
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Individuals are morally free to make the decision when the "Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends." And its their soverign duty to make war against the tyranny. Remember that only a small, perhaps less than 10%, of the Colonials took an active part in revolting against the Crowne. All Tim has done is advocated the same sort of treatment the founders advocated for formation of our country. All the goverment has done is to criminalize any utter of similar treatment of itself. Reminds me of the bumper stickers "Welcome to California, Now Go Home." Just what one expects from a statist group. Its OK that we were founded by revolution but not that we may be subjected to another revolution. Same as it ever was. While it is true that much of the early CP list debate centered on technology for empowerment of privacy, it was also regularly discussed that eventually the government might decide that such freedoms were damaging to their hegemony and take measures to punish adherents and suppliers of these "munitions". When one is subjected to tyranny one has several choices, including: hiding, kneeling and waiting for the shit to blow over, and fighting. This fighting may be in the legal arena, but in times of "national emergency" the likelyhood of finding an unbiased ear on the bench or the jury box may preclude a fair trial. In that case one might identify the oppressors and individually target them. I suggest if you find expression of such logical sentiment objectionable that you leave the list.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of keyser-soze@hushmail.com
I suggest if you find expression of such logical sentiment objectionable that you leave the list.
Can't we just object? "I object." Said objection is now a part of the record.

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: Welcome back Gordon. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of keyser-soze@hushmail.com
I suggest if you find expression of such logical sentiment objectionable that you leave the list.
I wrote:
Can't we just object?
"I object."
Said objection is now a part of the record.
"In the heyday of the Red Squad, law enforcers from J. Edgar Hoover's FBI on down to the local level in Chicago focused to an unhealthy degree on political dissidents, whose primary activity was advocacy though it sometimes spilled over into violence. Today the concern, prudent and not paranoid, is with ideologically motivated terrorism. The City does not want to resurrect the Red Squad. It wants to be able to keep tabs on incipient terrorist groups. New groups of political extremists, believers in and advocates of violence, form daily around the world. If one forms in or migrates to Chicago, the decree renders the police helpless to do anything to protect the public against the day when the group decides to commit a terrorist act. Until the group goes beyond the advocacy of violence and begins preparatory actions that might create reasonable suspicion of imminent criminal activity, the hands of the police are tied. And if the police have been forbidden to investigate until then, if the investigation cannot begin until the group is well on its way toward the commission of terrorist acts, the investigation may come too late to prevent the acts or to identify the perpetrators. If police get wind that a group of people have begun meeting and discussing the desirability of committing acts of violence in pursuit of an ideological agenda, a due regard for the public safety counsels allowing the police department to monitor the statements of the group's members, to build a file, perhaps to plant an undercover agent." -- Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. Ill. 2001). --- May I have a ruling? This list is flypaper, so it makes for interesting research and insights. However, at some point, somebody turned on the bug zapper. *pszzzt*..*pszzt*...*pzt* ~Aimee
participants (3)
-
Aimee Farr
-
keyser-soze@hushmail.com
-
measl@mfn.org