"Looking back at antiquity,
the Dark Ages,
the Feudal Era,
or even observing modern times
one shudders not at what people did unlawfully
but rather at what crimes were committed
in the name of the law"
Dagobert D. Runes

quoted in frontispiece of
Treasury of the Rule of Law
Edited by Richard W. Nice


It is 5:20 a.m.

The Sun is coming up
and the birds are all happily chirping
outside my window
as I write this.

I attended an all-day seminar
in Santa Barbara,
yesterday,
titled
"Understanding Energy and Fatigue: 
Focus on Stress, Habits, and the Brain".

The speaker was William J. Sieber, Ph.D.,
an highly experienced psychologist
who comes from
the Department of Family
& Preventive Medicine,
Department of Psychiatry,
at the University of California,
San Diego.

The audience consisted of
medical professionals.

Once again,
we were learning
of the very latest
cutting edge science
in this field,
with a particular focus
on the cellular biology of fatigue,
psychoneuroimmunology,
role of inflammation,
outsmarting your "gut brain",
chronic fatigue syndrome,
and the physical effects of PTSD
and sustained stress/burnout,
among other topics.

Very interesting,
needless to say.

I learned the finer distinctions
between insomnia
and sleep deprivation,
and the causes and cures
of both.

So, wouldn't you know it,
I have been laying awake
all night,
thinking about a statement
which I read on my return trip home.

The whistleblower,
Edward Snowden,
had escaped from the clutches
of the U.S. military/industrial complex,
at least for the moment,
to Russia.

All waited to see
whether Vladimir Putin
would hand him over
to his would-be captors.

While returning to Ventura,
from Santa Barbara,
I was looking up a paper
written by Martin Seligman,
on learned helplessness,
which had been referenced
at the seminar.

I had read the paper,
long ago,
but could not remember
the name of the author.

I had wanted to write
about this subject
of "learned helplessness"
as an explanation
of why no one does anything
to stop the tyranny
which is taking place
right in front of everyone
in this country.

The paper which I had read,
many years ago,
told of the experiments
which were done on a dog
(and later with rats).

The dog was first jolted
with electricity.

As one might expect
the dog would growl,
jump around,
and snap
at it's perceived tormentor/s.

But, each time
that the same jolt was repeated,
over a period of days/weeks,
the dog would resist less and less,
until it finally lay in a quivering mass,
and refused to even fight or growl.

This is the method
which has been used
on numerous detainees

(it is torture,
no matter what name
you may want to call it
in order to avoid the fact
that you are a torturer)

and is being used
on the nation as a whole
so that all are compliant
as they have their
life,
liberty,
and property
stripped away from them,
systematically, 
by very evil men
(read neo-Nazis,
neo-Fascists,
crypto-Communists,
and wanna be monarchists).

As I went onto my cell phone
to run a query,
in order to try to locate the paper/s,
now that I had the name of the author,
the first screen which came up
was a news article on Yahoo.

"Putin says nyet",
was the byline.

The story told that Putin
was not going to cooperate
with any extradition request
(or demand, in this case)
coming from the United States, 
because he has no extradition treaty
with this country. 

So, it was in this context
that I read
one of the most bizarre statements
which I have ever read,
during my entire life.

It was that
our current Secretary of State,
John Kerry
(of Swift boat fame)
was quoted as telling Putin
that he must obey "the rule of law".

In the immediate context
I found that as bizarre
as Hitler saying
the same words
at the height of his
mad quest for
world domination.

"Does this man have any idea
of what the rule of law is?"
I couldn't help thinking to myself
all night long,
as I pondered the question.

Finally at about 4 a.m.,
I couldn't take it any more,
so that I got up
and pulled out a few books
in my legal history library
in order to search
for relevant quotes.

I then went onto the internet
and read a number of papers
which claimed to be telling
the meaning of these words.

It was,
for the most part,
just a bunch of rubbish,
demonstrating no understanding,
whatsoever,
of what the phrase actually means.

As an example,
any number of authors
referred to
the "Code of Hammurabi"
as being the earliest codification
of laws.

