- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
". . . . Constitutionally, the benefit of the doubt rests with the citizenry, who are constitutionally entitled to "fire on federal agents" when those federal agents are involved in criminal trespass...."
_____
Dead wrong -- as dead as KKKoresh. And here's why:
"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.
Regardless whetehr citizens, or citizens holding public office, appointive or elective, none has ANY authority to take the law into her/his own hands. The private citizen has the authority to initiate civil suits. But the state has a monopoly on the police power, and thus on enforcing criminal laws, and thus on prosecuting ALLEGED violations of criminal laws.
The prosecution of such violations occurs in accordance with established legal procedures; and that is accomplished in the judicial branch.
KKKoresh had two basic options, one legal, and the other self-serving/criminal. The warrant was not for arrest of KKKoresh -- far-right America-hating lunatic fringe/gun-nuts notwithstanding; the warrant was for search of the compound concerning allegations of child abuse/rape.
The way to challenge the warrant LEGALLY was IN COURT. KKKoresh didn't lack for legal advice; but apparently he knew he hadn't a legal-challenge leg to stand on so chose instead to take the law into his own hands and ILLEGALLY resisted SERVICE of the warrant by use of deadly force, which was patently ILLEGAL.
NO citizen, private or in public capacity, has any "right" to violate the law, though the legal tradition, for many hundreds of years, is that in a conflict between public safety and societal survival, and individual right, the latter YIELDS, even when the individual right is LEGITIMATE. The "right" to kill gov't officials -- "Feds" -- based upon a private invocation of the blatantly illegal does not exist, and never has.
