The problem with feel good laws.

Lawmakers should write laws, actually competent lawmakers should write laws. Here is an example from our French friends. eco-terrorists are released because of a constitutional law supporting the goal of "maintaining a healthy environmentt". Can I destroy private property? Sure, as long as your goal is maintaining a healthy environment.

PARIS (Reuters) - the appeals court of Orleans (Loiret) released 49 people who had destroyed two fields of genetically modified corn in 2004 and 2005.

The court found that they had acted "in response to a danger of the consequences of releasing GMOs into the environment, even though their use is permitted under French law, even though itÂ’s in contravention with the constitutional law on maintaining healthy environment".

Does this mean I can kill anyone smoking a cigarette in my presence with a Garden Weasel because I am maintaining a healthy environment? Where do you draw the line? What idiot wrote that law? Nevermind, I forgot we are talking about France.

If you don't want GM crops in your country, ban them outright. Define exactly what you will allow and what you will not.

It reminds me of Senator McCain's amendement on torture. What constitutes "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment"? Who defines it? The ACLU or a First Sergeant in Fallujah trying to find out where the next 'super IED' is hidden? Torture is already defined by the US military, why do we want to subject our troops to prosecution from the ACLU with a law that is very open to interpretation.

Does the phrase "arbitrary andcapriciouss" come to mind?