Over and over, we're told that above all else we must respect the law. Whether or not we disagree with it, whether or not we feel it's unfair, even when just about everybody knows it's a bad law, the one thing that's always been made clear to us is that the law is the law. So it's especially telling when we see just how little the law actually means to lawmakers and those in power.
There is a process by which injustices can be corrected. It's rarely quick and easy and it usually involves a good amount of sacrifice on the part of those trying to change the way things are. The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, even some changes in the foreign policy of the U.S. government came about as a result of intense lobbying, massive demonstrations, and people willing to give up everything in order to stand up for something they believed in.
We see this today on a number of fronts that affect us quite directly, not the least of which is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), used to prosecute 2600 back in 2000. While we lost that fight, the battle against the DMCA continues to this day and we are committed to overturning an unjust law that has robbed many of basic freedoms in the world of digital technology. What laws like the Patriot Act have done to our country is so frightening as to be almost unbelievable. But there are millions of people determined to fight back and attempt to keep civil rights from crumbling into dust.
Disobeying an unjust law is another tactic to force the hand of the lawmakers, one which often carries a heavy price. Despite this, it's rare that the entire structure of the legal system is also disobeyed - those engaging in civil disobedience tend not to try and escape prosecution; rather, they use the structure of the system to voice their objections to the law or policy they're protesting against.
But now we are at a point where those already in power have grown impatient with such things as due process, civil rights, and public perception. In some disturbing and almost comical examples, we see exactly how little the law actually means to them.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has been involved in discussions with a company called MediaDefender which has developed a product to disrupt music downloads (yes, that's what they do). In a recent exchange, Hatch expressed his interest in "destroying" the computers of those suspected of copyright violation. In his words, such an act "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights." This isn't some drunkard in a bar offering a completely insane solution to a problem. This is a United States Senator.
And it's not the first time we've heard this kind of talk. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has in the past tried to get legislation passed that would allow copyright holders to hack into the computers of people suspected of having music that they didn't pay for. In fact, they attempted to tack this onto an anti-terrorism bill, no doubt hoping that the hysteria of the moment would keep their blatant attempt to bypass due process unnoticed. Fortunately, it didn't work - that time.
Then, in 2002, right before the August recess, Rep. Howard Berman (D-California) proposed another bill to do basically the same thing. "No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy. However, enabling copyright creators to take action to prevent an infringing file from being shared via P2P (peer-to-peer) is an important first step," he said.
There was only one problem. To do what they wanted was illegal under all kinds of laws. So part of what this bill was pushing for was immunity from prosecution. That means the MPAA and RIAA could completely disable, block, and even damage a publicly accessible network if they believed something they didn't like was going on there. And anyone whose computer was damaged as a result of this would have to get permission from the U.S. attorney general to sue the perpetrators and then only if the damages were above $250!
New life may be breathed into this legislation by Hatch's recent comments. He said that the system he envisioned would warn a computer user twice if they were doing something objectionable and "then destroy their computer."
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines," he went on to say.
In a civilized society, laws exist for a reason. At least in theory, they are designed to provide a level playing field and a chance of equal justice for one and all. Individuals break laws for a variety of reasons, usually either to gain an advantage or to recover from a disadvantage. But when governments break these laws, it's because they fear losing control. They begin to act with desperation and start to lose touch with reality. We've seen this all before in many parts of the world throughout history.
Over the past couple of years, we've been witness to this sort of thing on a much larger scale. Civil liberties have become dirty words. The Freedom of Information Act is practically a thing of the past. People who question policy are accused of being traitors. And fear, always the most essential ingredient in such a downward spiral, has become an omnipresent part of our daily lives.
It's always the feeling of crisis which permits what would otherwise be unacceptable changes to practically be welcomed by the public. And, since these changes are unlikely ever to be reversed, society is forever changed in a very negative way.
It would have been completely unheard of only two years ago for people here to be rounded into prison camps and held without charge or without even confirmation of their detention. It happens today and it's no longer even in the news. Most of the time these people aren't citizens of the United States, which in itself is enough to make most of us not care. The fact that someone could be held without charges, bail, or even the right to communicate with their family because of a minor visa violation is overlooked because it's all part of the fight against terrorism and certain laws and basic rights need to be overlooked because they just got in the way.
But there are now increasing examples of U.S. citizens being affected by this as well, such as the case of former Intel software engineer Mike Hawash, held without charges for five weeks and now scheduled to go on trial next January for "Conspiracy to Levy War on the United States." Only extremely sketchy information has been given by the government and it's not likely any more will be released before his trial. (More information can be found at http://www.freemikehawash.org.)
By being defined as an "enemy combatant," the rules on due process can be suspended. Not only that but torture is increasingly seen as a valid way of obtaining information from a suspect. Eventually, people will come to embrace such things in the mistaken belief that their world is being made more secure.
The arrogance and disrespect towards laws and values that have taken centuries to shape doesn't confine itself to within our borders. The recent military aggressions of our nation have only reinforced the impression that the American government merely tolerates laws and treaties until they become inconvenient. In the end, it does whatever it wants to do.
This now includes assassination of foreign leaders, preemptive invasion of any country which may someday pose a risk to ours, "punishing" any allies who refuse to go along, and, perhaps most telling, steadfastly refusing to be answerable to the International Criminal Court (although the United States and 138 other countries had already signed on). Congress even went so far as to pass a law authorizing the invasion of The Netherlands to free any U.S. serviceman accused of a war crime! (The ICC is located in The Hague.) Such a violent reaction to even the mere possibility that our soldiers could be held accountable for war crimes has alienated the United States even more.
A government that fails to respect its laws will eventually lose the confidence of its citizens. And a country that fails to respect international law will be looked down upon by the rest of the world and, one way or another, isolated. The two combined is a frightening prospect, especially given our "superpower" status.
Those who feel that existing laws are an inconvenience to their agenda do not have the right to exempt themselves from their power. Like the individuals who challenge the worthiness of a law, there are but two choices - either challenge that effectiveness through courts, public demonstrations, etc. or disobey them and pay the price, using that process as a tool to promote change. If we permit those with power to continue this pattern of choosing which laws apply to them and which apply to everyone else, we will soon have very little worth fighting for.