On 3 Nov 2001, at 13:28, Tim May wrote:

What else is expected in a police state? The soldiers say who can travel, and where. Fuck this nation. Fuck it to death and start over.

Tim, you are getting much too cynical! The current events are very much a knee-jerk reaction to threats many can't understand. The National Guardsman who played the boogieman is probably a local good old boy with absolutely no cross cultural experience who translates his fears into hate against any person who appears to be any threat to what he thinks is important. After December 7th 1941 the USA and Canada interned all residents of Japanese descent and confiscated their property. At the time it apparently was a good idea, today it appears very extreme. What is happening today is still very minor and very likely to go away as people realize the stupidity of their current fears. The airport paranoia is nothing new in a global sense, Americans have just not experienced it domestically. Amsterdam airport has many soldier looking fellows with their automatics level and their fingers on the trigger. In Singapore in 1980, the old airport, taking a photo would get you arrested. Much the same in Jakarta until they opened the new airport in the mid-80s. Same in India in the 1980s plus the metal detectors were so sensitive the iron in your blood set them off and everyone was patted down. I have many times experienced being paraded, through a gauntlet of armed guards, on the tarmac beside the plane to identify my baggage before it was loaded on the plane and I was allowed to board. Talking about rude experiences, try arriving at a US west coast airport from southeast Asia with a Thai stamp in your passport and then telling immigration your occupation is a salesman. Off you go for a detailed search where you must rationalize your desire to visit the great nation of the US of A. In 1984 at Dehra Dun airport, Uttar Pradesh India, the airport terminal was a tent. I knew I shouldn't take a photo but attempted anyway. The armed soldiers were there before I could get a shot off and took my camera away - I got it back after the flight as you were not allowed to take photos from the airplane also. I was not to be trusted. As the armed soldiers were relieving me of my camera a business associate managed to take the same shot with a much smaller camera. A copy of this print can be viewed at http://www.fbntech.com/images/id-india.jpg In retrospect this seems pretty funny but at the time they were ready to cart me off to the local police station. If I wasn't a foreign visitor I would have been arrested. In the late 80s I was travelling through Jakarta airport with a stone axe I had purchased in carry-on baggage. It was an Irian Jayan looking piece which I figured I really needed. Airport security removed it from my baggage as they feared I may run amok. They returned the item upon landing in Singapore where it was considered very funny. Bottom line is muuch of what is going on now is a knee-jerk reaction to a threat which many can't understand. Over a short period of time most of the most of the excesses should be corrected as people have time to realize the extreme nature of many of the current restrictions. On a positive note the Anthrax attack through the postal system may bring some very positive changes as people seek to reduce the amount of mail they receive. If you are connected Email is faster and cheaper plus you can't get Anthrax through an Email message. If you use a Microsoft mail client you can still catch lots of shit but it really doesn't hurt you. On a the air travel side the current level of business travel really wasn't justified. Customers are always going to want to meet their vendors face to face but travel for business meetings within one business or government organization can easily be replaced with video conferencing. Actually why can't we change our government to where the assembly of elected respresentatives is virtual rather than physical. When you let them congregate in one place they detach themselves from any obligation to the voters and are open to lobbying efforts and making backroom deals. With today's technology they could be based within an office in their constiuency and linked to an assembly with video conferencing technology. An ideal system would make them available to their constiuents for a portion of the day and linked to an assembly on a video basis for a portion of the day. You could cut the corrupting influences and make the elected representative more responsive to the voters. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com "The Ultimate Enterprise Security Experts" http://www.fbn.bc.ca/sysecurt.html

On 4 Nov 2001, at 0:04, Jim Choate wrote:

And you're naive.

It appeared extreme to a minority of people then. The fact it happened once is enough to make sure it DOESN'T happen AGAIN, not even once is acceptable. Unfortunately this isn't an isolated case. They are not kicking kids out of school for wearing 'anarchy' t-shirts and wanting to form an 'anarchy club' in school. Both acceptable behaviour in America (spelled with a 'c', not a 'k').

Besides, if this guardsman was as naive as you say how did he know who she was? As I understood it her name was on a list.

Think about that, on a list...

You're an apologistic idiot.

