December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

unsubscribe cypherpunks
by John Washburn 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

unsubscribe cypherpunks

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tyler Durden 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

"Neither is the United States, of course, where US citizens are free to join the Israeli army, and commit atrocities in the illegally occupied territories, but face prison for "terrorism" if they support the oppressed Palestinians and play paintball with their friends on weekends." No real argument here. Moreover, if I "support" (even if only verbally) Palestinian control over Israel, I'm "Anti Semitic" even though the Palestinians are semites, and the Ashkenazi only marginally semitic (they LOOK awfully European to me).* However, I doubt I'll go to jail...now. If Bush gets re-elected, then who knows. As for Germany, for me at least the same government that's forbidding swastikas today in an effort to eliminate "hate" may one day utilize that same power to warp & weave official history (like in Japan and their antics in China from 37 to 45), and all of a sudden everyone is seeing terrorists everywhere who are trying to "steal our freedoms", rather than understanding that if 10 men with families gave their lives to kill 3000 of us, it's at least fair to say that they're rather upset about SOMETHING... At the same time, remember that the Holocaust happened in Germany. And if you were German and realized that your own father was at least partially responsible for baking hundreds of Jews, well...let's just say that would probably weird you out a bit. -TD * I'd note that some of the most outspoken "Anti semites" in this category happen to be Jewish: Bobby Fisher, Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert and others. >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics >Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:19:27 -0800 (PST) > >Tyler Durden wrote: > > > Yes...because we Americans have only had one government, we tend to >equate > > "legality" with morality, and then assume the discussion is over. No >doubt > > that causes us to look at laws "over there" as being far more important >than > > they really are...at least some times. > >The laws "over there" would only lack importance if they were universally >ignored. > >But they aren't ignored, and they ruin peoples lives, and deprive them of >freedom >and property everytime someone in some protected class claims to have been >offended. > >When a Jew in Germany gives material support to Israel's reign of terror >against the >Palestinian people, and someone criticizes it, German law puts the person >criticizing >it in jail because he made the Jew feel bad. > >A civilized country would put the Beanie-Headed Land Grabber in jail, and >give the >critic a medal. > >Germany is not a civilized country. > >Neither is the United States, of course, where US citizens are free to join >the >Israeli army, and commit atrocities in the illegally occupied territories, >but >face prison for "terrorism" if they support the oppressed Palestinians and >play >paintball with their friends on weekends. > >Naziism is National Socialism. Neoconservatism is National Capitalism. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

2 1

lne.com CDR to close
by Eric Murray 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

The lne.com CDR node will stop accepting new subscriptions on Jan 1 2004, and will stop forwarding cypherpunks mail on Jan 15. There are other nodes currently and hopefully more will announce themselves. I've learned a lot on the cpunks list over the last 10 years and I'd like to thank some of the people whose writing I've enjoyed: Lucky Green, Black Unicorn, Declan McCullagh, Tim May, John Gilmore. Eric

2 1

RE: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Trei, Peter 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: >At 07:48 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >> >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. >> > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. >>All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons >>(if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". >As Tim pointed out, the Swastika symbol had long use before the >Nazis picked it up. I remember going into a temple in Guangzhou China >which had three large Buddha statues with it on their chests, >and some of the Native American cultures prominently weave it >into baskets. In Asia it tends to be a sun symbol, >or sometimes a moon symbol depending on which way it's pointing; >in the Americas it tends to be a whirlwind symbol. Vaguely related.... I used to live in upper Manhattan. One of the subway stops I used was the 190th on the IND ("A" train). This burrows deep under Washington Heights, and has two entrances - a long tunnel which slopes *down* from the station to an exit near Broadway, and an elevator up to Fort Washington Avenue. This section of the line opened in 1932. The floor of the vestibule of the upper elevator lobby is laid with geometric patterns in red, white, and black terra cotta tiles, and when I moved there in the late 70's I was amused to note that the pattern included 4 swastikas, in black tiles against a white background, about 4 inches across. Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the swastikas where chisled out, and the square areas where they had been crudely filled with concrete. Ft. Washington Ave by that time had long been an area heavily populated by immigrant Russian Jews. I often wondered exactly what chain of events led to this vandalism. Peter Trei

1 0

Cypherpunks List Info
by cpunk＠lne.com 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

