"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Nuremberg Nazis

After World War II, trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany for several Nazis. Many of the Nazis claimed that they were only following orders and could not, therefore, be held responsible for their actions. That claim was quickly put to rest. What came out of the Nuremberg trials was a consensus that government officials, including those in the military, had a moral obligation to not commit acts that they knew, or should have known, were illegal under international law.

Nuremberg Principle III states: “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

In a Fox News article (Friday, May 21, 2004, by Liza Porteus, Prison Abuse Soldiers: We Were Following Orders, about what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq) William G. Eckhardt, a military law expert at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, had this to say: "You obey orders when they're given to you with the presumption that orders are lawful," and "If the person for some reason knew it was illegal ... and still obeyed it, he could not use the defense of obedience of orders,"

My pet term for any government official, from the lowest to the highest, who violates the rights of citizens, is Nuremberg Nazis. I apply this mostly to officials in the United States, where we are supposed to have a history of and a reverence for that mythical principle known as inalienable rights. That is, if a government official—policeman, prosecutor, judge, legislator, etc.—passes or enforces a law that violates the inalienable rights of citizens they are Nuremberg Nazis. For them to say, I was following the law is not a defense to their guilt. How can a law that violates the rights of otherwise honest, peaceful, non-threatening citizens be legal?

It is interesting to note that the term “inalienable rights” has never been definitively defined; not by Congress and not by any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. I am a presumptuous person, and I presume to so define inalienable rights.

Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property, that does not immediately or directly endanger other people or their property, that does not disturb the peace or creates a public nuisance, especially if done in private and on private property is the inalienable right of all adult citizens

If we, as adults, don’t have the right to the complete ownership of our minds and our bodies, with the inalienable right to use ourselves as we wish where, in so doing, we do not violate the rights of others, regardless of how wrong or immoral those others might view us and our behavior, then we are not truly free citizens and the United States is not a truly liberty-loving, rights-upholding nation. The laws prohibiting consensual adult drug behavior or declaring certain types of sexual behavior to be illegal (morality laws based on some people's religious or personal moral beliefs), where the behavior does not violate the rights of others, are illegitimate laws. Those who pass those laws, enforce those laws, and uphold those laws are not only our moral dictators, but they are, in fact, Nuremberg Nazis.

If enough of us protest and demand our full inalienable rights back, we just may be able to try those Nuremberg Nazis for their rights-violating crimes.

No comments: