December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Liberty Dollar
by Gary Jeffers 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

My fellow Cypherpunks, The Liberty Dollar My fellow Cypherpunks, I think I may have some really great news here, but you all can check it out to be sure. I found an alternative money on the Internet. It is called the Liberty Dollar. The Internet site is: http://www.norfed.org NORFED is The National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code. The money is backed by silver and gold and can be redeemed widely in America. As many of you know, the $US is a corrupt, proprietary, debt issued, fait, fractional reserved,illegal, unconstituional, U. S. State enforced monopoly currency. As corrupt as it is I don't know why it hasn't already collasped and dragged us down with it! If the Liberty Dollar is honest and robust, then it may be the vehical to beat the elite bankers tyranny and give us an honest wealth produced money. Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers BEAT STATE !!!!

3 5

RE: Cypherpunks IQ Test
by Aimee Farr 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Mike: Are you often the victim of mercenary females? > -----Original Message----- > From: mmotyka(a)lsil.com [mailto:mmotyka@lsil.com] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:28 PM > To: aimee.farr(a)pobox.com > Subject: Cypherpunks IQ Test > > > It's an obvious setup. The woods are part of a defense installation, > apple is filled with coke, the girl is underage, the woods are full of > trigger happy fibbies. > > You hit the ground and roll into the brush, drawing on the way. You > attempt to locate opponents and identify the safest route away from the > situation. > > Mike > > > >CYPHERPUNKS IQ TEST > > > >QUESTION #1. > > > >You are walking through the woods alone. A beautiful unclothed woman > >magically appears in front of you. She holds out an apple. > > > >1. Please darken in the correct choice using a Number Two pencil: > > > >(a) you bite the apple. > >(b) you take the woman. > >(c) you run away. > >(d) a and b, but not c. > >(e) b and c only. > >(f) all of the above. > >(g) none of the above. > > > >2. Please justify your answer: > > > > > >___________________________________________________________________. > > > > > >Just curious.... > > > > -Aimee

2 1

More on "new physics"
by Tim May 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Someone sent me a private note. I have deleted his name for this public reply. > Tim May wrote: > > >> The "new physics" stuff is quite different. It is scorned in a way >> that plate tectonics was not, and for good reason. Folks should visit >> Bearden's site. http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html > > I did. Oh, dear. > > Not sure what is supposed to be denoted by "Tesla physics", but Tesla's > work with power transmission via HF is fascinating, even if there was > apparently no practical or safe use for it. No one disputes the outstanding work Tesla did on a.c. transmission. And anyone who has seen or used a Tesla coil knows how real it is. "Tesla physics" is all the cruft that has developed around some of his more obscure (and late) writings, usually mixed together with stuff Tesla could not have known about at the time of his death. To wit, the stuff about zero point energy and perpetual motion machines. And, sometimes, mixed together with the usual nutcase stuff about the Hollow Earth theory (zeta reticulans colonizing the hollow earth, Greys, underground UFO bases, secret Nazi weapons, etc.). Tesla is a hero to these "new physics" nuts, even though nothing Tesla ever worked on or built contradicts in the slightest way the predictions of Maxwell's theories. They take Tesla's very real contributions and some of his weirder theories (though none of them so weird as the Hollow Earth/antigravity/time reversal theories of modern nutters) and say that this means "They laughed at Tesla, they laugh at me!" BTW, I was/am an early ("angel") investor in a company doing work on ultrawideband transmissions. Some of the works Bearden cites, like those of Barrett, are familiar to me and others with this company. Saying that there is a role for ultrawideband pulse technology, a la spread spectrum and beyond SS, is NOT the same as saying there are confirmed "problems" with electromagnetic theory. There may be, and there are a handful of folks doing "foundational" work in E&M, but, so far, there are no indications that their foundational work is changing any engineering calculations. Quite the contrary, in my view. Electromagnetic theory basically "works"--to many decimal places of accuracy. Circuits work as expected, antennas work as expected, and there are no "unexplained observations" (as usually exist before a new theory arrives). There may be some _semantic_ issues, e.g., does a square wave or impulse "really" have components that were sent out _before_ the square wave or impulse? (A Fourier decomposition of a square wave starting at time t = 0 has "sine wave components" spread out over time and adding up in such a way as to give the square wave, or the impulse, or any other signal. Some think this means deep and mysterious things are happening, something having to do with time travel and reversing the aging process, blah blah blah. Henning Harmuth may write fairly eloquently about the "dogma of the circle" and how the Fourier decomposition of a signal into (allegedly) a near-infinite series of sine waves is "not real," but for all intents and purposes it all works. And the "new physics" people like Bearden go way beyond what Harmuth and Barrett are talking about: they bring in "curved space-time" and gravitation and antigravity and the ultra-weird notion that aging can be reversed by "pumping the conjugate time-axis of the Minkowski manifold" (OK, I made this up...don't have time to lift one of Bearden's direct quotes...and this will help train me in the jargon if I ever become a "new physicist."). Nut cases like Bearden have the patter of physics down. Very few actual physicists waste their time dissecting and refuting Bearden for obvious reasons. I urge readers of this list not to waste time on this stuff. --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787

