----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Caveat populi
> [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. Well, when push comes to shove, a jury will. If someone thinks that they are truely harassed, they can bring a lawsuit. A jury of their peers will judge the case. 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. > > 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. > Why? Why shouldn't new facts be used to fine tune what is considered suspicious behavior. Before Sept. 11th, the book on hijackings was cooperation, to minimize the risk to life. Now, its stop at all costs to the people on the plane. > Dan M.
