December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

None Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the DataBasix Gang (was: Re: Remailer hating Nazis)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > >I'm familiar with the role of Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> and that > >of his DataBasix associates Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> and Billy > >McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> in getting the Mailmasher > >and Huge Cajones remailers shut down. Jeff Burchell posted a public > >expose' of their harassment to Usenet back in June, apparently catching the > >DataBasix folks off-guard. But what's the story with Paul Pomes? What has > >he done? > > Paul Pomes was complaining about Jeff Burchell's huge cajones remailer to Jeff > Burchell's upstream and employers about the same time the rest of the Databasix > gang was doing it. Paul Pomes appears to be a part of the Databasix gang. It's sort of ironic that these anti-privacy, anti-anonymity Nazi wannabes complain about remailers which give their users privacy, then somehow expect that their own complaints will be kept hidden. I rather syspect that Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Paul Pomes were rather shocked when Jeff Burchell decided to tell the whole story (unfortunately AFTER shutting down the Huge Cajones remailer). Maybe the next time Gary, Linda, or Paul send a remailer operator a complaint, the operator will know what to expect next. I'm wondering if that's at least part of what's behind the faux spam-baiting that's underway, with messages to varios MMF, MLM, and alt.sex.* NGs whose title and body consist of randomly- chosen words, followed by a list of bogus e-mail addresses in the body. The thing that's not so random is the high percentage of words that are related to DataBasix, such as "DataBasix", "Burnore", and "Wotan". I'm almost waiting for Gary Burnore to give the remailer and mail2news operators a "helpful" suggestion that they could curb most of this "abuse" by simply blocking any anonymous posts containing any of those three keywords. <g> Or perhaps he's done so and politely been turned down. Perhaps the next wave of attacks on remailers will not consist of attempts to shut them down altogether but to progressively cripple them by getting certain features disabled, one by one. This seems to have already started. The strategy seems to be to fabricate a form of "abuse", anonymously through remailers, for which the seemingly "logical" solution is to disable a certain feature. This has already proven successful with header pasting, for example. Now you can't post to Usenet and set the From: address to that of your own 'nym. I'm not even certain that you can set a Reply-To: address any more. If the "camel" can get his nose under the tent and convince operators to start filtering on the *CONTENT* of the Subject: line or body of usenet posts, the anti-privacy nuts will have scored a major victory. In fact, from reading Jeff Burchell's posts, it looks like Gary and his DataBasux-ers had initially convinced Jeff to do exactly that. But, in a symbolic victory for freedom of speech, he removed those filters for a week before he finally shut down Huge Cajones altogether. > >Perhaps the best thing that can be done with people like Burnore is to put > >together an FAQ about their tactics, similar to what his "fans" have done > >for the "Rev." Steve Winter. Then when Burnore tries to stir up trouble by > >first fabricating anonymous "abuse" and then demanding that it either be > >stopped and the culprit(s) identified (knowing in advance that's > >impossible), or else that the remailer be shut down, someone can forward > >that FAQ to the remailer's upstream provider, or whoever is being pressured > >to pull the plug. And if Paul Pomes engages in the same dishonest tactics, > >that needs to be done with him as well. > > Gary Burnore had a mongo page at http://www.netscum.net/burnorg0.html. > So did Paul Pomes, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the Databasix gang. > Too bad it's down for now, but it'll be back. It's already back, for the time being. The new URL is: http://www.spambusters.dyn.ml.org/www.netscum.net/burnorg0.htm I'll go look for Paul Pomes' page at that site. Thanks for the tip! Let's see how long that site stays in operation before the self-styled "Thought Police" attempt to shut it down. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

2 1

Re: cryptx spam - des-based program.
by Ian Grigg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart said: > I got spammed by someone selling Cryptx, a DES-based encryption program. Sheez, not only spam, but perverting our good name! Cryptix is good strong stuff, they are simply hoping to confuse customers by dropping a vowel. -- iang systemics.com FP: 1189 4417 F202 5DBD 5DF3 4FCD 3685 FDDE on pgp.com

4 5

Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Wow. First time I've ever been personally accused of being "a major reason for the downward spiral of society." --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:53:27 -0500 From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm(a)ibm.net> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Why porn must be stopped at all costs..... ALL: I've forgotten how long I've been on this email list. Maybe too long. Try as I might, I cannot forget standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building with my husband and 10 year old daughter in the freezing drizzle. I really thought we could make a difference, standing there with our banner and signs, one of which read, "DON'T SACRIFICE MY CHILD ON THE ALTAR OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT." Stupid me. As the saying goes...we've come a long way, baby. As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns on me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric. It's nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan. Don't you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of society? Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower them. Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be taken from someone. Unfortunately, that someone is the parent. I have to ask myself just how many on this list have children. Not many, I would say. Someone on this list, I forget who, has made numerous attempts at convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to children. It is exactly at this point that I must draw a line. Studies have shown that an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a second, within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in the brain. Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in a child. So, keep protecting your porn-induced orgasms. That's exactly what happened with the Hitler youth, etc... After all, I'm sure it does help to blur the lines of reality. ===================== Please PRINT THIS OUT and save for later reference. Rules number 1 through 7 have already been put into effect. Rule number 8 is currently being implemented. Numbers 9 and 10 are already in the beginning phases. If you're not yet convinced that you are contributing to the ruination of America, I would hope you will be by the time you finish reading this. Paul and Jodi Hoffman Weston, Florida "When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side", I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already..." --Adolph Hitler, speaking about the schools and their indoctrination of the Hilterjugend (Hitler Youth Corps). ================================================== LENIN'S BLUEPRINT FOR WORLD DOMINATION These 'Rules' are meant to be a loose parody of the Ten Commandments, and are particularly emphasized at the Lenin School of Political Warfare. They are practical rules that are being implemented all over the world -- with special emphasis on the strongest foe of Communism, the United States. Study these Rules very carefully. And then reflect upon what is happening in our society right now. Perhaps this list will provide answers to some of the questions that seemed --until now -- to have no answers. Lenin himself said that it didn't matter that three-fourths of the world be destroyed, just so the remnant were good Communists. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #1: CORRUPT THE NATION'S YOUTH THE RULE: The future of any nation lies with its youth. So corrupt them; since religion teaches moral virtue, erode the churches and divert the young from religion. Make them interested only in themselves. Get them involved in drugs, alcohol, and sex. Get them addicted to privileges and rights. THE REALITY: Many of today's youth are grossly overprivileged, committed to fashion, physically flabby and lazy, and mentally undisciplined. If they don't want to do something, they simply will not do it. And if they want to do something to indulge themselves, no law or moral standard will hold them back. They feel that they are entitled to the 'good things in life,' not as a reward for hard work, but as an expected gift, to be received without effort and even without asking. And where do they learn such slovenliness? Just spend two hours in front of a television watching a random selection of situation comedies to find out. Unfortunately, kids who fit the above description usually model themselves after their parents. Such parasitic habits would not be tolerated in the former Soviet Union. The prevailing attitude among today's pampered American youth is one of nihilism ( I am nothing, life has no meaning, I don't care) -- and for good reason. Over 75 percent of America's high school boys now think it's acceptable to rape a girl at any age. Wonder why anymore? RULE FOR REVOLUTION #2: CONTROL THE MASS MEDIA THE RULE: Since the media shapes the minds of the people, infiltrate it and control it. Dominate television, radio, and the newspapers, and you control the minds of the people. THE REALITY: It is quite obvious that traditional values are considered ridiculous to all branches of the media. Christians, clergy, and even Christ Himself are held up as objects of scorn and mocking laughter by television, motion pictures, radio, artists, and songwriters. In the place of decency and morality, a constant stream of Left-wing values is presented. Homosexuality, abortion, violence, and contempt for all parental and governmental authority is the prevailing order of the day. A particularly powerful form of media is represented by the so-called "arts community." Some latter-day "artists" actually make a pretty good living by mocking traditional values and Christianity. Consider Andres Sorrano's "Piss Christ" (a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine) or Robert Mapplethorp's photos, which include one showing a bullwhip protruding out of his rear end. This media bias is not a fantasy of a few right-wing whiners; this is cold, hard reality. The extreme leftward tilt of the media has been documented by impartial observers and study managers, and has even been acknowledged by the press itself. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #3: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE THE RULE: Cause the people to become disinterested in their own government and in world affairs. Get them to feel disenfranchised. Get them to ridicule and lose respect for government leaders. THE REALITY: Americans now vote at a lower rate than at any other time in our history. Every American knows how disenfranchised and powerless the average voter feels. The media constantly trumpet instances of hypocrisy and corruption in our government, despite the fact that we have the most open and honest political system in the world. The United States Supreme Court has wrested much of the State's power from them with judicial activism. This means that the people's representatives at the State level -- and therefore the people themselves -- have much less of a voice in their own government. On the state level, when people or local legislators finally manage to pass a conservative law regarding abortion, pornography or homosexuality, it is invariably challenged by Neo-liberal groups and struck down by higher courts, leading voters to ask themselves "Why bother participating in the process? We have no real voice in how things are run anyway!" RULE FOR REVOLUTION #4: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC BICKERING THE RULE: Divide the people into hostile groups. Divide them against themselves by getting them to squabble about inconsequential social issues. THE REALITY: Never before have so many trivial issues captured so much air time. Major construction and other projects are halted due to sometimes trivial environmental concerns. Critical research which uses animals is halted or impeded by animal-rights groups. Sodomy rights, old- growth timber, anti-fur, and dozens of other Neoliberal causes (and the conservative backlash) cause more friction among our nation's people than in any other nation in the world. Meanwhile, the real issues of importance are either entirely neglected or paid weak lip service: Crime, poverty, hunger and, beneath all of them, the moral disintegration of our country. All of these have lead to despair among those affected and encourage violent change at any cost, with no thought given to the kind of change being fought for. Naturally, when conservatives react to Neoliberal initiatives with concrete action, they are painted as agents of "divisiveness" and "disunity," further leading to the impression that American society is composed entirely of squabbling special-interest groups. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #5: SEIZE POWER, THEN CENSOR THE RULE: Always preach true democracy, but seize power as completely and ruthlessly as possible. Vigorously censor viewpoints that conflict with ours. THE REALITY: If the slightest complaint against pornography in our schools is raised by concerned parents, People for the American Way (PAW), the ACLU, and other left-wing groups instantly shout "censorship!" But they say not a word when it is pointed out that the Bible and all mention of morality in textbooks have been ruthlessly hounded from the schools. Religion has literally disappeared from our children's textbooks. The media relentlessly suppress the reasoning behind conservative and traditional viewpoints while reporting their version of the facts and claiming "impartiality." Artists' demand that the people pay for their atrocities. When the people balk, the 'artists' whine about censorship. All traditional groups and viewpoints are fair game for ridicule; yet when was the last time you saw any 'artist' making fun of sodomites or women? In other words, the censorship is all one-way. And the "pluralism" valued so much by the Neoliberals is entirely unilateral (one way only). Communist atrocities which have killed more than 150 million all over the world are glossed over or ignored, but the most trivial international action by the United States brings immediate and forceful condemnation. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #6: BANKRUPT THE GOVERNMENT THE RULE: Encourage government extravagance on every front. Get the government deeply into debt. Get the people dependent on government by providing for their every need. This destroys their independence, motivation and strength. THE REALITY: The United States is flat broke. It is the number one debtor nation on earth, with a deficit of more than $5,000,000,000,000 (five trillion dollars). Social programs pay for everything from abortion and homosexual-run "sensitivity training sessions" to comprehensive sex education. We are the most truly Socialistic society on earth, a nation of people addicted to entitlements, unable to break away from the ample government teat, people who scream at the top of our lungs if any cutbacks in services are proposed. And yet, the Neoliberals want to spend even more. They want us to fund family benefits for sodomites, a comprehensive health care plan that will inevitably turn into a Britain-like socialized horror, and "art" that is blatantly obscene. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #7: DESTROY NATIONAL VALUES THE RULE: Cause a breakdown of indigenous national values. Destroy all tradition in preparation for the bright dawn of glorious Socialism. Ridicule religion, patriotism, and honesty. The people must be led to have only one interest: Themselves! THE REALITY: >From the public schools to the pulpits of Christian "churches," moralrelativism and situational ethics are the rule of the day. The highest goods are compassion, nonjudgmentalism, and tolerance. Any individual weakness is treated as a problem of society, not of the person, and this relieves everyone of the responsibility of improving themselves. Why should there be any effort to take responsibility for one's own faults when "society" is so conveniently ready to take the blame for all one's sins? Society has made the sacrifice. So criminals, addicts, alcoholics, child molesters, wife beaters, and others can always blame their problems on society. We have truly become the "me generation." RULE FOR REVOLUTION #8: ATTACK GUN OWNERSHIP THE RULE: Control or register all firearms if possible. This will make their confiscation much easier when the time comes for revolution. THE REALITY: When the Communist Revolution occurs in the United States, the last thing the Red Armies want to face is ten million determined and well-trained guerrillas (gun owners) taking potshots at them from around every corner. The Communists don't want the equivalent of ten Afghanistans in the United States. Although the objective of inhibiting gun ownership has not yet been completely met, there are dozens of bills and initiatives being submitted all over the country for compulsory gun registration, permitting, and other controls. The Second Amendment is disregarded entirely as Neoliberals trumpet for all guns to be totally banned. After all, they say, thousands die from gun-related accidents and crimes every year. They fail to see that criminals will always get guns, a parallel to their own argument stating that, if abortion becomes illegal, women will still get abortions. RULES FOR REVOLUTION #9 AND #10: UNDERMINE THE ARMED FORCES THE RULES: Destroy the reputation of the armed forces. Cause the young men to perceive military duty as distasteful and ridiculous. Fight registration of any kind, and encourage defections within the ranks. Cause the people to desire peace at any cost. Cause them to oppose any and all of their government's actions regarding the strengthening or use of their armed forces. THE REALITY: Our country's armed forces consume a vast percentage of our gross national product. We possess the best and most advanced weapons systems in the world. But our armed forces are a joke for two reasons: (1) they are completely restrained in their actions by a hostile Congress, and (2) the armed forces have been saddled with such a bad reputation that it is virtually impossible to fill the ranks with volunteers, even in the new and streamlined armed services. Where serving in the armed forces was once considered patriotic and honorable (as it was in the former Soviet Union), it is now looked upon as foolish and 'anti-progressive.' Servicemen are ridiculed and denigrated at every turn. People say that, if you can't make it on the outside, you wind up in the armed forces. Every serviceman is considered to be a useless gobbler of tax money. FINAL REALITY: WELCOME TO AMERIKA, COMRADES. ================================================================ The 'Rules for Revolution' described here are the most important actions that can be taken to weaken a country in order to prepare it for armed attack or a skillful coup d'etat. These rules are summaries that are extracted from a number of books written by professional revolutionaries from the former Soviet Union, from other Communist-dominated countries, and from the United States itself. They are most concisely summarized in the 2,225 page, three-volume set Lenin: Selected Works , distributed in English by Progress Publishers, 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow. These general principles, dedicated to one of the most famous revolutionaries of all time, Vladimir Lenin, are studied by every Communist political scientist, and by every ambassador or emissary of any type who leaves the former Soviet Union. They are also studied in great detail by many Americans. -- Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 1304 SW 160th Avenue, Suite 122 Weston, Florida 33326 Phone: (954) 349-0366 Fax: (954) 349-0361

