrorism" - and thereby effectively introducing the possibility of state terrorism.

Ron Paul is filibustering, and his reason to do so is that Obama's Department of Justice has said that, in certain circumstances, the US government considers itself free - in contradiction with the US Constitution - to kill American citizens with on American soil with the help of drones, and without due legal process.

As the host of TYT Cenk Uygur rightly says, that is the end of the Magna Charta in the US, and indeed the end of habeas corpus, also for US citizens on US territory: If your government decides it can kill you or lock you up on the pretext of the war on terrorism" something very bad and quite unconstitutional is taking place: Your state's governors are then terrorizing you, and then, as it happens, on the pretext of protecting others from terrorism.

Here is the video, and under it I have two brief comments:


If you watched the video you have probably noticed that, as presented by Obama's government, this effective end to the rule of law is supposed to be (claimed to be) applied in certain - not clearly defined - emergencies only.

That is a fallacy: What is not addressed is the constitutional issue and the rule of law issue that no government should have the right to arbitrarily kill, detain, persecute or interrogate its citizens, and that under the existing rules of the US constitution the US gove
rnment does not have those rights - but it now tries to appropriate such freedom to kill citizens without due process, that is: to start the effective rule of state terror, if the executives of the state desire it, or claim it is "justified", on the pretext of the "war on terror".

Secondly, I mentioned "state terrorism", and am aware of the fallacious argument that, 'since states tend to have the monopoly of violence, one cannot speak of "state terrorism" ', presumably on the ground that those who have the legal monopoly of violence cannot be accused of terrorism. This is just a rather sick play on words: One of the basic objections against the regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao is that many executives of their governments did terrorize their citizens, whereas other governments either did not do so at all, or did so to a far smaller extent. And the relevant difference, in many cases, including the US, was that the legal foundations of these other states forbade the arbitrary killings, arrests, interrogations, or detentions of their citizens - precisely because good governments exist to protect their  citizens, and not to abuse, repress, or incarcerate their citizens arbitrarily and without due legal process.

Thirdly, I am sorry to bother you and myself with these matters, but someone has to speak up, and one of the amazing and sickening things about the time I live in is that so few do, indeed because so many, like the followers they are, conform to what their leaders say and desire, also if that is clearly at variance with the legal foundations of society, such as the US constitution, that have been put in place to protect citizens against the abuse by government executives, and that are meant to preserve the Rule of Law:
"Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."
-- Plato

It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.[
-- Aristotle

"We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."
-- Cicero
----------------------------------


About ME/CF
(that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which is a disease I have since 1.1.1979:
1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)


       home - index - summaries - mail