5 22

Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Email?
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 09:57 AM 5/14/2003 -0400, Sunder wrote: >Yes, but how will you stop the spammer from double spending the same $0.25 >micropayment on all of his 170,000 email addresses? Depending on whether >you check that there is a payment attached or not, and also check it with >the bank before delivering it, you'd have already wasted your bandwith and >possibly have accepted a spam into your mail spool. It is true that the notions of micropayments as applied to spam (that I'm familiar with, at least) would require that the email recipient check with the bank to detect doublespending. This would introduce an additional delay before delivery from unknown senders, yes, but I fail to see how it would impose an unacceptable cost in bandwidth or CPU usage. Spammers could still try the same-micropayment-a-million-times route, just as they could try to spam without micropayments, but if their email is rejected in sufficient quantities, the cost to the spammer would outweigh the benefits. The key is achieving sufficient quantities. -Declan

6 19

Re: AP Al Qaeda
by mattd 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>>No, no. AP is funny because it's impracticeable. One does not find an assassin exclusively by tracing who paid him to kill. One can (and often does) find him because he makes a mistake in the act of commiting the crime. Which, if I'm >>reading my history right, is what's hampered the noisy proponents of AP up to this point already. Crime? Wot crime,guvnor? Jim and CJ were not 'noisy'.imo. Im a bit noisy cos Im pushing the 'let it all hang out' version. >The point is that Bell's theory does a really good job of sorting out the business end of assassination,...< Oh THATS funny.I get it. HAHAHA! >>Killing one person, especially a public official, pisses a whole bunch of people off. Those people have a tendency to come find their buddy's killer. Mmm,where do we start,lets get some firebrands and go up to the proffrs? Look at sites with no logs for quad anon 'predictors' who may be overseas briefly visiting cybercafes,Good luck china.(you just contradicted yrself btw.) Oh,unless you mean the torture/french village reprisal thang.Win friends and influence people. The one person killed will have had to have done a lot of evil shit to get enough pooled (presumably) to tempt a seasoned pro.Unless some professional killer turns all altruistic,stranger things have happened.The killer could be suicidal.another possibility.Lots of scenarios possible here,movie scripts,even.Pop songs,video games.DoCoMo assasinphones. Someone like a torturer,murderer,terrorist,pedophile is a logical candidate.(stephen roach?)Sometimes these happen to be public officials.Theres one here where I live named dennis Tanner.(vic.au) Those killers by remote control like arbusto might be be made more accountable. What better way than...Bell's theory, "a really good job of sorting out the business end of assassination"according to you. KILL THE PRESIDENT! "Id buy that for a dollar!" >>No kind of real or threatened assassination can weaken a government in which a majority of the governed people >believe. It can only make it seem more righteous and be more strong. Thats true,roll over and go back to sleep,if you live under that govt you have nothing to worry about. More righteous and more smug.

2 15

[Lucrative-L] double spends, identity agnosticism, and Lucrative
by R. A. Hettinga 20 May '05

20 May '05

--- begin forwarded text

4 4

Vengeance Libertarianism
by Tim May 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