20 34

Re: your mail
by Joel O'Connor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I traveled by train all the way to Florida from Rhode Island once. 24 hours straight it took man and I swore I would never do it again. 40-50 people per car and basically one bathroom per car. Come morning time man, the lines for the bathrooms stretched out of the cars. Screw that, I could have flown and made it in 3 hours. Plus it's easier for the gov't to stop trains and search them, I'd rather go with the flight. ---Chip Mefford <cmefford(a)video.avwashington.com> wrote: > > > > Where possible, > > fuk a bunch of airlines anyway. > > Travel by train is a lot more enjoyable, relaxing, fun. > Folks that travel by train could fly, but would > preferr to enjoy the ride, cause it ain't no cheaper, > > except, !! > > you can pay with cash and show no id and go > where you would like in the lower 48. > > anonymously. > > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Anonymous wrote: > > > At 02:43 PM 10/26/98 -0400, Robert A. Costner wrote: > > >At 01:15 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: > > >>9. "I do not posses any government-issued photo ID and thus cannot travel > > >>to the location stated in the subpoena. > > > > > >ROTFLMAO... > > > > > >This last one is too funny to not use. I don't have a subpoena, but I can > > >just see myself writing back explaining this and requesting assistance with > > >a plane flight to solve this problem. > > > > Actually you don't need state id to fly, legally. But the airlines will > > hassle you and not put your bags aboard til you are. There > > are references on the net to flying without state id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == Ogre bounces like sonar. . .Peace. Ogre _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