Cypherpunks Mailing List Information Last updated: Oct 13, 2003 This message is also available at http://www.lne.com/cpunk Instructions on unsubscribing from the list can be found below. 0. Introduction The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing cryptography and its effect on society. It is not a moderated list (but see exceptions below) and the list operators are not responsible for the list content. Cypherpunks is a distributed mailing list. A subscriber can subscribe to one node of the list and thereby participate on the full list. Each node (called a "Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer", although they are not related to anonymous remailers) exchanges messages with the other nodes in addition to sending messages to its subscribers. A message posted to one node will be received by the list subscribers on the other nodes, and vice-versa. 1. Filtering The various CDRs follow different policies on filtering spam and to a lesser extent on modifying messages that go to/from their subscribers. Filtering is done, on nodes that do it, to reduce the huge amount of spam that the cypherpunks list is subjected to. There are three basic flavors of filtering CDRs: "raw", which send all messages to their subscribers. "cooked" CDRs try to eliminate the spam on that's on the regular list by automatically sending only messages that are from cypherpunks list subscribers (on any CDR) or people who are replying to list messages. Finally there are moderated lists, where a human moderator decides which messages from the raw list to pass on to subscribers. 2. Message Modification Message modification policy indicates what modifications, if any, beyond what is needed to operate the CDR are done (most CDRs add a tracking X-loop header on mail posted to their subscribers to prevent mail loops). Message modification usually happens on mail going in or out to each CDR's subscribers. CDRs should not modify mail that they pass from one CDR to the next, but some of them do, and others undo those modifications. 3. Privacy Privacy policy indicates if the list will allow anyone ("open"), or only list members, or no one ("private") , to retrieve the subscribers list. Note that if you post, being on a "private" list doesn't mean much, since your address is now out there. It's really only useful for keeping spammers from harvesting addresses from the list software. Digest mode indicates that the CDR supports digest mode, which is where the posts are batched up into a few large emails. Nodes that support only digest mode are noted. 4. Anonymous posting Cypherpunks encourages anonymous posting. You can use an anonymous remailer: http://www.andrebacard.com/remail.html http://anon.efga.org/Remailers http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html 5. Unsubscribing Unsubscribing from the cypherpunks list: Since the list is run from a number of different CDRs, you have to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to. If you don't remember and can't figure it out from the mail headers (hint: the top Received: line should tell you), the easiest way to unsubscribe is to send unsubscribe messages to all the CDRs listed below. How to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to: Get your mail client to show all the headers (Microsoft calls this "internet headers"). Look for the Sender or X-loop headers. The Sender will say something like "Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com". The X-loop line will say something like "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)lne.com". Both of these inticate that you are subscribed to the lne.com CDR. If you were subscribed to the algebra CDR, they would have algebra.com in them. Once you have figured out which CDR you're subscribed to, look in the table below to find that CDRs unsubscribe instructions. 6. Lunatics, spammers and nut-cases "I'm subscribed to a filtering CDR yet I still see lots of junk postings". At this writing there are a few sociopaths on the cypherpunks list who are abusing the lists openness by dumping reams of propaganda on the list. The distinction between a spammer and a subscriber is nearly always very clear, but the dictinction between a subscriber who is abusing the list by posting reams of propaganda and a subscriber who is making lots of controversial posts is not clear. Therefore, we tolerate the crap. Subscribers with a low crap tolerance should check out mail filters. Procmail is a good one, although it works on Unix and Unix-like systems only. Eudora also has a capacity for filtering mail, as do many other mail readers. An example procmail recipie is below, you will of course want to make your own decisions on which (ab)users to filter. # mailing lists: # filter all cypherpunks mail into its own cypherspool folder, discarding # mail from loons. All CDRs set their From: line to 'owner-cypherpunks'. # /dev/null is unix for the trash can. :0 * ^From.*owner-cypherpunks@.* { :0: * (^From:.*ravage@ssz\.com.*|\ ^From:.*jchoate@dev.tivoli.com.*|\ ^From:.*mattd@useoz.com|\ ^From:.*proffr11@bigpond.com|\ ^From:.*jei@cc.hut.fi) /dev/null :0: cypherspool } 7. List of current CDRs All commands are sent in the body of mail unless otherwise noted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algebra: Operator: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCC: Operator: drt(a)un.bewaff.net Subscription: "subscribe [password of your choice]" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Unsubscription: "unsubscribe <password>" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Help: "help" to to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Web site: http://koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks Posting address: cypherpunks(a)koeln.ccc.de Filtering policy: This specific node drops messages bigger than 32k and every message with more than 17 recipients or just a line containing "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject. Digest mode: this node is digest-only NNTP: news://koeln.ccc.de/cbone.ml.cypherpunks Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infonex: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)infonex.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lne: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)lne.com Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to lne CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. messages are demimed (MIME attachments removed) when posted through lne or received by lne CDR subscribers 2. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 3. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.lne.com/cpunk; "info cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Archive: http://archives.abditum.com/cypherpunks/index.html (thanks to Steve Furlong and Len Sassaman) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minder: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Help: "help" to majordomo(a)minder.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)minder.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: private Info: send mail to cypherpunks-info(a)minder.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Openpgp: [openpgp seems to have dropped off the end of the world-- it doesn't return anything from sending help queries. Ericm, 8/7/01] Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Help: "help" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)openpgp.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunder: Subscription: "subscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Help: "help" to sunder(a)sunder.net Posting address: sunder(a)sunder.net Filtering policy: moderated Message Modification policy: ??? Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro-ns: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)pro-ns.net Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to local CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 2. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.pro-ns.net/cpunk

