On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
I concur with your general direction. two thoughts came to mind:
first, govt. employees aren't subject to lawsuits because of their official
acts.
Really? Where does it say this in principle or practice within the
concepts of 'democracy'? In
]]On Behalf Of Blanc
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
i clearly understand your point. where bell and i differ seems to
be in the
perception of the role of the individual working for the govt --
it appears
to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Blanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also disagree with Jim's idea on the proper and effective method
of dealing with the problem of being educated to expect the opposite
of what we actually receive. He forgets that in a free world, only
the support of a
Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
At 02:03 AM 4/23/01 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
I concur with your general direction. two thoughts came to mind:
first, govt. employees aren't subject to lawsuits because of their official
acts.
Government employees are still responsible to know what
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This is nonsense. Even if you, say, don't believe (gays|blacks|IRS agents)
should have any rights, and you assault or shoot one, you maintain your
rights under the criminal justice system. To a trial by jury, to be
confronted with the evidence
Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
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
]]On Behalf Of Blanc
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
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
And why, ethicaly, should the individual receive unlimited protection? Why
should an individual who acts in a unjust way receive protection simply
because they work for the government. Where in the DoI, Constitution, or
anywhere else in Democratic theory is this a requirement? Near as I can
Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
i clearly understand your point. where bell and i differ seems to be in the
perception of the role of the individual working for the govt -- it appears
to me that bell equates the individual as the govt and so can direct action
against the individual. . . .
---
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Does
going to work for the government take away ones responsibilities and
rights as an individual?
Totally as an aside - under certain circumstances, yes, going to work for
the gov will remove almost all of your basic rights.
As anyone who has held a
Of Jim Choate
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
And why, ethicaly, should the individual receive unlimited protection? Why
should an individual who acts in a unjust way receive protection simply
because they work for the government
11 matches
Mail list logo
