On 3 Nov 2001, at 22:10, Tim May wrote:
This is why we are supposed to be a nation of _laws_, not of _men_. It doesn't matter whether these soldiers are country bumpkins or not: the Constitution still applies. (Scholars may opine that Bangor International Airport has "invited" soldiers onto its property, blah blah, or that ordinary search and seizure provisions are waived, blah blah, but the fact is that soldiers are now frisking people without search warrants. At this rate, the entire Fourth will be mooted.)
What is happening now is wrong. I hope the lawyers get a hold of it and sue all involved and the elected officials which allowed it to happen are removed from office and also assume a financial liability. I would like to berate your country for allowing such country bumpkins into such positions but I note the bumpkins at the Vancouver BC airport were taking the pins out of Remembrance day poppies.
"At the time it apparently was a good idea"?
It was a horrible idea but yet so very few realize the true magnitude of the darkness of this action. Kinda like going back to an era of witch hunts except there was no test.
You are hopeless. Every one of the guards, judges, and processing officials should have been tried for kidnapping and then hung by the neck until he was dead.
Your views are a touch strong. I am disappointed you so quickly label me because my beliefs are less extreme than yours. Kinda puts you in the same category as the country bumpkin National Guardsman in Maine don't you think?
(One reason I have been cynical dates back to 1969 when a teacher was piously explaining the Nuremberg precedent, that "just following orders" is no defense. I brought up the imprisonment of Japanese-ancestry and Italian-ancestry persons, without constitutional due process. My teacher just shrugged and said "We won the war, so it didn't apply to us.")
In 1969 I was too far gone on the hormones of youth and other distractions to notice much. By the early 70s the takeover of India by the British was my cause. The British were a bunch of bastards and they conquered a society for basically economic gain. I was wrong in being overly critical of such actions as they are just part of the evolution of man's society, one society is always overcoming another society. We can't feel guilt for the actions of previous generations long since passed away. Where do we draw the line? To me it is obvious Japanese North Americans should have been compensated for any loss of property or better yet it should not have happened. What about the evil deeds of the US government against the American Indians? Yes, the society of the day screwed those people out of their land. Should our guilt extend that far back or should we have a limitation on guilt similar to your suggestion of a 50 year rule on art pieces.
We are talking about the Constitution, not what is commonplace in ad hocracies like Canada or in police states like Singapore and Indonesia.
The interpretation of the American Constitution is very much based on current standards. There are some long term redeeming values but much is based on current standards. At one point in America the circulation of currency was restricted to keep the masses in their place. Look into the burned over region of New York. During Hoover's time in the FBI the Mafia was denied and homosexuals were persecuted and now we are told Hoover was most likely a homosexual. I don't see a great difference between America during Hoover's time and some of the Asian authoritarian governments of today. The point being most societies are in a constant state of change and hopefully the change is in a position direction. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Delivering on the policy of "Lowered Expectations" http://www.fbntech.com/service1.html