- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Assassination Politics, was Kiddie porn on the Internet
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 9/22/96 -0400, Rabid Wombat wrote: > > >On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 01:51 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >> >>On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Steve Schear wrote: >> >> >> >>> Someone wrote: >> >>> We've all heard these arguments, but are they true? Who says so, and how >> >>> can they be certain? Jim's suggestion has never, to my knowledge, been >> >>> tried on a consistant, large, scale. When all conventional alternatives >> >>> have been tried and fail, what have we or the starving children got to >> >>> lose? >> >> >> >>I think "Lord of the Flies" answers this question quite well. >> > >> >Does it? LOTF was fiction. Can you identify a recent instance in which a >> >non-governmental organization attempted to influence political/military >> >events via a concerted AP? >> > >Where is Jimmy Hoffa? And it worked! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: USA_exe
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 AM 9/22/96 GMT, John Young wrote: >On Sep 21, 1996 16:19:53, 'jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com>' wrote: >>Pardon me, but what's wrong with this? Follow the news more closely, and >>you'll hear of a group which is operating in southern Mexico, the "EPR," which >>is killing off government employees, politicians, and police. True, they're >>not implementing the mathematical, digital-cash basis behind AP, but they >see >>to be making good progress against the corruption which is Mexico. >>Increase their productivity by a factor of 10, and the Mexican government would >>be terrified. Increase it by 100, and the Mexican government would fall within >>a few months. > > >Jim's makes a good, if gruesome, point here, about the vicious realities of >do-or-die AP, by even our own apple pie government. > > >The Washington Post reports at length today on the Defense Department's >disclosure yesterday of heretofore classified trainging manuals used in the >School of the Americas to instruct Latino troops on killing a wide range of >civilians for political purposes. >To read "Army Instructed Latins On Executions, Torture," about your tax >dollars working the AP angle: > >http://jya.com/usaexe.txt This article is so wonderfully appropriate to the discussion that I can't resist re-posting it here. I think the part about only discovering the problem in 1992 after 10 years is particularly precious. In addition, I notice that a listing of the appropriate targets these army people were supposed to "neutralize" are listed as: The manual on "Terrorism and the Urban Guerrilla" says that "another function of the CI agents is recommending CI targets for neutralizing. The CI targets can include personalities, installations, organizations, documents and materials ... the personality targets prove to be valuable sources of intelligence. Some examples of these targets are governmental officials, political leaders, and members of the infrastructure." full article posted below: The Washington Post, September 21, 1996, pp. A1, A9. Army Instructed Latins On Executions, Torture Manuals Used 1982-91, Pentagon Reveals By Dana Priest U.S. Army intelligence manuals used to train Latin American military officers at an Army school from 1982 to 1991 advocated executions, torture, blackmail and other forms of coercion against insurgents, Pentagon documents released yesterday show. Used in courses at the U.S. Army's School of the Americas, the manual says that to recruit and control informants, counterintelliigence agents could use "fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, beatings, false imprisonment, executions and the use of truth serum," according to a secret Defense Department summary of the manuals compiled during a 1992 investigation of the instructional material and also released yesterday. A summary of the investigation and four pages of brief, translated excerpts from the seven Spanish-language manuals were released last night by the Defense Department, which recently has taken to making controversial information available in the evenings, after the deadlines of the prime-time network television news programs. The Army School of the Americas, long located in Panama but moved in 1984 to Fort Benning, Ga, has trained nearly 60,000 military and police officers from Latin America and the United States since 1946. Its graduates have included some of the region's most notorious human rights abusers, among them Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador's right-wing death squads; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 assassination of six Jesuit priests; Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, the deposed Panamanian strongman; six Peruvian officers linked to killings of students and a professor; and Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, a Guatemalan officer implicated in the death of an American innkeeper living in Guatemala and to the death of