独处的权利|当 COVID 攻击部队来敲门时该怎么办

2021年7月16日14:22:48独处的权利|当 COVID 攻击部队来敲门时该怎么办已关闭评论 55019726字阅读65分45秒
摘要

“经验告诉我们,当政府的目的是有益的时候,我们要最警惕地保护自由。”ー最高法院法官路易斯·d·布兰代斯。

独处的权利|当 COVID 攻击部队来敲门时该怎么办"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."—Supreme Court Justice Louis D.Brandeis.

"经验告诉我们,当政府的目的是有益的时候,我们要最警惕地保护自由。"ー最高法院法官路易斯·d·布兰代斯。

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door,especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates.Will you let them in?

联邦2019冠状病毒疾病预防接种打击力量可能很快就会来敲你的门,特别是如果你生活在一个低接种率的社区。你会让他们进来吗?

More to the point,are you required to open the door?

更重要的是,你是否被要求开门?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal"surge response teams"on a"targeted community door-to-door outreach"to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

拜登政府已经宣布,他们计划派遣联邦"快速反应小组"到疫苗接种率低的社区进行"有针对性的上门社区推广",以促进2019冠状病毒疾病疫苗的安全性和可获得性。

That's all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes,but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims,especially not when armed,roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional"right to be let alone."

就政府的宣传而言,这些都很好,但没有什么事情像政府所宣称的那样简单或直截了当,尤其是当保姆国家部署的武装、流动的军事化特工团体出现在你家门口时,他们的议程与最高法院法官路易斯·布兰代斯(Louis Brandeis)所说的宪法"不受干涉的权利"相悖

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry's privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted,tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.These door-to-door"visits"by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose,while seemingly benign,raises significant constitutional concerns.

政府任何侵犯公民隐私权的企图,或者建立一个可以锁定、跟踪和挑选民众的体系的企图,都必须以极其谨慎的态度对待。2019冠状病毒疾病快速反应小组的这些挨家挨户的"拜访"当然可以称得上是一个政府项目,其目的虽然看似温和,却引起了宪法方面的重大关切。

First,there is the visit itself.

首先,是访问本身。

While government agents can approach,speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment,Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

虽然政府特工可以接近、交谈甚至询问公民而不违反宪法第四修正案,但美国人有权不回答问题,甚至不与政府特工交谈。

Courts have upheld these"knock and talk"visits as lawful,reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment,there is an implied license to approach a residence,knock on the door/ring the bell,and seek to contact occupants.However,the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

法院认为这些"敲门谈话"的探访是合法的,理由是尽管该住宅的宅邸受到宪法第四修正案的保护,但仍有一种潜在的许可,允许人们接近住宅、敲门或按铃,并寻求与住户联系。然而,这种接触完全是自愿的,在这种情况下,个人没有义务与政府代理人交谈。

Indeed,you don't even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent,and if you do answer the knock,you can stop speaking at any time.You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established.Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context,and so they don't have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

事实上,你甚至不需要应敲门或者打开门来回应政府工作人员的敲门或者按铃,如果你确实应了敲门,你可以随时停止说话。你也有权要求政府人员在确定访问目的后离开该物业。在这种情况下,政府官员不会执行任何法律或逮捕令,因此,在房主或居民明确撤销进入房产的默示许可后,他们没有法律权力继续留在房产上。

When the government's actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking,it risks violating the Fourth Amendment,which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one's property.A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises,peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

当政府的行为超出了仅仅靠近门口敲门的范围时,它就有违反宪法第四修正案的风险,该修正案要求搜查令以及搜查财产时可能存在的不当行为的可能原因。如果一个政府特工在房屋周围窥探,窥视窗户,到其他地方搜寻居民,那么他就违反了宪法第四修正案。

It should be pointed out that some judges(including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch)believe that placing"No Trespassing"signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home,but this view does not have general acceptance.

