"Tracy Barber" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:30:40 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"Tracy Barber" wrote in message
As to my previous post, the govt. didn't know who were spies and who
weren't and couldn't take the risk.

I'm sorry, Tracy, but that doesn't matter. Otherwise they might as well
lock
everyone up. I mean that's the only guaranteed way to get all the spies,
yes?

The 'downside' of a democracy is that it is, well 'democratic'. the
'upside'
of a fascist state is that it is well, a fascist state. Democracies don't
lock people up for what they might be. They lock people up for _actions_
that can be _proven. They dont' lock people up because of their ethnicity
or
colour. Ideally, that is.

Sorry, but it's easy to see things in hindsight that with foresight
are blinded.

Tragically, the blindness was self-induced. And the tragedy was that the
blindness ignored the very foundation of the nation. The very rights that
the nation fought to so hard to secure were ignored. Much like the rights of
"spies" were ignored by the British Crown. When was that? Back in the 1700s
I think. It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to
repeat it's mistakes. True.

Let's agree to disagree about the STATE OF THINGS in 1941, not looking
back on it today.

Were we there? No.

If not being there disqualifies opinion, then none of us have a right to
speak. Come to think of it, that means none of us can comment on 1776 or
much that followed. IOW, it's an absurb disqualifier.

But, yes, we can agree that my point is the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution were ignored. You can agree to disagree. After all, it is a
democracy -- well, for now. :-)