[governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure

Thu May 16 14:40:27 EDT 2013

I am not surprised at such twist of events if one were to look keenly
at US rogue policies of late. The route had been nicely tarred!
We had an election dispute in Ivory Coast where a recount would have
carried the day. The Obama Administration allied with the French to
bomb Côte d'Ivoire and got that country's President ferried to The
Hague for trup up charges and had their stooge Ouattara in power.
Then came Libya where Muammar Gaddafii was summarily executed for
"overstaying in power and killing thousands of his people". We all
know that the Libyan leader was killed for venturing to bring out an
African alternative to the IMF. Yet we have countries in Africa (like
mine, where people cannot freely elect their leaders yet the so called
West is silent)
Of late, we heard the Obama administration calling for the recount of
the election in Venezuela. Why in Venezuela and not Ivory Coast?

With alternative social media being a major thread, mainstream outlets
like AP the heat beaming to wipe them out and had to adopt an
agressive stance in their news gardering not knowing that they were
running into the hands of a war mongering administration that will
spear no means in clambing on any one that stands on its way. Even if
that meant violating the sacred American Constitution that is highly
valued the world over.
The Obam doctrine is on its course. And I wonder what world he will
leave behind. That should be a preoccupation for his memoirs

Aaron Agien Nyangkwe is my name

On 5/16/13, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>  The point is not that the US state is flawless and holy, [...] To civil
>> libertarians, ALL states are capable of such things, at ALL times, and
>> therefore one needs institutionalized rights such as the U.S.
>> Constitution
>> and its Bill of Rights in order to keep them in check. We are certainly
>> better off that those rights are enshrined in the constitution than if
>> they
>> were not.
>>
>>
> At bottom is a list of dozens of recognized CONSTITUTIONAL rights or powers
> that are NOT expressly mentioned in the Constitution, but have nevertheless
> been held to be constitutionally protected rights or powers.  I share this
> quickly cobbled together list mainly because  of Milton's over broad
> statement that because liberty is always at risk everywhere, that we
> "therefore" are better off with rights "enshrined in the Constitution than
> if they were not." This is not necessarily so because once they are
> "enshrined" people seem to think that this enshrining defines the limits of
> our rights to the areas enshrined.  Even the Constitution itself in the 9th
> and 10th amendments expressly reserves other rights to the People and/or
> the states.
>
> Even a quick read of the constitution of the former Soviet Union will show
> that it purported to protect and recognize and "enshrine" even more rights
> than the US Constitution. At the end of the day, without what is often
> called "the spirit of liberty" there is no document or law or constitution
> that will protect everybody's liberty in a meaningful way, and on a
> long-term basis.
>
> *The relevance of my list below to Internet Governance is to point to the
> ambiguity of potential treaty language regarding the Internet, and the
> problem that people will likely treat the treaty language as fully limiting
> the scope of rights*.  (There are issues no matter whether rights are
> enshrined or not, however, and enshrinement is not without its benefits).
> It is closer to the truth to say rights that don't harm others are plenary,
> and it is the burden of those who wish to burden or prohibit those rights
> in any circumstances to justify themselves, rather than the burden of
> people to prove the right.  But, the foregoing "truth" is true (or
> apparent) o*nly to those who believe in this vision of liberty*. There are
> many others who, as a matter of practice, do not so believe, and they would
> put the burden on proving a right to something even where it does not
> infringe on anybody else's rights.
>
> In the final analysis, if you read the list below of things or rights not
> recognized by the US Constitution, and also realize that virtually all of
> those below are in fact dealt with on a constitutional basis in some way by
> Supreme Courts over the centuries, it leads to the realization that it is
> the METHOD OF INTERPRETATION of the Constitution and whether or not this is
> done in what I've called "the spirit of liberty" that is really most
> important in terms of actual results.  This is where the real battles go
> on, usually in subtext but oftentimes openly.
>
> *RIGHTS OR POWERS specifically NOT expressly Mentioned in US Constitution
> but nevertheless recognized in significant degree as Constitutional rights
> by Supreme Courts.* (i.e. "enshrinement" is not the only route to real
> rights)
>
> 1. The right to marry,
> 2. right to travel (considered “virtually unconditional” and
> constitutionally guaranteed even though it was expressly in the Articles of
> Confederation and omitted from the Constitution),
> 3. right to move to different state,
> 4. right to emigrate,
> 5. right to fair trial,
> 6. right to jury of one’s peers,
> 7. right against revocation of citizenship,
> 8. right to judicial review,
> 9. right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,
> 10. right to have children,
> 11. right to wear clothing of one’s choice,
> 12. right to start a business,
> 13. right to choice of schooling for children, and
> 14. the right to vote (and many others not mentioned here).
> 15. right to communicate via the Internet
> 16. right to use birth control,
> 17. right to form unions, or have consumer rights,
> 18. gay rights or disability rights,
> 19. right to have sexual relations with anyone (whether married to them or
> not),
> 20. right of self-defense,
> 21. right to personal hairstyle,
> 22. right to conscientiously object to violent military service,
> 23. reproductive choice rights,
> 24. rights of the unborn,
> 25. right to be left alone,
> 26. rights to medical care, food, housing, and education, and
> 27. no right of revolt or revolution (like the Declaration of Independence
> asserted as inalienable right) no matter how bad things are.
>
> *Nothing authorizes, allows or addresses the following in the US
> Constitution, which nevertheless exist and are recognized as of
> constitutional import: *
>
> 1. No authorization for Air Force,
> 2. no congressional districts,
> 3. no electoral *College*,
> 4. no Executive orders,
> 5. no executive privilege,
> 6. no reference to God, legislative Chaplains, etc. (although "Lord" is
> mentioned once in text stating the year Constitution was signed),
> 7. no indication that impeachment equals possible removal from office,
> 8. no prohibition of taxation without representation, (and indeed
> Washington D.C. still suffers from this even though it is elsewhere
> recognized as a principle)
> 9. no specific number of Supreme Court justices,
> 10. no paper money authority (only coinage),
> 11. no authorization of political parties (and the Founders hated them and
> called them  “factions”),
> 12. no primary elections,
> 13. no qualifications for federal judges at all,
> 14. no qualifications for federal legislative politicians other than age
> and residence,
> 15. no separation of church and state clause,
> 16. “separation of powers” not explicitly stated,
> 17. no “checks and balances” expressly mentioned,
> 18. no express power to regulate immigration (only “naturalization” of
> citizens).
> 19. no rights of peremptory military attack.
> 20. And many more which might be listed.
>
> I am not approving or disapproving all of the above, I am just saying that
> they are not expressly enshrined in the Constitution.  There are various
> ways beyond the scope of this post in which many or all of these have been
> found to be of Constitutional magnitude. Some, such as the Internet
> example, are subsumed under First Amendment freedom, but the point is that
> they are not expressly mentioned and could have been handled separately,
> depending on the methods and styles of legal interpretation and the spirit
> of liberty at work in the system at the time of decision.
>
> As seemingly vague as these two things may seem, they are the most powerful
> forces controlling legal results in addition to two other broad, and
> similarly vague things: partisan beliefs and general ideas/concepts about
> fairness/justice.
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>

-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t