On Dec 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, jal(a)jal.org wrote: >> (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer >> James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of >> Chomsky.) > > I will say that I was a a former marxist. This is not to bow at the > feet > of some better method, nor to trivialize the past. > > My awakening, as it were, actually happened here, for better or worse. > Tim, Hal, Lucky, Uni and to some extent Detweiler all helped > form my view. More than a few others. This was back in '93, mostly. At > least, the founding, for me was then. I know some things happened later > (I saw Uni present his Coke Presentation in 2002 for the first time), > and I became concerned with business, or at least companies that wanted > cash, and to be a business later. > I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. This despite entering college in 1970, this despite going to a school where the dominant paradigm was leftist (UC Santa Barbara). I occasionally wonder what my perspective might be had I ever held leftist, collectivist thoughts. Oh well, I'll never know. Thirty years ago I _was_ more charitable about the various groups which claim to have been aggrieved, and I dutifully referred to negroes as "blacks," argued earnestly with doubting leftists about the importance of the profit motive, cited semi-leftists who had reasonable things to say about capitalism and liberty and the Constitution. But over the years, as I have seen a huge chunk of money taken from me at gunpoint and given to welfare skanks, inner city negro mutants, gay activist buttfucker San Francisco queer groups, foreign nations with dictators like Hussein (both of them), Mubarek, Amin, Meir, Rabin, and a hundred others, and as education has declined while the pigeons demand more handouts...I have become what I call a "vengeance libertarian." While certain theoreticians of 30 years argued for silly ideas about how how it is "immoral" to land on another's balcony while falling from a building, because the property rights had not been negotiated, and thus argued that even self-defense is fraught with moral problems, another camp of us were developing the idea that vengeance is good, that crypto anarchy will not only let some of us "withdraw from the system," a la Galt's Gulch, but also it will let us execute justice on those who stole from us. For every negro welfare momma who took money for the past number of years, tell her to pay it all back, with compounded interest, or face time in a labor camp to repay what she stole. And if she cannot, or will not, which is ovewhelmingly likely, harvest her organs (if any takers can be found) and send the leftovers up the smokestacks. Ditto for the queers who have collected "public health" funds to pay for their sodomy. (I have no issue with their choices of partners, except that the diseases they contract via their habits, and their inability to work, is their problem, not mine. And not any corporations, except by the choice of that corporation.) Vengeance libertarianism is the rational kind. It will result in 20-40 million of the leeches, the bums, the minority grifters, the so-called aggrieved, the winos, the addicts, all being sent up the chimneys. Hitler had only minor reasons to go after the Jews (many of them had manipulated the economy to favor Jews while also preaching a "no defense" loser strategy to their untermenschen), we have much more reason to go after the tens of millions of underpeople who have been using their thugs in government to steal from us. We have much more justification today to liquidate the parsites than Hitler ever had. As for government, I estimate that 99% of those in Congress and government agencies in the past 40 years have earned killing. Of current Congressvarmints, only two seem to be not guilty. Of low-level employees, a bunch are just willing dweebs, and may be able to work off their debts in a labor camp for a decade or two. But probably the cleaner solution is just to do a thermonuclear cauterization of the region surrounding Washington and start fresh from there with a very limited government that honors the Constitution instead of catering to negroes and queers and welfare addicts. Crypto anarchy will make delivering justice to tens of millions a reality. The world will learn a lesson when we burn off these criminals. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater

9 10

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Freematt357＠aol.com 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

In a message dated 12/31/2003 4:44:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, jya(a)pipeline.com writes: > Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest > beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and > wealthy individuals like himself Government favoritism? It sounds like you don't believe a raising tide lifts all ships. Tim is entitled to keep the wealth he has earned, when it's taken its called stealing. > The rich fear the poor, and rightly so, for they know who pays > for their perks. What commie nonsense. > Wasn't it a leftist who coined Goldwater's most memorable > phrase? > The libertarian Karl Hess wrote most of Goldwater's speeches, but the quote you mention was one popularized by Ben Franklin who in turn was using an unattributed Latin quote. Regards, Matt Gaylor-

6 5

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project
by Scott Nelson 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

