December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: DBS, Privacy, Money Laundering nonsense.
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:57 PM -0500 on 11/13/98, Black Unicorn wrote: > If only we could be rid of this pesky cash would could eliminate organized > crime forever. Reminds me of something Vinnie Moscaritolo, my alter ego and Samoan attorney, once said. "'If we could just pass a few more laws' we could all be criminals." Nonetheless, I think that DBS will be much more about economics than privacy or even law. The contrapositive of Unicorn's excellent rant is that the market for money "laundering" and financial privacy is a rediculuously small fraction of the market for economic efficiency. That digital bearer settlement gives us more or less perfect financial privacy if done under certain conditions is much more a happy accident than anything else, just like the cheapest way to do a transaction prior to blind signatures and hash collisions was with book-entry transactions instead of paper bearer certificates. I suppose it *might* turn out that you really *can* do an instantaneously executing, clearing, and settling on-line realtime book-entry transaction, for everything from pico- to quadridollars, and it would be cheaper, both macroeconomically and microeconomically, than a digital bearer one, but I just don't think it's possible at all. And, of course, we wouldn't have coach fare to Cleveland without a bunch of "fanatics" out there, prattling away about slipping the surly bounds of earth, the joy of flight, and all that... ;-). Thank god for the "fanatics", I say, but let's make sure we pay attention to Bill Bradley's adage that it's bad luck to be behind at the end of the game. Whatever is cheapest while still remaining a functional bearer protocol wins, in other words. And, in my book, "functional" means "functionally anonymous". It's just cheaper that way. Having a plane that actually flies is way cheaper than one which just goes fast down the runway, or even one which scoots along nicely off the ground, but only in ground effect. Cheers, Bob Hettinga -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQEVAwUBNk0f7cUCGwxmWcHhAQErBQgAhaFscqaknL0EMnsiKMWYgoHntw88JE2Z 11K8/oyoG/dX8eus5Wqnh05eVY8JWGQ9Fu3C2uXPZbZCa5wh7tjrmIcWOTDgx8kC Sz11IJJLdcWrdTPw7a1sf/WwhyG4f7NVlyVGNqMVuGrBjImsC5TtG2yU39DVME08 ZR3bVdn6egcCDpve+E7RQ0LYWDHxitxYV3RIaCG/wj9zp5JrMPTAvIgbT+J62T8s bYUNJyf7XQnkcT5275VLAzFYy+3KBRuyp9k6uIhBaBGKBNRUw/wBwTB8NoBMPcd8 AT3276SNz1oBA+Z/R0JPRBrRkAfio2o3DFIXoC5NY49ikpBuyOEQHg== =R0aY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.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

New Electronic Financial Services Links
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: johnmuller(a)mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:11:55 -0800 To: e-carm(a)c3po.kc-inc.net, dbs(a)philodox.com, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: John Muller <johnmuller(a)earthlink.net> Subject: New Electronic Financial Services Links Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ New links that will shortly be added to the ABA Joint Subcommittee on Electronic Financial Services Web site (http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/efss) in no particular order: Dept. of Commerce request for input on data privacy principles "safe harbor" http://www.ita.doc.gov/ecom/menu.htm SEC announces 23 enforcement actions for Internet stock fraud http://www.sec.gov/news/netfraud.htm RISKS Digest Vol. 20 No. 6, Dan Geer - "Risk Management is Where the Money Is" http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.06.html European Commission proposes a directive on distance selling of financial services http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/finances/consumer/891.htm European Commission proposes a framework for the European financial services sector to facilitate cross-border operation http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/finances/general/fsen.htm European Commission press release: the EU Data Protection Directive takes effect http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/media/dataprot/news/925.htm Federal Reserve announcement on enhanced settlement services http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/press/BoardActs/1998/19981103/ Federal Reserve announcement of reduction in fees for electronic payment services http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/press/BoardActs/1998/19981104/ OTS policy statement on privacy of customer information http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/77879.html Journal of Information Law and Technology issue on Globalisation and E-commerce http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/issue/1998_3/default.htm Papers from the 21st National Information Systems Security Conference http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1998/papers.html BCI - Northern Trust 2nd Circuit case under UCC Article 4A and common law seeking a return of funds from an electronic funds transfer http://www.