- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Power, Propaganda and Conscience in The War On Terror
by Tyler Durden 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

As a big, sloppy footnote to this, I'd point out that (these days) anything that does not jibe with the current right-wing party line is now called "Left", even though there's really not much that is particularly left economically (or politically for that matter) in what's said in quotes such as below. It seems odd to me that such a wide variety of political views are all called "left" simply they don't proclaim the US as savior-to-the-world. Of course, there are those with fairly leftist views in these ranks, but that's not all that relevant. The interesting thing however is that American liberalism is now seen as right-wing (in the pro-US policy sense) by international "leftists" (meaning international dissidents), indicating it's complete and total moral failure. -TD >From: Nostradumbass(a)SAFe-mail.net >To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM >Subject: Power, Propaganda and Conscience in The War On Terror >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:14:07 -0500 > > >http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4889&sectionID=40 > >A view from the left > >Excerpts.... > >"During the height of the cold war, a group of Soviet journalists were >taken on an official tour of the United States. They watched TV; they read >the newspapers; they listened to debates in Congress. To their >astonishment, everything they heard was more or less the same. The news was >the same. The opinions were the same, more or less. "How do you do it?" >they asked their hosts. "In our country, to achieve this, we throw people >in prison; we tear out their fingernails. Here, theres none of that? >Whats your secret?" >. >. >. >""Liberal realism" - in America, Britain, Australia - meant taking the >humanity out of the study of nations and viewing the world in terms of its >usefulness to western power. This was presented in a self-serving jargon: a >masonic-like language in thrall to the dominant power. Typical of the >jargon were labels." >. >. >. >"The difference is that in totalitarian societies, people take for granted >that their governments lie to them: that their journalists are mere >functionaries, that their academics are quiet and complicit. So people in >these countries adjust accordingly. They learn to read between the lines. >They rely on a flourishing underground. Their writers and playwrights write >coded works, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the cold war. > >A Czech friend, a novelist, told me; "You in the West are disadvantaged. >You have your myths about freedom of information, but you have yet to >acquire the skill of deciphering: of reading between the lines. One day, >you will need it." >. >. >. >"In the days before September 11, 2001, when America routinely attacked and >terrorised weak states, and the victims were black and brown-skinned people >in faraway places like Zaire and Guatemala, there were no headlines saying >terrorism. But when the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on >September 11, suddenly, there was terrorism. > >This is not to say that the threat from al-Qaida is not real - It is very >real now, thanks to American and British actions in Iraq, and the almost >infantile support given by the Howard government. But the most pervasive, >clear and present danger is that of which we are told nothing. > >It is the danger posed by "our" governments - a danger suppressed by >propaganda that casts "the West" as always benign: capable of misjudgment >and blunder, yes, but never of high crime. The judgement at Nuremberg takes >another view. This is what the judgement says; and remember, these words >are the basis for almost 60 years of international law: "To initiate a war >of aggression, it is not only an international crime; it is the supreme >international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it >contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." > >In other words, there is no difference, in the principle of the law, >between the action of the German regime in the late 1930s and the Americans >in 2003. Fuelled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and >corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian >Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered >right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert discontent into nationalism". >Bushs America, he warns, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind." > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1

1 0

Freedom to speak: Patriot act unconstitutional
by Major Variola (ret.) 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Jan 26, 4:26 PM EST Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional By LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project. In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned. The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey. The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey. The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals. "The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said. Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles." ----- Of course there are limits in regards to freedom of speech. They are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Everything else is, of course, allowed. -Sunder ----- Hang Ashcroft.

1 0

Power, Propaganda and Conscience in The War On Terror
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 26 Jan '04

