Recent Comments
RSS feed
If the USA declared a ‘War on Drugs’, do ‘international rules of war’ apply?
February 13, 2012 — xanthippaOne of my favourite thinking games is taking words and looking at all the different layers of meanings in them – along with why certain of their meanings form the dominant interpretation at any given time.
Hours of fun – and anyone can play!
For example, I absolutely love the word ‘authority’: it means quite literally, that we – as a culture – accept that ‘power’ flows exclusively from Thor. Au Thor-ity. Coming from Thor. (This is particularly amusing when coupled with the term ‘divine’ – as in, ‘divine authority’. If someone claims their god has ‘divine authority’, whether they are aware of it or not, they are literally saying that their god derives all of its power from Thor…which is fascinating when monotheists who deny the very existence of Thor do it. Yes, it does not take a lot to amuse me…)
One thing I find very annoying are the ‘grand declarations’ of ‘war on …’ – especially ones that do not really have proper meaning. For example, ‘The War on Terror’ is a nonsense-statement.
‘Terror’ is a feeling – a state of mind. To wage a war on it would mean trying to make people feel better, perhaps by medicating them into a state of non-fear. It certainly does not mean waging a physical war, with soldiers and guns.
Declaring war on terrorist organizations would make more sense…
Now, how about ‘The War on Drugs’?
Again, the jingoism of the slogan is non-sensical, at best. ‘Drugs’ are not something that is capable of fighting back, it is just stuff. Inanimate objects. It makes even less sense to claim to wage a war against inanimate objects than it does to wage a war against a state of mind. It does, however. bring up the image of one ’tilting at windmills’…
Except, of course, that the term ‘War on Drugs’ does not mean a war on drugs as such: it means a war on the organizations that handle certain drugs currently prohibited by the government.
Ok – so we have deciphered what the ‘Drugs’ in the statement means: organizations which are involved in the production and distribution of substances classified as ‘illegal’ by the US government. (Yes, I am intentionally not addressing why these laws are ‘illegal’!) So, what does the word ‘War’ mean?
This is, by far, the more interesting part of the phrase.
What, indeed, is meant by the word ‘War’?!?!?!?
Typically, ‘wars’ are fought by armies – not police forces. Yet, the ‘War on Drugs’ is being fought by non-military police officers. That is curious, to say the least. (Some would claim it is illegal – but that is a differen discussion.)
It would, of course, explain why the various police forces across the USA are becoming increasingly militarized: sometimes, it seems that cops are more military-like than the military itself! This would, indeed, be a more-or-less necessary outcome if the police were, indeed, waging ‘a war’… at least, according to my understanding of the ‘conventional’ meaning of the word ‘war’.
So, let us look at whom the ‘war’ is being waged against: the ‘drug gangs’. Are these, in any way, shape, or form ‘an army’?
A good case could be made that ‘drug gangs’ are, indeed, ‘armies’. If my memory serves me right (I have lost all of my bookmarks again, so I am not including links – please, check up on me!), according to international laws, ‘an army’ is defined as an organization must have:
- a well defined chain-of-command
- defined markings/insignia worn by its members to make them recognizable and differentiate them from civilians
Drug gangs most definitely satisfy this definition. Their chain-of-command is very well defined. And, all gang-members do wear specific ‘colours’, or symbols, which identify them clearly and unambiguously as members of that particular gang. Many gangs go a step further than most conventional armies – they not only wear their gang insignia, they have them tattooed into their very skin, so no disguise is possible!
In other words, the ‘drug gangs’ are more of an ‘army’ (under international law) than ‘terrorist organizations’, which do not wear identifying insignia and pride themselves in hiding among the civilian population. Honestly, the ‘War on Drugs’ adheres more closely to the definition of ‘war’ under international laws than ‘War on Terror’ does – yet the ‘War on Terror’ has been used, successfully, to justify (internationally) at least two extra-territorial wars that the US got involved in.