1 0

With A Whisper, Not A Bang
by R. A. Hettinga 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

<http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dep…> San Antonio Current WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG By David Martin 12/24/2003 Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law - stealthily O n December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shutting down the federal government the following Monday. By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism. By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters." Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters. Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster." "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see." - Robert Summers Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent." Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents." This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate. The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act. Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers. The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process? * -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Nomen Nescio 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

After WWI the "winners" humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. After WWII the "winners" had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got the Marshal plan and so on. Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Is this something U.S. should feel comfortable with then? Some people on this list seem to have these disturbing thoughts. It will backfire sooner or later I'm afraid. And then it may be our kids who pay the price.

7 8

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tyler Durden 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

MK wrote... >I find it always interesting how people (especially from the US) seem >to have prefabricated ideas about how other countries are, but are at >the same time so much in denial about their own society that it is just >frightening. Well, that's true. It's a point I've made on Cypherpunks many times, that many economic, political, or legal analeses of other countries (particularly non-Indo-European) only hold up at the surface... My comment was more general, and not necessarily aimed at Germany per se. For instance, there theoretically seems to be laws about everything in Italy, but nobody seems to obey them and they are only enforced half-heartedly, and for as long as it's in vogue to give a crap. Likewise, Communist "Land Reform" in mainland China isn't communist so much as it's Chinese: land reform and nationalisation of salt production and other industries have regularly occurred throughout Chinese history. "Communism" in mainland China was a mask that seemed to last about as long as Mao was alive. (Of course, the hardheads on this list will reply by saying that Chinese culture has always been more "communistic" than other countries, but then this statement ignores just how truly capitalist China has become since 1984 or so. It remains oppressive, of course, if you're discussing the wrong subjects....) > >One huge difference I have noticed between the US and Germany in >particular is that discussions LIKE these are still happening in the >mainstream press, not only in the "left" or "right" wing propaganda >papers. Yes...because we Americans have only had one government, we tend to equate "legality" with morality, and then assume the discussion is over. No doubt that causes us to look at laws "over there" as being far more important than they really are...at least some times. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx

2 1

Interesting Freudian Slip...
by J.A. Terranson 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

...by Congresscritter Cox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106809,00.html The terrorists are playing a losing game. But if by making idle threats that are always taken seriously by people who are just scared, we can impose enormous costs on the country and the terrorists can impose enormous costs on the country. Then that turns their losing game into a winning game. _WE_ can impose enormous costs indeed! An Fox printed it without sterilizing it? They better be careful, or someone might accuse them of "aiding the terrorists"! -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tyler Durden 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

"As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate speech" includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hate speech" is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression." At worst. At best it's going to boil down to some local enforcement shitheel taking it upon himself to be the arbiter of issues he'll have no ability to comprehend. -TD >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics >Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:51:38 -0800 (PST) > >Michael writes: > > > Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. > > > The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy > > task as you can see in a six month trial. > >It is the outcome of the trial which condemns Germany. THe length of the >trial is an unimportant data point. > >THe law clearly defines "hate speech" as the communication of any >information which might >tend to cause people to be displeased with a particular religious or ethnic >group, whether >or not the information is true. > >People in Germany have been jailed under the "hate speech" laws for simply >suggesting in >written editorials that the Jewish people might act collectively in their >own enlightened >self-interest. > >As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate speech" >includes things >which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hnate speech" is >simply a code >phrase for suppressing free expression. > > > Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like > > to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and > > Britain). > >Yes, the Allies have done an excellent job of redirecting German jackbooted >obnoxiousness >back at the German people. Do you have a point here? > > > There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, but let's be > > serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to > > think. > >The US isn't free at all. However, most US citizens support freedom to >have opinions and >to express them. Germans have to ask their government for permission to >think. Most >Germans think this is a good thing, by the way. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _________________________________________________________________ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