An utterly ridiculous statement
highlighting the most profound ignorance,
and telling me
that the author has done
no homework at all
before writing this drivel

(obviously copied from someone else
who knew equally little about
Babylonian history and legal institutions)

which passes for scholarly work.

Why do I say such a thing?

Well, because Hammurabi's stele

(which I stood next to 
in the Louvre,
a number of years ago,
as I had my picture taken,
while I pretended to have my arm
wrapped around it,
much to the nervous consternation
of the guard/s,
just as an aside)

is not a codification at all.

There is no such thing
as Hammurabi's Code.

That is a euphemism,
based upon a lack of understanding
of what a legal code is
i.e. a codification of existing law.

Hammurabi's stele
is no such thing.

It is, rather,
a series of precedents,
believed to have been written
for propagandistic purposes
i.e. to justify the authoritarian paternalism
of this oriental despot,
as such have come to be known
in the world of ancient history
and archaeology.

The writings on it deal with cases
(i.e. case law, not codes)
which were presented to the king,
with each example followed by
a sentence telling
how he disposed of each case.

It is the very opposite
of the rule of law,
as you will soon enough find out,
because Hammurabi,
like the Sun King,
after him,
was an autocrat
(oriental despot),
who would be quick
to remind you that
he IS the law.

Hammurabi was a theocratic dictator,
if ever there was one.

He, like all of his predecessors
in this part of the world
(Middle East),
claimed to be
the earthly representative
of deities.

He was known as
"the Shepherd".

And his people
were most definitely
as "sheep to be sheared",
from our modern vantage point.

He is the very thing
that the "rule of law"
is to be distinguished from.

But, I am getting ahead of myself.

Even more basic,
is the fact that it is NOT
the oldest writing of it's kind,
as is so often stated.

Rather,
there are four "codes"
which precede it,
by centuries,
which are Sumerian.

One can find this out
with very little effort
if one were to take the time
to study the subjects
of which one pretends
to be knowledgeable,
while, instead, 
showing their ignorance
with every single word
which they write.

In order to define the term
"rule of law"
I must go back
into the history books
just a little bit,
as we consider the role
of the "nation state".

That's right,
for it is here that the term
first begins to have any
meaning and relevance.

Nation states
are a modern invention.

Most people do not realize this.

There were no nation states
prior to modern times.

Before that we had
various different forms of
kingdoms,
theocracies,
autocracies, 
oligarchies,
and, above all,
numerous city states.

Even what were termed "republics",
were, in fact,
not modern nation states,
but, rather,
forms of aristocracies,
plutocracies,
and oligarchies.

But, that is another subject,
altogether.

While England may be thought of,
by many,
to have a place in all of this,
it does not.

It is a constitutional monarchy,
(a Germanic tradition,
from which came
our very own
"electoral college" system,
strangely enough)
with a parliamentary system
grafted onto it.

The ancient tribal laws
which preceded it
(Anglo-Saxon laws)
consist of oral tribal customs,
not much different from
the Mosaic law,
which formed the basis for
the Israelitish theocracy.

It was not until the French Revolution
that the problem of
what to do in place of
all of these other systems
really came to the forefront.

Remembering that it was
the consummation of a process
which had been taking place
in Europe
during the several centuries
immediately preceding it
(for example the Swiss republics,
the Venezian republic,
and the Genoan republic
as embryonic forms).

The French Revolution
was ignited by the fact that Louis XIV 
(the Sun King) 
had been
one of the most autrocratic persons
ever seen in history.

He behaved like an oriental despot
of Hammurabi's time.

"The king IS the law"
was the line which Louis
liked to toss about
as he spent the entire substance
of his once great nation
on his own personal palatial residences
with lots of partying
and continuous wars
which he could not pay for

(who does that sound like,
in this day and age?).

He left his country broke,
and deep in debt

(hmmm, just like
USA today?).

Louis XV and XVI
inherited this terrible state of affairs,
as the country sank into
mass poverty
and mass starvation,
following centuries of greatness.

Once the people
had thrown off the shackles,
by a series of violent revolutions
they were left with
the perennial question of
"what now?".

