SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Corporations Given 'Human Rights,' Humans Are Denied Them
Feb 08, 2008
In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men -- because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. -- were not legally "persons" and, therefore, had no rights to violate.
While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.
Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.
The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.
The real issue in these cases (Maine recently passed a similar law) isn't free speech at all; it's manipulation and control. The drug salespeople only will decide what to say after poking into the doctors' prescription records. Under the guise of protecting speech, Judge Barbadoro denied both legitimate privacy rights of doctors and key protections to ensure patients are prescribed drugs based on their medical situation, not pressure applied to their physician.
Taken together, these two rulings are a perplexing and dangerous development. The founding principle of our country is right in the Declaration of Independence: all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It is not for judges to decide who is and who is not a human being.
Nor should the courts play Creator by endowing legal constructs like corporations with human rights. Our constitutional rights exist to prevent large, powerful institutions -- whether governments, corporations, or other entities -- from oppressing us humans.
For too long a strange dichotomy has persisted between principled people on the political left and right wings. The left wing often warns against the growing power of business corporations. The right wing complains the left ignores the overweening power of the government and is "anti-business."
Both sides have been seeing only part of the same elephant. What's happening is a merger of corporations and state.
Already there are corporate "black holes" for human rights that rival government affronts like Guantanamo. Under the Bush administration's legal framework for Iraq during its occupation, the Iraqi government wields no authority over Blackwater corporation's security guards.
And it's not clear the U.S. government does either. As a result, we may never see anyone punished for Blackwater's wanton killing of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last September.
Then there's the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, an American employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who claimed she was gang raped by co-workers in 2005. U.S. officials reportedly handed the evidence to KBR, whereupon the evidence apparently disappeared. Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has been able to persuade the Bush administration to reveal what it has done about the case since then.
Halliburton/KBR, like Blackwater, apparently enjoys the rights of a person, but not the responsibilities.
The danger of "corporate personhood" is a bit like global warming; people have warned us of the threat for decades only to go unheeded because the dire consequences seemed far-fetched.
But look at what's happened to the First Amendment. Corporations use it to strike down laws clearly designed to protect citizens, even while courts deny prisoners the right to know what evidence the government is using against them. It's time for alarm.
We should take offense whenever we hear the dangerous notion of "corporate citizenship" promoted. Soon, the only citizens with real power in the United States may be the corporate kind.
Jeffrey Kaplan is a researcher with ReclaimDemocracy.org, a non-profit organization working to restore citizen authority over corporations.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men -- because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. -- were not legally "persons" and, therefore, had no rights to violate.
While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.
Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.
The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.
The real issue in these cases (Maine recently passed a similar law) isn't free speech at all; it's manipulation and control. The drug salespeople only will decide what to say after poking into the doctors' prescription records. Under the guise of protecting speech, Judge Barbadoro denied both legitimate privacy rights of doctors and key protections to ensure patients are prescribed drugs based on their medical situation, not pressure applied to their physician.
Taken together, these two rulings are a perplexing and dangerous development. The founding principle of our country is right in the Declaration of Independence: all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It is not for judges to decide who is and who is not a human being.
Nor should the courts play Creator by endowing legal constructs like corporations with human rights. Our constitutional rights exist to prevent large, powerful institutions -- whether governments, corporations, or other entities -- from oppressing us humans.
For too long a strange dichotomy has persisted between principled people on the political left and right wings. The left wing often warns against the growing power of business corporations. The right wing complains the left ignores the overweening power of the government and is "anti-business."
Both sides have been seeing only part of the same elephant. What's happening is a merger of corporations and state.
Already there are corporate "black holes" for human rights that rival government affronts like Guantanamo. Under the Bush administration's legal framework for Iraq during its occupation, the Iraqi government wields no authority over Blackwater corporation's security guards.
And it's not clear the U.S. government does either. As a result, we may never see anyone punished for Blackwater's wanton killing of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last September.
Then there's the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, an American employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who claimed she was gang raped by co-workers in 2005. U.S. officials reportedly handed the evidence to KBR, whereupon the evidence apparently disappeared. Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has been able to persuade the Bush administration to reveal what it has done about the case since then.
Halliburton/KBR, like Blackwater, apparently enjoys the rights of a person, but not the responsibilities.
The danger of "corporate personhood" is a bit like global warming; people have warned us of the threat for decades only to go unheeded because the dire consequences seemed far-fetched.
But look at what's happened to the First Amendment. Corporations use it to strike down laws clearly designed to protect citizens, even while courts deny prisoners the right to know what evidence the government is using against them. It's time for alarm.
We should take offense whenever we hear the dangerous notion of "corporate citizenship" promoted. Soon, the only citizens with real power in the United States may be the corporate kind.
Jeffrey Kaplan is a researcher with ReclaimDemocracy.org, a non-profit organization working to restore citizen authority over corporations.
In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men -- because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. -- were not legally "persons" and, therefore, had no rights to violate.
While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.
Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.
The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.
The real issue in these cases (Maine recently passed a similar law) isn't free speech at all; it's manipulation and control. The drug salespeople only will decide what to say after poking into the doctors' prescription records. Under the guise of protecting speech, Judge Barbadoro denied both legitimate privacy rights of doctors and key protections to ensure patients are prescribed drugs based on their medical situation, not pressure applied to their physician.
Taken together, these two rulings are a perplexing and dangerous development. The founding principle of our country is right in the Declaration of Independence: all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It is not for judges to decide who is and who is not a human being.
Nor should the courts play Creator by endowing legal constructs like corporations with human rights. Our constitutional rights exist to prevent large, powerful institutions -- whether governments, corporations, or other entities -- from oppressing us humans.
For too long a strange dichotomy has persisted between principled people on the political left and right wings. The left wing often warns against the growing power of business corporations. The right wing complains the left ignores the overweening power of the government and is "anti-business."
Both sides have been seeing only part of the same elephant. What's happening is a merger of corporations and state.
Already there are corporate "black holes" for human rights that rival government affronts like Guantanamo. Under the Bush administration's legal framework for Iraq during its occupation, the Iraqi government wields no authority over Blackwater corporation's security guards.
And it's not clear the U.S. government does either. As a result, we may never see anyone punished for Blackwater's wanton killing of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last September.
Then there's the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, an American employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who claimed she was gang raped by co-workers in 2005. U.S. officials reportedly handed the evidence to KBR, whereupon the evidence apparently disappeared. Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has been able to persuade the Bush administration to reveal what it has done about the case since then.
Halliburton/KBR, like Blackwater, apparently enjoys the rights of a person, but not the responsibilities.
The danger of "corporate personhood" is a bit like global warming; people have warned us of the threat for decades only to go unheeded because the dire consequences seemed far-fetched.
But look at what's happened to the First Amendment. Corporations use it to strike down laws clearly designed to protect citizens, even while courts deny prisoners the right to know what evidence the government is using against them. It's time for alarm.
We should take offense whenever we hear the dangerous notion of "corporate citizenship" promoted. Soon, the only citizens with real power in the United States may be the corporate kind.
Jeffrey Kaplan is a researcher with ReclaimDemocracy.org, a non-profit organization working to restore citizen authority over corporations.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.