At 01:43 PM 12/29/03 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Bill Stewart wrote: > >> At 09:37 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Adam Back wrote: >> >>> The 2nd memory [3] bound paper (by Dwork, Goldber and Naor) finds a >>> flaw in in the first memory-bound function paper (by Adabi, Burrows, >>> Manasse, and Wobber) which admits a time-space trade-off, proposes an >>> improved memory-bound function and also in the conclusion suggests >>> that memory bound functions may be more vulnerable to hardware attack >>> than computationally bound functions. Their argument on that latter >>> point is that the hardware attack is an economic attack and it may be >>> that memory-bound functions are more vulnerable to hardware attack >>> because you could in their view build cheaper hardware more [....] >> >> >> Once nice thing about memory-bound functions is that, >> while spammers could build custom hardware farms in Florida or China, >> a large amount of spam is delivered by hijacked PCs or abused >> relays/proxies, >> which run on standard PC hardware, not custom, so it'll still be slow. The Microsoft Penny Black system (not to be confused with the IBM Penny Black paper) is supposedly limited by memory /speed/ not memory size. The only nice thing about that is that memory speed doesn't vary as much between machines. About 5 to 1 vs. 100 to 1. > >do the math. > >d*b >--- > s > >where: d = stamp delay in seconds > s = spam size in bytes > b = bandwidth in bytes per second > I don't understand this equation at all. It's the rate limiting factor that counts, not a combination of stamp speed + bandwidth. Assuming 128Kbps up, without a stamp it takes about .6 seconds to send a typical 10K spam. If it takes 15 seconds to generate the stamp, then it will take 15 seconds to send a stamped spam. It won't even take 15.6 seconds, because the calculation can be done in parallel with the sending. >assuming unlimited bandwidth, if a stamp spammer compromises roughly the >same number of PCs as were compromised during the last worm attack >(350,000) at 15 seconds per stamp, you end up with 1.4 million stamps >per minute or 2 billion stamps per day. When you compare that to the >amount of spam generated per day (high hundred billion to low trillion), > Not according to the best estimates I have. The average email address receives 20-30 spams a day (almost twice what it was last year) and there are only 200-400 million email addresses, which works out to less than 10 billion spams per day. But there's a much easier way to do the math. If 1% of the machines on the internet are compromised, and a stamp takes 15 seconds to generate, then spammers can send 50-60 spams to each person. (86400 seconds per day / 15 seconds per stamp * 1% of everybody = 57.6) You can reduce that by factoring in the average amount of time that a compromised machine is on per day. I fully expect that stamps will rise in "price" to several minutes, if camram actually gets any traction. >they are still a few machine short of what is necessary to totally >render stamps useless. Yes, maybe one spammer could muster a few >machines to be a nuisance but that's the extent of it. > >When dealing with hardware acceleration, it becomes a hardware war. If >they can make a custom hardware, Taiwan can make us USB stamp >generators, postage goes to a period of rapid inflation, and the world >goes back to where was before with no advantage to spammer's. > Custom hardware? I can buy a network ready PC at Fry's for $199. If it takes that machine 30 seconds to generate a stamp, and I leave it running 24/7, and replace it after 5 months, then the cost of a hashstamp is still less than 1/500 of a snail-mail stamp. Granted it's a significant increase in costs over current email, and therefore potentially a vast improvement, but it's still not expensive. Scott Nelson <scott(a)spamwolf.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

14 22

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Harmon Seaver 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 01:59:50PM -0500, Sunder wrote: > If those are your beliefs, then by all means, set the first example, and > go kill yourself. Better yet, sacrifice yourself to your goddess... By > doing so, you'll also earn yourself a Darwin Award... unless you've > already fathered kids... But from your tone of voice, I'd say you've > probably castrated yourself years ago. No, I have offspring. But what makes you think I'm human? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

