On Rights, Power, and Duty
Some days ago, I came downstairs into the kitchen & ranted a bit at Philo. I was, admittedly, incensed. I had 'Stumbled' on a YouTube video, and from there onto a few news articles, about people harassed, arrested, charged, prosecuted, and even convicted, under various statutes and laws in different US states for the 'crime' of having videotaped or recorded the police in the execution of their duties. The straw that broke my camel's back, and got me ranting, was the biggest pile of bullshit opinion article written by two cops, in response to the USA Today editorial upholding the citizen's absolute right to record any public official while they are on duty.
Now, I'll admit to being VERY strongly pro-individual rights. (At the same time, I will also admit I am very strongly pro-responsibilities -- which is why I served, proudly, in the all-volunteer Canadian Army. The rights I enjoy and demand as a citizen, I also take responsibility for protecting). Now, what particularly got my dander up (and got me thinking about this as a more generalised constitutional (or, in Canada, Charter) issue, was the horrific mis-reading of the US Constitution by the two cops in their opinion article. From the second sentence on, it is readily apparent that, not only have they no idea regarding their status under the Constitution while on duty, but worse yet, they haven't a CLUE about what the Constitution really says.
Let's look at what they wrote: "...we are still sensitive to the right granted under the First Amendment."
Granted? GRANTED? FUCKING GRANTED??!!!?! Listen up, fucktards. The Constitution doesn't 'grant' rights. It *recognises* them. Don't you fucking get that? Citizens are NOT GRANTED RIGHTS. THEIR RIGHTS ARE INHERENT IN THEM BEING HUMAN. Though it lacks standing as 'law', the Declaration explicitly recognises this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Understand yet? Governments do not, and can not, 'grant' rights. They can recognise rights. And their PRIMARY job, as the government, is to secure and protect the rights of their citizens.
But, write the cops, what about our rights? What about the cops' right of privacy? After all, your rights end where mine begin, right?
Wrong. And they couldn't be more wrong if they tried.
As a soldier in the Army, what were my rights? As a soldier in the US Army, what are your rights? Ditto, as a CIA spook, or FBI agent, or congressional aide, or as a policamen, or food inspector, or public health nurse, or public school teacher, what are your rights?
None. Yes, you heard me. None. The moment you put on your uniform (or badge, or government ID) you CEASE TO BE A CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS. You are now an agent, an official, a part of the government. YOUR PRIMARY DUTY NOW IS TO SECURE AND PROTECT MY RIGHTS. You youself no longer have yours. You now have the authority of the government -- and your DUTY to all citizens.
This is easily demonstrated. Let's say Officer Friendly is on his patrol, and sees me hitting Pensioner Granny and taking her bag of cash. He arrests me right there. He caught me red-handed.
The next morning, Officer Friendly is questioned by a reporter about my arrest. Can Officer Friendly say, "I saw him beat Granny & steal her money."? No. But doesn't he have any right to free speech? Again, no. Absolutely not. The reporter can ask him questions till he's blue in the face, but all Officer Friendly can say is that he arrested me under charges of assault, battery, and armed robbery. And even being able to say this much is an allowance granted in order to secure MY right of habeus corpus. I can spout anything I want to the reporter (if/when I am released on bail). BUT UNTIL MY TRIAL IS OVER (and even after, for most information on my case) OFFICER FRIENDLY CAN ONLY SPEAK ABOUT MY CASE WHEN ORDERED TO BY THE COURT -- THAT IS, AT MY TRIAL.
So what right of privacy do the police have? None. What right of free speech does a teacher have in the classroom, or writing on her blog about her students? None. What right to exercise his religion's injunctions to prosthelytise has a soldier in the military? None.
One organization I have given financial support to is the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Its founder, Mikey Weinstein, leads an ongoing battle with different fucktard fundamentalist religious denominations intent on turning the secular US military into "God's Army". He is a lawyer and graduate of the US Air Force Academy, where he recently gave a speech. While concentrating on First Amendment rights (freedom of religion & speech) what he says; and what the US Code of Military Justice, and US Code of Military Conduct, and (in Canada) the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) all say; is dead-on accurate:
(relevant section starts at 10:12, though the whole speech is well-worth listening to, especially the Q&A afterward) "... when you put that uniform on, there is only one religion. That's patriotism. Please listen carefully to my words. ... There's only one crescent moon. There's only one Star of David. There's only one crucifix. That's the American Flag. And there's only one Koran, Torah, and New Testament. And that's the US Constitution."
Now, I pissed off a number of people on a discussion board, commenting on the case of a teacher dismissed for writing (even in the most general vague words) in her blog about a student's classroom work. And I'll say what I said again. The school Principal and Superintendent were entirely justified in firing her. Even when outside the classroom, as an agent of the government, she cannot in any way, shape, or form, even in the most vague manner, abridge the privacy of her students.
More topically, I pissed off several anti-war people on another board -- people I generally agree with regarding the ongoing imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I am pleased -- indeed, ecstatic -- over the Wikileaks release of all of the masses of documents on the Afghan war, I also recognise that if they determine who is responsible for giving the documents to Wikileaks, that person should be, indeed, MUST be, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
One last point on this. Some time ago, back in (I believe) 2007, when the news regarding the full extent of the unConstitutional, illegal 'warrantless wiretapping' program of The Shrub's Administration first broke, Nancy Pelosi stood at a Press Conference and made another horrifically-wrong statement to the Press. She claimed that, although she was informed of the operation (in her then-role as leader of the Democratic House Delegation) she was precluded from revealing it to the public by laws concerning secrecy.