2 1

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret) 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

At 02:52 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >On 26-Dec-03, at 12:37 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: > >>> A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 >>> months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of >>> free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. >> >> Of course, that should be "a nation with strict laws against free >> speech." >> >> Crying "Hate Speech" is the last resort of people who cannot debate >> what >> is being said and convince anyone. >> >The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy >task as you can see in a six month trial. Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime change with extreme prejudice. >Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. And I would like >to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and >Britain). If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. >There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) neuter the sheep (ie you). Fuck censors dead. Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus.

5 4

I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
by James A. Donald 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote: > Re saddam et all... > http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html > > The war of words over Saddam & Bush is quite amusing. The > blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to > support force that is in such extreme measure overpowering > and statist such as the dropping of tons of depleted uranium > high explosives shows that some on this list have not > broadened their news reading beyond fox news. I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam. Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy. But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery. And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam. Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it. Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish. Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XwnNnDWaFm4T8flPHGpKzyaV4jg8/RzK3pUzhOzQ 4+xdZmD79Z+1bt+2a7gG1vL9K6V53m4xxeoRxCt4p

12 31

Fwd: Smuggling in Bolivia
by Steve Schear 28 Dec '03

28 Dec '03

[From another list. I don't often fwd, but I thought these comments would be appreciated by those on the list who see only an ever expanding government worldwide.] >Peruvians are a lot like Bolivians but Bolivia is not Peru. > >This is an interview with Antonio Estrado, President of the >association of "porters" (aka smugglers) of Yacuiba who has, "for >42 years, devoted himself to carrying contraband from Argentina >to Bolivia". > >Antonio Estrado / Presidente de la asociacisn de bagalleros >de Yacuiba > >Desde hace 42 aqos se dedica a cargar productos de contrabando desde >Argentina hacia >Bolivia > >http://www.el-deber.net/20031221/economia_10.html > >It ends with the following. > >-?Ustedes permitirman que vuelva la Aduana y el COA a Pocito Boliviano? >Will you allow the customs and the police to return? > >- Tendrma que consultar con mi gente. >I will have to ask my people. > >- ?Pero, ahora quiin manda en la frontera boliviana? >But who now controls the Bolivian border? > >- Aqum, nosotros los bagalleros. Los militares, policmas y la Aduana no >son nada. Mientras el >gobierno siga con abusos contra nosotros y no quiera dialogar no dejaremos >que entre, >aunque tengamos que morir todos. El bagallero esta caracterizado, por >todas las >autoridades, como lo peor que existe en el Chaco, pero no es asm, es una >persona humilde >que el znico medio que tiene para subsistir es su cuerpo. >Here, we the porters. The military, police and customs are nothing. While >the government >continues to abuse us and won't talk we will not let them in, otherwise we >will all die. The >porter is denigrated by all the authorities but that is not right, he is a >decent person whose >only means of survival is his labor. > >One interesting thing about Bolivia is that there is a long >tradition of "syndicalism". Thus there are organized coca >growers unions, smugglers unions etc. All these organized >groups are conceived by Bolivians as part of society and the >government is considered just another such more of less coequal >group. Thus you often have, say the coca growers or the >smugglers negotiating with or going on strike against the >government on a more or less equal basis and sometimes getting >their way. There is not the expectation of dominance and Lese >Majeste by the government which would lead to Waco like >confrontations in such situations in the US.

1 0

Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret.) 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

BERLIN In the first case of its kind in Germany, a right-wing rock band was deemed a criminal organization and its lead singer was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for lyrics that venerate Nazism and incite racial hatred. A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hate23dec23,0,7847339.s…

3 3

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tim May 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: > > That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for > their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. > > There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other > extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. > There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here "prejudiced" speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the "OFF" switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tyler Durden 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