3 2

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

Tim May wrote (and fairly cogently, I might add)... "If a person thought he was not being paid enough, it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free to purchase or not." This is an idealization, of course, and to the extent that it was true I agree with some of the main conclusions here. Another idealization is that, once in a while, someone will get caught in a downsizing or without a job for a while. Knowing that some small cushion existed allowed those with fairly minimal capital to take the kinds of risks implicit in what you're talking about. "The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was *government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no government role, and that this makes government intervention in business justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the expense of the "less privileged." " Well. I wasn't exactly trying to say that. At least, "Intel was successful because the government gave it tax breaks..."...that's what I'm NOT saying. However, add my point above to the notion that the whole American social fabric probably can not be separated into small discete chunks, and you get my point. Or at least, the logic that compels one to conclude that the murder of 40 million African Americans is justifiable should somehow make one take those notions with a grain of salt. Intel or National Semiconductor doesn't and never did exist in a vacuum. They were started by great engineers and physicsts that were educated in places like Stanford, or that worked in Bell Labs. And this isn't an argument for tax-and-spend 'statism' per se, but simply that there's a social/political/economic environment that can't be diced and sliced. You'd dice and slice an African American population, but then again it's from these inner cities that much of popular American culture has arisen (ie, between pro sports, various forms of music and so on...). Who knows the impact these people have had in terms of providing 'content' for the chips and TV screens and so on. Am I therefore arguing that this justifies US tax policies? Hell no. I might bother trying if I thought $$$-towards-blacks amounted to anything more than mere mollification and storage. (Hell, my household probably pays more than the whole rest of the Cypherpunks list in annual taxes...including May, I'd bet.) No, blacks aren't the enemy. I'm not even convinced that the basic notion of the "state" is the enemy. But those who currently adminster the state and utilize it for various ends have morphed themselves, and (most likely) the American State into the defacto enemy that billions of people throughout the world are starting to resent. For that reason I'd like to cut out the cancer that eats my hard-earned resources and utlizes them to benefit a preselected few. -TD PS: Is there any comment that Mr May would like to profer on the issue of having been rejected by some hot black tail back in the day? (ie, aside from "I'd like to see you are your infant children stripped of epidermis and dipped in seasalt") >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:06:29 -0800 > >On Dec 31, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Tim May wrote: >>> >>>Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life >>>(from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and >>>landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or >>>physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as >>>there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. >>>That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking >>>(well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily >>>afford. >> >>Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT "payed for by somebody else's >>taxes." (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for by >>DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore to >>the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and I can >>say precisely what role government contracts played: none.) >> >>Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each year >>to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll plus >>property plus sales plus.....) see the minority layabouts working not one >>_day_ for their "entitlements" and "benefits" and "social services." > >I'm going to elaborate on this point, as there seems to be a growing meme >in the tech culture (especially amongst the anti-free trade, >twentysomething, self-described "geeks") that somehow government built or >paid for technology, business, high tech, etc. > >What built our "system" was essentially a _compact_, an agreement codified >in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even centuries of common law that >a bunch of things would happen: > >-- that interference in the business choices of a business would be minimal > >-- that failing businesses would not be bailed out (and, indeed, none of >the leading companies in 1850 last much beyond 1900, few in business in >1900 are still dominant, etc.) > >-- that owners, employers, etc. and their employees, customers, etc. would >themselves negotiate wages, prices, benefits, etc., without a top-down >order about who might be employed, at what rates, etc. > >(This of course began to change when the socialists assumed power in the >1930s, and then dramatically changed when the Great Society socialists >assumed power in 1961. It then came to be seen as the role of government to >set wages, to force businesses to deal with those they wished not to, to >let debtors off without repaying debts or even having their kneecaps >smashed, etc. This was the start of the Era of Entitlements, when some >ethnic groups decided that reading be for whitey and that they would coast >on freebies paid for by the "suckas" still working.) > >This compact, based essentially on voluntary interaction in trade, >employment, and investment, worked quite well for many decades. This >compact, this way of doing things which is usually called "liberty" or >"laissez faire," was not "built" by government...until relatively recent >times the size of government was small and tax rates for most workers and >investors were low. What made the system work was that the system largely >worked on the "non-initiation of force" principle, which is what begets >voluntary transactions. If a person thought he was not being paid enough, >it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a >business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free >to purchase or not. > >The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both >are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are >popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was >*government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no >government role, and that this makes government intervention in business >justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard >and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the >expense of the "less privileged." > >"You are successful because of the taxes paid by the less-privileged, so >now it is right that you be taxed at high rates so that welfare benefits >can be maintained." is the essential message here. > >This is hokum. Very few U.S. or even European and Asian businesses were >built with public funds. Neither Sony nor Honda, two examples of post-war >successes, were built by MITI (MITI, in fact, frequently criticized Sony >and Honda for the courses they pursued...meanwhile MITI was funding the >now-defunct TRON microprocessor and the Fifth Generation Computer, utterly >missing out on workstations, PCs, modern microprocessors, CAD, routers, and >the Internet). > >None of Intel's achievements, whether the first dynamic RAM (the 1101), the >first EPROM, the first microprocessor, the first single board computer, the >first...., etc., was paid for by any kind of DARPA or DOD or government >grant. In fact, the military was pissed off at us for not developing their >kind of "mil-spec" components, for not bidding on military contracts. We >made our products by selling to those who wanted to buy them. Period. And >we risked our savings by buying stock in the company and others of its >kind. > >Make a list of companies of the past 50 years, in the U.S., Japan, and >Europe, and virtually none of them had significant U.S. funding. Sure, some >of them had a lot of government purchases...aircraft companies, for >example, will almost always end up selling heavily to national governments. >But Boeing beat out Convair (on the 707 vs. 880 race) for very basic >reasons. Likewise, Boeing again "bet the company" on the 747, between 1965 >and 1970. It succeeded, and only partly because of government purchases. >Mostly it was just competency. > >And so on. The best examples are in Silicon Valley, now being taxed at >cumulative rates exceeding 75%. For what? To pay mostly for things they >will not, and cannot, ever benefit from. > >This is one of the reasons Intel and other companies are expanding so >rapidly in other countries, places where the work force is not made up of >increasingly illiterate high school kids, mall rats, and whiggers. In China >and India and Malaysia they have no translation of "reading be for whitey." > >In 30 years America and Europe are going to be in a precarious position. > >--Tim May > > >"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the >people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some >rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no >majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin of the New >York Historical Society, October 7, 1789 _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