You may be right, I may be naive and I may be an apologistic idiot. Your mention of the list and the guardsman being aware of this horrible threat coming through the airport were assumed but my thought was it was a local redneck or folks in a vigilante mood. It would appear this person was targeted. When such folks take actions like this there is a reaction, ie - the victim had it written up in a press release/article and the guardsman and airport appear pretty stupid. Hopefully the victim of this epsode, and others of similar episodes, will take legal action and sue. Hopefully the American system will retain this ability. I once lived in a society where everything I did was recorded. I was a foreigner and I expected it. I got picked up in a business related deal and the officers started the interrogation by telling me what they knew of my existence, they knew everything. My long work hours were interpretted as an attempt to cook the books. They knew every detail of my personal life. I was guilty because I was an eager beaver, had to be.... In western liberal democracies we believe we have lots of freedom. Cross the wrong people and your name is on a list. You are naive if you for any moment thought this was not the case. It isn't right but it is reality. Hopefully in the long run we are moving to a system which is more open and free. We aren't there yet, hopefully after the excesses of this current crack-down we will move on to a better status quo. The whims of society and government tend to oscillate in a sine wave manner, from one extreme to the other. The current trend is to a dark side, from a national government point of view. They are going to do a lot of stupid things which will take some time to correct. It is wrong and bad but I can't do much to stop it. I can call or write my local elected representitives but they are trendiods which go along with current trends. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca History of a Telco, A Fairy Tale http://www.fbntech.con/telcohis.html

At 12:04 AM 11/4/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

Besides, if this guardsman was as naive as you say how did he know who she was? As I understood it her name was on a list.

..."on a list." of people who purchased their tickets online. w00h00.

Think about that, on a list...

*yawn*

You're an apologistic idiot.

You resemble a latah and your CDR node munges From: headers in an obnoxious manner. Reese

On 3 Nov 2001, at 22:10, Tim May wrote:

This is why we are supposed to be a nation of _laws_, not of _men_. It doesn't matter whether these soldiers are country bumpkins or not: the Constitution still applies. (Scholars may opine that Bangor International Airport has "invited" soldiers onto its property, blah blah, or that ordinary search and seizure provisions are waived, blah blah, but the fact is that soldiers are now frisking people without search warrants. At this rate, the entire Fourth will be mooted.)

What is happening now is wrong. I hope the lawyers get a hold of it and sue all involved and the elected officials which allowed it to happen are removed from office and also assume a financial liability. I would like to berate your country for allowing such country bumpkins into such positions but I note the bumpkins at the Vancouver BC airport were taking the pins out of Remembrance day poppies.

"At the time it apparently was a good idea"?

It was a horrible idea but yet so very few realize the true magnitude of the darkness of this action. Kinda like going back to an era of witch hunts except there was no test.

You are hopeless. Every one of the guards, judges, and processing officials should have been tried for kidnapping and then hung by the neck until he was dead.

Your views are a touch strong. I am disappointed you so quickly label me because my beliefs are less extreme than yours. Kinda puts you in the same category as the country bumpkin National Guardsman in Maine don't you think?

(One reason I have been cynical dates back to 1969 when a teacher was piously explaining the Nuremberg precedent, that "just following orders" is no defense. I brought up the imprisonment of Japanese-ancestry and Italian-ancestry persons, without constitutional due process. My teacher just shrugged and said "We won the war, so it didn't apply to us.")

In 1969 I was too far gone on the hormones of youth and other distractions to notice much. By the early 70s the takeover of India by the British was my cause. The British were a bunch of bastards and they conquered a society for basically economic gain. I was wrong in being overly critical of such actions as they are just part of the evolution of man's society, one society is always overcoming another society. We can't feel guilt for the actions of previous generations long since passed away. Where do we draw the line? To me it is obvious Japanese North Americans should have been compensated for any loss of property or better yet it should not have happened. What about the evil deeds of the US government against the American Indians? Yes, the society of the day screwed those people out of their land. Should our guilt extend that far back or should we have a limitation on guilt similar to your suggestion of a 50 year rule on art pieces.

We are talking about the Constitution, not what is commonplace in ad hocracies like Canada or in police states like Singapore and Indonesia.

The interpretation of the American Constitution is very much based on current standards. There are some long term redeeming values but much is based on current standards. At one point in America the circulation of currency was restricted to keep the masses in their place. Look into the burned over region of New York. During Hoover's time in the FBI the Mafia was denied and homosexuals were persecuted and now we are told Hoover was most likely a homosexual. I don't see a great difference between America during Hoover's time and some of the Asian authoritarian governments of today. The point being most societies are in a constant state of change and hopefully the change is in a position direction. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Delivering on the policy of "Lowered Expectations" http://www.fbntech.com/service1.html

On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

At 09:47 PM 11/3/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

...

On 3 Nov 2001, at 13:28, Tim May wrote:

...

