Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >Now, lets assume that another bombing has occured. Mr. Powers happens to
> >a) have a deisel tractor (and a fuel tank to keep it fuelled), b) be a
> >farmer, so he has a lot of fertilizer, c) be an electronics hobbyist,
> >and enjoy making remote control devices, d) be known to have made up
> >explosives in the past and used them on his private property simply for
> >the purpose of clearing stumps (as is the case with thousands of farmers
> >and other property owners all over the country), e) have in the past
> >written letters to the editor of his local paper decrying the activities
> >of an organization or government agency that happened to have had
> >offices or facilities at the site of the bombing, f) have been stopped
> >for a traffic violation on the day of the bombing within 20 miles of the
> >bombing location. Under the rules of evidence and the prosecutorial
> >procedure used in the Oklahoma case, its is pretty much an open and shut
> >case that Mr. Powers is the bomber in this event. No eyewitnesses are
> >needed to place him on the scene at the time of the bombing, no
> >eyewitnesses are needed to prove that he actually made the bomb.
> >This IS how justice gets done today in America.
> OK, lets assume all that. Now, lets *also* assume I was fortunate enough to
> live in a tranparent society. I would submit the video record of my life
> during the few days leading up to the bombing and viola! instant iron-clad
> allibi! I'm not only *not* convicted, I'm not even charged! After a few
> minutes of interrogation, the whole ordeal for me is over for good. "Oh the
> horrors of transparency", eh?
Thats not Transparent society, that is private serveillance. Not the
same. Besides that, it would not take the government much work to
'prove' that your coverage was faked.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:11 MDT