Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Academia's Unconstitutional Restraining Order. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy the other day, Jim Lundgren explained a little-known (to me, anyway) routine practice of government-mandated... [Hit and Run] From the quoted post: The federal government has interpreted its censorship power so broadly that, even for research that is supposed to be exempt from coverage under the federal statute, the federal government has insisted that a researcher get prior approval from an IRB that the work is indeed exempt. [...] How this massive system of goverment-sponsored censorship got going with little attention from Constitutional scholars (before Philip Hamburger) is a mystery to me. It is time for the courts to declare the IRB system what it is: unconstitutional. Here's another case where the question contains the answer. It got going because scholars, like virtually all the rest of the American people, are under the mistaken impression that the federal government has a censorship power, when in fact it is actually expressly denied such a power. I also note that according to many comments on the Reason post, Mr. Lundgren is wrong about the function of IRBs. comment () trackback ()  2:54:44 PM     Is It Treason to Defend the Consitution?. The New York Post accuses The New York Times of toying with treason in an editorial. It cites three stories in its indictment of its rival newspaper, but do the accusations have any merit? Recently, The New York Times has revealed the NSA's spying on innocent Americans, the CIA's secret prisons, and the New York Police Department's undercover infiltration of protests. The Post editorial poses this question: "Does The New York Times consider itself a law unto itself -- free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens? " Good question, and the answer should be "yes" if that government is violating the Constitution and the rights of the citizens it claims to be protecting. Accusations of treason are being thrown about quite a bit these days, but exactly where is the treason? Isn't spying on and jailing American citizens without charges treason to the Constitution? Isn't kidnapping foreigners and spiriting them off to secret prisons for torture treason to the principles for which American has traditionally stood? Isn't concealing, excusing, and defending government secrecy and misconduct treason to the American people? Only through the rule of law, not men, can we be secure. My honorable discharges from the Marine Corps and, later, the National Guard excused me from the obligation to follow orders without question. Even then, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that obligation only extended to lawful orders. I refuse to acknowledge that the government can select an enemy for me, involuntarily enlist my unquestioning support in fighting that enemy, and then accuse me of treason if I don't. Here is a selection of quotes on the "other side" of treason: Treason implies responsibility for something, control over something, influence upon something, knowledge of something. Treason in our time is a proof of genius. Why, I want to know, are not traitors decorated?--Antoine de Saint-Exupéry All men should have a drop of treason in their veins, if nations are not to go soft like so many sleepy pears.--Rebecca West If this be treason, make the most of it.--Patrick Henry Treason lies in the eye of the beholder.--Michael Paladin By noemail@noemail.org (Michael Paladin). [Police State USA] I'll add another quote that the allegedly Christian "conservatives" should be familiar with: Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. William Penn And here's a non-religious one, also from William Penn, which applies to the stories the Post is so unhappy about: A good End cannot sanctify evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it. comment () trackback ()  2:32:49 PM

© Copyright 2006 Ken Hagler. Last update: 1/2/2006; 2:41:19 PM.

Email