And it is at this point in history
that a stark contrast
came out in the open
for all to see.

Are we to be ruled
by the whims of an autocrat
who pretends to be
some kind of demigod?

(Ask the male members of
the British Royal family
if their family has claimed
to have the bloodlines
of the warrior god,
Woden,
for example;
the day Wednesday
being
Woden's Day,
just in case
you haven't noticed).

Or are we to be ruled some other way,
by which we,
as peoples,
may become the
masters of our own destiny?

This other way is
"the rule of law".

This is why you will see
"the rule of law"
so often contrasted with
"the rule of men",
meaning the rule of one man,
or one little group of men.

That is to say,
shall we have a man
or group of men
making things up
as we go along,
or are we going to need
something different
and more rational,
if we are to manage our affairs,
which consist of the needs
of millions of persons.

The city of Venice
became one of the most
classic examples of this,
because it stands on the
commercial nexus
of East meets West.

That's a lot of different
kinds of persons
who simply must get along
with one another
if they are to trade goods
successfully.

From these humble
beginnings came 
the invention
of the modern nation state,
as the solution to the problem of,
"what now?".

As the French invented
their first elective parliaments
they improvised
and perfected a system
which was based upon
combining together various systems
which had preceded theirs.

Models which proved to be
of particular usefulness,
were the Italian Republics,
like Venezia, Genoa, Firenze, et al,
where various merchants
had worked out arrangements
by which men of many different
nationalities,
cultures,
and beliefs
could work together as one,
in order to facilitate trade
in a way which was
mutually beneficial
to all.

Thus, the "rule of law",
came to stand for a system,
whereby reasonable men
put the best of
their ancient customs
into a written form
and agreed,
by mutual consent,
to abide by such.

This system then advanced,
stage by stage,
from these elementary origins
into the system of nation states,
which we currently use,
while taking for granted
that it has been this way all along.

It most certainly has not.

So long as any system of laws
is promulgated by
and administered by
an autocrat

(i.e. king or equivalent,
and that would include
legislative bodies
which have encroached
upon the executive
to such a degree
as to usurp the
executive function)

THERE SIMPLY IS NO "RULE OF LAW" !!

It is just the SAME system of
the Sun King
("I am the law")
repeated in some other guise.

Now, I should note
in this regard
a couple of matters
which I believe will help
to keep a proper perspective.

In order to do this
I am forced to touch upon
a very deep subject
which is to be
found in
the study of jurisprudence.

It is the argument
of what exactly law is,
in the first place.

There are two main arguments
regarding what law is.

The one doctrine 
is known as Jus Naturale
(natural law)
and the other is known as
the doctrine of
positive law.

Natural law is an ancient concept,
which seems to be
often confused with
the "rule of law",
while positive law
is a modern concept,
which pretends to be ancient,
and which has, thereby,
served to return us back,
full circle, 
to the autocracies of yesteryear,
only in a modernized form.

The doctrine of natural law
posits that there is a law,
in nature,
which predates anything
which man has made or done.

It is God's law,
in the final analysis.

That is to say,
there is a Creator,
who has created all,
and sustains all.

The Creator is
the ultimate moral authority
and the author of all true law.

This law is thought to be universal,
and knowable by all,
through the use of
their mental faculties
(higher reasoning).

As such, it is discoverable,
by the use of reason,
based upon observation.

The founding fathers,
and William Blackstone,
and Lord Coke, themselves, 
took this idea for granted.

It is found enshrined in
those wonderful words
in the Declaration of Independence
in which reference is made
to certain "inalienable rights"
among which are found
the right to
"life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness".

That is to say,
the rights are God-given.

They are our birthright.

Inalienable means
that they cannot be sold
or transferred away.

They are here to stay,
no matter what any
temporal autocrat
or military dictator
has to say about the matter.
 
Of course,
as people tried to
discuss these matters
with one another,
it was soon enough found
that while I believe
that reason has showed me
one way,
you may believe
that reason has showed you
an entirely different way.

