Gilmore case...Who can make laws?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 11:19 AM 9/8/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
>Hum. I wonder. Do you think these secret regulations are communicated
via
>secure channels? What would happen if someone decided to send their own

>regulations out to all of the local airline security offices rescinding
any
>private regs, particularly if one used official-looking letterhead?

It would be better to inject *more heinous* secret rules than to attempt
to remove
them.  "Why" is left as an exercise to the reader.  Fax would probably
suffice.

At 01:52 PM 9/7/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
>I am however intrigued that they may be preparing to posit that secret
>rules (which act under color of law) can be enforced without being
>described publicly.  This, if accepted, would effectively end all
>constitutional protections.

The phrase "constitutional protections" doesn't pass the giggle test
these days.
However the courts --when trials get that far-- will still toss out
cases in which
the state's evidence is not revealed.  I expect that behavior will
stop when domestic-US secret trials become common.  To protect
means, methods, and the chiiiildren, of course.

At least the Europeans don't take the US seriously, esp after the use of
torture
was made clear, see eg the German trials.  But the US is trying to
control
them via the oil connection.

Rome did not fall in a day.