Drawing the Line On Human Rights

by Robert L. Gisel

Contemporary advancements of technology requires the drawing of the lines re Human Rights, newly, to keep abreast of the technological advancements and calls for a broader view of the undeniability of Human Rights.The recent discussions re Internet rights violations was brought to my attention by the public access snippet re Gmail and another on Google Images by Gary North, who links to advice on what to do to increase your protections. Check it out and take the steps to enhance your protections.

The hub-hub is that the Internet communications you store in ISPs are subject to unfettered government perusal of your emails. You can see this in news articles by the web site Threat Levels here, re Gmail and re Google images here. Personally, I hope they enjoyed my letters to President Obama.

In July 2009 I asked Obama's Campaign Manager if the President was on drugs. There was also that sage advice of what to do about the Gulf oil spill, not offensive just no minced words. Still, I don't think he got the memo. Then there was that post with the wry references to Obama and his government pursuing the same old agenda as Bush. The earliest was when Senator Obama was still on the campaign trail and I jumped down his throat for his pro-psychiatric voting record that makes him leader of the pack. These posts notwithstanding in the realm of authors and columnists, a broader view of the meaning of this is warranted.

The 4th Amendment concerning unlawful search and seizure guarantees your rights to your property and effects. That is, except for those government actions that are "above the law", which is why we needed the 4th Amendment in the first place.

Should you ever be so unfortunate as to be deemed a terrorist or somehow a threat to state security, which could be created by any franchised redneck fomenting Homeland Security, you are subject to a suspension of your rights immediately. Being seized and carted of to an unknown location without Miranda protections or a call to your attorney, to be secretly held incommunicado indefinitely, blatantly violates a whole parcel of Rights.

You do not even have to be the person deemed suspect but may only be a relative, friend or acquaintance of someone who has been so unfortunate. You can be completely innocent of any charges and under no reasonable suspicion and could find your emails stored in ISP files under perusal with no court ordered authorization. Of course there is the keyword listen in of electronic phone communications as well. I believe the word for it is police state.

This is a matter of the Right to Life, abrogation of, which is worded as such in the founding papers of the United States but did not get singled out in the Bill of Rights.

Literary directness in the last decade well could have prompted a placement on the scale of dissension by any bureaucrat with more self importance than concern for We The People, where standing up for Human Rights, the Constitution or opposition to oppressive government makes you out be "one them we must keep a watch on".

Proclaiming Free Speech seditious has a long history. In the US it goes back to John Adam's controversial Alien and Sedition Act. So this is an area not without previous concerns.Outspoken instances of freedoms of speech have probably gotten more than a few individuals placed on "the list" in the paranoid wake of the 9/11 fiasco. It also opened precedents for new violations of Human Rights. The advent of new technologies as in the Internet as well as electronic phone communications means a need for defining new legal parameters.

The redefining of Human Rights in these respects is an ongoing battle, which we must win on the side of adequate protections.