The Human Mind

Although there is good reason to believe that at least some of the grudge informers should be prosecuted, not everyone agrees. Deputy 2 maintains that the grudge informers should in fact not be prosecuted. He argues for this position by asserting that the very essence of law was scarce in the face of a terrifying, anarchic regime, which functioned by instilling a “war of all against all conducted behind barred doors, in dark alleyways, in palace intrigues, and prisonyard conspiracies” (Fuller 3), a single phase of which were the acts of the grudge informers. He feels that it is not possible to judge their acts as either lawful or unlawful on the grounds that the Purple Shirts were not a lawful government, ergo the grudge informers did not live under a regime of law at all. He

He confirms his reasoning with the fact that when his book ‘Day of deceit’ hit seller’s shelves, almost immediately, NSA began withdrawing records regarding Pearl Harbour from public records. The fact that Stinnett has gone to many different lengths to prove his perspective superior, demonstrates how strongly he feels about

A Government acting in good faith should never bring criminal proceedings against anyone who reveals information about human rights abuses within its jurisdiction. There is therefore a sacred responsibility placed on governments to protect whistleblowers as they play an important role, for example:

In 2011, he was awarded Ridenhour Prize for TruthTelling and was co-recipient of Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award. As we progress into this paper, we will discuss various stages of this crime such as what were his actions in NSA, NSA inquiry and acknowledgement, Inevitable Whistleblowing, FBI raids, Indictment, Court proceedings, Government arguments, final disposition, what happened since 2012. In this paper we will also discuss the Espionage act and Whistleblowing, what is a part of the McCarran Internal Security Act and what was the Nation Defense information, classified information which was mishandled by Thomas Andrew Drake.

After conducting a close reading of Victor Davis Hanson’s article, Monasteries of the Mind, I came to the consensus that he provided many plausible and thought-provoking arguments regarding the political climate in the United States right now. He asserts in the article that in recent months there has been a double standard from what was accepted and praised during the Obama administration and and what is looked down upon in the Trump administration. In fact, Hanson accentuated that, “There is now something called the ‘Resistance,’ which by its nomenclature poses that its opposition to Trump is reminiscent of European partisan resistance to Hitler” [1]. I find this accusation to be a bit extreme, because while many of his policies anger and offend

Is it better to let ten guilty men go free, or to imprison one innocent man? Blackstone’s formulation would say it is better to let the ten guilty men go free. This is exemplified in section 11(d) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...” To convict a person in Canada of a criminal offence, generally, two elements must be proven. Actus reus, the guilty act, and mens rea, the guilty mind. This essay will focus specifically on the mens rea of first-degree murder. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea or there is no guilty act without a guilty mind. To understand the impact of mens rea on the determination of fault in a criminal case, one must understand the term and its context within the Criminal Code of Canada (hereafter referred to as the C.C.C.)

We are surrounded by unexplainable horrors: gang violence and murder; hurricanes and other natural disasters cause hundreds of casualties; giant passenger planes crash into the ocean and hundreds die terrifying deaths. Justice and our search for moral peace seemingly require us to find an answer for these tragedies even though we subconsciously know that conclusive answers may not exist. Nonetheless, we need to blame someone. The courts often cannot decisively resolve who is to blame and even when there is closure, we generally have no cure other than imprisonment or compensation to make things right again. Efforts to assign blame often lead to suffering while the failure to make the effort leads to some lasting damage to the soul, both

The term “Covert Action” brings with it a connotation of shadowy figures wrapped in secrecy and intrigue. It also brings with it a substantial amount of moral questions as to “what is right.” The use of covert action has been widely publicized since the early seventies, but trying to find out the truth to these events has been difficult to say the least. What is even more difficult, is historically recording these events into categories of successes or failures. These operations are difficult to dissect because of their secrecy and although events have been recorded, some facts simply aren’t apparent. This paper will seek to identify the complex issues associated with covert operations.

In Whitney, the Court, employing the “clear and present danger” test, sustained the conviction of Whitney, arguing that the act of teaching syndicalism presents danger to the public peace. In Dennis, the Court, modifying the “clear and present danger” test, affirmed Dennis’s conviction, arguing that his attempt to overthrow the government presented a clear and probable danger, which warranted governmental interference. In both of these cases, however, the clear and present danger test fails to address the difference between potential harm and actual harm, the allowable time limit between the expression of a dangerous idea and the act of violence that might follow, and the reaction as a result of the expression of a dangerous idea. The clear and present danger test, furthermore, fails to illustrate the difference between preparing and attempting, assembly and conspiracy, and advocacy and incitement. These questions highlight the Court’s struggle in trying to come up with a solution to determine the legality of subversive speech acts. Mill’s harm principle, in these cases, would provide a more effective approach. In Whitney and Dennis, Mill’s harm principle would not allow governmental interference on the ground that the act of joining an assembly to teach syndicalism and the act of organizing a Communist party themselves do not bring harm to another person. Since both of their actions did not bring harm to another person, or was anyone harmed in the process, the harm principle would overturn the Court’s decision in both

A nameless entity, known as John Doe took the world for a spin when he leaked 11.5 million documents regarding various clients of a Panamanian Law Firm known as Mossack Fonseca, to Suddeutsche Zeitung, a German news agency1. This ‘leak’ incriminated numerous politicians, their relatives, leaders, celebrities, etc. This was made the world go into a worldwide question, of corruption, of illegality, of prosecution, of confusion, and mainly of distress. The situation now known as the Panama Papers crisis is one of great importance but is hard to dispute upon with no clear-cut entity to blame, but rather individuals from all over the globe to be tried for their actions.

The essay makes me rethink the mind. Although he seems to be contradicting himself along the way he highlights his main points in those passages. The essay itself sends me back to psychology class in junior year of high school, where we would talk about the vast functions of the brain. However, in psychology forgetting stuff was just something that was natural, something goes into your long term memory, something goes into your short term memory. The writer gets me thinking that forgetting things is a good thing, not a bad thing. Most people don’t want to remember stuff that is not important to them and they want to get rid of memories permanently. However, when the writer talked about how forgetting things could help us get ingenious ideas,

Have you ever done something “brainlessly” or without prudence? However scary it might be, this is a natural process of our unconscious minds relieving us from having to concentrate on repetitive tasks. While there are times that our decisions can cause a stunningly positive effect, there are also times when our unconscious minds rushes and causes disasters.

Who’s to blame? Is there a new law we could pass? Should we give more money to somebody, or maybe invade someplace?” (Staerk, ¶6) or ‘“No trial for suspects? Torture, unaccountable surveillance, and harebrained identity schemes?

Throughout history, the eternal battle between right and wrong has continued to ensue, but the means to find the guilty and innocent has continued to find its revelations and apostasies in the eons of all existence. The idea of justice has long existed, but how to find it has been the question. Following the rise and fall of justice, a twisted representation had continued to writhe out of the ashes. From the beginning of human knowledge, mankind has taken the choice of following given laws, or to break them. To forge one's own laws and abandon the preceding rules is no different than the criminal who disobeys society's regulations.

The Science of Mind philosophy is not an abstract spiritual theory, but rather, a study of Consciousness, and, specifically, our expression of It. Ernest Holmes considered this study of Mind to be a science, in that it correlates principles and practices that can be applied and proven to be effective. Even so, the correlation of principles and practices is not what makes the Science of Mind a practical philosophy to live by. Anyone can deduce principles and devise practices that enhance and advance their favorite theory of everything. Every religiously minded group has done just that. Science of Mind distinguishes itself as a practical philosophy because of its teachings on the nature of Law, and its emphasis on the application of the principles of this Law in our life.