"All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" view.) -TD >From: Michael Kalus <mkalus(a)thedarkerside.to> >To: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >CC: "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics >Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:48:14 -0500 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > > > >> The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy > >> task as you can see in a six month trial. > > > > Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime > > change > > with extreme prejudice. > > > >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any >country in the world has a law against hate speech. > > > > >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. > > > > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. > >All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the >reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". > > > > > > And I would like > >> to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and > >> Britain). > > > > If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt > > the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. > >They could actually until ~ 10 years ago. Germany (even though >considered independend) wasn't. By international law a piece was never >brokered, it was just a cease fire. > >Of course now they could, but Germany still is a bit jumpy about it's >past. > > > > > >> There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, > > > > Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted > > the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) > > neuter the sheep (ie you). > > > >Nice... So in the US you have : > >- - Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". >- - Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they >still do) >- - TV Stations who edit movies >- - Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. >- - What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? > > > > Fuck censors dead. > > > >I agree. > > > Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. > > > >I agree again, but the problem is that even in the good ol'e US of A it >is not tested. > > > > Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus. > > >Doubtful. I don't have an issue with discussion if both sides can get >their say. I do not agree that driving people like Nazis into the >underground accomplishes anything. Their ideas have to be looked at in >the light and then society can answer. > >Problem with that is: 99% of people give a fuck about discussion or >ideas. they want to be told what to do. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 8.0.3 > >iQA/AwUBP+zW1WlCnxcrW2uuEQIfqgCcDMvh3WH9dspQ/Tf43a9nT8z521AAnjuO >0aujI5ksmZhQ23+cJNPEzVCZ >=K0rP >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

4 4

James Donald Skeetshoot...
by Tyler Durden 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

Variola: PULL! _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

MAOLD terrorist group strikes Toronto
by cypherpunks＠salvagingelectrons.com 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

(Oh wait, terrorist by USA PATRIOT Act Standards.) SUSPECTS RESPONSIBLE FOR TORCHING CHRISTMAS DECORATONS ARRESTED http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/release.php?id=4869 32 Division 416-808-3236 Toronto Police have been investigating 12 reported cases of arson, which occurred in the Willowdale area between November 10 and December 13, 2003. In each occurrence, suspects deliberately set afire numerous front yard holiday displays containing scarecrows, reindeer, wreaths or bales of straw. In one instance the suspects left a note warning the homeowner to stop using flammable outdoor displays and stick to indoor decorations. The note was signed "M.A.O.L.D. The movement against outdoor lawn decorations, and Bite the Curb". On Sunday December 21st, 2003 officers on patrol in the Willowdale neighbourhood investigated a number of youths walking along the street. At that time, one of the youths was found to be in possession of a can of fuel, a hose, gloves and a mask. On Tuesday December 23rd, 2003 as a result of further investigation, officersf rom No. 32 Division arrested and charged three 15-year-old boys in relation to the arsons. In total, the youths face a total of eight counts of arson causing damage to property. They are scheduled to appear in court in January of 2004. Anyone having information regarding this investigation is asked to contact police at 416-808-3200 or Crime Stoppers at 416-222-TIPS(8477).

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> writes: >After WWI the "winners" humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main >reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the >aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being >treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very >humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. > >After WWII the "winners" had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now >they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got >the Mar shal plan and so on. Unfortunately after GulfWarII the "winners" hadn't learned their lessons from WWII very well. At the end of the war, despite the bombing campaigns, Germany had a vaguely functional administration and (heavily rationed) food, coal, electricity, etc were available. The Allies systematically dismantled all of that, both through apathy (no real planning beyond "Move in and occupy the place") and their zeal to rebuild the country in their own image. For example, they prevented anyone who'd ever been a Nazi party member from doing their job. Well the problem was that to do almost anything, you had to be a party member, so they instantly stopped all civil administration, engineering/maintenance work, teachers, the judicial system, the police, you couldn't even deliver the mail without being a party member (since they were government employees). Virtually every male over the age of about 16 had been in the military and had experience with weapons. So you now had a mass of unemployed ex-military who desperately wanted food and clothing, and had access to an almost infinite supply of weaponry. In addition Germany after the war attracted what one of the allied leaders (Eisenhower?) described as "the scum of Europe", eager to make a quick buck (in Iraq it's folks eager to beat up the infidels). This lead to sizeable pitched battles between the armed gangs and the occupying military, with the military frequently being outgunned by the gangs. Substitute Germany -> Iraq and profit / food -> religion /nationalism and the same situation exists today. Peter.

