In article , Martin Hotze
writes:

(pacplyer) wrote:

I for one, will support any invasion to discover those facts if
inspectors are not happy.


to reduce it to a personal platform: let's assume that you are doing
something
illegal. Intelligence has no chance to get enough evidence (for the sake of
the
argument). Now: shall police - just because they are not happy of the outcome

and they don't have 100% proof that you are _INNOCENT_ (rings a bell?) have
every right to search your house (without a warrant) and your belongings?
[well,
in the name of terrorism this is already the law in the US]


OK, lets do make it personal.

A known thug, who you know for a fact has killed many people, approaches you on
the street and threatens you. He is holding his hand in his jacket pocket as
though he has a gun in there. He says he has a gun, but you cannot actually see
if he has it or if he is bluffing.

You, on the other hand, do have a gun. What are you going to do? Give him first
shot? Wait to see if he is lying about having the gun? Demand that a third
party, who hates you as much as the thug, be allowed to peek inside the pocket
and tell you if there is a gun?

Or are you going to assume his threat is sincere and take him out first?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG