> > May says:
> > People have constitutional rights and these rights are not abrogated by
> > an "intervention."
>
> > A person may only be held or confined against his will if due process is
> > satisfied. This usually means at least a preliminary hearing, after the
> > usual "initial period" has passed.
Bell's AP includes neither a system of due process nor a method for the
accused to confront his accusor. do you think he's rejected the AP as
invalid, or simply realizing how beneficial simple rights as these are when
being accused of crimes? is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
himself rejected those rights for others?
phillip
