Balog
Member
I can't blame him - he's enforcing the law, as he is sworn to do.
That's known as the Nuremberg defense. It was ajudged to be insufficient for the Nazi soldiers using it at Nuremberg. I agree with that ruling.
I'm curious. At the time of the Dred Scot decision, slavery had always been upheld as legal. Run-away slaves by law had to be returned as stolen property. Would you therefore defend those who turned in run-away slaves to be beaten or killed for escaping? If a person knowingly violated this law by sheltering run-away slaves, would you say "This gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, chose to ignore (heck, flagrantly violate!) a law known to him to be in existence. He is now facing the consequences, and has no-one to blame but himself."?
Or let me put it this way.
Let's say we suffer another huge terrorist attack. Only this time, the radical Muslims who committed the act were American citizens born and raised in the CONUS. Let's then say that in the national outcry that arose, the fed.gov passed some "reasonable restrictions" on the freedom of religion. Let's say these included tracking sales of the Qu'ran, disallowing foreign born teachers at mosques, and governmental monitoring of the sermons presented at all mosques. Would you accept this? Why or why not?