a leftist guerrilla married to an American lawyer. The Defense Department said the school's curriculum now includes mandatory human rights training and it is an effective way to help promote military professionalism in a region where that concept is still nascent. "The problem was discovered in 1992, properly reported and fixed," said Lt. Col. Arne Owens, a Pentagon spokesman. "There have been a lot of great changes at the School of the Americas." When reports of the 1992 investigation surfaced this year during a congressional inquiry into the CIA's activities in Guatemala, spokesmen for the school denied the manuals advocated such extreme methods of operation, which were in violation of Army policy and law at the time they were in use. The 1992 investigation concluded the inclusion of the methods was the result of bureaucratic oversight. "It is incredible that the use ... since 1982 ... evaded the established system of doctrinal controls," said the report of the investigation, conducted by the office of the assistant to the secretary of defense for intelligence oversight. "Nevertheless, we could find no evidence that this was a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to violate DoD or Army policies." The manuals were complied by Army intelligence officials using "outdated instructional material without the required doctrinal approval" from the Army Intelligence School, the investigation report said. The material was based, in part, on training instructions used in the 1960s by the Army's Foreign Intelligence Assistance Program, entitled "Project X." The 1992 investigation also found the manual was distributed to thousands of military officers from 11 South and Central American countries, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, where the U.S. military was heavily involved in counterinsurgency. One manual, entitled "Handling of Sources," also "discloses classified [informant] methodology that could compromise Army clandestine intelligence modus operandi," the 1992 investigation found. Another manual, entitled "Counterintelligence," contained "sensitive Army counterintelligence tactics, techniques and procedures." The Defense Department yesterday said the 1992 investigators found two dozen objectionable passages among the 1,169 pages of instruction. For instance, the manual entitled "Handling of Sources" says, "The CI [counterintelligence] agent could cause the arrest of the employees [informants] parents, imprison the employee or give him a beating" to coerce cooperation. On several occasions it uses the words "neutralization" or "neutralizing," which was commonly used at the time as a euphemism for execution or destruction, a Pentagon official said. The manual on "Terrorism and the Urban Guerrilla" says that "another function of the CI agents is recommending CI targets for neutralizing. The CI targets can include personalities, installations, organizations, documents and materials ... the personality targets prove to be valuable sources of intelligence. Some examples of these targets are governmental officials, political leaders, and members of the infrastructure." The Defense Department continues to try to collect the manuals but, as the 1992 investigation noted, "due to incomplete records, retrieval of all copies is doubtful." Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-Mass.), an advocate of closing the school, said in a statement last night that the manuals "show what we have suspected all along, that taxpayers' money has been used for physical abuse." Kennedy said, "The School of the Americas, a Cold War relic, should be shut down." [End] Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Kill 'em and let God sort it out, was Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> jim bell wrote: >Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the >system to solve a problem. The rest of us notice that there are probably >thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze >and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% >of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% >available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit >suicide by taking up a futile gesture. > If AP came to be seen as an acceptable way for business and citizens to right egregious wrongs it would quickly lead to a 'law of the jungle' situation, which I think any sane person would reject as the cure being worse than the disease. However, if governemnts (especially ours) continue to expand their implied authority and greatly diminishing personal liberties we all took for granted were inaliable human rights (in our own best interest, of course), a time may come when a bit of rebellion may be the only viable alternative for self-correction. I pray it never comes to this, but Thomas Jefferson contemplating this said: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. . . .What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?. . .The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, regarding Shay's Rebellion and anarchy. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to prescription DRUGS.