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test3 /97-7633.opn.html Hogan Systems v. Cybresource 5th Circuit decision on copyright and trade secret claims arising out of third party contractor use of software licensed to a bank http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9710645CV0.html FTC comments on proposed UCC Article 2B http://www.ftc.gov/be/v980032.htm The ERISA Industry Committee comments to the IRS on the use of new technologies in retirement plans http://www.eric.org/testimony/technologies.htm Council of Europe - model contract clauses on transborder data flows http://www.coe.fr/dataprotection/ectype.htm E*Trade invests in International Securities Exchange, an electronic options exchange in development http://www.etrade.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+Home?gxml=pr111098c.html Electronic Markets Vol. 11 No. 3 on electronic contracting http://www.electronicmarkets.org/netacademy/publications.nsf/all_pk/929 Adrian McCullagh article on Trust in Electronic Commerce http://www.acs.org.au/president/1998/past/io98/etrust.htm CheckFree and others form the Electronic Banking Association http://www.e-banking.org/ John Muller johnmuller(a)earthlink.net "Things are not as they seem, neither are they otherwise" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.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

DBS, Privacy, Money Laundering nonsense.
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: "Black Unicorn" <unicorn(a)schloss.li> To: <tboyle(a)rosehill.net>, "dbs" <dbs(a)philodox.com> Subject: DBS, Privacy, Money Laundering nonsense. Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:57:51 -0600 Keywords: dbs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ tboyle(a)rosehill.net comments: [...] > But I simply cannot comprehend the breadth of the agreement > on this dbs conference, and depth of conviction, that DBS money > should be designed with the **deliberate objective** of being > untraceable, for purposes of law enforcement or taxation. In the case of some DBS advocates you are overstating the matter. In the case of others, vastly understating it. > I have a lot of respect for you guys' intellect but I think > you're wrong on two fundamental points: > > 1. Rule of law. Money laundering is a critical piece in > organized crime. The democratic countries have banking laws. > Do you think these laws should be followed, or NOT? (Scurrying > of feet as all the DBS readers avoid answering.) Well let's examine this. The view that all democratic countries have banking laws really begs the question. "What are the differences between said laws." I can tell you with solid authority, they are many. I've often repeated this story here and elsewhere. It's all a matter of public record. Set the way-back-machine to just after Reagan has entered office. Ole Ron began to crack down on tax evasion and in particular offshore havens. Taxes would be cut, it was reasoned, but only if loopholes were filled and evaders rooted out. (Those of us old enough to remember might even recall nodding at the sense of it). This policy was particular hard on certain Caribbean nations. This was the time of operation Tradewinds (search for it in the congressional record) and other IRS black projects where the IRS actually violated local law to spy on foreign banks even going so far as to drug guards, steal the briefcases of banking executives, perform unwarranted searches, bribe foreign officials and all manner of nonsense to root out tax evaders which might also be U.S. citizens. For a long while there was a project which opened and Xeroxed all the incoming mail at JFK which appeared to originate from offshore havens. This wasn't in the 50's mind you, but the 80s. It was acts like these which prompted the Swiss to strengthen their banking secrecy during the Second World War. Just another day in the park in the U.S. Just recently this year Mexico nearly indicted several U.S. law officials for breaking Mexican law during the investigation of several Mexican banks. Clearly the practice hasn't abated much in the last 15 years.. (Note also that today all these methods (except for drugging guards maybe) have their legal equivalents in the United States, which is in itself a powerful statement). This continued for some time back when Ron was at the helm until the United States finally began to threaten to revoke the U.S. charters of certain banks it considered uncooperative. At this point a visitor, unannounced, flew into D.C. and literally dropped by the White House with no press coverage or fanfare at all in the late evening. That visitor was Margaret Thatcher and she proceeded to explain to Ron over the course of a few hours that if he kept it up many of the British Protectorates would literally have their economies crippled. Literally overnight the matter was dropped and the offshore centers left to quietly continue their business. So much for democratic countries with universal ideas about banking law, or the rule of "law and order" in banking regulation. This is but one example. So: Rule of Law - means little in the global-political scheme of things Democratic Countries Have Banking Laws - none of which are consistent or consistently applied Money Laundering is a Key Piece of Organized