Hello, Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 -0400 From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
The people of the USA fortunately disagree. Its no coincidence that Limbaugh has been unable to continue his tv show after his coverage of the OKC bombing. It is not socially acceptable to call for the murder of Police officers in most countries. By doing so you are discrediting yourself and those who support you.
I am a US citizen. My family were French Heugonauts who came here to escape persecution on religious grounds in the late 1590's. One of my ancestors, Rufus Choate, was a lawyer who argued Women Suffrage to the Supreme Court (he lost AFAIK) in the 1890's. I am operating under two premises. First, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I am also interpreting it literally, under the assumption that our founding fathers were reasonably intelligent men and knew how to express their intents clearly. It is only our desire to avoid the uncertainty that some of the rights imply (eg speech) as well as the potential damage they might cause that clouds the issues for us. In short the uncertainty in constitutional law comes from us and not the Constitution. I disagree. This country fought two wars of liberation (you forgot about 1812) and a civil war to discredit this thesis in relation to a Democracy founded upon individual liberty. It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs watered with blood on occasion. It is how the value of human life and the pursuits thereof are measured. The entire point of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to guarantee that the Federal Government does not have sole access to and use of deadly force. The Militia exists to fight the Federal government and other internal insurrections. The Army and Navy are pointed outward, from a constitutional point any use of these forces inside the border of the United States against US citizens is prohibited. At no point is the military given authority over any civil organization or individuals in the Constitution other than in times of war with declaration of Martial Law. I further contend that without Martial Law being called the current use of the military in civil law enforcement are unconstitutional. I will further contend that various parts of the Constitution clearly show intent on the part of the founding fathers to limit the ability of the Federal government to use force. We should recognize what they seemed to have understood viceraly. All rights stem from an individual being alive. Civilization and Democracy in particular should be to increase the ability of an individual to do this. They also understood that democratic government were entered into by the founders (at least, automatic citizenship clouds this issue down the road) voluntarily and with the clear intent to better their position in the world. To this end the avoidance of the use of violence at all costs short of losing your life is a major plus. The constitutional point is to reduce the need for violence. Revolution and War are not murder unless you lose. This is a basic tenet of civilization. I want to be sure you understand I am NOT calling for the use of force against anyone. I believe the only legitimate use of force is in the immediate and direct threat to ones life. I also think that the majority of our current problems can be resolved by the inclusion of the 9th and 10th Amendment in our legal system.
Do you support the "punishment beatings" performed by the IRA. So far this year they have committed grievous bodliy harm against 270 people. They have also murdered 4 people. There have been no deaths from police or army use of firearms in that period. Your assertion is therefore false.
How many of them died? Beaten? And from what? Seems I see a article now and again about somebody getting killed from rubber bullets, tear gas, beatings, etc. from police and other related forces.
If you want to discuss the politics of Ireland you should at least visit the place.
You don't have to fall off a mountain to understand the implications of a fall, understanding does not require direct experience in all cases.
You will find remarkably less sympathy for your romantic visions of bloodshed amongst the people who have to live with the consequences. The British people have little sympathy for either side and would quite happily leave the two sides to slaughter each other if it wasnt for the fact that the majority of the population wish to remain British and have voted to remain so in regular referenda and national elections.
If true, it doesn't speak very highly of the British people. Jim Choate