> Zero wrote:
> >> It would be against the law to arrest you as a "potential threat" to
> safety. If that were the law, there wouldn't be a single "gang-banger" left
> on the streets. Public surveillance would admittedly be uncomfortable at
> first, but I continue to maintain that for most law abiding-citizens it
> would eventually become as acceptable a nuisance as traffic signals.
> Indeed, *at present* in the US it may be against the law... but it is moving
> rapidly into mainstream accepted thought. Witness the expulsions from
> schools for the most minor of "potentially violent" infractions, even among
> small children. With *no* actual show of violence at all. Some even
> following instructions from teachers - writing things that were assigned but
> which happened to frighten somebody, so out they went. Either to suspension
> or psychotherapy (read: indoctrination or re-education). :/
And the the commando-like street crimes units in many American cities
are in fact taking action against potential threats. LA and San Diego,
for example, regularly deport hispanic gang bangers they pick up in
neighborhood sweeps. There was some big hooraw over this recently, but I
doubt very much that it will dissapear, merely become more covert.
Likewise, illegal aliens from carribean countries are systematically
deported if they have prior criminal records in their home countries.
The presumption of innocence is only being suspended at this time with
individuals who are well enough demonized by the press (hackers, for
instance, and nerdy school children) that nobody is willing to stand up
for them. However, if you can find it, I beleive it is Clintons
Executive Order 28 that authorizes the DOD anti-terror units to suspend
habeas corpus, etc under certain circumstances, with no review by local
judges, and no notification of their activities with local Sherriffs,
which is currently federal and state law.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:13 MDT