So, why is this an issue I bother thinking about?
Well, it does have some very interesting LEGAL implications….
If this is, indeed, a ‘War’ – then the ‘international rules of war’ automatically kick in!!!
It means that each and every person arrested in the USA under the ‘drug laws’ MUST be treated as a prisoner of war – and is not subject to any criminal laws!!!
Yes, please, do think about it!
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that no enterprising lawyer has not thought of this yet…
The US government cannot have their cake and eat it, too. (OK – ‘the cake is a lie’….but that does not take away from my point!)
The US government has openly declared ‘A War’ on all organizations even peripherally involved in the drug trade. These drug organizations straddle national borders. This means that the international ‘rules of war’ most definitely kicked in once US made their declaration of war!!!
Under international ‘rules of war’, if you capture ‘a soldier’ from the opposing side, even if that person had indeed brutally killed many, many people, they cannot be tried as ‘murderers’! Rather, they must be given all the privileges attached to Prisoners Of War!
To re-phrase: because the US government has openly declared ‘War on Drugs’, is it now violating the Geneva Convention every single time it applies criminal law to anyone arrested on any drug-related charges?
Please, think about it!!!
All charges against ‘the Caledonia 8’ have been dropped – again
February 5, 2012 — xanthippaPatterns.
Behavioural patterns.
Patterns of abuse.
When will some authority – any authority – acknowledge a pattern of abuse and put an end to it?
Let me paint a picture for you of a very nasty pattern of abuse of authority which has targeted a specific citizens and his associates:
Imagine being arrested for ‘trespassing’ for walking down a public street. While you are being arrested, you actually have proof with you that this is a county street – and therefore 100% it is public street, with no restrictions, so no act of trespassing is taking place.
In addition, since it is a county road and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police, even if someone were to trespass on it, these OPP officers would have no jurisdiction to arrest them for it.
But, the OPP are there in large numbers, heavily armed, and they arrest the small group of unarmed citizens anyway.
These citizens (including an army vet suffering from cancer) are handcuffed and driven off in OPP vehicles, processed and charged with trespassing.
They are forced to hire legal representation and appear in court.
Once they get to court – the group of citizens find all the charges against them have been withdrawn!
Why?
Because, as the prosecutor explains, there is no reasonable expectation that they would be found guilty…beause, well, they were on a public road where they had every right to be, and even had they been trespassing, the police officers who arrested them had no jurisdiction to do so…
Victory?
Perhaps – in this one battle.
But, what if this happens over and over and over?
If the charges are withdrawn, these citizens have no opportunity to clear their name – and recover legal costs, much less damages!
And what does it say about our law enforcement agencies, that they are willing to perpetuate this abusive pattern of ‘catch-and-release’?!?!?
This is exactly what has been happening to Gary McHale.
Now, more and more citizens are standing with him, being arrested with him – and being released when the bogus charges against them are dropped!
Please, ask yourself: should we, the people of Canada, tolerate this treatment of our citizens?
Just how badly is our system broken that such a lengthy pattern of this type of abusive of power can be established?
And exactly what can we, as citizens, do to stop this corruption?
How can we hold out authorities accountable?
Because we must – for all our sakes!
Another example where copyright laws are being used to censor one’s critics
January 31, 2012 — xanthippa
Yes, ThunderF00t and William Lane Craig have some serious disagreements on the topic of science. And both have been speaking up on this topic on YouTube.
ThunferF00t is a bona-fide scientist, with the credentials to prove it.
William Lane Craig is a theologian, self-described philosopher and calls himself ‘Dr.’.
They got into a bit of a spat – ThunderF00t used clips of Craig’s videos in his rebuttal videos: this is perfectly legal and ‘protected se’ under the DMCA rules. Despite this, someone has, on behalf of Dr. Craig, filed false DMCA claims against ThunderF00t and others. (We know they know their claims are false because they have filed these DMCA notifications many times on the same groungs – even after being repeatedly told that this use is not a violation of their copyright – yet they continue filing…)
The purpose of these types of actions is clear: to force the filer’s critics to spend so much time and energy fighting against these false claims that they will not have the time and energy to criticize him.