Crime - This begs a definition of Money Laundering. "Concealing the proceeds of a criminal act" sounds legitimate, but consider that it has been held to apply to a store clerk who sold food stamps for cash and deposited the proceeds in his personal (non-anonymous) checking account: Indicted in Federal Court for Money Laundering with a maximum possible term of 35 years. (This is a prosecutorial tactic to get a guilty plea to the basic theft charge). Consider also that third parties often take it on the chin with the wide definition currently applied. Case in point: Ma and Pa travel agency innocently accepts a deposit from notorious attorney of drug dealer. Their entire holding account is seized including the deposits of some 700 other potential travelers. After 7 years of fighting the seizure, the money is finally returned, without interest. (Effectively halfing the value of the funds). The business is ruined, its reputation in tatters. Ma and Pa fight it out in bankruptcy, lose their house, most of their retirement proceeds, etc. In the process this case sets the precedent that any amount of illicit funds ($1) deposited in any size account ($500 million) will render the entire account liable to seizure and permit it to be held in lieu of forfeiture hearings. That can go on for 7 years or so. Money which is "laundered" has its title literally revert to the U.S. Treasury. This means third parties who innocently accept these funds are liable for their return, even if they are passed on in the course of business. Beginning to seem silly? Money laundering is an invented offense. It's definition in the United States has grown so broad so as to be laughable, if not so frightening. Do not think that these are isolated incidents. So, money laundering in its commonly understood sense might be key to organized crime, but what passes for money laundering in the United States has little to do with it. Myth: Money Laundering laws have a serious impact on organized crime. This is increasingly nonsense. The United States spends close to $22,000.00 to seize $1.00 of illicit funds. Money Laundering today is extremely sophisticated and enforcement doesn't catch the drug dealers, it catches professional money launderers. Today if you are a drug lord you drop $30 million in cash with a professional launderer who cuts you a "clean" check for 85% of that figure or so on the spot and takes the risk of laundering the funds on his own. Myth: Money Laundering can be detected accurately and effectively and leads to drug and organized crime convictions. Nonsense. Assume for sake of argument that you could detect 99% of fraudulent transactions with the measures in place (entirely impossible) and that your false positive rate was only 1% (also entirely impossible). SWIFT alone processes $2 trillion per day. That's on the order of $600 trillion per year, just in SWIFT. (Add another $1.3 billion for CHIPS and $989 million for Fedwire daily. Oh, don't forget the foreign exchange markets, oh and NYSE, oh and NASDAQ, oh and international letters of credit, oh and...) The most sinister estimates of the global criminal economy (primarily drug money) run around $400 billion per year. Your false positives will identify $6 trillion in naughty funds that are actually pure just in SWIFT. Your correct hits will identify $396 billion in naughty funds in all systems worldwide. In this example you will have 15 times as many false hits as correct hits ignoring the lionshare of world financial systems. This is under the very best of circumstances. It's a losing game.. It's a game only the mathematically challenged or politically motivated will play. In fact, money laundering is a tack on offense that is brought to bear after an arrest on other charges has been made. The number of cases that originate with a money laundering investigation is vanishingly small. The payment system today eats up over 1.5% of the GNP primarily because of nonsense regulations like CTR's and other transaction reporting requirements which can cost up to $15 per transaction and (as we see above) have little if any effect on professional money laundering. Given these numbers the degree of "fraud" in the world financial system is far better than in the credit card system, which has pretty much reached equilibrium. (Fraud accounts for about 5% of credit card costs. Customer service accounts for about 15%). > There is a certain logic in the notion of having a legislative > process and laws. Our laws in the U.S. weren't written by > angels up in heaven, but they are better than some other places. In the case of money laundering regulation I should say almost _no_ other places. > If DBS participants advocate that money laundering laws are > not to be followed, I'm sorry but YOU GUYS have the burden > of logically arguing your position. So shut up and quit > raggin' on *me* about it. I would just like to see them applied with rationality. It's fairly clear that that's too much to ask of the United States. Interestingly enough it's typically multi-party systems of government that have a balanced approach to money laundering. Perhaps this is because grandstanding with things like "the war on drugs" isn't as effective outside of a two party system. Sheds new light on your comment about democracies and banking regulations. Some jurisdictions get along quite well without the nonsense perpetrated in the United States. Like Switzerland. Switzerland has one of the nicest things in a cash economy I have seen. A freely circulated 1000CHF note. It's worth about $750. (The United States phased out $500 bills long ago to deal with laundering). In Switzerland you can drop a 1000CHF note at a restaurant and no one bats an eye. In the U.S. you cant take a cab home from the International Terminal unless you have something smaller than a $50. Somehow Switzerland has manage to survive without looting in the streets and rampant crime. Luxembourg is in a similar situation. I tried to purchase a car some years ago outside of D.C. with cash. Completely legitimate transaction. No interest nonsense for me to worry about. No waiting for the car while the check clears. Simple. Right? The dealership called the police, convinced they were striking a blow against drug dealers. It's really gone too far. > 2. Practicality. Without at least a fig leaf of cooperation > with banking authorities and other police, DBS will not be > permitted. Transactions denominated in DBS won't be enforceable > in courts, and fraud won't be a crime. Reporting fraud in DBS > deal would be like reporting a fraud in purchase of heroin. Practicality? Of course any student of political science will understand that where government enforcement of contracts fails or falls short, organized crime tends to move in. Reporting fraud in the purchase of heroin to the right enforcement cartel tends to be much more effective in rendering results than U.S. courts I'd wager. Clearly, the United States would not benefit by forcing DBS underground. Several jurisdictions will permit DBS and enforce it. (I'm involved in the legislative process for one such law in a European jurisdiction now). If you believe that DBS should be outlawed then you must agree that cash should be outlawed. There is effectively no difference but velocity. > The principal reason for failure of electronic money, other > than cards used in physical establishments, is you can't trust > the seller to send you the goods. That's why everybody is > using credit cards, and bearing the 2-3% charge for "insurance". > > You guys seem to think untraceable DBS will be accepted, if > only a good enough encryption algorithm can be found???? 1% of the GNP. Instant 1% growth for changing a system of clearing. Think about that for awhile. > I think your ideas have a fatal, logical weakness. Without > any practical means to verify who got your money, or even > a legal *right* to enforce a contract, what good is dbs? > It's not even money. It's more like a coupon or something. What you are missing is that all your arguments apply equally to cash. Why is cash used if this is so? Prove to me that you just gave me six $100 bills. You are, "without any practical means to verify who got your money or even a legal *right* to enforce a contract" if the transaction is larger than $500. If only we could be rid of this pesky cash would could eliminate organized crime forever. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.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'

4 4

Sniping & such...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, To address Tim's question about bolt-actions. As far as I know the Marine sniper still uses the Remington 7.62 bolt-action as his arm of choice. The beauty of the H&K blow-back mechanism is that it is very accurate at long range compared to other gas operated mechanism. However, in the situation we are discussion - taking on an assault team with snipers, aka anti-sniping, this level of accuracy is irrelevant. The goal is to stop the assault. To this end single shot accuracy is irrelevant. The reason is that we are not trying to hit a 16 in.^2 piece of brain pan and *not* hit the hostage in front. What we *are* trying to do is locate and eliminate specific targets and any ancillary hits to personnel on that end are a *good* thing. To that end I still like the H&K's because they have the 3-shot selector. My goal would be to set my IIS to show hot targets as black, with the black threshold about 90F. I would then pop off a 3-shot group into anything that looked the least bit like a person. Think of it as a .308 mini-shotgun at 600 yds. Under those conditions a 6-12 in. spread *is* a good thing. With this in mind, you would want to wear nomex to reduce your heat signature, a gillie suit for reduced visual targeting, and some sort of cool suit (from your local auto performance shop) with a modified and remote dissipator to reduce your heat signature so that *their* scopes don't show you as black. If you're in your house a good place to put the dissipator would be in the bathtub or sink. You might also want to cool-suit the gun as well. If you're in the field the dissipator should go behind and below your level of site, it's probably a good thing to cover it with dirt or debris as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: No more NSA supra-computer?
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This is also very intriguing. The machine formerly called the "NSA >SMPP-2/2M" and expected to be located at NSA Central Security Service, is >now to be located in nearby Bowie at the Supercomputing Research Center. > >I guess that means the SRC is doing more than just "academic computing"! > What was that IP address, again? :-( Dave Merriman

1 0

Re: e$: Cypherpunks Sell Concepts
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I posted this: > Second, we need a lawyer. This is a good thing, 'cause a you can't hack > laws without a lawyer (most of the time, anyway...), and > (ObThreadRelevance) we need one to pitch this stuff to other lawyers > (regulators, et. al.) anyway... > > In search of Vinnie "the Pro" Bono, honorable second cousin of the esteemed > mayor of Palm Springs, > > Bob Hettinga I got the following in e-mail from a law professor (shall we call him/her "Professor Vinnie"?) who wants to remain nameless for some reason... Somebody should teach "him" how to use a remailer, eh? This person is emblematic of all the usual interface problems with spiffy new stuff... Oh well. The posting is late because of the time took me to get permission. They should be a little faster next time. Here's what s/he said: >My specialties involve law about the government, not law about financial >transactions, so I'm guessing more than anything else here, but it seems >to me that there are two simple rules of thumb that ought to apply: > >1) E$ is not a security so long as there is no suggestion that you might >ever get back more than you paid. I.E. no interest, no dividends, no >profits. So long as e$ is exchanged at 1:1 (or less if there is a >transaction fee) with US$, then odds are very good it's not going to be >seen as a security, at least under federal law (who knows what funny rules >they may have in *your* state...). > >2) It's not going to be a scrip problem so long as every e$ is purchased >in advance for a US$. People run into problems when they are seen to be >creating value, e.g. as banks do with fractional reserve lending. So >long as e$ sticks close to the travellers check model, I would imagine >(remember: NO RESEARCH WAS DONE TO REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS) that the only >rules which apply in the US will be UCC rules that apply to checks, and >IOUs. This would seem to be a desireable state of affairs for e$. > >I am late to this subject, so if in fact e$ fails either of the tests >above, please let me know. After I got this, I asked "him" to reply directly to the list, and "he" replied declining to do so, the following is the only part of "his" reply that is relevant to the above. >I should warn you again: I'm an administrative lawyer. The 'research' >for that note consisted of five minutes conversation in bed with my <spouse> >who is a securities lawyer. From another country. There's a good chance I >have no idea what I'm talking about... Great. We've got ourselves a lawyer in the loop who'll help us talk about this stuff. I fingered "him" <fingering a lawyer?> and "he" looks real to me. Guess I have some reading to do about this anonymity stuff, eh? Anyway, it's real nice to have another pair of (trained) eyes looking at the problem. Cheers, Bob Hettinga (Human remailer and mouthpiece mouthpiece) ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

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