This, unfortunately,
became the fatal flaw
in the system.

Nobody could agree
on just exactly what it was
that reason was telling us.

Add to that
the wide variety of 
different religious sects,
following the Reformation,
and one can,
further add all of these thoughts,
to all of the various differing 
opinions and ideas 
as to what exactly it is
that God is telling us.

For every sect
has a slightly different idea
of what God is,
and what he is saying to them.

As differences exploded
into open warfare
and mass murders
on a grand scale

(1/2 of the younger male population
of the German principalities
being murdered by one another,
in religious wars,
as an extreme example),

it became more and more difficult
to say just what it is
that natural reason is telling us.

Add to that
the invention of Darwinian evolution,
which posits that there is no God,
in the first place,
and one can see
that the natural law ideas
are under severe attack,
as "Social Darwinism"
replaces the principles of
the NT red letters
with "the law of the jungle"

i.e. kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest,
or the craziest,
or the most deranged,
or the most violent,
or the most evil,
as the scum
continuously
rises to the top.
.

So, now the bedrock
principles of natural God-given law
will be
sysematically replaced
with what is known as
"positive law".

That is to say,
the law is
whatever a group of men
say that the law is,
entirely apart from religious beliefs
and considerations.

So, now,
what is essentially
"parliamentarianism",
with all of it's numerous failings
and overreaching

(that is a rather complex matter
for an entire other paper)

begins to encroach 
upon the ancient belief systems,
which are actually
supplying the foundation
on which positive law
is resting,
apparently without seeing
the abundant and numerous
contradictions and incongruities
which are thereby created,
and which now become
"the ultimate playground"
for the demagogue
and his/her
all too numerous
enablers and progeny,
as they now have so many
more places to hide behind
as they continue to catabolize
the very fabric of civilization
from the inside out.

So, from about 1830,
until today,
there is
an incredibly dynamic tension
between those
who believe in
a higher moral authority
and those who
deny the existence
of such a thing,
while replacing natural law 
with their own system of philosophy,
which they refer to,
very disingenuously
as 
"science".
 
(As if the say that their system
is fact-based,
where that of their opponent's is not
= very misleading use of the term.)

Yet, it can be easily
demonstrated that
it is not science at all
which is being described as such.

First of all,
the ultimate claim
of this pretended science
is that life has arisen
from nonlife.

This is something which has never been observed.

Observation is the first requirement
for something to be a fact,
or a "scientific" fact
(which is redundant,
because science is supposed to
consist of a collection facts).

It is the same with the "big bang" theory.

It has never been observed.

And, indeed, cannot be.

No matter how many postulates
anyone wants to put forth,
which attempt to describe
some person's speculations
all dressed up with
mathematical window dressing.

The foundations
of science are
observation,
measurement,
quantification,
and experimental repetition,
with verification,
none of which is even
remotely possible when
one is speaking of orgins
and ultimates.

It categorically is, rather,
a matter of speculative philosophy,
posing as something
which it simply can never be,
true science

i.e.
it has not ever been observed
(i.e. life from non-life
and the big bang),
it cannot be observed,
it is not measurable,
it is not quantifiable,
it is not experimentally repeatable/verifiable

= these are NOT,
by definition, 
facts,
and as such 
it fails, altogether, 
to qualify as science,

but, rather,

as
"science falsely so-called").

(note:  do not allow anyone
to confuse you,
as is so often done,
by substituting change
and adaptation,
which IS found in nature,
and which IS observable,
and quantifiable,
with the ultimate postulate,
of life, arising from non-life,
which is an unproveable, yet,
absolute requirement
for the existence of their system.

The fact that they are claiming
that life arose from non-life,
always remains unspoken,
but always lies, hiding,
back behind all of the jargon,
and fast talk,
and pretended mathematical precision,
which, ultimately turns out to be
nothing more than obfuscation,
all "smoke and mirrors",
in place of hard facts
which can be entered into
the collection of facts,
which is collectively known as
science.)

So, now, we are told
that there is no Creator,
and that "science"
has proved this

(utterly ridiculous nonsense,
for the above reasons

= a modern form of priestcraft,
in the final analysis,
with the lab coat
replacing the priestly garbs
of yesteryear).