The reason we must pay attention to this is because it demonstrates how laws already passed with the good intent to protect copyright are already being abused to stifle speech – and these laws are nowhere near as intrusive as the ailed SOPA bill was…and we all know that those promoting these tools of censorship will not stop. They will simply try to pass these types of laws more stealthily, a tiny increment at a time.
Constant vigilance!
US Judge orders a person to divulge her password
January 27, 2012 — xanthippaThis is an interesting story with wide-ranging implications.
Police suspected a woman of fraud and, with a warrant, siezed her computers. One of these computers was password protected and running PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) security software so the police IT experts were not able to ese the usual back doors to crack it. The police believed that this computer contained data that would incriminate their suspect, Ramona Fricosu.
What to do?
The Colorado police went to a judge and got an order compelling Ms. Fricosu to reveal the password to the police.
This is highly problematic, on several fronts. The PopSci article quotes the DOJ’s :
“Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible.”
The other side – both the defense and the civil liberties groups whose attention was turned to this case – has, in my never-humble-opinion, a much more solid position:
“The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is not necessarily a right to prevent you from giving bad things over to the government, but you are protected from disclosing your thoughts,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in this case. “We argued that providing access to the contents is the equivalent to her ‘emptying the thoughts of her mind,’ because it would require her password.”
What a can of worms this one is…
Thoughts?
One Law For All: ‘Hold this date – 11 February 2012: A Day to Defend Free Expression’
January 19, 2012 — xanthippaOne Law for All is calling for a rally in defence of free expression and the right to criticise religion on 11 February 2012 in central London from 2-4pm.
We are also calling for simultaneous events and acts in defence of free expression on 11 February in countries world-wide.
The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying ‘Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?’, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.
Whilst none of this is new, recent events reveal an increased confidence of Islamists to censor free expression publicly, particularly given the support received from universities and other bodies in the name of false tolerance, cultural sensitivity and respect.
The right to criticise religion, however, is a fundamental right that is crucial to many, including Muslims.
Clearly, the time has come to take a firm and uncompromising stand for free expression and against all forms of threats and censorship.
11 February is our chance to take that stand.
You need to be there.
Enough is enough.
NOTES:
Contact us for more information or with details of actions or events being organised outside of London:
Maryam Namazie
Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk
To help with the costs of the rally and donate to the crucial work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal.
The One Law for All Campaign was launched on 10 December 2008, International Human Rights Day, to call on the UK Government to recognise that Sharia and religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and that citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable. To join the campaign, sign our petition here.
Justice delayed, justice denied: Gary McHale on Caledonia
January 8, 2012 — xanthippa
Gary McHale is fighting our fight!
EFF: U.S. Government Threatens Free Speech With Calls for Twitter Censorship
January 8, 2012 — xanthippaThe full article is at Electronic Frontier Foundation:
‘ Moreover, criminalizing, or even trying to criminalize a neutral communications service like Twitter would set a dangerous precedent –like criminalizing pens and pencils or typewriters and computers based on what people choose to say when using them.’
…
‘Twitter is right to resist. If the U.S. were to pressure Twitter to censor tweets by organizations it opposes, even those on the terrorist lists, it would join the ranks of countries like India, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Syria, Uzbekistan, all of which have censored online speech in the name of “national security.” And it would be even worse if Twitter were to undertake its own censorship regime, which would have to be based upon its own investigations or relying on the investigations of others that certain account holders were, in fact, terrorists.’
This is the true test of our committment to the freedom of speech: do we deny it to those who are despicable scum?
Who is to know if you yourself will, one day, be defined to be ‘despicable scum’ by the powers that be?
Some things are non-negotiable.
Freedom of speech is one of these non-negotiables!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 