[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > All are, however, _suspicious_ because they are out of the > ordinary. Therefore they are worthy of attention.
Who defines 'suspicious' and 'out of the ordinary'? The authorities, no doubt. According to any uniformly-applied set of rules? Probably not, just the judgement of those 'authorities' on the spot. The same authorities which are granted powers and privileges denied the citizens from whom their authority derives. Sorry, I don't buy it. > An example. A friend of mine from Israel explained to me that > if anyone on an Israeli street is seen wearing a trench coat > on a warm day the police will be alerted instantly and he will > be stopped and searched. Why? 'Why' is irrelevant. It is pointless to compare cultures and nations as though they are congruent; they are not. > But because we have experienced an unprecedented attack of an > extraordinary nature, it is now important to view some behaviors > that are not criminal but are nonetheless, suspicious, as things > worthy of investigation. Bologna. If they are worthy of investigation now, then they always have been. > Answering questions from authorities in such a situation is not > in the least a violation of anyone's rights. If the situation has been codified, and supported by the citizenry, I'm inclined to agree. If it happens on the whim of some official -- regardless of how well-intentioned -- I disagree strongly. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