4 Horseman not so bad..
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Chip Mefford wrote: >> but some peope are scared of >> drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. >> To oppose it we need to reduce fear. > >Thats the most interesting POV I've ever heard >of in these discussions, seems like for the most part, >we counter fear arguments with other fear arguments, >Never saw this before. Bears more examination. Right. The new Happy Net campaign. Druggies.. why, they're friendly enough to be elected officials in such peaks of civilization as D.C. and L.A. And the more successful recreational pharmaceutical merchants are luxury-car and mobile telecomm early adopters! Pedophiles. Well, consider that Kennedy and his babysitter.. You'd still vote for him, right? Terrorists. Well, shoot, everyone needs to express themselves some times. One day you're a terrorist, the next you're boosting the POTUS's ratings a few points with a handshake.

2 1

Spy News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NYT reports today on a new book, "Blind Man's Bluff," which reports on the US's success at placing surveillance devices on Soviet subsea communications cables around the world. With much technical detail about how it was done, beginning with the simple but overlooked idea of locating shoreline warning signs about undersea cables then tracking from there. The devices, some up to 20 feet long for housing elaborate processing equipment, captured electronic emanations, thereby eluding detection measures aimed at physical taps. One was found by the Soviets but most were not and much information on the program is still classified. AT&T and Bell labs built many of them. The US Navy will not comment on the book, citing national security restrictions. The Times also has an obituary for Tommy Flowers, the gent who guided construction of Colossus machines at Bletchley Park to break top-level German codes during WW II. There's still interesting debate about the Paul Dore story of picking up signals from space, which he first thought were from aliens, but which seems more likely to be from a surveillance satellite, and possibly from a type not publicly known. Not enough data yet to show that the story is not a hoax, or disinformation by US/UK spy agencies, but it has led to informative discussion of what such signals could indicate. Notes on this at: http://jya.com/project415.htm More commentary welcome, here or privately. Some will recall a vigorous discussion here a few years back about listening in on US undersea cables, commencing at the landfall points (dense packs of them here in the NYC area), many handily marked on coastal seafaring maps. Or, for more up-to-date technology, setting a receiver to point in the direction of those on TLA bases (needing an x-ray of the concealing radome).

3 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous Sender 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. > > We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. > > No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. > Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html "It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story." Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as "propaganda" any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

1 0

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva > convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on > this field from another country commenting on the issue > stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In > either of these interviews were there any discussion on > whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what > clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the > impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't > fully appropriate. If you were watching the BBC, you would have thought most of the Iraqi population were outraged by his capture. I think you are suffering from New York Times syndrome "If even the New York Times admits that the kulaks are happy and prosperous under Stalin, that shows you how great the Soviet Union really must be when you discount all that capitalist propaganda." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lh9C/c3J2U0bybWlK/P0f5hnnZT1z+2QEe1K9Ev2 4cVVWOLkCVsvYQG/u75vRB5xVrL2GjBeaEl+j6x07

6 6

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are >> "unlawful enemy combattants". > > I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's > judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. > I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. >> >> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus >> they >> should be released, no? > > Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer > to > your question is no. > > The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the > murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not > according > to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with > the United States. > Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. > Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama > bin > Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". Same in Japan. So what's different this time? > >> If they are terrorists and they have proof of >> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should >> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since >> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). > > Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. > I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? > Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? > Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those "primitive" cultures in the middle east). > The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to > defend > the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. > Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. > In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce > the > law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with > responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest." If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. >> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged >> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually >> convict them? > > By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide > that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. > > In what war has this been common practice? See above. >> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. >> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to >> be >> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I >> might require. This right has not been given. > > What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact > their governments in this manner? > The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say "Human being" instead. > What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer > that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held > as > a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people. > >> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US >> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly >> violated >> as well. > > What's so clear about this? Do you actually have any knowledge at all > of customs and practices in countries in the region? Do you care at > all > about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices? I > think not. It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other countries, see my text above. >> >> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have >> been >> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least >> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did >> anything wrong. > > Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo? > If > so, who are they? > There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever happened to him? >>> >> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans >> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not >> happening? > > Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back. > > Hello? > Perhaps you just look for the easy way out? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0 bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk =aXZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0