A few words about the nature of law and the morality of wiretapping/severance: We live in a world that is run by a few conservative minded (democrats included) individuals. Those people are the ones who make the laws and control how they are enforced including who goes to jail or Guantanamo bay, the length of their sentence, and the nature of their crime which also can include "intent" even if no crime was actually committed. Since the beginning of complex society, laws have existed to both protect the public and control their behavior. laws have always been more strict than is absolutely necessary to protect the public from as much wrong doing as possible. For example there is a well known law that states that everyone must stop completely at every stoplight every time for the entirety of a red light regardless of cross traffic. this level of consistency is not necessary in all cases but the law is there to protect innocent bystanders from those who would take unnecessary risk to shave a few seconds from their commute. This is necessary for the safety of all people involved. Be that as it may, sense the invention of law and up to this point in history there has been, built into the system, an unintended but very important safeguard from over enforcement, Which I like to call the Silent Tree Technicality: If no one sees you, no one is hurt, and no one sees a reason to report you, it is not illegal. Which is to say, you wont be perused or punished for breaking the law. This is not my opinion this is irrefutable fact. ("If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" - George Berkeley). I know a traffic light is not a forest and a driver is not a tree but the principal is the same: events without an observer or effect are arguably irrelevant; or at most, only happened in theory. Totalitarian, dystopian fiction like 1984 by George Orwell, describe societies were the Silent Tree Technicality has been all but eliminated by the government through the use of high tech severance technology that monitors every citizens whereabouts, conversations, purchases, and (in the case of 1984) emotional state through heart rate and vocal stress monitoring. The result: a completely controlled and submissive public which fears their government so much that one would rather turn their best friend in for a minor infraction like littering or speaking ill of The Party (government) than risk being accused of aiding a criminal. Because even if no one was hurt and no one saw any reason to turn in their friend, Big Brother already knew that the crime was committed and knew that you knew about it. now lets move to the real world where some years ago in Minneapolis the local law department put up traffic cameras at a bunch of intersections around the city. These cameras recorded traffic and took a picture of your license plate if you broke a traffic law (like running a red light). Then, within the week, you would get a ticket in the mail. Even if there was no report, no legal confrontation from an authority, and no witnesses. This was struck down after a trial period for a simple reason: There was no way to prove that the registered owner -the one who received the ticket- was the one driving the car at the time of the infraction. Before long I am sure that these other problems would come up as well: There was no way to prove that the car in question was the one seen in the photo, just that the license plate was the same (easily faked for a traffic camera, not so easily for a police officer) and there would be cases where there would be no evidence besides a photo from a camera that the infraction ever took place at all. Which with Photoshop these days… you can see why that is kind of flimsy evidence when presented in a court of law. Obama just signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allows wiretapping and possibly eventual email/online severance of all us citizen without a warrant or Probable Cause. they say that this is to prevent "Terrorism". A word with over 100 official meanings world wide. The official U.S. definition includes acts that "appear to be intended" inferring that someone thinks it looks like someone else is thinking about doing something. You will also find that Coercion of government is included in the definition which can include even nonviolent protests as long as they are meant to be "threatening" or "intimidating". basically any action that might challenge ones place of power. loose language made for selective interpretation. This is not an accident. In the end, governments are made up of people, just like police forces, terrorist organizations, corporations, and civilian populations. Humans are not perfect and when the chips are down, one is only really concerned with meeting ones own perceived needs and the needs of those immediate adjacent like their friends and family. The more power you give to the few the more likely they are to try to keep it and use it to their personal advantage, The more dire the situation gets the more likely those same individuals -to which you entrusted your safety and wellbeing- will begin to act in self interest. I am all for protection of the innocent and enforcement of justice but we need to remember that these things are almost completely relative to ones ones own perspective. There is only one law that governs us all of us. The observer, not the intention of the actor, decides the merit of an action. This is why you can try and convict someone of ATTEMPTED murder without actually knowing for sure what their intentions were. however, this basic law also intrinsically states that no crime is victimless, fore without an affected party, or at least an observer, there is no crime. Thank you for taking the time to read, Please comment.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:07:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015