- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by Free Lotto 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

1 0

Re: Arresting Henry Kissinger
by A. Melon 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

> Well, "under our laws" may be a non sequitur here, as I don't think > any of the discussion, with one possible exception, has involved any > law of the US. Please acquaint yourself with the crimes under discussion. "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" is one source. There are many others. > As to other laws, most importantly the international body thereof, > there is a respectable--note I do not say persuasive, as I don't > have enough facts--that Kissinger as a "subordinate" was carrying > out the policy of the state and, as such an actor, may be clothed > with sovereign immunity. Kissinger was hardly a flunky. As chair of the "40 Committee" from 1969-1976 Kissinger personally oversaw all U.S. covert actions. He had tremendous power in the Nixon and Ford administrations. ("Do not follow the President's orders without clearing them through me.") And, since when is being a flunky an excuse? We're all supposed to follow the laws. It's basic to our system of government that the executive branch and its employees are not above the law. The U.S. hanged a number of people at the end of World War II as "war criminals" who had less relative responsibility than Henry Kissinger. The U.S. supports international tribunals now. Therefore, under the stated beliefs of the U.S. government Kissinger should be subject to these sorts of proceedings. Concerns about international tribunals are valid. If you reject them for all leaders you may be making sense. But, it sounds as if you reject them only for Kissinger.

1 0

Re: Arresting Henry Kissinger
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

At 10:00 PM 8/21/2001 -0500, Mac Norton wrote: >Well, "under our laws" may be a non sequitur here, as I don't think any of the discussion, with one possible exception, has involved any law of the US. As to other laws, most importantly the international body thereof, there is a respectable--note I do not say persuasive, as I don't have enough facts--that Kissinger as a "subordinate" was carrying out the policy of the state and, as such an actor, may be clothed with sovereign immunity. > >This is not an uncomplicated area of the law, and is one that gets very deep very fast. It's also one of those areas where the law is about as far divorced from common morality and decency as it ever gets. MacN A "subordinate" carrying out the policy of the state may still be held responsible if their orders or actions were "manifestly illegal (mealy mouth words to be taken to mean whatever they wish)." Of course, this begs the question was Kissinger following any direct/explicit orders regarding what transpired in Chile or did take the details of carrying out the matter on himself thus offering the Pres plausible deniability. Journal of Conflict and Security Law Volume 6, Issue 1: June 2001. http://www3.oup.co.uk/jconsl/current/pdf/060003.pdf The Boundaries of Liability In International Criminal Law, or `Selectivity by Stealth' Robert Cryer. ---------------------------------------- 3.1 Superior Orders The issue of superior orders has traditionally been a dif ?cult one, although to read the Nuremberg IMT Charter on the matter,those thinking it to be simple could be forgiven.The Nuremberg IMT Charter simply provides:[t ]he fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility,but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. .... Still, both Control Council Law 10 and the Nuremberg Principles asserted the view that superior orders were not a defence (Principle IV). This is possibly theNuremberg Principle around which most controversy has centred.A major reason for this has been the relatively low uptake for this position in national laws. This need not be fatal to the claim that the Nuremberg provision represents the law,but the position is weakened by the presence of contrary practice.This contrary practice began in the Nuremberg subsequent proceedings , in which US tribunals,in the Einsatzgruppen and High Command cases,seemed to use the manifest illegality test,as did certain other judgments in the direct post-war period. Expressions of that test have continued in various cases up to the present day, although the defence has been generally rejected, on the facts at least. In the sphere of international legislation, suggestions were made to include provisions relating to superior orders. All were rejected as they did not gather enough support. The ILC has wavered on the! total exclusion of the defence, and academic opinion has been split. The schism is between those asserting the manifest illegality test, and those adopting the position that superior orders are never a defence per se, but may be a relevant factor for other defences, such as duress. In practice, the difference may not be particularly important, as the orders in cases coming to trial will probably be considered manifestly illegal. That does not mean it will never be so, particularly in matters such as targeting,where the application of the rule to the facts may be dif?cult.B y the early 1990s, the simple fact was that either position could be asserted and receive a fair level of support. ... Opposition came from another group led by the US,who clung to the manifest illegality test,as the position,lex lata .79 The result was a compromise,and not comfortable one. Article 33 reads: 1.The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a government or of superior,whether military or civilian,shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless: (a)That person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; (b)The person did not know that the order was unlawful;and (c)The order was not manifestly unlawful. 2.For the purposes of this article,orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com

1 0

Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96
by Jim Choate 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 5

Anonymous Posting
by An Metet 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

Faustine wrote: > So why is it that the vast majority of the technical and insightful > contributions here seem to come from people who aren't averse to > using a reasonable simulacrum of a real name and address? I find the content from remailers is far higher than average for the list. > I made the deliberate choice not to use a remailer because I think > it's more interesting to contribute while having a prior body of > posts "attached" to me. People come to know more what to expect--and > if I irritate/bore/piss them off too much, they stop reading > me. Which is exactly as it should be. So sign your messages. With your true name, if that's important. > Though if you're after complete privacy re: your opinions and the > details of your life, you're better off not writing them down in the > first place, here or anywhere else. The technology isn't there yet, true, but it won't get there without deploying it and using it. Why isn't this obvious? > I assume everyone here weighed those considerations for themselves > before they got here: as far as I'm concerned, nobody has the > slightest business deciding it for anyone else. Don't worry, the cypherpunks list isn't going anywhere. It's just not realistic to put that genie back in the bottle. It would have to be a separate list entirely or one which rode on the current cypherpunks list. We may not be able to decide for others, but we can certainly look down on so-called cypherpunks who, in many cases, cannot even encrypt a message, never mind "writing code". Many, in fact, exhibit hostility towards remailers and anonymity, as you do. What I fail to understand is why such people are on this list in the first place, but, as you say, people make their own decisions. (None of these comments apply to Tim May, of course.)

3 2

News4Jax - Proposal Wants To Keep Big Brother's Eye Shut
by Jim Choate 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

http://www.news4jax.com/jax/news/stories/news-92779620010821-150801.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

1 0

Arresting Henry Kissinger
by Anonymous 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

The Village Voice has an article which approaches the question of how to make a citizen's arrest of Henry Kissinger: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/ridgeway.php The article is apparently hostile to Kissinger, but plays down the horror and extent of his crimes. Boilerplate excuses are offered. Outrage at murder and kidnapping is curiously absent. "Kissinger was simply a very loyal, opportunist subordinate." -- Daniel Ellsberg Does this exonerate other criminals under our laws? No. Is it the truth? No.

2 1

WEP is dead, how's the reception?
by Alfred Qeada 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

So WEP is dead, and the following are known: 1. you can drive around a city and sniff data (one ref) 2. folks can point a pair of dishes at each other and do 10 miles w/out extra ampl. (many refs) I'm curious: what range can you intercept 802.11 data with reasonable S:N assuming that the source is *not* cooperating as in 2. above. Lets try to answer this. A 2-m dish could give 30 db? (Damn, used to know that function of wavelength...) How many times the default range does 30 db give? (Damn, 30 dB is probably a power figure? 30 db is 1,000 times... range would be a square of radiated power.. sqrt 1000 is 30 something.. range of 802.11 is probably 100 m? so 3 Km, 1.5 mi with a man-sized fixed dish... too directional to drive with...

1 0

Re: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
by Bill Stewart 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

At 03:31 PM 08/20/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >Eugene wrote: > > > and switching to an emission poor system (chucking CRT for LCD > > would do plenty for starters) > >Actually, that won't help you much: emissions from LCD screens can be >easier to decode than those from monitors. Active matrix LCD screens create >very strong and clear emissions--as long as a display uses some form of >pixel sweep where each pixel is activated at a unique time, then the >emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less than >a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from VDUs--with >the result that the graphics card will often be the greatest source of >compromise. Also, most laptops have a VGA connector on the back, which leaks heavily. An external VGA screen might be a bit quieter, because the cables can be shielded, but it still depends on how capable the attacker is. And basically, if the Feds are sitting outside your house listening to whatever they can from your computer, you've already blown your security :-) Shoulda used Blacknet.

1 0