What else is expected in a police state? The soldiers say who can travel, and where. Fuck this nation. Fuck it to death and start over.

Tim, you are getting much too cynical!

That isn't the right word.

Any reasonable person reading Declan's article would realize the dumb cunt brought it on herself by being a curmudgeon and a very uncooperative one at that.

Wash your mind out with some soap, both of you.

Reese

Since when are we required to be "cooperative" with illegal searches? And what's with the "dumb cunt" bit? That's not just idiotic, it's idiotic even for you. -- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 01:28 PM 11/3/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:

On Saturday, November 3, 2001, at 11:06 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/11/03/1813233

What else is expected in a police state?

The soldiers say who can travel, and where.

Fuck this nation. Fuck it to death and start over.

You didn't really read the interview, did you? The dumb cunt brought it on herself. Even you wouldn't spit in the eye of a cop at your door and expect no action to be taken. Reese

At 12:51 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

On 3 Nov 2001, at 22:20, Reese wrote:

...

The dumb cunt brought it on herself. Even you wouldn't spit in the eye of a cop at your door and expect no action to be taken.

Yes, you are right, she was searching for attention but she received more than she bargined for.

Oh boo hoo hoo. I shed crocodile tears. Truly.

The point is how did the front line grunt know who to abuse?

People flagged by the ticket agent, people who purchase tickets online. That's what got her flagged. Dig deeper, you are missing it.

Obviously there was a bit of a conspiracy here, don't you think?

Obviously. Carry on, you don't need me for this. Reese

At 01:58 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

On 3 Nov 2001, at 23:12, Reese wrote:

...

Oh boo hoo hoo. I shed crocodile tears. Truly.

People flagged by the ticket agent, people who purchase tickets online. That's what got her flagged. Dig deeper, you are missing it.

...

Obviously. Carry on, you don't need me for this.

What am I missing here?

Your earlier text, which give context to my responses.

Was the prospective passenger carrying weapons or anything which could be judged as a weapon.? Was the prospective passenger deemed a threat to any of the other passengers or the completion of the flight to its destination? If the answers to any of the above questions were yes then the person should have been arrested, charged and dealt with in a court of law.

</simplistic manichaean view>

Otherwise the passenger should have been allowed on the flight regardless of political belief or profile of ticket purchase.

You still do not allow for attitude. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

The ticket purchaser has suffered discrimation

Self-inflicted and self-aggravated.

If you start to agree to this type of decision you are no different than the Muslims who claim all non-believers to be an enemy.

"Us v Them" straw man.

Think about it!

Smell what you shovel. Reese

At 02:38 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

On 4 Nov 2001, at 0:11, Reese wrote:

...

</simplistic manichaean view>

Maybe simple but a legal way of looking at it which must form the basis of dealing with such situations

Note that "legal" and "legitimate" are not fully synonymous.

...

You still do not allow for attitude. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Attitude is a very scary principal to which base passage. If this is truly the case I smell massive lawsuits down the road once the perceived threat retreats.

What is precedent and case history of the "We reserve the right..." signs in public establishments, restaurants for example? How about the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs, whether food is sold at the establishment or not?

...

Self-inflicted and self-aggravated.

The airline or airport authority would lose this one in a trial.

They'll lose Godfrey, this one I doubt it.

...

Smell what you shovel.

All roses on this side.

Sure. Reese

On Sunday, November 4, 2001, at 03:10 AM, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

On 4 Nov 2001, at 0:49, Reese wrote:

...

What is precedent and case history of the "We reserve the right..." signs in public establishments, restaurants for example? How about the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs, whether food is sold at the establishment or not?

You can deny services to people providing you have a consistent set of policies, ie - all folks are treated equally. How do you deny air travel to some but not all of a similar nature. I smell lawsuits once the paranoia is over with.

Actually, a person or business can "refuse to serve" on nearly any basis except race or gender or a few other politically-correct things. "Tim's Surf Shop" can choose not to wax the board of Reese, for whatever reason it chooses. This is why I said in an earlier piece that the Godfrey/Oden cases should not be used to further the notion of a "right to travel" (if that "right" is construed as trampling on the rights of Southwest, United, Tim's Surf Shop, etc. to pick and choose their customers). The focus should be on these things: -- the presence of soldiers and cops in inspection points, with way too much lattitude to inspect bags, pull people out of line, question their reading materials, etc. -- the requirement that ID be presented, which has very little to do with airline security (for reasons Cypherpunks are very familiar with) -- the general headlong rush into police state measures, with the sheeple saying "I want to feel safer. I have nothing to hide. Please, officer, take away my rights! Please, soldiers, check what we are reading! I want _more_ rights taken away!!" --Tim May, Occupied America "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

At the moment, it's National Guard, there is a long precedent for use of Nat.Guard troops for civil things. So long as they do not bring in regular active duty military, in violation of the posse comitatus act.