应当指出,一些法官(包括最高法院法官戈萨奇)认为,设置"禁止擅入"标志或采取其他步骤阻止进入门户足以否定政府人员或其他人员接近你家的任何暗示许可,但这一观点并未得到普遍接受。

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a"knock and talk"encounter,as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic,the reality is far different.Indeed,it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed,let alone allow them to search one's property.Even when such consent is denied,police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

虽然从理论上讲,人们可以拒绝在"敲门谈话"过程中与警察或其他政府官员交谈,正如法院为驳回有关警方这种调查策略的投诉而声称的那样,但实际情况却截然不同。事实上,这是不合理的,表明那些不知道这些策略的个人在最激烈的时刻不会感到压力,不会遵守与政府特工谈话的要求,而这些特工通常持有全副武装的官方证件,更不用说允许他们搜查自己的财产。即使这样的同意被拒绝,警方已经知道只是铐住房主,并进行搜查,而不顾他的反对。

Second,there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

其次,这些"敲门和谈话"的会面存在固有的危险。

Although courts have embraced the fiction that"knock and talks"are"voluntary"encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing,these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one's home,which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one's home and property.

尽管法院已经接受了"敲门和谈话""自愿"的虚构,这与其他挨家挨户的拉票没有什么不同,但这些本质上令人生疑的策略是极具威胁性的对抗,意在迫使个人允许警察进入自己的家,从而为无证搜查自己的家和财产铺平道路。

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the"knock and talk"tactic used by police,which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike.Indeed,"knock-and-talk"policing has become a thinly veiled,warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into"talking"with heavily armed police who"knock"on their doors in the middle of the night.

进入住宅并采取措施与住户交谈的行为类似于警方使用的"敲门谈话"策略,这种策略对房主和政府代理人都可能充满危险。事实上,"敲门谈话"治安已经成为一种几乎毫不掩饰的无证行为,公民被胁迫和恐吓与全副武装的警察进行"谈话",警察在半夜"敲门"

"Knock-and-shoot"policing might be more accurate,however.

然而,"敲门打靶"式的警务可能更为准确。

"Knock and talks"not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners,but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

"敲门和谈话"不仅严重侵犯了房主的隐私和安全,而且警察采用的侵略和突然袭击相结合的做法也是暴力对抗的一个配方,对于这些策略的接受者来说,这种对抗很少有好结果。

For example,although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police,he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am,failed to identify themselves as police,and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night"knock and talk"in Scott's apartment complex.

例如,尽管26岁的安德鲁·斯科特(Andrew Scott)没有犯罪,也没有开过一枪,也没有威胁过警察,但他在凌晨1:30被警察开错了门,没有表明自己是警察,然后在斯科特拿着枪自卫时应门时被警察开枪打死。警方在调查一起超速事故时,在斯科特的公寓大楼里进行了半夜"敲门和谈话"

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes'door in the middle of the night without identifying himself.Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail,Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

卡尔·戴克斯脸部中弹,是一名县警半夜敲打戴克斯家的门而没有表明自己的身份。由于有报道称,当地一所监狱的囚犯越狱了,戴克斯开门的时候带着一把猎枪。

As these and other incidents make clear,while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order,doing so can often get one arrested,shot or killed.

正如这些事件和其他事件所表明的那样,虽然美国人有宪法权利质疑警察行动的合法性或抵制非法的警察命令,但这样做往往会导致一个人被逮捕、枪杀或杀害。

Third,there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

第三个问题是,政府计划如何利用在这些敲门谈话访问中获得的信息。

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination,homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated.Again,you have a right not to answer this or any other question.Indeed,an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans"have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is."

因为该计划的目的是促进疫苗接种,房主和其他居住在住所的人肯定会被问及他们是否接种了疫苗。同样,你有权不回答这个或任何其他问题。事实上,如果该计划的目的仅仅是为了确保美国人"获得他们所需要的关于疫苗安全性和可获得性的信息",那么即使提出这个问题也是不恰当的

Under the Privacy Act,5 USC.552a,an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is"relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency."In this situation,the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information(either in writing or orally)and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents.To the extent the agents do request,collect and store information about residents'vaccination status,this could be a Privacy Act violation.