1 0

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by James A. Donald 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

-- James A. Donald: > > And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears > > about poor victimized Saddam. Jamie Lawrence: > I don't care if he got a shave. I do care that the US fails > to adhere to international law. The US army would be wholly in compliance with international law even if it nailed Saddam's head to a post in central Baghdad with a nine inch nail. Saddam is not entitled to POW protections. He was running the war effort out of uniform and hidden amongst civilians, which has always been a shoot-on-the-spot violation of the rules of war, and his war effort consisted largely of terrorist attacks directed at civilians, which regrettably has not been a shoot-on-the-spot violation, but arguably should be. > I fail to understand why our "war" on "terrorism", which is > apparently the mode that drives most of this sort of feeling, > suddenly required knocking over a crippled tyrant. The title of this thread is 'I am anti war. You lot support Saddam" I don't defend the war on Iraq. Why are you supporting Saddam? James A. Donald > > Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers > > had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in > > the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and > > losers. Jamie Lawrence: > Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope. You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lSPP/JI5XquWeDE9Luo/hkP7TgMrx6R7x088utoG 4elBeRSFzJwkpZXIuL3j9uEkywuFYbl8gvR7GYjfN

7 17

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by Tyler Durden 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

"And I don't usually get quite this MAD, but such ignorance, such blindness, is the reason we are in this mess. " I'm not so sure Mr Donald is ignorant OR blind. He seems to be something I've never seen in real life before: Completely aligned with US foreign policy, past/present/future. I'm starting to think that Mr Donald's contributions to Cypherpunks may be part of his job description. -TD >From: baudmax23(a)earthlink.net >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam >Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:40:51 -0500 > >At 08:14 PM 12/23/2003 -0800, CIA-apologist "James A. Donald" ><jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > >> -- >>James A. Donald >> > > > > You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a >> > > > > victim. >> >>Jamie Lawrence: >> > > > Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit >> > > > by attempting to credit me with such statements. >> >>James A. Donald >> > > You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of >> > > Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds >> > > like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized >> > > Saddam" >> >>Jamie Lawrence >> > I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. >> >>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID >>20031221161851.GE32589(a)clueinc.net You said: >>: : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to >>: : international law." >> implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international >> law. >> >>You also said; >>: : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." >>implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor >>little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor >>little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. >> >>These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to >>believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not >>saying what you claimed you were saying. >> >>As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. >> >> > Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that >> > you didn't want to respond to: >> > >> > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute >> > motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on >> > wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical >> > arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international >> > relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New >> > American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the >> > "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or >> > worse. >> >>Liar: >> >>I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums >>I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs >>that would rationalize and justify such an action. > >"Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by >visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the >heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose >it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life >should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should >lose, and their way of life perish." >-James A. Donald, post on this thread, 12/20/2003 > >"...raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish." > >Down the memory hole we go folks. James is almost as much in denial about >his lying as GWB. Confront him as you will, let the facts not be >obstacles. Genocidal monsters unleashed, with the blessing of James, as we >will not consider the consequences, because "we can do no wrong". Oh yeah. > >>There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely >>pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably >>stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, >>and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and >>evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. > >Funny, then, and quite logically inconsistent, that this thread is titled >"I am antiwar...". I have not seen anything evidencing "antiwar: mentality >from you, as you just justify it as all well, fine and dandy. Oh yeah, if >WE kill 10,00o Iraqis, that's worth just 1 measly disheveled Saddam. >You've got some funny math goin', boy. That's not even counting the >Billions$$ of US $DEBT we cannot afford now. > >>Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the >>capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, >>but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the >>capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? > >Who gives a flying F*CK about Dean, about Commies, about Capitalists, et >al. Despite repeated and voluminous, historically verifiable and >irrefutable evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even acknowledge there >is ANY base grievance against US foreign policy, which has led to the >current state of affairs (so-called "war on terror", blah blah blah). In >your rather logically and cerebrally challenged world view, everything else >is nothing but a "sock-puppet KGB conspiracy" against the US/CIA (which is >giving the KGB considerably more credit I'm sure, then they deserve, if >they were half as inept and incompetent as the CIA during the so-called >"cold war period construct"). > >You see, all I care about is: I am not going to pay the bill for this >inane shit (insane policy), and I would not give my life for it. I would >not ALLOW any youth under my discretion to be seduced by these lies to lay >down their life for this SHIT. This is not freedom ,or liberty, or >liberation. You, James A Donald, are an armchair pussy Neo-con, who >advocates others putting their lives and resources on the line for this >utter CRAP and HYPOCRISY, and yet would not do so yourself (you are >probably physically UNFIT for such military duty yourself). Intellectual, >moral, and physical WIMPS as yourself are unfit to ask, much less demand >others suffer the sacrifice to satisfy your self delusions and >self-aggrandizement. People just like YOU DESERVE to die in RETALIATORY >strikes to such MAD foreign policy. My only regret is that such attacks >will not specifically target hard headed morons like you. > >And I for sure, would not weap a tear, because scum like you DESERVE such >an end, in fact, DEMAND it it. That's not just an ad hominem, mind you. >You don't respond to reason, you LIE and OBFUSCATE. You deserve your just >fruits. Unfortunately, the actions and policies you advocate will >inevitably and inexorably lead to the deaths of many innocents who do not >share your limited views. But it will also end the tyranny of the >ignorant, and the point is, if that is the case, then so be it. Systems >seek equilibrium. > >Justice will be served, wisdom will prevail. That "it all" will have a >higher cost than need be, is due to the ignorant likes of you. And don't >think anyone will cry when the likes of you are gone, any more than Saddam, >any more than the scum who hung at Nuremburg. Because you are really no >different, exercising your tyranny behind the masses, than anything he ever >did. What you advocate, is murder, coercion, torture (in the name of the >almighty state). And people like you, deserve just the same as Saddam, >because, at /ROOT, YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT. Screaming for "cruise missile >strikes" from a 1,000 miles away, even whilst other unfortunate suckers are >designated to push buttons you wouldn't even have the balls to push >yourself. What a man! Oh yeah! What a MAN! > >-Max > >And I don't usually get quite this MAD, but such ignorance, such blindness, >is the reason we are in this mess. I'd hang you myself, if but given the >rope and the chance. If it could save ANOTHER 3,000 innocent lives, it'd >be well worth it! > >> --digsig >> James A. Donald >> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG >> mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp >> 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ > >------------------------------------------------ >A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should >have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence >from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own >government. > >--George Washington >------------------------------------------------- >Smash The State! mailing list home >http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate > >Extropian Principles... the Future, Now >http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm >--- _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