2 1

Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

"Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national security state." Yes...that's the thing I don't fully get. If we assume that Mr May made a big chunk of $$$ at Intel, isn't it rather naive of him to assume that the same system that helped make Intel the global $$$-generator it is isn't the same system that keeps black folks quiescent and so on? I think it's doubtful that Intel could have become what it is in any other country in the world. Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life (from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily afford. This doesn't necessarily annhilate his "arguments" or main thesis, but in this light the call for the killing of millions so that he can afford a few more landmines seems perplexing. As for the middle east and US foreign policy, I'd be more convinced if Mr May and others pointed to that as a main reason to stop paying taxes and back out of the system. In other words, that there may or may not be any 'inherent' flaw to a fairly light form of "statism", but that it's defacto application (in the case of the US) is creating a seriously destabilized global political environment, while decreasingly serving (though a piss-poor education system) those that ought to benefit from taxes and spending. (This was why I became interested in "Crypto-Anarchy".) Of course, I'll add the usual boiler-plate notion invoked by physicists, mathematicians, and hard-scientists almost universally, in their heart of hearts: Only mathematics and experimental physics (as a thought system or philisophy) are truly reliable and able to make definitive conclusions about the world...all other so-called systems of thought (including sociology, political 'science', economics and so on) are half-baked hodge podges at best. Therefore, any thought system that has as a corrollary "...and 40 million negros should die..." should immediately be suspect of having been based on a foundation of non-mathematical muck, likely relating to penis envy and getting rejected by some hot black chick Mr May tried to date back in 1957 or whatever. -TD >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:38:04 -0800 > >What's pleasurable about reading the fiction of ideologues like >Tim is the smack-down tone of their prejudices. Fake, fake, >fake. > >Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest >beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and >wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with >the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national >security state. No US institution has been uncontaminated >by the wealth generated by the illusion of US enemies and the >raping of the economy to simulate battle with such fictional >threats, at home and abroad. > >Welfare is puny by comparison, and Tim's castigation of >it is like the master of the house bitching about health needs >of his servants while requiring them to wipe his ass. Standard >nouveau riche conceit which reveals a fear of again being >a poor asswipe himself, the stench of self-loathing inescapable. > >The favorite mindlessness of the ideologue, is to rehash endlessly >comfortable old prejudices, chanting repetitively the same >accusations, avoiding self-criticism in the manner of the >self-righteous, professing of certainty to conceal doubt, >working hard to present an image of confidence, most often >by blaming and attacking easy targets. > >The rich fear the poor, and rightly so, for they know who pays >for their perks. And the answer to this fear is always threats >of violence, the dominant paradigm of those who reap the >most benefits from house rules of the United States. > >Cloaked, as ever, in blind faith in the "Constitution," or another >rigged fat cat document used to fleece the peasants at home >and abroad, based as they always are on justification of the >supremacy of the over-privileged. > >Eveready to shoot those who disagree, send them up the >chimneys, the teenie-bopper ideologue struts mightily >against imaginary demons. > >Wasn't it a leftist who coined Goldwater's most memorable >phrase? Extremists are all alike, full of shit and hatred, their >own worst enemy. Suicide prone, but afraid to go alone. _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

4 4

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret) 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

