Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (676592)	3/23/2005 3:04:12 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

COMMENT: Which Is Worse: Bush or Beijing? Dear A-Letter Reader: Let's start with a provocative question: when it comes to the rule of law, why is the Bush administration much like the Communist rulers in Beijing? At first glance you might protest that they're not alike at all; that the US government stands for freedom everywhere (as the President says repeatedly); that the brutal Red rulers in Beijing run a tightly controlled, undemocratic slave system where freedom is stifled. But the comparison came to mind reading a commentary in the NY Times about how Beijing was again flouting 'the rule of law' in Hong Kong, contrary to its promises when the UK handed over control in 1997. The writer says the rulers of mainland China don't understand the necessity of a strong legal system as a guarantee of not just freedom, but of foreign investor and business confidence, which China and its rulers badly need for prosperity and to sustain their power. He also suggests that the Beijing dictators are 'unwilling to discuss a fundamental question: should the government be able to supersede the law when it wishes, or, as in a democracy, should limits be placed on government power?' Many don't seem to give a damn in the United States, but Americans are facing the very same issue. (As does the United Kingdom). The rule of law requires government authority to be exercised only in accordance with written, valid laws, adopted through established procedures. That's an essential safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The government, just because it proclaims a 'war on terror,' has no right to suspend the rule of law. Or to impose an unjust 'law' such as the PATRIOT Act that curbs constitutional liberties. Or to torture prisoners, hold people without charges for years, deny the right to counsel and the right to a speedy trial. Nor to confiscate assets without a finding of guilt; to eavesdrop secretly on its citizens; to arrest lawyers for defending their clients. The rule of law requires 'due process,' meaning government may not impose unfair or arbitrary treatment on an individual; that everyone must be treated equally and fairly. Due process means adequate notice before government deprives one's life, liberty, or property; it means an opportunity to be heard and defend one's rights, to answers one's accusers. All these rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution and implied in British common law. The rule of law is the guarantor of freedom. When it is abrogated or suspended, all of us, everyone, is in real danger. We at the Sovereign Society recommend offshore financial havens for bank accounts, asset protection trusts or residency where respect for the rule of law is well established and uncompromised. Yet both in Washington and Beijing the idea seems to be to talk a good game, ('newspeak' Orwell called it), when it comes to respect for the rule of law, then to do as they damn well please. That's lawlessness. If the rule of law is meaningless -- the terrorists have won. That's the way that it looks from here. BOB BAUMAN, Editor ======================================================================== COMMENT LINKS: * What does 'the rule of law' mean? LINK: en.wikipedia.org * In Hong Kong, China Prefers Power to Law. LINK: nytimes.com * Beijing official line; rule of law undamaged . LINK: news.gov.hk