I actually never regarded Keith Laumer as stilted and awkward thinker. He was quite brilliant in fact. Anyone familiar with his work would have recognized the name immediately.
They would also have recognized the sort to which he referred; those people who will pounce on a trifle to distract from more important points. That is your modes operendi.
Nice try, but you fail as always. These are matters which at the core are legal, involving statutory, case law, and Constitutional issues. So I'm consistently bringing the discussion back to these points.
That you try to mock that as "trifles" simply demonstrates how absurdly incompetent you are on these matters and why you invariably need to create a smokescreen of ad hominem and bail out.