- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tim May 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: > > That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for > their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. > > There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other > extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. > There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here "prejudiced" speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the "OFF" switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Tyler Durden 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

"All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" view.) -TD >From: Michael Kalus <mkalus(a)thedarkerside.to> >To: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >CC: "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics >Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:48:14 -0500 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > > > >> The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy > >> task as you can see in a six month trial. > > > > Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime > > change > > with extreme prejudice. > > > >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any >country in the world has a law against hate speech. > > > > >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. > > > > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. > >All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the >reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". > > > > > > And I would like > >> to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and > >> Britain). > > > > If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt > > the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. > >They could actually until ~ 10 years ago. Germany (even though >considered independend) wasn't. By international law a piece was never >brokered, it was just a cease fire. > >Of course now they could, but Germany still is a bit jumpy about it's >past. > > > > > >> There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, > > > > Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted > > the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) > > neuter the sheep (ie you). > > > >Nice... So in the US you have : > >- - Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". >- - Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they >still do) >- - TV Stations who edit movies >- - Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. >- - What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? > > > > Fuck censors dead. > > > >I agree. > > > Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. > > > >I agree again, but the problem is that even in the good ol'e US of A it >is not tested. > > > > Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus. > > >Doubtful. I don't have an issue with discussion if both sides can get >their say. I do not agree that driving people like Nazis into the >underground accomplishes anything. Their ideas have to be looked at in >the light and then society can answer. > >Problem with that is: 99% of people give a fuck about discussion or >ideas. they want to be told what to do. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 8.0.3 > >iQA/AwUBP+zW1WlCnxcrW2uuEQIfqgCcDMvh3WH9dspQ/Tf43a9nT8z521AAnjuO >0aujI5ksmZhQ23+cJNPEzVCZ >=K0rP >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

4 4

James Donald Skeetshoot...
by Tyler Durden 27 Dec '03

27 Dec '03

Variola: PULL! _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

MAOLD terrorist group strikes Toronto
by cypherpunks＠salvagingelectrons.com 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

(Oh wait, terrorist by USA PATRIOT Act Standards.) SUSPECTS RESPONSIBLE FOR TORCHING CHRISTMAS DECORATONS ARRESTED http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/release.php?id=4869 32 Division 416-808-3236 Toronto Police have been investigating 12 reported cases of arson, which occurred in the Willowdale area between November 10 and December 13, 2003. In each occurrence, suspects deliberately set afire numerous front yard holiday displays containing scarecrows, reindeer, wreaths or bales of straw. In one instance the suspects left a note warning the homeowner to stop using flammable outdoor displays and stick to indoor decorations. The note was signed "M.A.O.L.D. The movement against outdoor lawn decorations, and Bite the Curb". On Sunday December 21st, 2003 officers on patrol in the Willowdale neighbourhood investigated a number of youths walking along the street. At that time, one of the youths was found to be in possession of a can of fuel, a hose, gloves and a mask. On Tuesday December 23rd, 2003 as a result of further investigation, officersf rom No. 32 Division arrested and charged three 15-year-old boys in relation to the arsons. In total, the youths face a total of eight counts of arson causing damage to property. They are scheduled to appear in court in January of 2004. Anyone having information regarding this investigation is asked to contact police at 416-808-3200 or Crime Stoppers at 416-222-TIPS(8477).

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> writes: >After WWI the "winners" humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main >reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the >aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being >treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very >humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. > >After WWII the "winners" had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now >they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got >the Mar shal plan and so on. Unfortunately after GulfWarII the "winners" hadn't learned their lessons from WWII very well. At the end of the war, despite the bombing campaigns, Germany had a vaguely functional administration and (heavily rationed) food, coal, electricity, etc were available. The Allies systematically dismantled all of that, both through apathy (no real planning beyond "Move in and occupy the place") and their zeal to rebuild the country in their own image. For example, they prevented anyone who'd ever been a Nazi party member from doing their job. Well the problem was that to do almost anything, you had to be a party member, so they instantly stopped all civil administration, engineering/maintenance work, teachers, the judicial system, the police, you couldn't even deliver the mail without being a party member (since they were government employees). Virtually every male over the age of about 16 had been in the military and had experience with weapons. So you now had a mass of unemployed ex-military who desperately wanted food and clothing, and had access to an almost infinite supply of weaponry. In addition Germany after the war attracted what one of the allied leaders (Eisenhower?) described as "the scum of Europe", eager to make a quick buck (in Iraq it's folks eager to beat up the infidels). This lead to sizeable pitched battles between the armed gangs and the occupying military, with the military frequently being outgunned by the gangs. Substitute Germany -> Iraq and profit / food -> religion /nationalism and the same situation exists today. Peter.