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:30 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At the risk of being a devil's advocate, let me suggest that you are >> conceding too much even with the preceding paragraph. The 1st amendment >> says nothing about preventing speech which (even admittedly) would result >> in "direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our nation or its people." > >I believe there is one section in the Constitution that says that speech >harmful to national security is not protected under the 1st amendment. I can't think of what portion of the Constitution you're referring to. But chances are, somebody else will see this reference and comment. > However, >I don't agree with this provision at all. "National security" is a phrase that >is applied to anything from information on the JFK assassination to DES source >code. ...and it's one of the most abused concepts there is. >> I could list many more, but won't because of lack of space. But notice >> that, presumably, each and every one of these incidents was AT ONE TIME kept >> secret, arguably because it would be better for the country to do so. Thus, >> presumably it was thought or at least asserted that to reveal them would >> cause "damage to our nation or its people." > >If secret information was released, it would cause most people to completely >lose respect for the government (some people call this damage -- I call it >progress). Yes! I, of course, agree with the latter interpretation as well. It is precisely this distinction which, I believe, makes it so vital that lawsuits such as this Bernstein one NOT "concede" what doesn't need to be conceded. All they should say is that even if there are secrets which the law should protect, they cannot include information known by civilians in peacetime. >> The way you've written the paragraph I've quoted above, it appears that you >> are somehow acknowleding that there are certain circumstances where certain >> types of speech are controllable because they are "harmful," but you fail to >> explain how even this constitutional restiction is tolerable. Frankly, I >> don't see it! What you need to do is to be far more specific about such >> speech and exactly where it can be controlled. > >There may be certain circumstances under which speech can be directly harmful. >Military operations and missle launch codes are things that should be kept >secret. Information about high-powered weapons should be too. If the Japanese >had been able to get information about how to build A-bombs during WWII, major >cities in the U.S. probably would have been completely wiped out. I don't like >the idea that the government has the power to decide what's harmful and what >isn't, but there are beneficial uses of the provision. The few examples that exist, as you've selected them above, seem to be almost entirely based on military secrets in time of war. It is not clear whether a non-security clearance civilian is restricted in any way, nor should he be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Continuing spam from Timmy May and his friends
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently sent the following article to this mailing list: ]To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com ]Subject: Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint ]From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ]Comments: Dole/Kemp '96! ]Message-Id: <awTLuD1w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> ]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 08:00:57 EDT ]In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960921021401.2717A-100000@polaris> ]Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. ] ]Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: ]> > Do you simply drive without a valid driver's license? I know some folks who ]> > do, of course, but it's not something that's "worth it" to me. ]> ]> Some jurisdictions (D.C. is a good example) are such a joke it's not ]> funny. An associate of mine literally MADE his own Italian Driver's ]> license and turned it in, took an eye test, and walked out with a nice new ]> D.C. license. ] ]In NYC a very high percentage of drivers don't have licences, have suspended ]licences, etc. Generally no one has the time to bother with them unless they ]want to nail them for something else. A couple of years ago we were involved in ]a minor car accident with a Chassidic Jew who tried to leave the scene of the ]accident. My wife chased him and stopped him. :-) The cops came and discovered ]that he had no papers (including no driver's licence, no insurance, etc). They ]gave him about $500 worth of tickets for driving without a licence, leaving the ]scene of an accident, etc (which I rather doubt he was planning to pay) and let ]him drive on (still without the licence). ] ]--- ] ]Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM ]Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps I received the following e-mail from either Timmy May using an alternate account, or someone whose IQ is similar to Timmy's, in response: ]From Adamsc(a)io-online.com Sat Sep 21 22:40:36 1996 ]From: Adamsc(a)io-online.com (Adamsc) ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> ]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 19:40:29 -0800 ]Reply-To: "Chris Adams" <adamsc(a)io-online.com> ]X-Mailer: Chris Adams's Registered PMMail 1.52 For OS/2 ]X-Filtered: By PMMail 1.52 For OS/2 ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]Subject: Re: Re: DL in exchange for fingerprint ]Message-Id: <19960922023957609.AAA206@GIGANTE> ] ] You are being gently flamed because. ] ] [X] you continued a boring useless stupid thread ] [ ] you repeatedly posted to the same thread that you just posted to ] [x] you repeatedly initiated incoherent, flaky, and mindless threads ] [x] you posted a piece riddled with profanities ] [ ] you advocated Net censorship ] [ ] you SCREAMED! (used all caps) ] [x] you posted some sort of crap that doesn't belong in this group ] [ ] you posted the inanely stupid 'Make Money Fast' article ] [ ] you threatened others with physical harm ] [x] you made a bigoted statement(s) ] [x] you repeatedly assumed unwarranted moral or intellectual superiority ] [x] you are under the misapprehension that this group is your preserve ] [x] you repeatedly shown lack of humor ] [x] you are apparently under compulsion to post to every threat ] [?] you are posting an anonymous attack ] ] >>> Thank you for the time you have taken to read this. Live n' Learn.<<< ] ] ] ]# Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp ]# cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 ]"I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on ]a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, ]spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." ] -- Duncan Frissell ] ] Just now I received about 2 dozen similar e-mails from this address, which therefore must be Timmy May's - I can't believe that there are two people on the 'net this stupid and obnoxious and prone to lying. In particular, I receive this spam from Timmy in response to each 'crypto-relevant wire clippings' post. Timmy May is definitely turning this mailing list into a political rant menagerie where cryptography discussions are not welcome. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Phill wrote: >[AP drivel deleted] >If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now. It can't because it >is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be. It's perfectly doable, it's just not politically expedient. One reason is that if they kill Saddam, they no longer have an excuse to keep threatening and attacking Iraq and making themselves look good. Another is that National Leaders have a tacit understanding between themselves never to assassinate other politicians [well, hardly ever....] If you break the taboo, you're implicitly inviting everyone else to go gunning for you, and it's too easy to do if there are enough people who really want you dead, especially well-organized people like a foreign army or spy service. If the US _had_ really wanted to assassinate Saddam, they could have hired professionals to do the job (like Mossad.) Instead they killed 200,000 other Iraqis, including civilians, draftees, and a few tens of thousands of real soldiers. >In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* >would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules Yup. >I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of >people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone >is going to act on it. I think a more realistic danger is that the government will use it as an excuse to attack all the techniques for private communications that cypherpunks have been suggesting will make AP possible. >PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder. Nonsense. It certainly _is_ censorship, and it's hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. You can argue whether it's _justified_ censorship, just like the AP advocates argue whether assassination is justified murder, but censorship it is. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

