- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The killing of Bill Cooper and Liquid Metal Embrittlement
by Tim May 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Some of us were talking at our camp in the Sierras last weekend about the efforts to silence William Cooper, culminating in his death in a shootout with LEOs dressed as street punks. One of Bill's early interests, after his retirement from the armed services, was in how "Liquid Metal Embrittlement" (LME) compounds had been developed to weaken aircraft structures as a means of sabotage. LME works by weakening aluminum, notably, along grain lines. An LME solution smeared along wing or panel sections could cause catastrophic failure during high stress flight phases, e.g., takeoffs and, to a lesser extent, landings. We ran a few scenarios about how easy it would be bring down an airliner, further spreading fear. So what happened on Monday morning? From the reports I'm reading, it looks like the tail section broke off shortly after takeoff, during relatively high-g banking manouvers. CNN is saying this is an "unprecedented" failure mechanism for the A300. Bill Cooper may well have been terminated with extreme prejudice, as the saying goes, because he was getting too close to the truth about the NWO and ZOG using such US-developed sabotage weapons to further the expansion of the terror state. The U.S. has pressured the major U.S. news outlets not to show Bin Laden's tapes...now we are hearing from _transcripts_ that Bin Laden has "come close" to taking credit for 911...but it would help to actually _see_ the tapes. Ah, but that would not be consistent with the New World Order approach to justice: * strong arm the press into not showing video tapes, except of the NWO side * suspend habeus corpus, hold 1000 detainees indefinitely (9 weeks and counting...) -- secret trials, secret evidence, secret witnesses...so much for the open courts, confrontation of witnesses, jury of peers, due process -- bugging of attorney-client communications (would not surprise me that other secret orders require attorneys to implicate their clients, even with manufactured evidence) -- ZOG lovers like Dershowitz are calling for torturing suspects until they confess (One of our fun ideas in the Sierras was that someone should kidnap Dershowitz, torture him for 5 days, release the tape of his various "confessions," and then dump his body in front of the Supreme Court.) Fuck America. Fuck it dead. --Tim May "If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet

6 5

Re: Red Herring: Terrorism and the challenge to globalization.
by mean-green＠hushmail.com 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

At 08:20 AM 11/15/2001 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: > [Another glimmer of hope as even some of the mainstream business press is > venturing beyond simple patriotic flag waving. Posted in its entirety > as its not online.] > > Terrorism and the challenge to globalization. > BY PETER SCHWARTZ Stupid article, and your comment doesn't make much sense either. First, the terrorist attacks are the best thing that has ever happened for globalization. No one is a purer anti-globalist than bin Laden. Now the anti-global movement is associated with death and terror. Anti-globalization protests have been scaled back and cancelled all around the world since September 11. To the extent that radical Islam is the new standard bearer for anti-globalism, the movement is doomed. ----------------------------------- My comments had nothing directly to do with globalization and everything to do with the (unintended?) consequences of arrogant and naive domestic and foreign policies.

1 0

I need Help...
by Ruben Leal 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Hello, Im developping a usb driver, and I need the w2k checked build version. I know that I need a Microsoft online ID to login and download the checked build version. Searching in the web, I have found an article with your password for your ID. I would like to contact with you because I need quickly the checked build. Sincerely yours,

1 0

Mein Kampf
by casey.iverson＠hushmail.com 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

On Wed, 14 Nov Tim May, Der Fuhrer spews: >I hope to see the day when millions of them are gassed. Let's start building the ovens now. Der Fuhrer's list is growing. Hiel May

1 0

RE: FBI wants to believe in domestic terrorists.
by jamesd＠echeque.com 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

-- James A. Donald: > > If the anthrax attack is connected to the 9/11 attack, > > then the fibbies get to play errand boy for the CIA and > > military intelligence. If the anthrax attack is > > internal, then they are in charge and they get to spy on > > all us right wing extremist hate groups. On 8 Nov 2001, at 15:18, Trei, Peter wrote: > What's this 'us' bit? Jim, I don't know what 'right wing > extremist hate groups' you may belong to, but don't confuse > such groups with the subscribers to this open mailing list, > especially to third parties. For those who are seriously slow on the uptake, I will explain in words of one syllable: Should the FBI RICO members of this mailing list, the list will be reported in the press as a right wing extremist hate group. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG T3YLPjqqTU5N/sGmmkd4D5i8t6v6D3lSSKZR/nwu 4DYjwzhJi+X0xxCtjXeHqxREeq0OStsCDPG4mooMj

3 2

ALC Learn English- 156-0000 Joyful NIGHT! Cheerful DAY! Happy LIFE!
by ALC 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Did Anyone Ever Tell You, Just How Special You Are The Light that You Emit Might even Light a Star Центр Американского Английского ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Call Now! Звоните Cейчас. Visit Today! Приходите Сегодня. 156-00-00, 159-57-34, 274-22-15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Английский разговорный с преподавателями из США МЫШЛЕНИЕ, ПРОИЗНОШЕНИЕ, СТИЛЬ РЕЧИ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Joke: Q: Hear about the terrorist that hijacked a 747 full of lawyers? A: He threatened to release one every hour if his demands weren't met. Wisdom: John Wooden's seven-point creed: "Making the most of oneself". 1. Be true to yourself. 2. Make each day your masterpiece. 3. Help others. 4. Drink deeply from good books. 5. Make friendship a fine art. 6. Build a shelter against a rainy day. 7. Pray for guidance and give thanks for your blessings every day. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Эксклюзивная авторская методика Все стадии обучения : от нуля до высшего ПРИЕМЛЕМЫЕ ЦЕНЫ плюс ВЫСШЕЕ КАЧЕСТВО LOWEST CHARGES plus HIGHEST GRATIFICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Moscow, Russia ------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, please click or copy and paste the following address into your browser: http://em5000.com/unsub.php?client=twisted_solo&listname=ALCV3&email=cypher…

1 0

[mailingList] Enjoy the great taste of Italy
by susanna＠ilbuongustaio.it 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Hello, Il Buongustaio was born in 1985 and step by step became very famous for its Gourmet gift boxes. The boxes contain the Best of Italy of gourmet specialities. Please visit our web-site: www.ilbuongustaio.it where you can also find our Collection 2001. These boxes are perfect as a gift for yourself, your friends, collegues, relatives etc. Also, we have a special section for Corporate buyers. Furthermore, if you register filling out our form, you can win a prize! Dont forget to visit: www.ilbuongustaio.it! Sincerely, Il Buongustaio Italy Your address is part of a list that we purchased from www.e-MailList.net. If you wish to be removed from this list, please reply to this message, writing cancel in subject. Thank you.

1 0

Gross Usurpation of Power
by Jei 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman103.html> Gross Usurpation of Power by David Dieteman The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. ~ Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) A great many conservatives have uncritically accepted the expansion of government powers in the wake of the terrible events of September 11. They have acquiesced in the creation of the Bureau of Homeland Security, an entity which would have made the Founding Fathers cringe, if not revolt (they revolted against much less). One hopes that such alleged conservatives, who profess to value limited government, the rule of law, and liberty, will be disturbed by one of President Bush's recent actions. On November 13, President Bush signed an order allowing military trials of terrorism suspects, rather than civil courts. As the Washington Post reports, The presidential directive, signed by Bush as commander in chief, applies to non-U.S. citizens arrested in the United States or abroad. The president himself will decide which defendants will be tried by military tribunals. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will appoint each panel and set its rules and procedures, including the level of proof needed for a conviction. There will be no judicial review. The only review will be by the U.S. President and the Secretary of Defense. No American court, and no international tribunal, will be able to review the acts of this Star Chamber. The administration seeks to avoid the Constitution by applying the order only to foreigners, rather than to U.S. citizens. Guess what: that's largely unconstitutional as well. The guarantee of due process of law is universal in its application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of a state or the United States, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality, when they have come within the territory of the United States and have developed substantial connections with this country. 16B Am. Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 928; U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1064 (1990). As a matter of international law, it may be argued that, if the foreign state consents to American exercise of such power overseas, i.e., if Afghanistan consents to an American Star Chamber handing out death sentences to Afghans, then such power is legitimately exercised. This would be a matter of treaty, or other such international agreement. Such a new policy, however, would be contrary to what is arguably an evolving norm of international law, i.e., utilizing international tribunals to try war criminals. In the case of Nuremberg, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, international tribunals were established to handle war crimes. These tribunals have been attacked as conducting mere show trials, which is bad enough. The Bush administration complains, however, that international tribunals do not administer the death penalty. This is disturbing, even if possibly allowed under international law. Recall that last week, the Justice Department authorized the wiretapping of conversations between prisoners and their attorneys. So much for attorney-client privilege. What's next: wiretaps in the confessional? And another question: remember Senator Kerrey? So much for quick justice when an American is accused. What if Vietnam were a superpower seeking to impose a Star Chamber on a feeble and impoverished United States? Does might make right? To some people, it seems that it does. Note: with respect to Senator Kerrey, and to the Afghan war, I continue to have grave reservations about international criminal tribunals. A military tribunal would be appropriate for Kerrey because he is accused of crimes while a member of the armed forces; that is within the jurisdiction of a military tribunal. In addition, I would not object if those foreigners seized by the United States in the war on terrorism were tried in U.S. civil courts; that is within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The problem with President Bush's order is that it simply ignores the Constitutional limits on executive power. The due process of law is not given when the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are simply ignored. As Justice Davis wrote in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), Certainly no part of judicial power of the country was conferred on them, because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify on the mandate of the President, because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws, and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction." To be blunt, President Bush has no authority under the U.S. Constitution to make such an order. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Albert Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, claimed that there was precedent for the order. Indeed there is. It is bad precedent. Abraham Lincoln famously tried opponents of the War Between the States in military courts. The United States Supreme Court unambiguously declared in Ex parte Milligan, however, that it was unconstitutional to try civilians before a military court when the civil courts, i.e., the regular courthouses you see on The Practice, were open and operating, and in no way threatened by the war. As Justice Davis wrote in Milligan, (read the opinion here), there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. Note the following: no civil courts are "actually closed" in the United States today. There is no "theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails" such that the civil courts cannot function. This, as the Milligan court noted, is a gross usurpation of power. The factual circumstances confronted by Milligan, if anything, were more serious than those facing the United States today. Lambdin Milligan, a citizen of Indiana, was arrested for allegedly conspiring to capture an arsenal, free Confederate prisoners, and for intending to join Confederate forces in Missouri. He was brought before a Military Commission, and sentenced to death. Despite the fact that there was a war going on, the court found that the military trial was unconstitutional. Very importantly, the court observed that No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which nearly concerns the rights of the whole people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people. The rule set forth in Ex parte Milligan, then, squarely controls any decision regarding the order issued by President Bush. The order is unconstitutional, plain and simple. "No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. An emergency...cannot create power...but may allow the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency." 16B Am. Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 52 (citations omitted). As the Nebraska Supreme Court put it, the Constitution was adopted in a state of emergency, the limits on the powers of the government were conceived in the light of emergency, and the limits are not changed by emergency. First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 115, 277 N.W. 762, 778 (1938). For those wondering why such an order was signed, the Washington Post reports that the move was encouraged for weeks by conservative lawyers from past administrations and other experts who cited precedents dating back to the Civil War. One of them, George Terwilliger, a former high-ranking Justice Department official, said a military tribunal would be appropriate for anyone who commits an act of war against the United States. In fact, Terwilliger was the former Deputy Attorney General to George Bush. He handled the Florida election cases for President Bush. Although he is now in private practice, he was reported to have been a leading candidate to be head of the FBI. The administration has sought to justify the order on the grounds that "This is a global war. To have successful prosecutions, we might have to give up sources and methods" in a civilian court. "We don't want to have to do that," Albert Gonzales told ABC News. The Washington Post, meanwhile, reports that President Bush claimed the tribunals are needed because terrorism could "place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States government." It is "not practicable," he said, to require the tribunals to abide by the "principles of law and the rules of evidence" that govern U.S. criminal prosecutions. Does the Taliban have troops on the streets of Washington, DC? No. And yet it's "not practicable" to follow the principles of law and the rules of evidence. To put it mildly, this is a dangerous step for the government to take. Much like the Patriot Act, which Rep. Ron Paul reports was not given to members to read before it was voted upon. The Patriot Act, by the way, authorizes increased governmental snooping powers which do not require a warrant, and which are therefore contrary to the Constitution. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional due to the fact that even social emergencies "cannot routinely justify invasions of privacy or restrictions on expression without devaluing and eventually destroying those rights." Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1979)(subsequent history omitted), cited in 16B Am. Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 52. (Halperin v. Kissinger, by the way, cites Milligan for the proposition that only when the courthouses are physically closed may normal judicial processes be circumvented). The reason? "It would be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile." Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 1979). So which is it: do conservatives have no sense of irony, or do they have no respect for constitutional liberty? A pair of Texans ought to be ashamed to follow precedent established by Abraham Lincoln in a war against Texas. A Republican president, and an alleged "conservative," ought to be ashamed to follow the arch-Democrat, FDR. President Bush should repeal his order. It is unconstitutional, unwise, and unnecessary. November 15, 2001 Mr. Dieteman <DavidFDieteman(a)aol.com> is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America. © 2001 David Dieteman ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

U.K. may order firms to record Net-traffic, ban anon remaiers?
by Declan McCullagh 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

I'm told this bill is expected to become law by Christmas. ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> -----

1 0

Bush Order on Military Tribunals.
by Jei 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:52:11 -0500 From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt(a)coil.com> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt(a)coil.com> Subject: Bush Order on Military Tribunals... <http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n111401b.html> Bush Order on Military Tribunals is Further Evidence That Government is Abandoning Democracy's Checks and Balances Statement of Laura W. Murphy, Director ACLU Washington National Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, November 14, 2001 WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union is deeply disturbed by President Bush's executive order allowing special military tribunals to try non-citizens charged with terrorism. The tribunals would even reach non-citizens in the United States, including lawful permanent residents. To our knowledge, the move to establish a military tribunal when Congress has not declared war is unprecedented. We do not believe that the Administration has shown that the constitutional jury trial system does not allow for the prosecution of those accused of terrorist activities. Absent such a compelling justification, the President's decision is further evidence that the Administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy. The use of military tribunals would apparently authorize secret trials without a jury and without the requirement of a unanimous verdict and would limit a defendant's opportunities to confront the evidence against him and choose his own lawyer. What's worse, these important legal protections would be removed in a situation where defendants may very well be facing the death penalty. It is difficult to understand how the Administration can justify the use of a tribunal when the United States has successfully tried in our courts non-citizens accused of terrorist acts, organized crime, and others in situations where the safety of jurors and the disclosure of government intelligence methods were at issue. As the prosecutions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh demonstrate, the government has managed to protect the safety and identity of jurors while achieving convictions in terrorism cases. And there is already a system established to handle classified information in the course of a trial; it is called the Classified Information Procedures Act. For decades, CIPA has adequately balanced national security and due process concerns. The government has made no showing that CIPA procedures would not be adequate in these circumstances as well. Further, it would be hypocritical of the United States to impose such a tribunal when we have repeatedly protested the use of such courts against U.S. citizens abroad. Congress has already given the Administration and the Justice Department virtually everything they asked for to fight terrorism. This latest move, combined with the Justice Department's announced intentions to eavesdrop on attorney conversations with inmates and to begin interviewing foreign visitors to the United States, demonstrates the government's increasing willingness to circumvent the requirements of the Bill of Rights. We call on Congress to exercise its oversight powers before the Bill of Rights in America is distorted beyond recognition. Copyright 2001, The American Civil Liberties Union ###

1 0