- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Bush - OBL Link???...(Low probability)
by Jim Choate 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

http://www.geocities.com/burningbush2000/3.html -- ____________________________________________________________________ Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: On Internet and social responsibility
by Subcommander Bob 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

At 11:05 PM 9/14/01 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Joe -- > >I'm not calling in question their right to publish; Then what is your point? >BTW, if you look at the First Ammendment protections closer, they are not >guaranteeing absolute right of free speech. Learn the American law before >you invoke it to defend your point of view. Wrong. >I'm tired of absolutists who cannot see that there's no such thing as >absolute good or absolute evil. Speech can be very dangerous. What are you afraid of? This is >a conflict of ideologies, not nations or religions. What do you think is >ideology - if not speech? How do you suppress ideology if you let it >spread unhampered? With more speech. >That site was spreading lies for a long time and is well-known in Russia >as an example of American hypocrisy. So is CNN, what is your point? And a Russian calling a fuckistan web site "lies" is just hilarious. Go back and ask your masters what you should think. .... Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear ---Lou Reed, Last Great American Whale

1 0

FBI probes European short-selling
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Looks like BL found an effective way to "unfreeze" his $200-300 million in assets. http://www.msnbc.com/news/629380_asp.htm#BODY

1 0

Bush Family Skeletons
by Jim Choate 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

http://www.bushnews.com/family.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

"bespectacled, nerdly remailer operators"
by Anonymous 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Right, ninja troops carrying away bespectacled, nerdly remailer > operators. Here's a better fantasy. They'll hire $1000/night > superhookers and seduce the remailer operators into giving up their > keys. Both have about equal chances of reality. Pictures of three of these bespectacled, nerdly remailer operators: http://www.melontraffickers.com/pics/DC8_Lucky_BDU_4.jpg http://www.melontraffickers.com/pics/rabbiGoneNuts.jpeg http://www.melontraffickers.com/pics/DC8_noise_and_Lucky_hauling_hardware.j… Clearly individuals are enemies of the state. Expect the pictures above to be broadcast and rebroadcast on the evening news after the SWAT teams eliminate this threat to the sheeple. Expect similar photos of other remailer operators, Photoshop touch-ups used liberally if required.

4 4

RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
by Sandy Sandfort 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > Have there ever been any large-scale > terroristic attacks where profit was > the only motive? Who said anything about profit? The point under discussion was cost/benefit analysis. Don't engage in Inchoate over-simplification. Neither cost nor benefit is limited to monetary profit or loss. Here's a silly example. Let us suppose the terrorists are Muslims. It has been reported that the body of one of the terrorist pilots has been recovered. Perhaps future Muslim terrorists might deem costs too high if that body were fed to pigs and the resulting pig shit dropped on Kabul (or maybe that would just increase the "benefit" of killing more innocents). In either case the cost and benefit have nothing to do with profit. S a n d y

3 2

Did the US defeat wiretapping success? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:13:23 +0200 From: Hadmut Danisch <hadmut(a)danisch.de> To: cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com Subject: Did the US defeat wiretapping success? As far as I heard from the news (who knows how much news meet reality...) the CIA and NSA could not find a real correlation between the terrorists and Bin Laden (or at least they couldn't within the first days after). German news magazine DER SPIEGEL (current issue, p. 27) reports, that the german intelligence service BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) did find that link. Usually wiretapping people of Bin Laden's organization is found as good as useless, because these people keep strict discipline when using phones. In contrast to that, some of them dropped discipline after the attacks. They did jubilate and strut with their attacks. This was wiretapped by BND and forwarded to the US. The BND asked the US to keep this absolutely secret, because the BND hoped to catch more of these phone calls and thus more information, what obviously wouldn't work if it got publicly known. US senator Orrin Hatch is said to have publicly revealed this wiretapping success, thus sealing this source of information. Can anyone confirm this story? What's the use of a crypto-ban and wiretapping, or an intelligence service in general, if american authorities behave like this? Hadmut --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
by Sandy Sandfort 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > Too bad that the infrastructure to successfully implement AP isn't in > place. That $5mil reward for Bin Laden's head could be used by an FBI AP > scheme, payable anonymously over the net to enterprising Afghanis. AP is a silly, unworkable idea. However, $5,000,000 PLUS the Witness Relocation program could be a winner. S a n d y

3 2

No Subject
by citizenQ 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

You missed the irony, I guess I should have put in the irony-smiley. Given the overall context of the bill, the debate on the floor, and it's conclusion your report is shrill and Chicken-littleish, which does nothing for creating credible support of resistance to eroding civil liberty. Do your job, support your position, and do it clearly. Right now I have no patience for Wired-generation smugness. >On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:11:53PM -0700, citizenQ wrote: > Please >indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless >>circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for >those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title >III language. > >To achieve enlightement, you must consider how this bill amends existing >wiretap law. This will take some time, it is true, but it is The Path. > >-Declan

4 3

Defendant Vazquez
by bpayne37＠home.com 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

I read your article ____ Vazquez Oversteps Judicial Bounds By HENRY MARK HOLZER First Amendment Scholar Before a person or object can be unthrottled, there must first be a throttling. And thats what happened in New Mexico last week, when U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez throffled the First Amendment. A provision of the Albuquerque City Charter limits expenditures by mayoral candidates arid punishes violation with fines, reprimand and even removal from office. Candidate Rick Homans overspent. He sued, claiming that the charter provision violated his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Homans relied on the Supreme Courts decision in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money for electoral purposes was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Although Buckley is quite clear on this point and although some years ago, in a case of mine, a colleague of Judge Vazquez had declared unconstitutional a New Mexico statute providing that funds raised for a federal election (i.e., Congress) could not be used in a state election cam- paign (New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales) Vazquez refused to enjoin enforcement of the Albuquerque expenditure cap. Even though a district judge like Vdaquez is bound by higher-court precedent, and even though it is the sworn constitutional duty of federal district judges to apply those precedents, in the Homans case Vazquez violated her oath. Buckley, decided in 1976, was decades old, she rioted. One wonders how Vazquez would react to he argument that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, rias lost its vitality after nearly three decades. Then, there were some non-binding statements from lower courts, whose ideas apparently impressed Vazquez. There is, she said, an abundance of judicial commentary on compelling governmental interests which fall outside the ambit of Buckley on the basis of which she found that the Albuquerque expenditure cap fostered such interests. How? By preserving faith in democracy and reducing the appearance of corruption. In other words; because there is some non-binding language in some lower court cases, despite what the Supreme Court held in Buckley, it was constitutionally permissible for Albuquerque to punish Homans for spending more than the good citizens of that city thought he should spend even if it was his own money in aid of his mayoral aspirations. In addition, Vdaquez claimed that the Supreme Court was currently divided over the scope of Buckley. However, in making this claim she failed to note the distinction that case made between permissible restrictions on campaign contributions and impermissible restrictions on campaign expenditures, the latter being the only aspect of the Albuquerque cap being challenged by candidate Homans. Finally, Judge Vdaquez confusing her role in our constitutional separation of powers system with that of the elected and politically accountable Legislature observed that the public. favors spending limits because they supposedly improve the fairness of elections and ensure an equal playing field regardless of ones financial resources, thus eliminating or at least reducing reliance on special interests. Homans immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court promptiy reversed Vaquez, ruling, in essence, that she had misread and failed to be bound by Buckley, and refuting every one of the reasons" she had offered in support of her refusal to enjoin enforcement of the Albuquerque charter provision. The important point here, however, transcends Vazquez's refusal to enjoin a patently unconstitutional law. It transcends the Court of Appeals summary reversal of her lawless conduct. Why Judge Vazquez refused to enjoin enforcement of a patently unconstitutional law is the most important part of this story. She refused because, like many judges, Vazquez apparently believes that it is an appropriate function of courts to make policy decisions rather than to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws that judges are sworn, to uphold. As a federal judge with lifetime tenure, Martha Vazquez is not politically accountable. That lack of accountability too often spawns a judicial arrogance that can be checked in only two ways. One, as we have just seen, is through reversal by a higher court. The other is through the appointment process for federal judges. Those who revere and understand the irreplaceable value of the First Amendment must insist that, like the president of the United States, appointed federal judges take seriously their duty to preserve, protect and defend not only the First Amendment, but the entire Constitution. A member of the New York Bar and a First Amendment Fellow of the National Press Club, Henry Mark Holzer is professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and co-author of the soon to be published Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda in North Viet. Nam. He may be contacted at HankHolzer(a)aol.com. ______ in the abq journal on saturday september 16, 2001. We sued Vazquez some time ago. This lawsuit is active in both state and federal courts. But this is why we are suing again. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ Our september 10 ultimatim was ignored. Keep up-wind http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html

1 0