Credit to the incisive Video Rebel – home here; my contribution is adding a few links and minor edits. Of course, Occupy’s endgame is not to surrender the US Constitution, but to demand arrests of the criminal 1% attempting to destroy it. When education like Video Rebel’s causes critical mass among the 99% to recognize the 1%’s “laws,” wars, and economic looting for the criminal acts they are, this “emperor has no clothes” transformation will stop the criminality and open the door for policy that benefits 100% of Earth’s inhabitants.
The Bill of Rights can only legally be changed through an amendment or a Treaty ratified by the United States Senate. The Supreme Court can interpret the Bill of Rights to make it apply to new technologies such as, television and the Internet, but it cannot amend the Bill of Rights.
By NDAA, the First Amendment has unlawfully been revised to eliminate free speech, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments were similarly revised to allow search and seizure without probable cause and to allow torture and indefinite detention without trial.
The recent announcement of the acquisition of 30,000 drones to patrol the American skies (here, here, here) will require major revisions to several amendments as the majority of these drones will be armed. At first, they will be only be armed with shotgun tasers which can be lethal but could quickly be replaced with shotguns, machine guns and missiles. Tasers kill two people every week (here, here), so they already violate the right to a trial and the prohibition of both torture and cruel and unusual punishment. But there is another problem presented by the use of drones in law enforcement.
US laws must be revised to give drones and robots the same protection as the police have in cases of armed resistance. A human policeman has the right to defend himself from a violent assault. This includes deadly force. But what of a drone? Suppose a drone has issued a verbal order to disperse to an “unlawful” assembly (compare to 1st Amendment content and context).
Someone in the crowd responds by shooting at the drone. Another drone returns fire and kills the man for resisting an armed robotic agent. The constitutional problem is that the drone is not currently granted the same right to life as a human. This must be revised so drones have the right to use lethal force to protect themselves from the citizenry.
1 comment:
the internet service at the cybercafé in spite of having an internet access at home, and participating in nonviolent demonstrations, etc.
People are also suspected of being terrorists if they own precious metals, purchase flashlight or store a seven-day food supply.
Better watch your back preppers.
Post a Comment