3 2

Chris Adams clever frame ...er, flame
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In <19960922023806125.AAA206@GIGANTE>, on 09/21/96 at 07:38 PM, Adamsc(a)io-online.com (Adamsc) said: You are being gently flamed because. well, I look at creative writing in a different light: a) sarcasm is always in season b) Dr. Dimitri is always an excellent target c) if I had $10 for each sarcastic eoast in CP over the last 3 years I could retire in the style of tcmay, rather than the restrained mode I am retired. d) is there ever any dicussion on CP which does not flame out? e) your 'gentle flame' is a great idea. is it copyrighted f) CP charter was violated so often in last few years that I, and several others started a splinter for code only. if you can't handle the fun, sign off... g) CP's charm is it personalities last, but least: h) join the humour, or... well, lighten-up. [X] you continued a boring useless stupid thread see item a) above [x] you repeatedly initiated incoherent, flaky, and mindless threads et tu. brute? [x] you posted a piece riddled with profanities I beg to differ with you! since when is allusion or illusion profane? [x] you posted some sort of crap that doesn't belong in this group] see a) above, *again* [x] you made a bigoted statement(s) hmmm, not on this one. besides, since when have we advocated PC speech [x] you repeatedly assumed unwarranted moral or intellectual superiority I stand far back in the line for honours on that one --maybe in 2002? [x] you are under the misapprehension that this group is your preserve yes! absolutely! but, I share it with 1000+ others [x] you repeatedly shown lack of humor one man's "plum" is another man's "prune" [x] you are apparently under compulsion to post to every threat wrong! I trash 75% before opening! [?] you are posting an anonymous attack check the spook records listed under "Ace of Swords" >>> Thank you for the time you have taken to read this. Live n' Learn.<<< your pleasure is my pleasure. -- "He said, `You are as constant as a northern star,' and I said, `Constantly in the darkness ? Where's that at ?'" --Joni Mitchell

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 9/21/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >At 11:30 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Mark M. wrote: >>I believe there is one section in the Constitution that says that speech >>harmful to national security is not protected under the 1st amendment. >I can't think of what portion of the Constitution you're referring to. But >chances are, somebody else will see this reference and comment. The First Amendment does not contain the phrase "national security" anywhere in it. It does, however, begin with a rather explicit "Congress shall make no law" which it applies to a bunch of things. However, the body of the Constitution does say there should be a Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has (fairly reasonably) given itself the job of deciding what's Constitutional and what's not. The Supremes have, over the years, made a bunch of generally outrageous decisions about what kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment and what kinds aren't, though their opinions have been gradually improving since some of the really appalling ones earlier in the century. By the way, alt.federal.judge.bork.bork.bork has recently come out with a book in which he discusses issues like censorship. He's in favor of it. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

6 6

Re: Going AP Shit on the Internet
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Art wrote: > At 06:22 PM 9/21/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: > >[more examples of "why it wouldn't work" deleted] > >This is like Buliosi hyping his superior strategy all over TV (at > >least > >he had the decency to say the jury was basically honest). It's still > >strategy, folks. It doesn't say anything about the people's right to > >have more control over what is already happening. I just wish > >entities like Black Art would say "I'm doing all I possibly can to > >make sure the people DO get involved when govt. *decides* to murder > >someone". Then, entities like Black Art wouldn't be able to stand > >back in their righteousness and say that they're NOT responsible for > >what their govts. do. > What do you mean "when"? Government murders people all the time. As > for when you will find out about it... Most of the time, you will > not. Governments have gotten very good at hiding their crimes. Either > by orders of secrecy, appeals to patriotism, or doing it out of view > of the general public. > I realize my limitations in taking on an enitity as large as Uncle > Sugar. I do what I can to foil his plans (which is not much), but I do > not believe for a moment that he actually listens to the cries of the > peasants unless he wants to. Government is like a servant. He > wanders about your house at > all hours. Sneeks up on you when you are not looking. And will slip > something nasty into your drink if you become too much of a pain and > beleive that they will benifit by your death. > Governments are groups of individuals. Since they are not me, I have > no responsibility over their actions. (Any more than I have over > yours.) > Are you responsible for what your government does? Can we hold you > accountable for them? Punish you for those crimes? > I didn't think so. I'm hearing even more strategy, it would seem. I don't see the relevance of how govt. behaves (i.e., like a bad uncle who hangs around too long and molests the kids, etc.) to who's responsible. If you live in the U.S., that govt. is your agent, carrying out your representatives' instructions, and paid with your tax dollars. Unless and until this becomes a literal dictatorship (and there is a valid argument that it applies even then), you are responsible for whatever your paid agents do, from the street cop to the top politico. It's too bad your fellow citizens shirk their duty and watch TV instead, but issuing the above kinds of denial doesn't take the blood off of your hands or mine. Now maybe it would take God (for example) to judge whether you, I, or Joe Blow is more guilty, for lack of participation or some other citizen crime, but you can't put all the blame on your hired agents for their crimes, when you know very well what kinds of things they do, and you continue to fund them. You have to be considered an accessory, at least.

3 2

A daily word of caution regarding Tim C[ocksucker] May
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

`A pen is mightier than a sword', not to mention Tim C[ocksucker] May's pea-sized penis. He would be better served by a safety razor, possibly applied in a bathtub filled with warm water (something he has surely never been into).

1 0