Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:21:02 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:


If we're not at war with terrorists, -all- of whom seem to be fanatic
fundamentalist Muslims, what do you want to call it? BTW, I'm not
anti-Muslim, I'm anti-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist. What bugs me
is that I'm _not_ sure that Obama isn't one of them. He bothers me on
many levels, one of which is that (given the few sound bites I've
heard of him) he sounds and acts just like a black version of Slick
Willie. Scary.

Please explain your phrase "hangover of cowardice."


Here you go Larry. You can find real courage by having a look at the address
Washington made to those assembled at Newburg church. We've seen exactly the
sort of mutiny against the country and constitution in our own time but by
the Executive, not the military.


http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...k&c d=1&gl=us

Conclusions



Government by democracy necessarily entails the danger of mob rule
because majorities are given lots of power in democratic government.
However, in the United States the tyranny of the majority has been combated
by the Bill of Rights, which outlines certain protections for all citizens,
and by the creation of an extended republic in which multiple interests
exist making tyranny of any one interest more difficult. However, irrational
majorities seeking to infringe on the rights of the targeted minority group
have throughout its history overcome the United States. Our examination of
the history of mob violence in America, the treatment of those with
unpopular ideological beliefs, and those whose race becomes identified with
the "enemy" all illustrate how easily a "frightened mob" can be formed and
how tenuous our constitutional protections become in the face of such a mob.

Courts and legislators have worked hard to identify what constitutes a
riot or mob and have tried to strike a reasonable, unprejudiced balance
between maintenance of order and protection of individual liberties.
However, the men and women who serve on the courts do not live outside of
their times; they read the newspaper and interact with society just as all
other people. This interaction then makes judges and Justices susceptible to
the propaganda and feelings of hysteria that may occur at any given time.
Although judges and Justices are charged with protecting the rights of the
minorities when they are threatened sometimes the judges and Justices are
unable to recognize the existence of a "frightened mob" and are influenced
by the hysteria the mob creates.

Clearly, the treatment of Communists and socialists throughout much of
this nation's history demonstrates how weak constitutional protections are
for those whose views are unpopular or labeled "dangerous." In addition,
treatment of the Japanese during World War II shows how easily minorities
can be denied even their most basic freedoms when a "mob" is given unchecked
influence in deciding their fate. In each of these cases a certain group
whether it be communists, socialists, or the Japanese was viewed as a threat
to the social order and so their rights were taken away.

The greatest measure of a free society is how well it maintains those
freedoms under periods of stress. It is easy to guarantee freedoms when
there is no risk involved but it is during times of war, great change, or
controversy that our fundamental freedoms take on their greatest
significance because they can be used to guarantee our participation in the
movement at hand. However, as our examination of the effects of the
frightened mob upon the law has demonstrated, the United States does not
have a strong record of defense of those fundamental rights during times of
stress. It takes simply an irrational majority to deny the rights of a
minority. When the guardians of the law and the Constitution fail to prevent
these denials of rights the sanctity of the Constitution and the democratic
system are weakened.



--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com