1 0

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by James A. Donald 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

-- James A. Donald: > > And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears > > about poor victimized Saddam. Jamie Lawrence: > I don't care if he got a shave. I do care that the US fails > to adhere to international law. The US army would be wholly in compliance with international law even if it nailed Saddam's head to a post in central Baghdad with a nine inch nail. Saddam is not entitled to POW protections. He was running the war effort out of uniform and hidden amongst civilians, which has always been a shoot-on-the-spot violation of the rules of war, and his war effort consisted largely of terrorist attacks directed at civilians, which regrettably has not been a shoot-on-the-spot violation, but arguably should be. > I fail to understand why our "war" on "terrorism", which is > apparently the mode that drives most of this sort of feeling, > suddenly required knocking over a crippled tyrant. The title of this thread is 'I am anti war. You lot support Saddam" I don't defend the war on Iraq. Why are you supporting Saddam? James A. Donald > > Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers > > had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in > > the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and > > losers. Jamie Lawrence: > Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope. You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lSPP/JI5XquWeDE9Luo/hkP7TgMrx6R7x088utoG 4elBeRSFzJwkpZXIuL3j9uEkywuFYbl8gvR7GYjfN

7 17

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by Tyler Durden 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

"And I don't usually get quite this MAD, but such ignorance, such blindness, is the reason we are in this mess. " I'm not so sure Mr Donald is ignorant OR blind. He seems to be something I've never seen in real life before: Completely aligned with US foreign policy, past/present/future. I'm starting to think that Mr Donald's contributions to Cypherpunks may be part of his job description. -TD >From: baudmax23(a)earthlink.net >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam >Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:40:51 -0500 > >At 08:14 PM 12/23/2003 -0800, CIA-apologist "James A. Donald" ><jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > >> -- >>James A. Donald >> > > > > You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a >> > > > > victim. >> >>Jamie Lawrence: >> > > > Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit >> > > > by attempting to credit me with such statements. >> >>James A. Donald >> > > You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of >> > > Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds >> > > like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized >> > > Saddam" >> >>Jamie Lawrence >> > I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. >> >>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID >>20031221161851.GE32589(a)clueinc.net You said: >>: : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to >>: : international law." >> implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international >> law. >> >>You also said; >>: : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." >>implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor >>little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor >>little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. >> >>These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to >>believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not >>saying what you claimed you were saying. >> >>As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. >> >> > Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that >> > you didn't want to respond to: >> > >> > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute >> > motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on >> > wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical >> > arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international >> > relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New >> > American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the >> > "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or >> > worse. >> >>Liar: >> >>I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums >>I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs >>that would rationalize and justify such an action. > >"Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by >visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the >heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose >it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life >should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should >lose, and their way of life perish." >-James A. Donald, post on this thread, 12/20/2003 > >"...raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish." > >Down the memory hole we go folks. James is almost as much in denial about >his lying as GWB. Confront him as you will, let the facts not be >obstacles. Genocidal monsters unleashed, with the blessing of James, as we >will not consider the consequences, because "we can do no wrong". Oh yeah. > >>There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely >>pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably >>stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, >>and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and >>evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. > >Funny, then, and quite logically inconsistent, that this thread is titled >"I am antiwar...". I have not seen anything evidencing "antiwar: mentality >from you, as you just justify it as all well, fine and dandy. Oh yeah, if >WE kill 10,00o Iraqis, that's worth just 1 measly disheveled Saddam. >You've got some funny math goin', boy. That's not even counting the >Billions$$ of US $DEBT we cannot afford now. > >>Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the >>capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, >>but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the >>capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? > >Who gives a flying F*CK about Dean, about Commies, about Capitalists, et >al. Despite repeated and voluminous, historically verifiable and >irrefutable evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even acknowledge there >is ANY base grievance against US foreign policy, which has led to the >current state of affairs (so-called "war on terror", blah blah blah). In >your rather logically and cerebrally challenged world view, everything else >is nothing but a "sock-puppet KGB conspiracy" against the US/CIA (which is >giving the KGB considerably more credit I'm sure, then they deserve, if >they were half as inept and incompetent as the CIA during the so-called >"cold war period construct"). > >You see, all I care about is: I am not going to pay the bill for this >inane shit (insane policy), and I would not give my life for it. I would >not ALLOW any youth under my discretion to be seduced by these lies to lay >down their life for this SHIT. This is not freedom ,or liberty, or >liberation. You, James A Donald, are an armchair pussy Neo-con, who >advocates others putting their lives and resources on the line for this >utter CRAP and HYPOCRISY, and yet would not do so yourself (you are >probably physically UNFIT for such military duty yourself). Intellectual, >moral, and physical WIMPS as yourself are unfit to ask, much less demand >others suffer the sacrifice to satisfy your self delusions and >self-aggrandizement. People just like YOU DESERVE to die in RETALIATORY >strikes to such MAD foreign policy. My only regret is that such attacks >will not specifically target hard headed morons like you. > >And I for sure, would not weap a tear, because scum like you DESERVE such >an end, in fact, DEMAND it it. That's not just an ad hominem, mind you. >You don't respond to reason, you LIE and OBFUSCATE. You deserve your just >fruits. Unfortunately, the actions and policies you advocate will >inevitably and inexorably lead to the deaths of many innocents who do not >share your limited views. But it will also end the tyranny of the >ignorant, and the point is, if that is the case, then so be it. Systems >seek equilibrium. > >Justice will be served, wisdom will prevail. That "it all" will have a >higher cost than need be, is due to the ignorant likes of you. And don't >think anyone will cry when the likes of you are gone, any more than Saddam, >any more than the scum who hung at Nuremburg. Because you are really no >different, exercising your tyranny behind the masses, than anything he ever >did. What you advocate, is murder, coercion, torture (in the name of the >almighty state). And people like you, deserve just the same as Saddam, >because, at /ROOT, YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT. Screaming for "cruise missile >strikes" from a 1,000 miles away, even whilst other unfortunate suckers are >designated to push buttons you wouldn't even have the balls to push >yourself. What a man! Oh yeah! What a MAN! > >-Max > >And I don't usually get quite this MAD, but such ignorance, such blindness, >is the reason we are in this mess. I'd hang you myself, if but given the >rope and the chance. If it could save ANOTHER 3,000 innocent lives, it'd >be well worth it! > >> --digsig >> James A. Donald >> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG >> mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp >> 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ > >------------------------------------------------ >A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should >have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence >from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own >government. > >--George Washington >------------------------------------------------- >Smash The State! mailing list home >http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate > >Extropian Principles... the Future, Now >http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm >--- _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

1 0

Saddam is evil, therefore we have the right to feed him to our pigs
by Tyler Durden 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

James Donald wrote... "There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam" This is a critical point, and it's one you fail to recognize over and over again. Let me tell you a little story. There's this guy that lives down the block...I think he may be a Satanist or something, but I'm not quite sure. I know he's into some wierd stuff...I saw his wife with a black eye once, and his kids don't look so happy or healthy. One day at the supermarket his cart crashed into mine. It may have been an accident, but I'm not quite sure. But the guy gave me an eye, so he's clearer a threat to me. So what I did the other day was I broke into the guy's house...it was late and I took him by surpise so when he was coming down the stairs I shot him. His older son came at me with a baseball bat, so I had to shoot him too. When I finally got to the wife the ungrateful bitch started crying and begged me not to kill her..."DAMMIT, I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU YOU STUPID BITCH" I said to her, but she didn't seem to feel any better. Actually, I'm typing this message from her house, because if I leave the cops'll get me and maybe some more of the guy's relatives will come, and then we'll be right back where we started. I've got no plans to leave here for at least 2 to 3 years. Funny thing is, though, every now and then when I'm coming down the stairs there will be tacks or nails or something at the bottom. I'm starting to get the idea they don't want me here! Sometimes I wonder if I should have done this, but now that I look around this guy's house I can see all sorts of whips and books on Satanism. So it turns out I was right! I guess that means I did the right thing. -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam >Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:14:34 -0800 > > -- >James A. Donald > > > > > You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a > > > > > victim. > >Jamie Lawrence: > > > > Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit > > > > by attempting to credit me with such statements. > >James A. Donald > > > You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of > > > Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds > > > like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized > > > Saddam" > >Jamie Lawrence > > I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. > >On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID >20031221161851.GE32589(a)clueinc.net You said: >: : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to >: : international law." > implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international > law. > >You also said; >: : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." >implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor >little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor >little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. > >These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to >believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not >saying what you claimed you were saying. > >As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. > > > Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that > > you didn't want to respond to: > > > > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute > > motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on > > wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical > > arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international > > relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New > > American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the > > "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or > > worse. > >Liar: > >I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums >I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs >that would rationalize and justify such an action. > >There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely >pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably >stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, >and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and >evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. > >Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the >capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, >but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the >capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp > 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
by Hasan Diwan 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 00:20AM, James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > > -- >Jamie Lawrence >> > > As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to >> > > impute motives to others that you imagine they might >> > > hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and >> > > effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and >> > > effect based on international relations in the '60s, >> > > bundled together with some sort of New American Century >> > > twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your >> > > words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. > >James A. Donald >> > Liar: >> > >> > I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other >> > forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam >> > or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action. Gentlemen: Fanatics of any persuasion attack not our people, but the very freedoms and tolerance we value. This sort of line of rhetoric illustrates to me that they have won. Let us agree to disagree, but disagree in a civil manner. Thank you very much.

1 0

Speaking of the Geneva convention
by Freematt357＠aol.com 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

December 15, 2003 Uncle Sambs Guantanamo Prison: Outside the Rule of Law http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031215ONeil.html By Brigid ObNeil* The latest news from Guantanamo Bay is beginning to sound like a modern-day Simpsons episode. After two years of imprisoning more than 600 alleged enemy combatants without charge or counsel in a Cuban prison camp, the Administration announced earlier this month that two detainees -- one a U.S. citizen -- would be permitted limited access to an attorney. As any Simpsons buff will tell you, itbs a classic Mr. Burns move: put on a show of improving work conditions at the nuclear power plant by dressing Homer in thermal underwear. While it might be an amusing tag line typical of the most noxious character in the Simpsons repertoire, itbs a sad metaphor for the U.S. governmentbs abysmal treatment of designated enemy combatants. News of the American prisonerbs counsel came one day before the Justice Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court, adding to suspicions about the Administrationbs motives. Their brief asks the court to affirm the governmentbs i ndefinite detention of Americans declared b enemy combatants,b without counsel or the ability to dispute the allegations. The Constitutional liberties at risk in this case, including the right to a fair trial and due process, constitute a grave danger for Americans and foreign nationals alike. And nowhere is the startling consequence of Constitutional b concessionsb more apparent than the state of Guantanamo Bay. >From the beginning, Guantanamo Bay was wrought with strife. The Geneva Convention, with its guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all prisoners of war, was quickly sidelined by the Administration in favor of its own rules for the treatment and investigation of detainees. In the absence of any rule of law, it didnbt take long for the media to pick up reports of inhumane treatment -- or what one former intelligence officer brazenly called, b torture-lite.b These reports include: firing rubber bullets at those in restraints, beatings for anyone who b made a call to prayer,b sleep deprivation, and forced confessions. The situation became so dire that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only non-government organization to visit the camp, broke a long-standing policy of silence and called the prisoner circumstances an b intolerable situation.b After reading the latest official statements on the health of the detainees, it becomes shockingly clear why the ICRC took such an unprecedented move. According to national news reports, 35 detainees have attempted suicide, 110 have been placed on a suicide watch list, and 1 out of every 5 detainees now receive medication for what one military official can only describe as b clinical depression.b In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. In the absence of any formidable opposition to the Executive Branchbs actions, the Supreme Court has finally stepped into the ring. In a matter of months the Justices will decide two cases that will rule on a host of alleged constitutional abuses. In the first case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court will determine whether a U.S. citizen has the right to an attorney before disappearing into a military stockade without charges or contact with the outside world. The second case, involving the two appeals of Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. U.S., will decide if Guantanamo detainees can have access to civilian courts to challenge their detention. The most pressing issue in both cases calls into question the newly claimed Executive Branch power to detain any person indefinitely and without any recourse to judicial review. Given the blatant lack of any legal protections for these alleged combatants, it is no wonder that former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain expressed concern this week about what he saw after a recent visit to Guantanamo. Even prisoners suspected of serious crimes deserve fair and open legal proceedings -- after all, our very Constitution was founded on the right to due process and a presumption of innocence. By holding suspected enemies to our highest rule of law and honoring established international treaties, we set a precedent for the treatment we expect of U.S. troops in enemy hands. To undermine this rule of law risks the very livelihood of our Constitution and threatens the way our citizens are treated both at home and abroad. No minor concessions by the U.S. government can change the impression that the secrecy and lack of due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay resembles that of the Soviet gulags of old. And it doesnbt take the antics of a Mr. Burns or the gullibility of Homer Simpson to figure it out. *Brigid ObNeil is a researcher at the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.

6 8