picked the wrong house. Charged withrncriminal trespass and aggravated assault,rnhe was never prosecuted.rnWhat has given Michael Sanders impunity?rnAccording to the Arizona Republicrn(whose excellent reporting is thernsource of my information), Sanders isrnbelieved to be an informant for at leastrnfive law enforcement agencies, includingrnthe FBI and the BATF. With that kindrnof support, he had a right to feel cocky.rnEven when he made mistakes or violatedrnthe law, his friends in high places couldrnalways find someone else to take the fall.rnBut weeding out felons who can’t readrnthe numbers on a mailbox will not makernus any safer. As usual, the reformers missrnthe point. Suppose the thugs had gonernto the right house and killed the rightrnman. Whatever crime he committedrn(police officials will only say it was nonviolent),rnthe “jumper” was not under arndeath sentence. Why should anyone,rnbounty hunter or cop, have the right torntake a citizen’s house by storm, even ifrnthe citizen is dealing drugs or leading arnreligious cult or sawing off shotguns?rnThe right of a bounty hunter to breakrnand enter homes or cross state lines withoutrnextradition papers is one of the manyrngifts of the Supreme Court. In an 1873rncase (Taylor v. Taintor), the Court ruledrnthat laws against illegal search andrnseizure do not apply to bounty hunters.rnApparently, they no longer apply to thernFBI or the BATF, the federal agencies allegedlyrnserved by Michael Sanders.rnConservatives, who like to think ofrnthemselves as tough on crime, have usuallyrnmade fun of ACLU liberals for theirrnobsession with criminals’ rights. A keyrnprovision of the Constitution, however,rnwas the Fourth Amendment, prohibitingrnillegal search and seizure. This amendmentrnwas included in the Bill of Rightsrnbecause of American resentment againstrnthe British government’s attempt to enforcernsuch laws as the Stamp Act and thernCider Act. With nothing more than arngeneral writ, officers of the crown had invadedrnshops and homes looking for contrabandrnmerchandise. A leading Bostonrnpatriot, Mercy Otis Warren, called for anrnamendment to save Americans fromrn”the insolence of any petty revenue officerrnto enter our houses, search, insult,rnand seize at pleasure.”rnIn the tradition of Anglo-Americanrnlaw, a man’s home is his castle. Once uponrna time, government agents could notrnenter without permission, except in casesrnof major felonies. Tax bills, library fines,rnspeeding tickets, debts, or contrabandrnsubstances (like drugs or illegal weapons)rndid not justify a home invasion.rnA creditor had to lurk outside thernhouse, hoping to catch the debtor unaware.rnHe could not hire heavily armedrnthugs and police informants to murderrnhim in his sleep. In those days, a homeinvaderrnwas likely to get himself shot.rnChris Foote, in fact, did manage tornwound two of his attackers, but theyrnwere wearing body armor, and he was onlyrnshooting a 9 mm.rnFoote’s father said he was happy thatrnhis son tried to defend himself, commenting:rn”I think everyone should have arngun.” Fle’s right, of course. Everyonernshould own a gun, to defend his familyrnnot just from the felons who would robrnand kill them but also from the DEA,rnFBI, and BATF agents who so oftenrnmake regrettable mistakes. Chris Foote’srnonly mistake was in owning a 9 mm. Hernshould have had an assault rifle.rn—Thomas FlemingrnD I A N A IS DEAD. The sudden andrngruesome death of a woman in herrnprime, especially the mother of adolescentrnchildren, is a sad event. WithrnPrincess Diana, it has the makings of arnreal tragedy. She was pushed into a publicrnmarriage with an unloving and eccentricrnman 14 years her senior. To makernmatters worse, her husband was infatuatedrn—and adulterously involved—withrnanother woman throughout the marriage.rnCondemned to an unsettled life ofrnloneliness and emotional turmoil, Dianarnlacked the stamina of her sturdier predecessorsrn(notably Alexandra, Princess ofrnWales and later Queen of England), orrnthat inner strength which is woven fromrna strong moral and spiritual fiber.rnIt is not for us to judge Princess Diana’srnprivate life—although in an earlierrntime, her adultery would have constitutedrntreason—but in withholding commentrnon her flaws and her often veryrnpoor judgment, one does not have torncondone the ongoing sanctification ofrnDiana by the frenzied media pack. Thernhurried promotion of the “People’srnPrincess” to sainthood is tasteless, andrnthe presence of all the usual suspects onrnthe bandwagon—from Nelson Mandelarnto Michael Jackson to Bill Clinton—rnmakes the banality of the spectacle wellnighrnterminal.rnWe have seen it all before, of course,rnand a cynic would conclude that Dianarnis the least flawed member of a pantheonrnwhich includes Jack Kennedy, MarilynrnMonroe, John Lennon, and Elvis. Butrnwhile all of the above managed to createrna name for themselves in their chosenrnprofession, Diana’s only real claim tornfame was in her awful marriage. HerrnAIDS-related work and her antilandminerncrusade were fine and dandy, butrnwe all knew the truth: it was only by becomingrna princess that she becamernsomeone, and she became a princess byrndoing what she must have bitterly regrettedrndoing. Without that fateful “yes” atrnWestminster Abbey 16 years ago, shernwould have remained a privileged nobody.rnBut instead, in the words of a Britishrncommentator, “like over-emotionalrnteenagers who mourn the break-up ofrntheir favourite pop group, we are encouragedrnto suspend disbelief and join in thernfalse community that weeps and hugs itselfrnin the worship of an icon of victimhood.”rnDiana’s death will rernain withrnus well into the new millennium: watchrnout for charity appeals, book revelations,rnfilm contracts, television retrospectives,rnand assorted conspiracy theories.rnAn eager mass market, driven by thernhunger in the “global village” for an aristocracy,rnwill gobble up the outpouringsrnof this lucrative industry. That Diana’srnimage will feed the hungry is simply furtherrnproof—as if any more were necessaryrn—that the modern world is utterlyrnlacking in aristocratic virtue.rn—Srdja TrifkovicrnT H E RUBY RIDGE saga contmues.rnFive years to the day after 14-year-oldrnSamuel Weaver and United States MarshalrnWilliam Degan were killed in therninitial confrontation at Randy Weaver’srnresidence, prosecutors in BoundaryrnCounty, Idaho, indicted Weaver’s friendrnKevin Harris on charges of first-degreernmurder. Weaver’s supporters were rightlyrnoutraged, with some claiming that therncharges represent double jeopardy (Harrisrnwas cleared of similar charges at thernfederal level), and others pointing outrnthat Harris deserves a medal for defendingrnhis friends against an assault by federalrnmarshals, dressed in black, who hadrnkilled Weaver’s dog and opened fire onrnWeaver’s house without even identifyingrnthemselves. But instead of a medal, Harrisrncould face the death penalty if convicted.rnWhile Boundary County prosecutorsrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn