December 2005 - cypherpunks-legacy

cohort is rupture but petroglyph
by Joe 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

be candidate on bastion on nosebag on abolition try stephanotis

1 0

RE: Bamford: The Agency That Could Be Big Brother
by Tyler Durden 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

OK...does anyone know why the NSA has such a facility out there? Not a lot of the most useful information these days is natively not of fiber plant. I know that the area is famous for maintaining radio silence for large swathes of spectrum (I remember a radio astronomer from the area telling a story of how a large blast of radio noise was messing with one of his measurements. He drove something like 20 miles to a farm and found that a toaster or something was on the fritz.) What I'm wondering then is whether large quantities of telephone calls are actually transmitted via satellite rather than through fiber. This would have a number of advantages over the use of standard fiber-optic transmission. It might also explain a few things too. The first thing it could explain is why they need such a facility. Of course, such a facility might mere be an artifact from the old Soviet/Satellite days. But if they had moved over to very fiber-intensive methods, that would not be an ideal place to perform such activities. But it seems to me that radio silence might be useful if they are receiving huge amounts of signal via satellite. In order to support the badwidth, they'd need to use as much available spectrum as they can (probably even spread-spectrum techniques in already-occupied bands). They'd also be pushing things to the absolute maximum bitrate-wise, meaning they need as much sensitivity and highest possible SNRs as they can get. What this also means, however, is that there must be a network of uplink stations around. Local telecom traffic is probably backhauled to such stations for literal upload to satellite (ie, rather than NSA building out it's own conspicuous fiber network). Such stations must be easily observable, so they are disguised as something else. Actually, Cable TV uses a distribution network that might serve quite well in reverse, with the proper modifications. -TD >From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> >To: undisclosed-recipients: ; >Subject: Bamford: The Agency That Could Be Big Brother >Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:28:59 -0600 (CST) > >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/weekinreview/25bamford.html?ei=5070&en=02… > >December 25, 2005 >Private Lives >The Agency That Could Be Big Brother >By JAMES BAMFORD > >Washington > >DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by >fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. >Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes >secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and >e-mail messages an hour. > >Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post >intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United >States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the >western half of the country. > >A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. has >suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over >whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the N.S.A. to >bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American >citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment. > >According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central >Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the >program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire >intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is >secret. > >Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in >absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the >largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far >more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and other spy >organizations. > >But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in >which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells >hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed >ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But >this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases >pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal >channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign >adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty >years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman >of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came >away stunned. > >"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American >people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, >such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, >telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide." > >He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to >impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back." > >At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said >over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access >to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost >thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records >to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency >virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind. > >The N.S.A.'s original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency >wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic >cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the N.S.A. would >know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, >football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and >weapons signals. > >Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always >chattering and never moved, the N.S.A. is trying to find small numbers of >individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically >(and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) >and are constantly traveling from country to country. > >During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of >American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the >country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to >search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or >Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with >relatives in their, or their parents', former countries. > >According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the >N.S.A.'s director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has >become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the >N.S.A. intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins >tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though >they came from suspected Al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages >were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not >distributed until Sept. 12. > >What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was >that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay >phones. > >This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. >"Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given >day? Thousands," General Hayden said. > >Still, the N.S.A. doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic >monitoring to snare Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to >snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist >ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, >or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a >terrorist group, and obtain a warrant. > >The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in >1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected >five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to >the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years >has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the >warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed >session of the Supreme Court. > >Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. normally eavesdropped on a small >number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, >while the F.B.I., whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, >requested most of the warrants from FISA. > >Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush >established a secret program in which the N.S.A. would bypass the FISA >court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision >seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a >way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data >and new information. > >At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: >digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or >clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so >people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was >made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of >people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who >posed potential threats. > >Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, >while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a >warrant. > >In essence, N.S.A. seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely >the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news >conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. >"FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between >detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring." > >This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand >the boundaries of what is legally permissible. > >In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information >Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear >admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan >and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the >proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua. > >Total Information Awareness, known as T.I.A., was intended to search >through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage >by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York >Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement >officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data >ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United >States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, >the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the >government. > >But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush >administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining >techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their >use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or >are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported >199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." >Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported >the largest number of efforts." > >The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat >terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians. > >After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator >Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select >Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney. > >"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, >"John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern >regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to >security, technology, and surveillance." > >Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church. > >"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator >Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in >America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that >possess this technology operate within the law and under proper >supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss >from which there is no return." > >James Bamford is the author of "Puzzle Palace" and"Body of Secrets: >Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency."

1 0

[Clips] interesting new feature on osx..!
by R. A. Hettinga 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:44:13 -0500 To: "Philodox Clips List" <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] interesting new feature on osx..! Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com This comes from the smartfriends list, apparently... Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:38:59 -0800 To: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)vmeng.com> Subject: interesting new feature on osx..! Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I just got a new PB 17 and noticed to my absolute terror that it seems to be performing some kind of new hibernation feature that writes out the contents of main memory to disk when going to sleep (the lack of which feature has long been a point of pride for Mac users in my eyes as it has always been the largest Windows security flaw known to man). It is doing this automatically without even asking me if I would like to sacrifice every semblance of security, and I have not found an option to turn it off. The implications of this are astronomical, and I need to get this feature completely removed so that there is no possibility it would ever occur. I would even switch laptops if this can't be disabled. Does anyone know yet how one might go about getting rid of this? Thanks. - Will _______________________________________________ Will Price, wrote: >I just got a new PB 17 and noticed to my absolute terror that it >seems to be performing some kind of new hibernation feature that >writes out the contents of main memory to disk when going to sleep >(the lack of which feature has long been a point of pride for Mac >users in my eyes as it has always been the largest Windows security >flaw known to man). I thought that feature would only kick in when the machine is already asleep and in danger of losing its memory. Too bad. >Does anyone know yet >how one might go about getting rid of this? Probably the opposite of this: <http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20051114072358161> | Jonathan 'Wolf' Rentzsch http://rentzsch.com | Red Shed Software http://redshed.net | "better" necessarily means "different" _______________________________________________ On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Will Price wrote: > The implications of > this are astronomical, and I need to get this feature completely > removed so that there is no possibility it would ever occur. I would > even switch laptops if this can't be disabled. Does anyone know yet > how one might go about getting rid of this? My first try would be to remove the has-safe-sleep property in Open Firmware. Instructions on hacking it on are here: http://www.andrewescobar.com/archive/2005/11/11/how-to-safe-sleep- your-mac/ Presumably, a variation on this technique can force the property off on the latest PowerBooks. Barring that, Ebay your machine and get a reconditioned previous model. Amanda Walker _______________________________________________ On Dec 22, 2005, at 15:19 PM, Will Price wrote: > I just got a new PB 17 and noticed to my absolute terror that it > seems to be performing some kind of new hibernation feature that > writes out the contents of main memory to disk when going to sleep Excellent! All computers should do that, including desktops. I was beginning to worry that Mac OS X didn't have this basic and important feature, as does Windows. > (the lack of which feature has long been a point of pride for Mac > users in my eyes as it has always been the largest Windows security > flaw known to man). It's called "virtual memory". RAM is constantly being written to disk. Am I missing something? Programs that wish to keep parts of RAM off of disk can request it-- and should--but that is orthogonal to the rather simple idea of flushing pending writes to the backing store in case of power failure. Are you talking about something else? > It is doing this automatically without even asking me if I would > like to sacrifice every semblance of security, and I have not found > an option to turn it off. You won't be able to turn of virtual memory. I assume that if you turn on encrypted VM backing store, that'll ease your mind: System Preferences : Security : Use secure virtual memory If you aren't using that already, what happens at sleep is the least of your worries. Oh, and turn on FileVault to encrypt your files on disk, otherwise all your really important data will be trivially accessible through a FireWire cable and target disk mode -- what's in RAM is not usually the biggest security risk. _______________________________________________ Amanda Walker suggested: > On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Will Price wrote: >> The implications of >> this are astronomical, and I need to get this feature completely >> removed so that there is no possibility it would ever occur. I would >> even switch laptops if this can't be disabled. Does anyone know yet >> how one might go about getting rid of this? > > My first try would be to remove the has-safe-sleep property in Open > Firmware. Instructions on hacking it on are here: > > http://www.andrewescobar.com/archive/2005/11/11/how-to-safe-sleep- > your-mac/ > > Presumably, a variation on this technique can force the property > off on the latest PowerBooks. This worked: sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 0 I suspect this will be a very popular command until a patch is issued which I certainly hope comes soon given the scale of this problem. Chris Page opined: >> I just got a new PB 17 and noticed to my absolute terror that it >> seems to be performing some kind of new hibernation feature that >> writes out the contents of main memory to disk when going to sleep > > Excellent! All computers should do that, including desktops. I was > beginning to worry that Mac OS X didn't have this basic and important > feature, as does Windows. Errr. Ya. Right. Sadly, I'm sure some marketing checkbox is responsible for this debacle. >> (the lack of which feature has long been a point of pride for Mac >> users in my eyes as it has always been the largest Windows security >> flaw known to man). > > It's called "virtual memory". RAM is constantly being written to > disk. Am I missing something? > > Programs that wish to keep parts of RAM off of disk can request it-- > and should--but that is orthogonal to the rather simple idea of > flushing pending writes to the backing store in case of power failure. > > Are you talking about something else? I wish it were like virtual memory, that has an encryption option at least. Unfortunately, it is a massive security flaw that completely bypasses virtual memory encryption even if it is on. At this point I almost regret bringing it up as further research has now revealed it really is a security flaw and I should probably be reporting this directly to Apple as a courtesy. However, I had not done that research when I asked my question. >> It is doing this automatically without even asking me if I would >> like to sacrifice every semblance of security, and I have not found >> an option to turn it off. > > You won't be able to turn of virtual memory. I assume that if you > turn on encrypted VM backing store, that'll ease your mind: > > System Preferences : Security : Use secure virtual memory > > If you aren't using that already, what happens at sleep is the least > of your worries. Oh, and turn on FileVault to encrypt your files on > disk, otherwise all your really important data will be trivially > accessible through a FireWire cable and target disk mode -- what's in > RAM is not usually the biggest security risk. No, it did not ease my mind because these features are totally unrelated. Run the strings command on /var/vm/sleepimage. That would be the 2GB file which appears to contain the contents of my entire main memory (wasting 2GB of space on the drive). That file is chock full of strings in English. It is not encrypted at all. It is not stored inside FileVault. It is just sitting there WIDE OPEN! I found passwords, emails, and all kinds of other stuff in this wonderful file, and I'm using not only everything you just mentioned but much more security software on this machine. This was an Apple oversight, pure and simple. This virtually secret feature, turned on by default without any notification on new machines, with no option to turn it off, that completely eliminates the usefulness of FileVault, encrypted VM, and any other security you might think you have, writing every bit of your main memory to unencrypted disk space, is.... I just don't have words for it. I'm extremely frustrated right now that I fell for this even for a week before catching telltale signs of this in my syslog. > Does this feature write the data separately from the VM backing > store? Does it circumvent VM backing store encryption? Sure does. Totally eliminating any benefit you may have thought you had from those features. >>> It is doing this automatically without even asking me if I would >>> like to sacrifice every semblance of security, and I have not found >>> an option to turn it off. >> >> You won't be able to turn of virtual memory. I assume that if you >> turn on encrypted VM backing store, that'll ease your mind: >> >> System Preferences : Security : Use secure virtual memory > > It has been explained to me that Will has mad security skilz, so I'm > assuming the problem is that this isn't merely flushing to the VM > backing store, but writing RAM to a different location sans > encryption, is that it? > > Still, I am firmly in favor of the basic idea of saving machine state > in non-volatile storage -- securely, of course. I am glad you are in favor of it. Perhaps if it could be implemented in such a way that every semblance of security in the rest of the operating system was not thrown out the window at the same time, I might reconsider whether it was a good idea. For now, if I were at Apple, I would be setting off the red alert and finding who is responsible for this so that it can be fixed. Thanks. - Will _______________________________________________ On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Will Price wrote: > Run the strings command on /var/vm/sleepimage. That would be the 2GB > file which appears to contain the contents of my entire main memory > (wasting 2GB of space on the drive). That file is chock full of > strings in English. It is not encrypted at all. I know the file contains many strings. Some of these strings are from my machine, and are non-generic. However, I'm not entirely sure it is all of main memory unencrypted. I don't know how the feature works entirely -- it probably uses some kind of caching to write only parts of memory to disk based on usage, but of course whatever is in use is what you would want encrypted. I do know it has many unencrypted strings. I used the laptop in Firewire target mode to make sure I could still read the contents of /var/vm/sleepimage. The file is also successfully unused once disabling the feature. _______________________________________________ On Dec 23, 2005, at 3:17 AM, Chris Page wrote > On Dec 23, 2005, at 00:07 AM, Chris Page wrote: > >> It's called "virtual memory". RAM is constantly being written to >> disk. Am I missing something? > > Does this feature write the data separately from the VM backing > store? Does it circumvent VM backing store encryption? Yes and yes. Amanda Walker _______________________________________________ On Dec 23, 2005, at 3:29 AM, Chris Page wrote: > It has been explained to me that Will has mad security skilz, so I'm > assuming the problem is that this isn't merely flushing to the VM > backing store, but writing RAM to a different location sans > encryption, is that it? Correct. And since the Mac doesn't currently support encrypting an entire partition, that different location is unencrypted, bypassing (as Will noted) FileVault, PGPDisk, encrypted VM, or whatever else you use. It also means that you can clone a machine's running state from a "cold disk" (or possibly just from Firewire disk mode, without even having to open the machine). This is a definite security risk. And yes, most modern PCs have this problem as well, but making Macs vulnerability-compatible with PCs isn't necessarily a good thing :-). > Still, I am firmly in favor of the basic idea of saving machine state > in non-volatile storage -- securely, of course. Indeed. I've been pestering Vinnie about PGP Whole Disk Encryption for Macs for a while now :-). MacOS X could really use something like that or FreeBSD's GBDE. Amanda Walker _______________________________________________ -- Vinnie Moscaritolo ITCB-IMSH PGP: 3F903472C3AF622D5D918D9BD8B100090B3EF042 ------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- 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' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- 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

[dethezier@hotmail.com: [technoliberation] Does Technoliberation have $24.95 to spend?]
by Eugen Leitl 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

Of marginal interest. It's a slow holiday, though. ----- Forwarded message from Justice De Thezier <dethezier(a)hotmail.com> -----

1 0

[dave@farber.net: [IP] Fear destroys what Bin Laden could not]
by Eugen Leitl 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

[dave@farber.net: [IP] Boundless' CEO to speak at NYC Wireless: Using City-Scale WiFi to Fight Crime]
by Eugen Leitl 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

[dave@farber.net: [IP] Victims of the darkness: Government surveillance and intimidation]
by Eugen Leitl 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

All Mens Need This fp2
by Mayra Leary 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

"Ci-ialis Softabs" is better than Pfizer Viiagrra and normal Ci-ialis because: - Guaaraantees 36 hours lasting - Safe to take, no side effects at all - Boost and increase se-xual performance - Haarder e-rectiions and quick recharge - Proven and certified by experts and doctors - only $3.99 per tabs Cllick heree: http://uk.geocities.com/jobye76212wiatt4371/ GRr

1 0

[arma@mit.edu: Re: EFF no longer funding Tor (was Re: ATTN: for-profit Tor operators)]
by Eugen Leitl 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

Update on donation options for Tor. ----- Forwarded message from Roger Dingledine <arma(a)mit.edu> -----

3 2

[Clips] Vin Suprynowicz: 'The Unlimited Power Of The Sword'
by R. A. Hettinga 25 Dec '05

25 Dec '05

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:37:28 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Vin Suprynowicz: 'The Unlimited Power Of The Sword' Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com <http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Dec-25-Sun-2005/opinion/4819453…> Dec. 25, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'The unlimited power of the sword' A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"? Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes." The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" -- all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument." Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them. It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process. Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate. Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army. Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses -- that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined? *Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in: "Vin, You did not mention: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm." Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds: "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units. "The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause -- particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service -- is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language." *And speaking of lies and the credibility of the press, what about those Associated Press and CNN stories that kept echoing (often without attribution) the Democratic/organized labor talking point that the GOP Senate wanted to "slash $39 billion" (or whatever today's number is) from federal social programs? Would that it were so. One more time, guys: If the Republicans seek to "grow" a federal program at only 5 percent next year, instead of 5.5 percent, that's not even a "cut," let alone a "slash." If you were hoping for a dollar-an-hour raise, and your boss only gave you a 90-cent-an-hour raise, and you went home and told your spouse, "My paycheck got cut," you would be ... what? Lying. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the new novel "The Black Arrow." His Web sites are www.TheLibertarian.us or www.LibertyBookShop.us. -- ----------------- 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' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- 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