Re: A word on "emergencies" [WAS Re: Final Solution to the Crypto ]

[nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald)]

Professor Michael Froomkin penned, amid the "freedom knight" noise:

<snip>

>my point is a simple one.  The fact that the President has
>declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event.  It is
>not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming
>to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has
>changed. 

OK, let's fill in the blank. Gun. I have heard noises that sound like you wouldn't mind this, even though I am totally peaceful and would never want to shoot anyone absent extreme provocation (such as armed invasion of my home). The way I see it, martial law could be declared at any time, or it could slowly be declared now, which I think is happening. Checkpoints and house-searches for drugs and drunks are to get us used to checkpoints and house-searches for guns and unauthorised crypto. This is only my opinion, and I fear revealing my identity publicly because people with guns are starting to get used to hiding our emotions if we are peaceful and harmless, like me. I rarely even go to the range and practice anymore (2-4 times a year). I can imagine my kids feeling the same way about sending messages with strong crypto protection.

>Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute
>to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another
>statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and
>healthy democracy.  But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to
>anything that suddenly happened. 

Why am I thinking about boiling frogs now?