26 Jan '04

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4889&sectionID=40 A view from the left Excerpts.... "During the height of the cold war, a group of Soviet journalists were taken on an official tour of the United States. They watched TV; they read the newspapers; they listened to debates in Congress. To their astonishment, everything they heard was more or less the same. The news was the same. The opinions were the same, more or less. "How do you do it?" they asked their hosts. "In our country, to achieve this, we throw people in prison; we tear out their fingernails. Here, theres none of that? Whats your secret?" . . . ""Liberal realism" - in America, Britain, Australia - meant taking the humanity out of the study of nations and viewing the world in terms of its usefulness to western power. This was presented in a self-serving jargon: a masonic-like language in thrall to the dominant power. Typical of the jargon were labels." . . . "The difference is that in totalitarian societies, people take for granted that their governments lie to them: that their journalists are mere functionaries, that their academics are quiet and complicit. So people in these countries adjust accordingly. They learn to read between the lines. They rely on a flourishing underground. Their writers and playwrights write coded works, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the cold war. A Czech friend, a novelist, told me; "You in the West are disadvantaged. You have your myths about freedom of information, but you have yet to acquire the skill of deciphering: of reading between the lines. One day, you will need it." . . . "In the days before September 11, 2001, when America routinely attacked and terrorised weak states, and the victims were black and brown-skinned people in faraway places like Zaire and Guatemala, there were no headlines saying terrorism. But when the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on September 11, suddenly, there was terrorism. This is not to say that the threat from al-Qaida is not real - It is very real now, thanks to American and British actions in Iraq, and the almost infantile support given by the Howard government. But the most pervasive, clear and present danger is that of which we are told nothing. It is the danger posed by "our" governments - a danger suppressed by propaganda that casts "the West" as always benign: capable of misjudgment and blunder, yes, but never of high crime. The judgement at Nuremberg takes another view. This is what the judgement says; and remember, these words are the basis for almost 60 years of international law: "To initiate a war of aggression, it is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In other words, there is no difference, in the principle of the law, between the action of the German regime in the late 1930s and the Americans in 2003. Fuelled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert discontent into nationalism". Bushs America, he warns, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind."

1 0

Re: Avoiding US mail fraud charges while protecting your financial privacy
by Steve Schear 26 Jan '04

26 Jan '04

At 11:47 AM 1/26/2004, Pete Capelli wrote: I thought the USPS creation act forbid any competition in this area? Using the US postal system can be damaging to your freedom. I was thinking of re-selling pre-paid domestic, private carrier, envelopes as this circumvents the USPS and the associated discretionary federal charges (e.g., mail fraud). Do any on the list think there would be interest? Will not maintain any postal info after ack of receipt. Haven't thought about price but it won't be a gouging. I'm sure it does, but since few if any lightweight courier envelopes are opened for such inspection who is to know? steve

1 0

Freedom to speak: Patriot act unconstitutional
by Major Variola (ret.) 26 Jan '04

26 Jan '04

Jan 26, 4:26 PM EST Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional By LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project. In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned. The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey. The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey. The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals. "The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said. Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles." ----- Of course there are limits in regards to freedom of speech. They are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Everything else is, of course, allowed. -Sunder ----- Hang Ashcroft.

1 0

Avoiding US mail fraud charges while protecting your financial privacy
by Steve Schear 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

[From another list..] A charge of "mail fraud" or "securities fraud" doesn't mean jack shit anymore. If you exchange money or other financial instruments a prosecutor can nail you for something. Real fraud does occur, but prosecutors prefer to go after targets they want to cut down to size, such as Michael Milken or Martha Stewart. They base their cases on obscure subjective laws that violate private property rights and are designed to ensnare everyone. Using the US postal system can be damaging to your freedom. I was thinking of re-selling pre-paid domestic, private carrier, envelopes as this circumvents the USPS and the associated discretionary federal charges (e.g., mail fraud). Do any on the list think there would be interest? Will not maintain any postal info after ack of receipt. Haven't thought about price but it won't be a gouging. steve

1 0

Encrypted phones/scramblers, etc.
by Harmon Seaver 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

Someone was just trying to tell me that the FCC, et al, won't allow encrypted phones or even the old style scramblers to be sold anymore. Have there been any moves in that direction? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

2 1

System security data about to be made public (Cobell v Norton) (fwd)
by J.A. Terranson 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

Of interest to may I'm sure. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:34:57 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner(a)nic-naa.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: brunner(a)nic-naa.net, triballaw(a)wabanaki.abenaki.net Subject: System security data about to be made public (Cobell v Norton) The background is probably not of interest to many on NANOG, but the operational art of the Department of the Interior's network operators and security staff, and the host managers of the Indian Trust systems, which has been rated the worst in the Federal Goverment, is about to enter the public record, minus host and subnet identifiers, and any bits that "might jeopardize the security of individual Indian Trust Data". The text of the order is at this URL: http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20040121FileSMITReportsinRecord.pdf In a nutshell, its an Iraq-sized pile of thousands of individual trust accounts -- a major regional bank -- with no known audit trail, and an open access policy until quite recently. If I get the doc-u-boxen, I'll be happy to share with other NANOGers, as the DOI appears unable to move its operational art from an "F" to a "D" without assistance. Eric P.S. Triballaw list cc'd.

1 0

final test message
by ObL 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

final test -ObL

1 0

test, please ignore
by ObL 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

Test, please ignore. -ObL

1 0