1 0

Saddam is evil, therefore we have the right to feed him to our pigs
by Tyler Durden 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

James Donald wrote... "There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam" This is a critical point, and it's one you fail to recognize over and over again. Let me tell you a little story. There's this guy that lives down the block...I think he may be a Satanist or something, but I'm not quite sure. I know he's into some wierd stuff...I saw his wife with a black eye once, and his kids don't look so happy or healthy. One day at the supermarket his cart crashed into mine. It may have been an accident, but I'm not quite sure. But the guy gave me an eye, so he's clearer a threat to me. So what I did the other day was I broke into the guy's house...it was late and I took him by surpise so when he was coming down the stairs I shot him. His older son came at me with a baseball bat, so I had to shoot him too. When I finally got to the wife the ungrateful bitch started crying and begged me not to kill her..."DAMMIT, I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU YOU STUPID BITCH" I said to her, but she didn't seem to feel any better. Actually, I'm typing this message from her house, because if I leave the cops'll get me and maybe some more of the guy's relatives will come, and then we'll be right back where we started. I've got no plans to leave here for at least 2 to 3 years. Funny thing is, though, every now and then when I'm coming down the stairs there will be tacks or nails or something at the bottom. I'm starting to get the idea they don't want me here! Sometimes I wonder if I should have done this, but now that I look around this guy's house I can see all sorts of whips and books on Satanism. So it turns out I was right! I guess that means I did the right thing. -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam >Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:14:34 -0800 > > -- >James A. Donald > > > > > You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a > > > > > victim. > >Jamie Lawrence: > > > > Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit > > > > by attempting to credit me with such statements. > >James A. Donald > > > You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of > > > Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds > > > like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized > > > Saddam" > >Jamie Lawrence > > I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. > >On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID >20031221161851.GE32589(a)clueinc.net You said: >: : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to >: : international law." > implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international > law. > >You also said; >: : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." >implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor >little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor >little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. > >These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to >believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not >saying what you claimed you were saying. > >As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. > > > Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that > > you didn't want to respond to: > > > > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute > > motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on > > wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical > > arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international > > relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New > > American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the > > "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or > > worse. > >Liar: > >I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums >I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs >that would rationalize and justify such an action. > >There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely >pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably >stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, >and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and >evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. > >Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the >capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, >but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the >capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp > 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by Hasan Diwan 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 00:20AM, James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > > -- >Jamie Lawrence >> > > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to >> > > impute motives to others that you imagine they might >> > > hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and >> > > effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and >> > > effect based on international relations in the '60s, >> > > bundled together with some sort of New American Century >> > > twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your >> > > words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. > >James A. Donald >> > Liar: >> > >> > I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other >> > forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam >> > or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action. Gentlemen: Fanatics of any persuasion attack not our people, but the very freedoms and tolerance we value. This sort of line of rhetoric illustrates to me that they have won. Let us agree to disagree, but disagree in a civil manner. Thank you very much.