At 07:48 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. >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? You need to be clear: only governments can censor. Walmart etc can do whatever they want. That's what private property means. You don't have a right to put your bumper sticker on my car (compelled speech, see the 1st), or prohibit me from putting my sticker on my car. (I just drove 400 miles in a car with the US flag upside down and "Fucked" written over it. Its a magnetic sticker I remove when I travel with my pharmaceutical of choice.) TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. >> Fuck censors dead. > >I agree. Well, ok then :-)

4 3

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Harmon Seaver 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:48:21PM -0500, Sunder wrote: > > > > > No, I have offspring. But what makes you think I'm human? > > > Ok, so, you're not human, you're a lunatic. Well, with an emphasis on the "luna" ... > Howl at the moon much lately? > As a matter of fact, yes. Good for the soul, and "what ails ye". Also often a fairly sociable event, at least among my volken. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Tyler Durden 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

James Donald wrote... "You just issued the "sovereignty" rationalization for Saddam's crimes," Hey...I just heard that a country that's even MORE free than the US has decided to liberate us from our oppressors in Washington DC. Don't stand on your balcony to cheer for them as they roll through your town, however...some of the "instigators" that support the old regime have been causing trouble, so you're bound to mistaken for one of them and get shot. Just remember: this is so you can be FREE.... -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:36:01 -0800 > > -- >On 30 Dec 2003 at 22:49, Tim May wrote: > > I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. > >You are real close right now. > >You just issued the "sovereignty" rationalization for Saddam's >crimes, and your peculiar recollection of the speakers at those >Vietnam war demonstrations sounds like a marxist's >recollection, and of course theire are your regular call for >various groups to be sent up the chimney's, which presupposes >some benevolent vanguard group wise enough and virtuous enough >to identify which individuals belong to these undesirable >categories and need to go up the chimneys. > >It is not that you never were close to being a communist, it is >that you have never been close to repenting, except on tax and >spend issues. > >Apart from taxes, you are still as commie as ever. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > n3CKSWZU6+m1x4nkwGwK0eRrgkUtI5TMsXWBKz5E > 4FWnzNBI3XNIbvyHNKS2VTD1t7nF94SM3amrrE8Lu _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

1 0

Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by Tim May 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:30 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: > My first thought on reading this was that it was from > The Onion, but its real. > > I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, > as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. > > Well, they've been working on the mountains of skulls in Iraq (of course, we have to destroy the country in order to save the country), so going after eyeglass wearers, the college-educated, and those who watch PBS is the logical next step. Today's news is that analysts are saying a successful prosecution of Saddam on "war crimes" is going to be nearly impossible, given that he was a sovereign leader attacked by a foreign power and that none of the "WMD" were found (not that having WMD has been grounds for war crimes convictions, else the U.S., U.S.S.R., P.R.C., U.K., France, Zionist Entity, and numerous other states would have been prosecuted.). So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) --Tim May, who owns both a Farmer's Almanac and a Rand-McNally Atlas (apparently the illiterates who recorded the Maximum Leader's thoughts on the dangers of "almanacs" may have gotten the two confused, we are now hearing, and the order for the droids to search for "almanacs" apparently got confused...so now they're looking for evildoers who have either of these banned books)

2 1

Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by whellman＠mail.utexas.edu 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

Hrm, apologies for the piss-poor formatting (or so it appears to me) and lack of subject line in my last post (reproduced below with better formatting (I hope)). I'm stuck using a webmail interface for the time being and I've not quite gotten used to it yet. Wes Hellman >Tim May wrote: >>So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will >>make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" >>before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. >Wouldn't that be completely obvious? If Saddam just happened to die of "natural >causes" it seems to me like anyone with half a brain would be able to figure >out what probably happened. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly, but I think >that when he was captured they said he was healthy. Regardless of whether or not >that was actually the case, if it is in fact the official position, it seems >like it would create troubles for a "natural death" scenario. >What would seem more likely to me is a Jack Ruby-style assassination. US forces >let Iraqi security escort Saddam from prison to the beginning of his trial, for >a nice photo-op. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, these Iraqi guards are still >adjusting and what have you, so oops, somehow a vengeful individual gets >through and shoots Saddam in front of all the cameras. Sure, we would have >rather had him tried in a just court, but he /did/ make a lot of enemies over >the years, and you know how that works... >Hell, they might not even have to explicitly hire anyone to do it. Just make >sure security is kind of slack and let word of this slip out, and the problem >takes care of itself...

