... The "self" has been redefined to mean: A collection of molecules that you used to be, but are not now.
Indeed - you can't cross the same river twice (or exact aggregate quantum spin state).
No, as the series of court rulings have gone, the Fourth Amendment does not protect you from lawful search and seizure (such as a safe or hard drive). The combination to the safe, or encryption key to the drive, is not incriminating evidence and providing it to allow for lawful search and seizure does not violate your rights. They can admit evidence produced by oneself into court (such as two sets of books in one's own handwriting for a case of fraud) and that is not a violation of the Fourth (or Fifth) - just so with information one puts on a hard drive. What they can not compel one to do is testify against oneself (which is the Fifth by the way) nor assume guilt because you do not take the stand (not that a prosecutor won't toe that line with the jury). So, if one can keep all details of a crime in one's head and manage to destroy all other evidence which could be subject to lawful search and seizure - then you've got a shot at being a criminal mastermind.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the line of thought - but I can certainly follow the logic as well as the precedence.
What would be interesting is if one's pass-code was material evidence with respect to the case - but a possible way around that would be limited immunity or ruling it as inadmissible evidence...It would make for an interesting case study.
You realize that the case in which "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" came up in the justice's opinion was overturned almost fifty years ago?
I don't mind you bringing up the rest of your opinion, especially as there seems to be an objective trend of chilling free speech in the US, but please try not to further your argument by invoking invalidated information.
That's not what I remember about Marx
The European presence can be seen as victory acquisitions which allow for a more global reach of the US military force projection.
On the other hand, the cease fire in Korea was signed without notifying the South Koreans first - UN has itself to blame for a non-decisive conclusion there. Of course the flip side would have been a commitment to victory which had the potential for cost and escalation beyond anything anyone other than the South Koreans were willing to pay (discussing the possible ways of deterring the Chinese from sending three soldiers for every gun into North Korea is what got MacArthur canned).