So we are now taught
in all of our universities
that it is a matter of
science vs religion,
when in fact it is
one speculative philosophy
vs
another speculative philosophy

i.e. one religion fighting against
another religion,
or anti-religion, if you will,
which becomes just another form of religion,
in spite of all of it's boasts to the contrary.

With the natural corollary of
Darwinian evolutionism
being
that there is no Natural Law,
because
there is no ultimate moral authority
(or being)
upon which to premise such.

This is where
all of the confusion comes from
in the USA today.

For Thomas Jefferson,
a deist,
claims that there are
"inalienable rights"
coming from a deity.

While those who are atheists
are forced to silently deny
that such
is even possible

(atheism is proven,
in their minds,
by their
science falsely co-called,
such that their rationalization
for this brazen behavior is
that they are in possession
of the facts,
while their
opponents are deluded
= OUCH !!)

and must, therefore,
subvert the very constitution
for which they take an oath
to preserve and uphold

(undoubtedly due to their
more enlightened
"higher calling",
as they see it).

Accordingly,
they are forced to
stealthily and dishonestly
build an edifice which
requires that there be
no Creator
on top of a system
which is based upon
the exact opposite premise

i.e. that my ultimate
rights to life, liberty,
and pursuit of happiness
were given to me
by my Creator,
and are, therefore,
inalienable.

One can see that
this is a matter
which is much in need of resolution,
but which is nowhere near
being resolved,
with both camps
having dug in hard
with each refusing
to give any ground,
as each position appears
to be fatal to the other.


NOW,
with regard to positive law,

a number of years ago
I was in the ancient,
little walled town
of Rothenburg by the Tauber (river),
in Bavaria
(modern southern Germany).

Inside those walls
is an incredible three story building
which is known as
"The Criminal Museum".

I first heard of it as
"The Torture Museum".

This museum has collected
numerous medieval torture instruments,
in one of the most bizarre,
and fascinating collections
you will ever see.

I was struck by
a collection of manuscripts
which purport to be
"the law of torture".

Did you even know there was
or could be
such a thing?

I know I sure did not.

I had always thought of torture
as being inherently "lawless",
by it's very nature.

But, such is not the case.

There are numerous huge manuals
which tell exactly how
all of these horrible practices
are to be carried out.

And if you did not abide by
these manuals,
you could become a subject of them,
yourself.

I could not believe the things
which I was reading.

That, my dear friends,
is positive law,
come home with a vengeance.

Only, it was being done
in the name of natural law.

A man made law,
through and through,
but pretending to be
a God-made law.

That is to say,
this dichotomy
of which I am speaking,
is not really anything new,
at all.

But it sure should give you
cause for pause,
when someone is telling you
that you have a duty
to obey laws
because some man,
or group of men
have made them.

Question authority? 
or what?

Later on,
I paid a visit to
the first Nazi prison camp,
at Dachau,
which was to become the model
for all which were to follow.

In their little museum
I was shocked to find
some of the same implements of torture
which I had seen
at the Criminal Museum
in Rothenburg.

The ancient
and the modern
forming a very disturbing nexus,
as it were.

Once again,
one would automatically think of
lawlessness.

But one would be entirely wrong,
in so thinking.

For Hitler was,
if nothing else,
the most legally minded person
you are likely to ever have heard of.

He did EVERYTHING by the book!!

He had all of the outward forms of law
and legality,
and did nothing without reference
to this "legal" "system".

He did very little without
numerous legal memorandums
having been written,
just like they do now.

Yet was able
to arrive at the "final solution"
through these very same "legal" means.
and methodologies,
with no problem whatsoever,
once his version of the Patriot Act
(known as The Enabling Act)
was in place.

Therein lies the crux of our problem.

It does not matter
if you are a scrupulous,
law-abiding person,
if the laws are immoral,
through and through.

But, without God,
and religion,
who is to say
what "moral" even is.

And that brings us full circle
to John Kerry.

