|
|
|
The Right Stuff, But Not Enough Of It Sam Aurelius Milam III The O.J. Simpson trial, now fading into history, was remarkable primarily for its visibility. Its violations of the underlying principles of traditional jurisprudence were absolutely routine. Among these principles are Burden of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, and Freedom from Self-incrimination. When Shapiro and those other clowns advised Simpson to give DNA samples in "cooperation" with the prosecution, they were advising him to provide information that might be used against him and to attempt to prove his innocence. This relieved the prosecution of the sole burden of proof, which was thereafter shared by the defense. It also removed the presumption of innocence. That is, if a defendant is trying to prove his innocence, then he isn't being presumed innocent. This kind of defense has become routine. Consequently, any refusal to provide information is viewed as tantamount to an admission of guilt, the assumption being that an innocent man will always cooperate because he has nothing to hide. Such a belief is a fatal compromise of the principles of traditional jurisprudence. If the principles are to endure, then they must be rigorously applied in all cases, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant. Although Simpson "won" his criminal case, liberty lost again. Few cases are as visible as Simpson's, but most of them share its defects. My so-called case embodied many violations of principle. The court ignored my strenuous objections to those violations and ruled against me for "failure" to appear. I didn't fail to appear. I refused to appear. There's a big difference, but the court ignores that kind of thing. The court created an "account" to which I allegedly owed money. Because I refused to pay, the court encumbered my home with a lien. Eventually, I was placed under surveillance and arrested when I left home. After being presumed guilty, I was forced to provide information (blood sample) that was used against me. After failing to prove my innocence, I was forced to either "voluntarily" sell my home, and give the county the money it wanted, or stay in jail forever. I was convinced that I could be kept in jail forever. Clearly I didn't do this for the sake of expediency. Cooperation would have been easier. I was attempting to enforce the principles which form the foundation of liberty. However, there's a problem here. It's easy for the government to defeat one lone libertarian. Liberty depends upon the consensus and behavior of many people. I tried to defend liberty alone and lost my home. The court got the money it wanted and lost nothing. I had no effect on it at all. It remains a tyranny today. Unless my actions motivated some further effort by somebody else in favor of liberty, they were largely a waste of my resources. My integrity is intact, but I'd like to think that I had some positive effect in the larger scheme of things. I'm hoping that others will consider the many cases like mine and conclude that it's time to stop cooperating with tyranny and start resisting it.
|
News from the Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100; Washington DC 20037; (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 (voice); 202-333-0072 (fax); 76214.3676@Compuserve.com (e-mail); http://www.lp.org/ — Forwarded by Millie, of El Granada, California
Do
you have any privacy left when Big Brother can spy on you from space —
or through your walls?
WASHINGTON, DC — Spy satellites. Gamma ray scanners. Thermal-imaging devices. It's not science fiction — it's a list of the exotic, high-tech surveillance equipment the government now uses to monitor, track, and arrest American citizens, the Libertarian Party pointed out today. "Yesterday's science fiction has become today's political reality," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national chairman. "High-tech military equipment that was once used against foreign armies is now being used against American citizens on a routine basis." As a result, the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable search" is under technological siege, he warned — and government agencies are rushing to take advantage of this new power. "Most people don't realize it, but law enforcement agencies are now spying on us through the walls of our houses, taking high-resolution photographs of us from space, and conducting drug tests based on trace elements of chemicals in the air," said Dasbach. Paranoid fantasy? Not at all: Such high-tech surveillance equipment is becoming an increasingly common tool for law enforcement, according to reports in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. Here's a sampling of how state and federal agencies are using this terrifying technology to spy on Americans: • In North Carolina, county governments use high-resolution spy satellite photographs to search for property improvements that might increase property tax assessments. • On the Mexican border, police use a "gamma ray scanner" to check tanker trucks for contraband, scanning right through the vehicle's metal sides. • The Naval Surface Warfare Center has developed an "ion sniffer," a metal box that analyzes the chemical makeup of the air — and can detect, for example, traces of cocaine through the skin days after drug use. • In Georgia, the state's Department of Revenue will start using NASA satellites to examine the state's 58,910 square miles for illegal timber cutting. • In New Jersey, California, and other states, police use thermal imaging devices to scan houses for unusual heat sources that could indicate indoor marijuana growing operations. Houses can be scanned while police sit in their cruisers on the street. • And in Arizona, the state's Department of Water Resources uses spy satellite photographs to monitor 750,000 acres of state farmland, and compares the images to a database to discover which farmers don't have irrigation permits. Even worse: The federal government will spend another $4.5 million this year to develop even more intrusive surveillance equipment. Currently under development by the Justice Department: A "super x-ray" — combining traditional x-ray technology, ultra-sound imaging, and computer-aided metal detectors — to reveal items hidden under clothes from up to 60 feet away. The courts are currently wrestling with the implications of the new technology, debating the limits of the government's power to "search" individuals from a distance with high-tech gadgets. Several contradictory court decisions have already emerged, for example, about whether thermal-imaging searches are Constitutional. Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic politicians continue to look for new uses of the technology — with some government officials already talking about using satellite surveillance to track items as small as backyard porches to check for zoning violations and construction permits. "In the name of fighting crime, politicians seem eager to obliterate the protections against unreasonable search, with equipment that Americans used to only read about in Tom Clancy technothrillers," said Dasbach. "It's time for the American public to wake up and realize that Big Brother is here today — and he's got a gamma ray scanner in his hand." Letters to the Editor To: Frontiersman@ida.net I don't think the Bhopal disaster was Dow Chemical. How about Union Carbide? — Steve; San Antonio, Texas
This refers to my article The First Step Is Responsibility, in the February issue. I apologize for my error. — editor
Hi Sam With great writers such as Mr. Cormier and yourself, the Frontiersman is ready to take it's next step in growth. Why not send an issue of the Frontiersman to one of the many talk shows (e.g., Oprah), and get yourselves on a show to talk about one or two controversial issues? With such publicity, I am sure your readership would increase tremendously. This would greatly enhance your influence, and may open the door to second careers in politics. Of course, you could also begin selling advertising in your publication. What do you think? — Tom; Redwood City, California
Dear Sam I can agree with Cormier's article this month to a large degree (Unearthing the Earthly Paradise). There are certain reservations. 1) Increased population made agriculture necessary. The whole world could not live as hunter-gatherers today. 2) There are certain aspects of advanced society that advanced human beings would not want to give up: culture and technology. The superior man would be even more bored as a hunter-gatherer than he is struggling against the idiots who run advanced society today. 3) It's unfair that superior man should have to give them up to escape these idiots, and 4) If all the superior men went savage, the idiots would have no restraints at all, and would blow up the whole planet — including the superior men in the forest. That said, what Cormier is talking about as solutions makes a lot of sense: 1) zero population growth, 2) preservation of nature and all living species (and the resuscitation of extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth, and possibly the dodo and the great auk — that's a project I would enjoy working on), 3) decentralization, 4) development of clean technology. These things could create a "New Eden" even more fun than the primitive Eden of the hunter-gatherers — at least for us cerebral types. Part of the solution is for the workers to take over the corporations. The only thing stopping it? Your old nemesis, the government, with its police state and military. Workers could of course vote for a government which would help them take control of the corporations, gradually. Why don't they? That's the question! Sincerely, — Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
|
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth Dear Buck I'm worried. What can I do after I'm "over the hill"? Thirty-Nine Something
Dear Thirty-Nine something Coast.
Intrinsic Value
Acknowledgments
— editor
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
|
|
|