I think it's easy enough to understand *this*:

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."

You say, "But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents." and imply that this means most of the people viewer therefore lack a real ability to assess the video.

What you say is true, but it is incomplete.

The US military intentionally and openly prevent the publication of such videos, they 'embed' journalists instead of allowing them to investigate, *precisely* so the populace lacks any ability to form a contextual framework within which to assess 'operation crusade' or whatever the military expedition in the middle east is now called.

I've heard lots of old hawks bleating that Vietnam was lost at home, that the population's objections to an unjust war made it unwinnable. The people at home aren't allowed to see what is being done in their name, because they might not like it, and might wish to exercise their democratic rights to stop doing it.

So it seems to me that what is needed is more of these videos, more wikileaks, more transparency, and more democracy. Not. Less.

One small problem with calling the cops ... the kid wasn't even alleged to have been doing anything illegal.

So this is a situation in which the cops could not have searched the girl.

How the hell are these school admins walking free today?

I'm going to auto-Godwin myself here, by referring to the Nuremberg principles.

It's a good thing they weren't "only following orders" then.

If you can be convicted of doing something wrong even though a duly constituted authority directly *ordered* you to do it, then how can you be free of liability/culpability if you do something wrong but you weren't explicitly instructed not to (by case or black-letter law)?

I think the Supremes got it wrong, here. I blame Justice Dianna Ross.

On the contrary, I'd have thought that any illegitimate act pursuant to a desire to strip children and 'inspect' those parts of their body we consider private could usefully be considered paedophilic.

I don't think it matters so much whether the libidinal payoff was that they got to see the girl's pants, or whether it was that they got to exercise their massive throbbing administrative power to force a minor to strip. I think it's arguably paedophilia in either case.

I'd pay to read the transcripts of the court case, anyway.

You may have inadvertantly undermined your own point. billg and his cohort made it in computing, but the google guys made it in the internets.

When did that gate open? I'd say 1994 isn't a bad arbitrary starting point. That'd make the google guys 21 at the time, which is consistent with the parent post's contention.