He wants the dictator,
and ex-KGB officer,
Vladimir Putin,
to obey the "rule of law".

In this case,
that means
sending a man back
to certain death,
in effect,
because he has had the audacity
to expose numerous very serious crimes
on the part of John Kerry
and his Gang of Eight
(in the U.S. Senate),
and their numrous enablers,
and his systems of
secret detention centers
(black sites),
and torture,
which is called
"enhanced interrogation".

This is truly astounding to me,
that John Kerry would dare
to utter such words
such as "rule of law"
while he has willingly 
sold his soul for a pittance,
in order to be a player
in the most lawless regime
I have ever seen
or heard of.

But, they claim to be lawful,
just like Hitler did,
and just like
the Medieval torturers did,
and for the exact same reasons.

Do you really believe
that anyone
is actually trying to protect YOU
from terrorists;

the very same ones
which they are trying to arm
with modern advanced weaponry

(Al Qaeda, in this case)

in Syria,
as we speak?

Do you really believe
that Edward Snowden
has a "snowballs chance in Hell"
of getting a fair trial?

Just like Pfc Bradley Manning hasn't,
after having been detained
for years
without charges,
and as he has been tortured
during that time,
according to his attorney
and humans rights observers
who witnessed such?

Do you really believe
that any of these people
abide by any rules of civilization,
when they claim that
the President has the power
to throw citizens in a dark hole,
for as long as he wants
with no power or right
to judicial review?

(I believe that Louis XVI
of France,

and Charles I of England

both claimed this very same power,
didn't they?;

the one bringing on
the storming of the Bastille,
followed by the French Revolution,

and the other bringing on
the first English Revolution,
followed by
The Glorious Revolution,
with Oliver Cromwell's military governance,
providing an interregnum,
just about one hundred years prior to that?)

When I grew up,
during the height of the Cold War,
and immediately following
the numerous revelations
of the atrocities recently committed
by Hitler,
and the Japanese
during WWII,
and those of "the big three" member,
Joseph Stalin,
during the same era,
I was taught that
this is what made us different
from these evil persons.

(note: 
"the big three"
were
Winston Churchill,
Joseph Stalin,
and Franklin Roosevelt)

And I was most definitely taught
that they were evil incarnate,
and that it is my responsibility 
to see to it that
this never happens again.

But, what has happened,
such that John Kerry
speaks glibly
about some rule of law,
by which he pretends
to have the right and authority
to commit numerous heinous acts
and atrocities far too similar
to the outrages referred to above,
in yours and my names?

As we sit idly by,
having well learned
to be just like that dog
laying on the floor
and shivering.

Unable and unwilling
to do anything more,
as evil men continue
with their non-stop
lawless machinations
to the detriment of
every single creature on the planet.

How long, Oh God,
how long?
is all I can hear my soul asking
about all of this.

And with those observations
you can see why I have insomnia
most of the time

So, have a good morning.

And have a good day.

And may God bless you abundantly,
in spite of all else,
should I say?

w/ the greatest love imaginable
and even more,
which is far beyond
your very limited ability
to imagine

vw

7:10 a.m.
Wednesday
6-26-13
Ventura, California, USA




Afterword: on 6-27-13 at noon.

I thought of a couple of more examples
of just how trustworthy these evil men
truly are NOT,
as they can be heard,
very disingenuously,
crying out that
we should just trust them,
as they are only trying
to protect us from their latest
pretended boogeyman.

I read last night about a lawsuit
which is dealing with the fact
that prisoners in Guantanamo
are being kept alive,
by forced tube feeding,
when they do not want to be alive,
and have, accordingly,
stopped eating,
due to the extremely inhumane conditions.

Most of these persons were rounded up
in sweeps of adult male populations.

Yes, It was all widely reported
in the foreign press,
as it was happening,
and I did not miss
the significance of this,
when it happened,
as they surrounded
one town after another
and would only let persons out
who were not fighting age males,
while they trapped the rest
and penned them up in barbed wire enclosures,
like caged animals,
and then threw them into
numerous dungeons,
all around the world,
to be degraded,
humiliated,
and tortured.