1 0

Speaking of the Geneva convention
by Freematt357＠aol.com 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

December 15, 2003 Uncle Sambs Guantanamo Prison: Outside the Rule of Law http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031215ONeil.html By Brigid ObNeil* The latest news from Guantanamo Bay is beginning to sound like a modern-day Simpsons episode. After two years of imprisoning more than 600 alleged enemy combatants without charge or counsel in a Cuban prison camp, the Administration announced earlier this month that two detainees -- one a U.S. citizen -- would be permitted limited access to an attorney. As any Simpsons buff will tell you, itbs a classic Mr. Burns move: put on a show of improving work conditions at the nuclear power plant by dressing Homer in thermal underwear. While it might be an amusing tag line typical of the most noxious character in the Simpsons repertoire, itbs a sad metaphor for the U.S. governmentbs abysmal treatment of designated enemy combatants. News of the American prisonerbs counsel came one day before the Justice Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court, adding to suspicions about the Administrationbs motives. Their brief asks the court to affirm the governmentbs i ndefinite detention of Americans declared b enemy combatants,b without counsel or the ability to dispute the allegations. The Constitutional liberties at risk in this case, including the right to a fair trial and due process, constitute a grave danger for Americans and foreign nationals alike. And nowhere is the startling consequence of Constitutional b concessionsb more apparent than the state of Guantanamo Bay. >From the beginning, Guantanamo Bay was wrought with strife. The Geneva Convention, with its guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all prisoners of war, was quickly sidelined by the Administration in favor of its own rules for the treatment and investigation of detainees. In the absence of any rule of law, it didnbt take long for the media to pick up reports of inhumane treatment -- or what one former intelligence officer brazenly called, b torture-lite.b These reports include: firing rubber bullets at those in restraints, beatings for anyone who b made a call to prayer,b sleep deprivation, and forced confessions. The situation became so dire that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only non-government organization to visit the camp, broke a long-standing policy of silence and called the prisoner circumstances an b intolerable situation.b After reading the latest official statements on the health of the detainees, it becomes shockingly clear why the ICRC took such an unprecedented move. According to national news reports, 35 detainees have attempted suicide, 110 have been placed on a suicide watch list, and 1 out of every 5 detainees now receive medication for what one military official can only describe as b clinical depression.b In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. In the absence of any formidable opposition to the Executive Branchbs actions, the Supreme Court has finally stepped into the ring. In a matter of months the Justices will decide two cases that will rule on a host of alleged constitutional abuses. In the first case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court will determine whether a U.S. citizen has the right to an attorney before disappearing into a military stockade without charges or contact with the outside world. The second case, involving the two appeals of Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. U.S., will decide if Guantanamo detainees can have access to civilian courts to challenge their detention. The most pressing issue in both cases calls into question the newly claimed Executive Branch power to detain any person indefinitely and without any recourse to judicial review. Given the blatant lack of any legal protections for these alleged combatants, it is no wonder that former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain expressed concern this week about what he saw after a recent visit to Guantanamo. Even prisoners suspected of serious crimes deserve fair and open legal proceedings -- after all, our very Constitution was founded on the right to due process and a presumption of innocence. By holding suspected enemies to our highest rule of law and honoring established international treaties, we set a precedent for the treatment we expect of U.S. troops in enemy hands. To undermine this rule of law risks the very livelihood of our Constitution and threatens the way our citizens are treated both at home and abroad. No minor concessions by the U.S. government can change the impression that the secrecy and lack of due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay resembles that of the Soviet gulags of old. And it doesnbt take the antics of a Mr. Burns or the gullibility of Homer Simpson to figure it out. *Brigid ObNeil is a researcher at the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.

6 8

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by J.A. Terranson 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Sunder wrote: > That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, "we" put, or > at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we > the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important > nations under the guise of "protecting democracy." <huge snip> Whether we put the mofo into power or not is not relevent: the "nation" is a sovereign, regardless of the current figurehead who purports to represent it. Note: I don't *think* that anyone here is arging that Saddam was a nice guy - we're all just arguing at cross purposes. Camp A (me) seems to be arguing from a meta [societal] position, while Camp J is arguing from a personal-dislike position. Neither camp is likely to deter the other, since our frames of reference can never intersect :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm

1 0