根据隐私法案,南加州大学5分。552a,一个机构应该只收集和保存"与实现该机构的目的相关和必要的"有关的个人信息在这种情况下,政府代理人只需提供有关疫苗的信息(书面或口头),就可以达到确保人们了解疫苗情况的目的,而不需要知道居民的疫苗接种情况。如果代理人确实要求、收集和存储居民疫苗接种状态的信息,这可能违反了《隐私法》。

Of course,there is always the danger that this program could be used for other,more nefarious,purposes not related to vaccination encouragement.As with knock-and-talk policing,government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there.Once the door is opened by a resident,anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

当然,这个程序总是有被用于其他更邪恶的目的的危险,这些目的与疫苗接种鼓励无关。就像敲门谈话式的警务一样,政府人员可能会滥用他们的权威形象,以获得住宅的入口,并获得有关住宅和住宅内人员的其他信息。一旦居民打开了门,特工从他们的有利位置看到的任何东西都可以向执法当局报告。

Moreover,while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates,there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be"high crime"areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

此外,虽然据推测,目标地区将是疫苗接种率明显偏低的地区,但不能保证该方案不会被用作对被视为"高犯罪"地区进行监测的掩护,作为获取执法情报的一种方式。

We've been down this road before,with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly,or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

我们以前也遇到过这种情况,政府派遣间谍直接询问美国公民,或者让他们的邻居告发他们,从而搜集有关美国公民的情报。

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusive American Community Survey?

还记得美国社区调查中过度侵入性和侵扰性的事件吗?

Unlike the traditional census,which collects data every ten years,the American Community Survey(ACS)is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.Moreover,while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling,their ages and ethnicities,the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers,the ACS is much more intrusive,asking questions relating to respondents'bathing habits,home utility costs,fertility,marital history,work commute,mortgage,and health insurance,among other highly personal and private matters.

传统的人口普查每十年收集一次数据,而美国社区调查(ACS)每年要向大约300万个家庭发送数据,据报道花费数亿美元。此外,传统的人口普查局限于确定每个住所的居民人数、他们的年龄和种族、住所的所有权和电话号码,而 ACS 则更具侵入性,询问的问题包括受访者的洗浴习惯、家庭水电成本、生育能力、婚姻史、上下班通勤、抵押贷款和医疗保险,以及其他高度个人化和私人化的问题。

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties.Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey,the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering.For every question not answered,there is a$100 fine.And for every intentionally false response to a question,the fine is$500.Therefore,if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically,the total fines could range from upwards of$10,000 and$50,000 for noncompliance.

个人谁接受加勒比国家必须完成它或受到罚款。虽然没有报道出现拒绝回答调查的个人实际上受到处罚的情况,但是拒绝参加加勒比国家联盟的潜在罚款数额是惊人的。对于每一个没有回答的问题,都要罚款100美元。对于每一个故意回答错误的问题,罚款500美元。因此,如果一个代表一个两人家庭的人拒绝填写任何问题,或者只是无动于衷地回答,罚款总额可能在1万美元以上和5万美元之间。

At 28 pages(with an additional 16-page instruction packet),the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire.These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing,including questions relating to respondents'bathing habits,home utility costs,fertility,marital history,work commute,mortgage,and health insurance,among others.For instance,the ACS asks how many persons live in your home,along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you,marital status,race and their physical,mental and emotional problems,etc.The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house,along with the fuel used to heat your home,the cost of electricity,what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments,property taxes and so on.

28(附加16页的指令包)ACS 包含了一些在人口普查问卷中提出过的最详细和侵入性的问题。这些问题是政府根本无权知道的,包括受访者的洗澡习惯、家庭水电费用、生育能力、婚姻史、上下班通勤、抵押贷款和医疗保险等等。例如,ACS 会询问有多少人住在你的家里,以及他们的名字和详细信息,如他们与你的关系,婚姻状况,种族和他们的身体,精神和情感问题等。这项调查还询问了你的房子里有多少卧室和浴室,以及用于供暖的燃料、电费、你的抵押贷款类型和每月的抵押贷款支付、财产税等等。

However,that's not all.

然而,这还不是全部。

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year,how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven,whether you have trouble getting up the stairs,and what time you leave for work every morning,along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs.And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends,relatives and employer.The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home,such as their educational levels,how many years of school were completed,what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job,among other things.

