|Posted on October 30, 2015 at 9:45 AM|
“All politicians will allow, and most philosophers, that reasons of state may, in particular emergencies, dispense with the rules of justice, and invalidate any treaty or alliance, where the strict observance of it would-be prejudicial, in a considerable degree, to either of the contracting parties. But nothing less than the most extreme necessity is confessed, can justify individuals in a breach of promise, or an invasion of the properties of others.
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1777
EXPATRIATEES: A NOVEL OF THE COMING GLOBAL COLLAPSE (COMING COLLAPSE) John Wesley Rawles.
I'm not sure how to "interpret" that statement. I saw instances in the Boston Bomber terrorist investigation / house to house search, of MARTIAL LAW. I objected to that. It was a clear violation of the law subjecting many citizens to warrantless searches, and it showed that the police, in large numbers, will / can run through the Constitution at will. Perhaps they felt the terrorist was part of a cell of terrorism, which may change the way I'd look at it, but no public statement, to my knowledge, was made to support that option.
It seems to me that was a test run using the Boston Bomber as an excuse.