USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 04:37:28PM -0500, John Young wrote:
> US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its
> territories.

That's true from a specific perspective - the courts of the USA -
although when jurisprudence is understood, the common law (not
"common law as judicial precedent", a destitute construction if ever
there were one) is valid in all legal/court jurisdictions.

 - when that common law (e.g. right to freedom of speech) is claimed
   by a defendant in that court,
 - and that court fails to uphold the common law (variant/ natural
   law etc),

such a court gives up:

  - it's moral authority to execute judgment over the defendant

  - it's jurisprudential authority pursuant to the common law (being
    "those laws of the tribe/community to settle wrongs, since time
    immemorial")

  - it's standing in the eyes of the people

  - it's righteous authority purusant to right and wrong, good and
    evil, $DEITY, etc.


So the "validity" argument (of a constitution, amendment, law, etc)
is always confined to circumstances, an empire wielding impressive
military force for example - where such force, absent moral
authority, can never morally justify its evil actions, and in the
execution of such evil, immediately and inherently manifests its
illegitimacy.

Whereas, the fundamental human right remains, regardless of whether
or not it is written in a law, a constitution, an amendment or a
treaty etc.

Each of us is always with the right and capacity (at least, if you
have functional vocal chords) to claim, in words, any and all of our
fundamental human rights - those natural rights which are inherent to
our very existence.

No -legitimate- court can deny such fundamental natural rights.

Every court which fails to uphold any such fundamental natural human
right, gives up its legitimacy and gives up any "righteous authority"
it holds over the defendant.


You may not win your case, but you must claim your right to establish
your moral victory over the bully, the coward, the empire.

In that moment that an authority demanding you defend yourself from
an evil accusation against you, fails to uphold a fundamental right,
that authority has in that moment, demonstrated its own invalidity.

There can be no valid law, no valid court, no valid authority, which
fails to uphold a basic human right.

You see we speak of "validity" - and I've done so myself in the past
- in the context in which the empire has foisted this construct upon
us, namely, upholding the deception of the purported primacy of
statute law, and the purported primacy of the empire/court's'
interpretation of the words in the constitution/ amendments etc.

   ---   ---   ---   ---
The obnoxious construct of the "validity" of a law is this:

  - a law (/amendment /constitutional clause etc) is "valid" if it
    has been validly passed by parliament according to the
    parliament's self decided rules

  - "validity" is confined to strict and limited definitions as
    decided upon by the empire

  - a court must uphold "valid" laws

  - "valid" laws are supreme, above all human rights, above all
    questions of good and of evil

  - the only relevant question for a court to decide, is the
    "validity" of the "law" at issue

We accept this obnoxious jurisprudence to our detriment.
   ---   ---   ---   ---



  Notwithstanding possible negative outcomes, we MUST claim
  our basic natural human rights, we must claim righteousness,
  that which is good and true,
  and we must decry that which is unrighteous, bad and evil.

  If not I, then who?




(By the way, I am very grateful to you and various others on this
list who have named various authors of great utility for the reading,
which of course help to educate myself and others, and have helped to
form and distil certain of these basic concepts of right and wrong,
good and evil.)



> Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified by
> treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite a few. Most
> of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider demands and quite a
> few do so.
> 
> Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and have the
> military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for this, a few
> angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine sniper take a shot.
> Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and get offcially murdered for
> it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones option to mass suicide yourselves.
> 
> Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to whack
> or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work.
> 
> At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote:
> > "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's
> > first amendment, anywhere in the world.
> 
> Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially trained
> to do.
> 
> [Clip balance.]
> 
>