调查还要求了解你去年生病了多少天,拥有多少辆汽车,开了多少英里,是否上楼有困难,每天早上什么时候出门上班,以及有关你财务状况的高度详细的询问。调查还要求你提供你的朋友、亲戚和雇主的姓名和地址,以此侵犯他人的隐私。调查问卷还要求你提供家庭成员的其他信息,比如他们的教育程度,完成学业的年数,他们会说什么语言,最近一次工作是什么时候,等等。

While some of the ACS'questions may seem fairly routine,the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed,how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

虽然 ACS 的一些问题看起来相当常见,但真正的危险在于不知道为什么需要这些信息,它们将如何被政府使用,或者与谁共享这些信息。

Finally,you have the right to say"no."

最后,你有权说""

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm,as long as you're being"asked"to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation,you don't really have much room to resist,not if you value your life.

无论警察是在凌晨2点还是下午2:30来敲你的门,只要你被"要求"与一名全副武装的警察交谈,而且即使面对最小的挑衅,他也有杀人倾向,你就没有多少反抗的余地,如果你珍惜自己的生命的话。

Mind you,these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

请注意,这些敲门和谈话的搜查只不过是警察在没有搜查令的情况下进行的捕鱼调查。

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

目标是威胁和胁迫。

Unfortunately,with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments,behavioral sensing warnings,flagged"words,"and"suspicious"activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state,we're going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

不幸的是,随着警察部门越来越多地转向犯罪前警务,依赖可疑的威胁评估、行为感知警告、标记"词语""可疑"的活动报告,目的是诱捕潜在的国家敌人,我们将看到更多这种未经授权的敲门谈话警察策略,警察试图规避第四修正案的授权要求,以及禁止不合理的搜查和没收。

Here's the bottom line.

这是底线。

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind:to collect information on you.

这些特工来你家只有一个目的:收集你的信息。

It's a form of intimidation,of course.You shouldn't answer any questions you're uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else.The more information you give them,the more it can be used against you.Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

当然,这是一种恐吓。你不应该回答任何关于你的疫苗历史或其他任何问题,你不舒服的问题。你给他们的信息越多,他们就越可能用来对付你。只要礼貌而坚定地请求他们离开。

In this case,as in so many interactions with government agents,the First,Fourth and Fifth Amendments(and your cell phone recording the encounter)are your best protection.

在这种情况下,正如许多与政府机构的互动一样,第一、第四和第五修正案(以及你的手机记录的遭遇)是你最好的保护。

Under the First Amendment,you don't have to speak(to government officials or anyone else).The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.And under the Fifth Amendment,you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

根据第一修正案,你不必(对政府官员或其他任何人)说话。第四修正案保护你免受政府不合理的搜查和扣押。根据第五修正案,你有权保持沉默,不说任何可能对你不利的话。

You can also post a"No Trespassing"sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone.If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows,in my opinion,you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment.Government officials can ring the doorbell,but once you put them on notice that it's time for them to leave,they can't stay on your property.

你亦可在物业上张贴「禁止擅入」的告示,明确表示你正行使独处的权利。如果你看到政府官员在你的房子周围徘徊,透过窗户窥视,在我看来,你违反了宪法第四修正案。政府官员可以按门铃,但是一旦你提醒他们是时候离开了,他们就不能呆在你的房子里了。

It's important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don't leave.You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent.If they still don't leave,immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

重要的是要尽可能清楚地告诉他们,如果他们不离开,你就会报警。你也可能希望记录你与政府代理人的接触。如果他们仍然不离开,立即打电话给当地警察,并报告一个侵入你的财产。

Remember,you have rights.

记住,你有权利。

The government didn't want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

政府不想让我们知道----更不用说维护----在整个2019冠状病毒疾病事务中的这些权利。

After all,for years now,the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves,make decisions about our health,protect our homes and families and businesses,act in our best interests,demand accountability and transparency from government,or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

毕竟,多年以来,那些政客和官僚们——他们像暴君一样思考,像小独裁者一样行事,不管他们属于哪个政党——试图给我们洗脑,让我们相信,我们没有权利为自己考虑,没有权利为我们的健康做决定,没有权利保护我们的家庭和企业,没有权利为我们的最大利益行事,没有权利要求政府对我们负责,没有权利要求政府提高透明度,也没有权利像。

But we have every right,and you know why?

