Bhairitu wrote: > You'd think the US was just teaming with terrorists > ready to blow up everything. > You sound really scared.
Everyone is in a conspiracy to screw Bharat2. There's the Homeland Security van driver, the IRS, the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the Border Patrol, all looking to get you, not to mention your neighborhood cop. You're so scared you think a cabal blew up Building 7 at the World Trade center. Go figure. > Oh, I forgot, they think that anyone who doesn't > like Bush is a terrorist. > Yeah, you think there's a terrorist under your bed, I guess. "During the week following the September 11 attacks, most major newspapers ran stories on the very plausible prospect that 9/11 could lead to a radical overhaul of civil liberties in the United States. The articles included sober discussions by law professors of whether we would have internment camps for Muslims, citing the camps for Japanese during World War II, or whether there would be a suspension of habeas corpus, citing the precedent of the Civil War. Fortunately for all of us, this didn't happen. While there were some aggressive law enforcement steps taken, particularly with regard to immigration offenses, for the most part the changes in existing statutory and constitutional law have been minor. . . . Where does that leave us? To me it suggests that the impact of 9/11 on the law is still largely an open question, but that as a general matter the impact has been notably less significant than most of us would have predicted on the afternoon of 9/11. Maybe this will change in the future: Senator Specter's NSA bill is still pending, and a few Supreme Court vacancies might alter the picture. But on the five-year anniversary of 9/11, I'm struck more by how little the law has changed than by how much. Read mmore: 'The Volokh Conspiracy' Monday, September 11, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/3yojt7
