Is it time to call a reform on the Corpus Juris?
Some time ago, I posted a blog on Law that bared the same title as this – but not being au fait with the law, I took it down.
Now after several months, I am still not familiar with the way in which our legal system works. That hasn’t prevented me from taking a real long hard think about this blog and re-posting it. I think it deserves to be said.
As we witness the questionable arrest of Julian Assange at a controversial period of truth and transparency – is it also time we reviewed the way in which laws are made and governed?
The recent decision to try Manning on treason made me review what little belief I have in such thing as an official secrets act and the idea of ‘intelligence’ and ‘compromising the security’ of a particular ‘nation’. Had we observed the secrets that contribute to a ‘national interest’ we would soon discover something very sinister. Is it about time we used transparency to ask for clear confirmation on how sensitive government data and whistleblowing (wikileaks) amounts to treason?
This investigation should not be done in secret in the professional legal systems. We need this to be public. And Accountable.
There are flaws in the legal system.
Founded on a variety of medieval and latin texts, some from the Roman Empire, we can see how much can be improved.
Scholarly establishment may constitute much wisdom but it should never be allowed to become an anchor.
If we analyse the legal terms of ‘Treason’ we can quickly see how the act of warfare created the necessity of identifying traitors.
How is Julian Assange a traitor?
Unless he is a danger to those that realise the game would be up?
How can war be justified and protected by law?
I think it’s about time we pulled apart the legal system and understood (overstood?) what it is all about.
With regard to war secrets and treason…
Are we still living through the Cold War? The laws on espionage and traitors are horribly out of date
As we look into the need for laws protecting governments from espionage and trading military secrets, a cynical and well-informed mind (recalling numerous abuses of power which have been documented through history) will come to the conclusion that allowing this law to continue is in itself an abuse of power and a symbol of absolute corruption. Without the accountability of government on issues surrounding the trade of arms, we are at a catch-22. The profit for war becomes two-fold. Not only do governments profit from the sale of weapons but they also benefit from the reform of various war-torn countries including plunder of raw materials and labour. A war-torn region also allows exploitation to continue in that economy.
Without becoming too one-sided, it is conceivable that motives do not start out in this general direction. We can see a great deal of compromise occur when social and moral accountability is placed on the issues surrounding government and war. We don’t need government statements (in fact, those we can do without) to know that people try hard to do the right thing when they can afford to. However, this isn’t the reason for my blog…
Scrutiny of what amounts to ‘national defence’ and ‘threats of warfare’ is something that can be avoided by a diplomat turning up with a black suitcase in their hand. Any laws on transparency can be subverted with sensitive documents that have been rubber stamped by government.
I would like to ask my readers to question, in the stakes that Assange is playing at, who are the ones who would lose everything? Who holds all the cards?
The Human race has only had intermittent periods of peace before war knocks everything down again! Why is this?
The answer lies in our historical law system.
I propose that the law is a cover up for autocratic rule. It has been tailored to fit around the capitalist system, evolved from the church (which held similar wealth and power systems). This can be proved in a few ways.
But we only have to look at British government and their connection to Law systems and hierarchy to get a taste of how incestuous the relationship is between those in power and those that govern law. I understand that the pay-offs for such systems are vast and rewards increase the further into the field you go. People become blinded by the power and the money that they receive. I know a number of hard-working lawyers and barristers. They are somewhere in this mess, dealing with endless paperwork and legal-systems. They are good people. That doesn’t stop the system that they are working from, from being inherently bad.
We know that the system is inherently bad. This we can deduce from the Napoleonic codes, Corpus Juris and Magna Carta (to cite but three sources). These are not entirely responsible for the law we have today, but to not consider the impact such autonomous charters have had on the evolution of the privileged and rich is a short-sighted viewpoint to say the least.
Although various scholars and professionals have commented on law and kept the system in good working order such as Glanville Williams and Francis Bacon – how can one fix what is already ruined? I appreciate the need for law but, as we can see, my argument is that the law has been enforced by oppressive regimes which allowed a getaway for the very rich and exclusively powerful.
I liken the power of Government, Banking and Law as a holy trinity of corruption. In the end, the law is the Holy Ghost – the executor – as it is the law which has the power to take life (backed of course by the government and financed by the banks)