但是我们有权利,你知道为什么吗?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states,we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life,liberty,property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.

因为正如美国独立宣言所说,造物主赋予我们某些不可剥夺的权利----生命、自由、财产和追求幸福----没有任何政府能够剥夺我们这些权利。

Unfortunately,that hasn't stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn.Indeed,the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits,abuses its authority,and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

不幸的是,这并没有阻止政府不断试图在每一个转折点篡夺我们的自由。事实上,政府的本质是这样的,它总是超越它的限制,滥用它的权威,并展示它的极权主义肌肉。

Take this COVID-19 crisis,for example.

2019冠状病毒疾病危机为例。

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation(and the world)has become yet another means by which world governments(including our own)can expand their powers,abuse their authority,and further oppress their constituents.

一开始只是为了防止一种新型冠状病毒使美国(乃至全世界)患病而做出的明显努力,现在却成为了世界各国政府(包括我们自己的政府)扩大权力、滥用权力、进一步压迫选民的另一种手段。

The government has made no secret of its plans.

政府毫不隐瞒它的计划。

Just follow the money trail,and you'll get a sense of what's in store:more militarized police,more SWAT team raids,more surveillance,more lockdowns,more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government's dictates.

只要跟着钱的流向走,你就会知道接下来会发生什么:更多的军事化警察,更多的特警突击队突袭,更多的监视,更多的封锁,更多旨在压制异见人士、迫使我们服从政府命令的强硬手段。

It's chilling to think about,but it's not surprising.

这种想法令人不寒而栗,但并不令人惊讶。

In many ways,this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials(and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours)with a sanctimonious,self-righteous,arrogant,Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing,and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

在许多方面,这种2019冠状病毒疾病紧急状态给政府官员(以及那些认为自己的生命比我们的更有价值的人)赋予了一种伪善、自以为是、傲慢自大、老大哥知道自上而下最好的管理方式,这种分歧随处可见。

It's an ugly,self-serving mindset that views the needs,lives and rights of"we the people"as insignificant when compared to those in power.

这是一种丑陋的、自私自利的心态,认为"我们人民"的需要、生命和权利与当权者相比微不足道。

That's how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz,a former Harvard law professor,can suggest that a free people—born in freedom,endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights,and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom,to bodily integrity,or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

这就是为什么像 Alan Dershowitz,前哈佛大学法学教授,认为一个自由的民族----生于自由,被造物主赋予基本权,生活在一个为个人自由进行革命斗争而诞生的国家----没有经济自由的权利,没有身体完整性,也没有拒绝服从他们不同意的政府命令的权利。

According to Dershowitz,who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite,"You have no right not to be vaccinated,you have no right not to wear a mask,you have no right to open up your business…And if you refuse to be vaccinated,the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm."

根据德肖维茨的说法,"你没有权利不接种疫苗,你没有权利不戴口罩,你没有权利打开你的生意...如果你拒绝接种疫苗,国家有权利把你带到医生的办公室,然后把针扎进你的胳膊里。"

Dershowitz is wrong:as I make clear in my book Battlefield America:The War on the American People,while the courts may increasingly defer to the government's brand of Nanny State authoritarianism,we still have rights.

德肖维茨错了:正如我在《美国战场:对美国人民的战争》一书中明确指出的那样,尽管法院可能越来越听命于政府的保姆式国家威权主义,但我们仍然拥有权利。

The government may try to abridge those rights,it may refuse to recognize them,it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them,but it cannot litigate,legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

政府可能试图剥夺这些权利,可能拒绝承认这些权利,甚至可能试图宣布戒严令并废除这些权利,但它不能提起诉讼,不能立法,也不能强行根除这些权利。

**Source

转自:

https://eraoflight.com/2021/07/15/the-right-to-be-let-alone-what-to-do-when-covid-strike-force-teams-come-knocking/

zhunbeizhuanbian
  • 本文由 发表于 2021年7月16日14:22:48
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接