December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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