1 0

None
by whellman＠mail.utexas.edu 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will > make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" > before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. Wouldn't that be completely obvious? If Saddam just happened to die of "natural causes" it seems to me like anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out what probably happened. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly, but I think that when he was captured they said he was healthy. Regardless of whether or not that was actually the case, if it is in fact the official position, it seems like it would create troubles for a "natural death" scenario. What would seem more likely to me is a Jack Ruby-style assassination. US forces let Iraqi security escort Saddam from prison to the beginning of his trial, for a nice photo-op. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, these Iraqi guards are still adjusting and what have you, so oops, somehow a vengeful individual gets through and shoots Saddam in front of all the cameras. Sure, we would have rather had him tried in a just court, but he /did/ make a lot of enemies over the years, and you know how that works... Hell, they might not even have to explicitly hire anyone to do it. Just make sure security is kind of slack and let word of this slip out, and the problem takes care of itself... Wes Hellman

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret) 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

At 10:52 AM 12/27/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >> 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.) >> >> >To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. My "Handbook of Regular Patterns" (Stevens) includes Swastikas under the obvious symmetry group. Do I need a license?

1 0

swastika
by Harmon Seaver 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

Ah, now I finally understand why the PRC is so down on the Falun Gong. 8-) http://www.falundafa.org/eng/falun.htm -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

unsubscribe cypherpunks
by Adam Lydick 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

unsubscribe cypherpunks

1 0

Re: FW: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by Freematt357＠aol.com 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/30/2003 10:36:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, ptrei(a)rsasecurity.com writes: > My first thought on reading this was that it was from > The Onion, but its real. > > I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, > as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. > > Peter Trei > You know if the "terrorists" didn't know they could use an almanac to plan attacks, they do now. Regards, Matt-

1 0

FW: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by Trei, Peter 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

My first thought on reading this was that it was from The Onion, but its real. I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Peter Trei -----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:03 PM To: ip(a)v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers December 29, 2003 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 7:43 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning. In a bulletin sent Christmas Eve to about 18,000 police organizations, the FBI said terrorists may use almanacs ``to assist with target selection and pre-operational planning.'' It urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways. ``The practice of researching potential targets is consistent with known methods of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that seek to maximize the likelihood of operational success through careful planning,'' the FBI wrote. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bulletin this week and verified its authenticity. ``For local law enforcement, it's just to help give them one more piece of information to raise their suspicions,'' said David Heyman, a terrorism expert for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. ``It helps make sure one more bad guy doesn't get away from a traffic stop, maybe gives police a little bit more reason to follow up on this.'' The FBI noted that use of almanacs or maps may be innocent, ``the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities.'' But it warned that when combined with suspicious behavior -- such as apparent surveillance -- a person with an almanac ``may point to possible terrorist planning.'' ``I don't think anyone would consider us a harmful entity,'' said Kevin Seabrooke, senior editor of The World Almanac. He said the reference book includes about a dozen pages out of its 1,000 pages total listing the world's tallest buildings and bridges but includes no diagrams or architectural schematics. ``It's stuff that's widely available on the Internet,'' he said. The publisher for The Old Farmers Almanac said Monday terrorists would probably find statistical reference books more useful than the collections of Americana in his famous publication of weather predictions and witticisms. ``While we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate,'' publisher John Pierce said. The FBI said information typically found in almanacs that could be useful for terrorists includes profiles of cities and states and information about waterways, bridges, dams, reservoirs, tunnels, buildings and landmarks. It said this information is often accompanied by photographs and maps. The FBI urged police to report such discoveries to the local U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-FBI-Almanacs.html?ex=1073745956& ei=1&en=04d038b602802322 Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

1 0

unsub from lne
by Harmon Seaver 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

Hmm, maybe Eric needs to undo his spam filter so people can unsub from lne.com. I just tried to, but it was rejected as undeliverable "spam". Tried sending it thru a remailer but don't know if majordomo will go for that. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

4 7

Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project
by Steve Schear 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3324883.stm Adam Back is part of this team, I think. Similar approach to Camram/hahscash. Memory-based approaches have been discussed. Why hasn't Camram explored them? steve BTW, Penny Black stamp was only used briefly. It was the Penny Red which was used for decades. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

6 6

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