Yes, they did this
while your local Amerikan newspapers
told about how we were
winning hearts and minds,
and showed pictures of little kids
being handed candy
by the nice soldier man.

Their crime?

Being fighting age.

No charges have ever been brought.

No charges ever will be brought.

They cannot even provide
probable cause to hold them,
which requires
only the most minimal standards
i.e. a crime has been committed
and I have a reasonable suspicion
that this suspect was involved in it.

The plans are to never release these persons.

Rule of law?

You've got to be kidding !!

They are only being kept alive
to continue to torment them.

And for those who have never
worked in a long care medical setting,
you have no idea just how disgusting
of an idea this really and truly is.

You definitely do not want to be
the person having the tube
stuck up their nose,
or down their throat,
for longer than a few hours.

If this is not torture,
then what exactly is?

I'll bet if someone was doing this
to John McCain,
or his children,
or Hillary Clinton
and her family,
or Barry O.
and his family,
their lawyers would argue,
forcefully, and strongly,
that this IS torture.

If they didn't
their competency
would seriously be
called into question.

And rightfully so.

Especially if it was being done
by the Chinese or the Russians.

The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

And I am supposed to trust such persons?

Ain't no way !!

And what about the suspect
who was waterboarded over 180 times,
and still could not
and would not
admit to having anything
to do with the bringing down
of the World Trade Center towers?

(remember this was all recorded,
and then the tapes were all destroyed,
"inadvertently",
it was claimed,
by one bad egg,
but of course,
with no repercussions
to any of the criminals
who took part in the
destruction of this
very important evidence.

Wouldn't YOU like to know
just what this person said,
180 times in a row,
instead of "I did it";
must be especially interesting,
or should I say, damaging,
given that some persons
went through so much trouble
to cause the destruction of this
very imporant evidence?)

Not torture?

Yet, any number of Japanese
were condemned to death
for this very same
crime against humanity
following WWII.

A polic chief,
in the USA,
was given
a very long sentence in prison
for doing the same.

What is wrong with these people?

And what is wrong with those
who follow right along
as if all is normal
and nothing is happening here?

Strong delusion, anyone?

Right out of the Book of Revelation.

Finally, I wanted to apologize,
at least a little,
for being so hard on those
who don't know their Babylonian legal history,
and yet pretend to.

I know that I sound a little bit shrill,
or maybe even pedantic,
in so saying.

But, the reason for this
has nothing to do with
legal history, as such.

It is because they were trying to use
this
as an example of man's
pretended eternal quest
to make laws to protect one another.

In that context
this couldn't be more ridiculous.

Let me explain to you
what happens when you seek an audience
with these "great"
Middle Eastern monarchs
of yesteryear.

You lay down on your belly,
prostrating yourself in front of
the "oh, great king",
then a man puts his foot
on your neck
and shoves it hard
into the floor.

Then he raises a huge sword
over your head,
and looks to the king
to tell him whether to chop your head off,
or not.

Finally, if you are fortunate enough
to get to speak,
the king will ask you,

"And what was your problem, exactly?"

This legal counselor
would counsel you
to choose your words
very carefully.

Clearly this kind of person
has nothing to do
with the "rule of law".

And the fact that somebody
wrote out some legal precedents
for purely political propagandistic
purposes has very little to do
with the rule of law.

In fact,
it stands for
the diametric opposite.

Yet, a quick perusal
of all of the various articles
on the internet
can only make you wonder
whether everyone is copying everyone else,
as they all tell how Hammurabi's "Code"
is somehow an early formulation
of the "rule of law".

That couldn't be more absurd,
in light of the well known facts of history,
and yet I saw it
over and over again.

That is why I was so irritated
with the lack of homework
on the part of the writers
(or plagiarists?)
of these articles,
which pass for modern scholarship.

Please forgive me
if I seem too bitter.

I really am not.

But I must admit
to having been particularly irritated
by that one.

I think if you will take some time
to consider the matters to which I have
drawn your attention, above,
you will better understand
just exactly what it is
that I am talking about, here .