I'm no legal scholar. I haven't looked up the law she referenced. But there is NO law, and CAN BE no law, that can restrict the Right of the Freedom of Speech of a Member of Congress or US Senator. None. Ever. Because they are NOT 'agents of the government'. They do NOT 'represent the government'. They are the agents, the representatives, of the people.
And the rights of the people may not be infringed.
Now, I'll admit to being VERY strongly pro-individual rights. (At the same time, I will also admit I am very strongly pro-responsibilities -- which is why I served, proudly, in the all-volunteer Canadian Army. The rights I enjoy and demand as a citizen, I also take responsibility for protecting). Now, what particularly got my dander up (and got me thinking about this as a more generalised constitutional (or, in Canada, Charter) issue, was the horrific mis-reading of the US Constitution by the two cops in their opinion article. From the second sentence on, it is readily apparent that, not only have they no idea regarding their status under the Constitution while on duty, but worse yet, they haven't a CLUE about what the Constitution really says.
Let's look at what they wrote: "...we are still sensitive to the right granted under the First Amendment."
Granted? GRANTED? FUCKING GRANTED??!!!?! Listen up, fucktards. The Constitution doesn't 'grant' rights. It *recognises* them. Don't you fucking get that? Citizens are NOT GRANTED RIGHTS. THEIR RIGHTS ARE INHERENT IN THEM BEING HUMAN. Though it lacks standing as 'law', the Declaration explicitly recognises this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Understand yet? Governments do not, and can not, 'grant' rights. They can recognise rights. And their PRIMARY job, as the government, is to secure and protect the rights of their citizens.
But, write the cops, what about our rights? What about the cops' right of privacy? After all, your rights end where mine begin, right?
Wrong. And they couldn't be more wrong if they tried.
As a soldier in the Army, what were my rights? As a soldier in the US Army, what are your rights? Ditto, as a CIA spook, or FBI agent, or congressional aide, or as a policamen, or food inspector, or public health nurse, or public school teacher, what are your rights?
None. Yes, you heard me. None. The moment you put on your uniform (or badge, or government ID) you CEASE TO BE A CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS. You are now an agent, an official, a part of the government. YOUR PRIMARY DUTY NOW IS TO SECURE AND PROTECT MY RIGHTS. You youself no longer have yours. You now have the authority of the government -- and your DUTY to all citizens.
This is easily demonstrated. Let's say Officer Friendly is on his patrol, and sees me hitting Pensioner Granny and taking her bag of cash. He arrests me right there. He caught me red-handed.
The next morning, Officer Friendly is questioned by a reporter about my arrest. Can Officer Friendly say, "I saw him beat Granny & steal her money."? No. But doesn't he have any right to free speech? Again, no. Absolutely not. The reporter can ask him questions till he's blue in the face, but all Officer Friendly can say is that he arrested me under charges of assault, battery, and armed robbery. And even being able to say this much is an allowance granted in order to secure MY right of habeus corpus. I can spout anything I want to the reporter (if/when I am released on bail). BUT UNTIL MY TRIAL IS OVER (and even after, for most information on my case) OFFICER FRIENDLY CAN ONLY SPEAK ABOUT MY CASE WHEN ORDERED TO BY THE COURT -- THAT IS, AT MY TRIAL.
So what right of privacy do the police have? None. What right of free speech does a teacher have in the classroom, or writing on her blog about her students? None. What right to exercise his religion's injunctions to prosthelytise has a soldier in the military? None.
One organization I have given financial support to is the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Its founder, Mikey Weinstein, leads an ongoing battle with different fucktard fundamentalist religious denominations intent on turning the secular US military into "God's Army". He is a lawyer and graduate of the US Air Force Academy, where he recently gave a speech. While concentrating on First Amendment rights (freedom of religion & speech) what he says; and what the US Code of Military Justice, and US Code of Military Conduct, and (in Canada) the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) all say; is dead-on accurate:
(relevant section starts at 10:12, though the whole speech is well-worth listening to, especially the Q&A afterward) "... when you put that uniform on, there is only one religion. That's patriotism. Please listen carefully to my words. ... There's only one crescent moon. There's only one Star of David. There's only one crucifix. That's the American Flag. And there's only one Koran, Torah, and New Testament. And that's the US Constitution."
Now, I pissed off a number of people on a discussion board, commenting on the case of a teacher dismissed for writing (even in the most general vague words) in her blog about a student's classroom work. And I'll say what I said again. The school Principal and Superintendent were entirely justified in firing her. Even when outside the classroom, as an agent of the government, she cannot in any way, shape, or form, even in the most vague manner, abridge the privacy of her students.
More topically, I pissed off several anti-war people on another board -- people I generally agree with regarding the ongoing imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I am pleased -- indeed, ecstatic -- over the Wikileaks release of all of the masses of documents on the Afghan war, I also recognise that if they determine who is responsible for giving the documents to Wikileaks, that person should be, indeed, MUST be, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
One last point on this. Some time ago, back in (I believe) 2007, when the news regarding the full extent of the unConstitutional, illegal 'warrantless wiretapping' program of The Shrub's Administration first broke, Nancy Pelosi stood at a Press Conference and made another horrifically-wrong statement to the Press. She claimed that, although she was informed of the operation (in her then-role as leader of the Democratic House Delegation) she was precluded from revealing it to the public by laws concerning secrecy.
I'm no legal scholar. I haven't looked up the law she referenced. But there is NO law, and CAN BE no law, that can restrict the Right of the Freedom of Speech of a Member of Congress or US Senator. None. Ever. Because they are NOT 'agents of the government'. They do NOT 'represent the government'. They are the agents, the representatives, of the people.
And the rights of the people may not be infringed.