Archive for the 'rights' Category

06
Mar

Even the Nazis got a trial

Even the worst of the Nazis got a trial, even though the trial was a sham. The indictments were created ex post facto and were not based on any nation’s law. Even US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. But I digress.

The top Nazis could get a trial despite plunging Europe into its most destructive war and caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. Yet the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are somehow undeserving of a trial because they’re too barbaric, or happened to be kidnapped and sold to the Americans for a cash reward. Forgive me if I think the Nazis were a bit more dangerous and barbaric than some religious fanatics upset that a foreign military started shooting up their country.

Supporters of detaining alleged terrorists without trial posit that we did the same things with captured Germans and Japanese during World War II. The problem with trying to classify captured terrorists as prisoners of war is that we are not at war. Terrorism is still considered a federal crime, and sending the military to fight the crime of terrorism doesn’t make us any more at war than sending the military to fight drug cartels makes us at war. The government doesn’t consider arrested drug dealers to be POWs, nor does declaring a “War on Drugs ” strip accused drug dealers of their right to a fair trial.

06
Mar

Atlanta suburb gives citations for unattended idling cars

In the city of Forest Park, a suburb of Atlanta, people are getting ticketed for leaving their cars unattended as they warm up in the morning. This appears to be another one of those “for-your-protection” laws, where the people who the law is supposedly protecting are the ones who get screwed. [digg=http://www.digg.com/politics/Atlanta_suburb_gives_citations_for_unattended_idling_cars]

Forest Park police are enforcing a Georgia law that makes it illegal for someone to leave a car unattended while it is idling. Its original purpose was to prevent cars from rolling away. Today, however, Forest Park is using the law under the guise of preventing car theft. Except that the potential victim of car theft is the one who gets slapped with a $168 fine. Fourteen people have been find since January. I guess this is what happens when the police don’t have anything important to do. Of course, an infinitely better idea would be to educate citizens rather than going around enforcing more draconian laws.

Our society is moving more and more towards abrogating citizens of all responsibility of everyday decision making. The state believes that you don’t have the capacity or even the right to make choices or risks with your own personal property. And apparently the state doesn’t think people are smart enough to know that there’s a risk to leaving one’s car unattended.

05
Mar

NSA wiretapping Americans without a warrant

I’d hate to think that my fellow Americans would be so gullible as to believe the government’s promises that it was not going to use terrorist legislation against American citizens. Of course when the government makes justifications for overstepping its [digg=http://digg.com/politics/NSA_wiretapping_Americans_without_a_warrant]constitutional bounds to gain “tools” to combat whatever the latest bogeyman happens to be, one can be sure that those same “tools” will soon be used on everyday Americans.

In the latest example, it seems that there was a bit of a screw-up at the NSA and a Washington, DC lawyer was accidentally mailed a log of his private phone calls. Hilarity ensues:

It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked “top secret.” And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls.
  
You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.
  
By all accounts, that’s what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew in August 2004. And it happened at a time when no one outside a small group of high-ranking officials and workaday spooks knew the National Security Agency was listening in on Americans’ phone calls without warrants. Belew didn’t know what to make of the episode. But now, thanks to that government gaffe, he and a colleague have the distinction of being the only Americans who can prove they were specifically eavesdropped upon by the NSA’s surveillance program.
  
The pair are seeking $1 million each in a closely watched lawsuit against the government, which experts say represents the greatest chance, among over 50 different lawsuits, of convincing a key judge to declare the program illegal.

Read the rest here.

04
Mar

What will universal healthcare be like? Just look at the VA

With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don’t believe that health insurance would be cost-effective. But good news doesn’t make for a good emotional talking point.

If one wants to know how a national health care system would operate, one needs to merely look at the systems our government has in place. The most prominent form of socialized medicine in our country is the Department of Veterans Affairs. With 235,000 employees and a budget of more than $60 billion, the VA is the federal government’s second largest department, second only to the Department of Defense. It’s purpose it to provide benefits, disability payments, and health care to military members once they’ve left the service. The medical care provided at most VA facilities is generally considered to be fairly adequate. That is, if you can even get to see a doctor at all.

For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that doctor’s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized health system for that matter. Private insurance yields considerable flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the state, you do it the state’s way on the state’s terms and that’s it. If its one-size-fits-all plan doesn’t suit you, that’s too bad.

The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of supply and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine desire to create a system that offers unlimited health care to all Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs unlimited costs. Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is obviously impossible to operate, rationing of supply is inevitable. Now we have scenarios in which priorities are assigned, and people who have brain tumors that will kill them in a year won’t be treated until the people with brain tumors that will kill them in eleven months are cured.

We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a physician for a non life-threatening condition. In one recent case, a man had to wait four months to get the result of an important medical test. A backlog exists of 400,000 applications and appeals for benefits, most of which are for veterans of previous wars. This problem isn’t limited to the VA. In Canada, wait times to get into hospitals can span weeks or months, including for simple procedures (Compared with the US where wait times are generally dependent on fulfilling medical requirements–such as no eating for a day or two). The average wait time for treatment after seeing a general practitioner is a little over 17 weeks.

Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized medicine in general, despite all its failing. They assert that everyone has a right to cheap or free health care no matter how crappy it is. The problem is that health care is not a right in the traditional sense of what a right is. True rights relate to the individual, such as free speech or freedom of religion. To exercise these rights, one does not have to coerce someone else to do something against his or her will. With a socialized medical system, one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You are forcing others to be your slave.

Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be a disaster. The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine yourself dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next time you need stitches.

27
Feb

To whom does the US Constitution apply?

There is a great debate in the United States over whether or not terrorists have the same rights as American citizens, or even if terrorists have any rights under the Constitution at all. President Bush has maintained that captured terrorists are enemy combatants, and do not have the rights an privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. Bush is so adamant that terrorists do not have rights under US law that they are imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where Cuba technically has sovereignty even though the United States has effective legal control.

Another popular claim is that captured terrorists are actually prisoners of war. Prisoners of war do not typically get to challenge their detention and so captured terrorists must be held until hostilities have ceased.

Some even go as far as claiming that not even illegal immigrants have rights under the Constitution, because the Constitution only applies to American citizens.

There are several flaws in these claims. I’ll address the first one in this post and cover the others later. First, let’s evaluate the notion that non-Americans do not have constitutional rights. If one reads through the Constitution it becomes apparent that all references to “citizens” in the Constitution have nothing to do with the rights of the people. Most references are rules as to how one can participate in the political/election process. In fact, the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.

Consider this: How can we be sure of our government’s claims that a suspected foreign terrorist is indeed a foreign terrorist until that person has had a fair and impartial trial to determine his status? What is to prevent an American citizen from being arrested, detained, and accused of being a foreign terrorist? That person would have no way to confront his accusers and prove his innocence.

This leads me to my conclusion. In truth, the Constitution does not apply to non-Americans. It doesn’t even apply to American citizens. The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states, and thus applies to the federal government. The Constitution itself is a list of rules and powers of the federal government. It is specifically enumerated and if it isn’t listed, the government isn’t allowed to do it. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government may not do. Nowhere does it make an exception for non-citizens, terrorism, etc.




 

December 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
  • Blogroll

  • Badge Farm

    • Firefox 2
    • CSSEdit 2
    • Textmate
    • Powered by Redoable 1.0