Re: Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal
Jei writes:
I thought this would be relevant to the list members.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
http://cryptome.org/pmo111301.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml
And what is a Crypto Terrorist, you ask? Of course, it is someone who hides things with cryptography, e.g. a potential Cyber Terrorist. ;-P
At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians?
Read the fucking order at cryptome: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards we've got around here.
Somebody wrote:
At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians?
Read the fucking order at cryptome:
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards we've got around here.
Civilians /= citizen. Non-citizens are civilians (unless they are also soldiers), so Andrew's question still obtains. S a n d y
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Anonymous wrote:
Read the fucking order at cryptome:
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards we've got around here.
The distinction is moot under our Constitution, ALL people have 'our' rights - they're not a function of the state. Speaking of 'stupid fucks'... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, here's a question from a 'stupid fuck'; Did *you* read the order? Check out Section 7 (a) (3): Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order. Now I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that this can be applied to anyone? -p ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonymous" <nobody@noisebox.remailer.org> To: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal
Jei writes:
I thought this would be relevant to the list members.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
http://cryptome.org/pmo111301.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml
And what is a Crypto Terrorist, you ask? Of course, it is someone who hides things with cryptography, e.g. a potential Cyber Terrorist. ;-P
At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians?
Read the fucking order at cryptome:
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards we've got around here.
************************************************************************************************** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content ** **************************************************************************************************
I think it's unclear, perhaps even intentionally ambiguous. One way of reading the executive order (that section of it, at least) is that it preserves the ability of the DoD to try members of the military in a different form of tribunal that might have more procedural safeguards, and that it preserves the authority of civilian courts. That is the more, um, benign interpretation. The other interpretation is that Bush does not want to limit the power of the military to try civilian U.S. citizens in some cases, subject to "lawful authority." The thing is, though, that if Bush intends to try the second approach, focusing on that paragraph is maybe misguided: If he's daring enough to do it without explicit Congressional sanction, then he can just sign another exeucitve order. Only take him a few minutes to write one and scribble his signature. -Declan http://www.politechbot.com/p-02797.html On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 11:14:25PM -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
Okay, here's a question from a 'stupid fuck'; Did *you* read the order? Check out Section 7 (a) (3):
Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to --
(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or
(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order.
Now I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that this can be applied to anyone?
-p ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonymous" <nobody@noisebox.remailer.org> To: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal
Jei writes:
I thought this would be relevant to the list members.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
http://cryptome.org/pmo111301.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml
And what is a Crypto Terrorist, you ask? Of course, it is someone who hides things with cryptography, e.g. a potential Cyber Terrorist. ;-P
At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians?
Read the fucking order at cryptome:
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards we've got around here.
************************************************************************************************** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies.
** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content ** **************************************************************************************************
At 11:14 PM 11/18/2001 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
Okay, here's a question from a 'stupid fuck'; Did *you* read the order? Check out Section 7 (a) (3):
Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to --
(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or
(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order.
Now I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that this can be applied to anyone?
No, it means it's not meant to alter people's pre-existing status vis-a-vis detentions or trials; if they didn't include a clause like that, then people would argue that the executive order didn't just add to existing law, but replaced it, such that previously possible prosecutions would no longer be possible since they weren't explicitly permitted in the EO. The crucial language is "limit the lawful authority", where the scope of the pre-existing "lawful authority" may be tiny or nonexistent. It's not correct to assume that there's (necessarily) any such lawful authority, absent other facts (like a declaration of martial law, or a person's status as a member of the military, etc.) -- Greg Broiles -- gbroiles@parrhesia.com -- PGP 0x26E4488c or 0x94245961 5000 dead in NYC? National tragedy. 1000 detained incommunicado without trial, expanded surveillance? National disgrace.
"Greg" == Greg Broiles <gbroiles@parrhesia.com> writes:
Greg> At 11:14 PM 11/18/2001 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote: >> Okay, here's a question from a 'stupid fuck'; Did *you* read the order? >> Check out Section 7 (a) (3): >> >> Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. >> >> (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- >> >> (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise >> authorized to have access to them; >> (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed >> Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or >> >> (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military >> commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any >> State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this >> order. >> >> >> Now I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that this can be applied to >> anyone? Greg> No, it means it's not meant to alter people's pre-existing status vis-a-vis Greg> detentions or trials; if they didn't include a clause like that, then Greg> people would argue that the executive order didn't just add to existing Greg> law, but replaced it, such that previously possible prosecutions would no Greg> longer be possible since they weren't explicitly permitted in the EO. Or, to put it in clear laymen's terms: it means this order only gives them *more* rights, it doesn't take any rights away from LEOs/the govermin'. Bye, J -- Jürgen A. Erhard (juergen.erhard@gmx.net, jae@users.sf.net) MARS http://mars.jerhard.org The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned. -- Bruce Ediger
participants (7)
-
"Jürgen A. Erhard" -
Anonymous -
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Broiles -
Jim Choate -
Peter Capelli -
Sandy Sandfort