And it is pure judicial fiat. Guardsmen on duty are active military. -- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

Working for the governor of their respective states, unless you're saying they've been called up by the Army and federalized. There is a long list

States are prohibited from having troops. Any(!) troops in the US (be they military, guard, or militia) ARE responsible to Congress and Congress only until Congress assigns them to the President (and only the President) as CinC. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

States are not prohibited from having a militia, the National Guard is an organized militia, until such time they are federalized, at which point they fall under the Army's Chain of Command.

No, the can't except in cases of invasion.

Why do you think all or nearly all states have a National Guard, if it is prohibited as you claim?

Technically the National Guard is unconstitutional. It does not qualify as the 'militia' and ONLY the army, navy, and militia have been authorized (technically an independent air force is also unconstitutional without an amendment) by the Constitution (or Congress through an amendment) to date. The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than the 2nd alone This document is an ongoing project where I take comments and observations from others and post their questions and my replies. Some of this material is old and some is new. It is intended to demonstrate that when the Constitution as a whole is applied to sensitive issues it in fact provides clear direction on the limits and character of the relation between the the three arms of the government of the United States; federal, state, and individual. I assume that anyone commenting on this document is giving their explicit permission to include them with my replies unless otherwise noted. I would prefer that all discussion take place on the Cypherpunks public mailing list. I will submit all my responces to submissions to that list. If you don't wish to discuss this issue in a public forum please do not respond to me. I have no interest in private discussion on this topic. This country is going through a crisis of civil liberties and a fundamental loss of faith in the tenets of democracy. It is becoming more fascist (ie public management of private property) on a daily basis. In the near future it could become completely socialist (ie public management of public property and elimination of private property) in the name of the greater good. The belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the individual is in direct conflict with both the spirit and words of the Constitution. Legislative, judicial, and executive branch decisions and actions speak to this on a daily basis. One of the most controversial topics is the private ownership of weapons and the duty of the government to regulate the same. The current discussion on both sides is limited solely to the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately this is a stillborn position because it misses fundamental issues and questions. To address those I have listed each of the relevant sections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Perusal of these make it clear that the right of the individual to own and bear arms with no interference or regulation is a fundamental right of every American. This right is justified by a long history of abuse by political systems of the individual as well as a continous sequence of physical assaults on the citizenry. It is worth making special note that the Presidential claim to executive privilige regarding the use of military forces without Congressional permission is unconstitutional (see Article II). The Constitution clearly states the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces only after they have been called into action. And only Congress may call them into action unless it can not be conveined. The President of the United States is not in the chain of command of the military forces without specific authorization from Congress. Until such time as that is given only Congress has the authority to direct and organize military activities. This means that the President may direct military forces only until Congress convenes. At that point Congress must decide whether to agree to commit the forces. Amendment 2, 4, & 9 provide in and of themselves sufficient grounds to find any federal involvement in the purchase, possession, or operation of a weapon to be unconstitutional. One of the most specious argumenst in this discussion is that 'the people' in the 2nd Amendment is not to be construed as meaning the individual. However, it is clear from the Constitution itself and other amendments, such as the 4th, that this simply is not so. The term 'the people' means that the decision regarding such issues is to be made at the level of the individual. In other words whether a particular individual agrees to participate is completely voluntary. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [ Note that the intent of the Constitution, and by extension those who represent us, is to provide freedom of choice (i.e. liberty) for each individual (i.e. 'ourselves and our posterity'). This means that any claim that 'the people' does not refer to the individual and their right to make individual choices is specious and misdirected. ] Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; [ Note it says 'the militia', not plural and definitely not state oriented since states are prohibited from raising or supporting troops. Note that it specificaly directs Congress and the President to use the Militia for internal issues only. ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [ This says Congress organizes, armes, and disciplines the militia - again nothing to do with the states and no implication of plurality. The only job the states have is appointing officers. One can argue over the wording of the training since it is ambigous. I interpet "..., reserving to the states repesctively, the appointment of the officers, .." as being a single clause and not carrying over to "... authority of training ...". ] No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. [ This last paragraph is of special importance. It directs the states to provide for their self defence during times of truly imminent danger. There is also the implication of immediate responce. Yet the state can not keep troops or even collect taxes to this end. This also excludes the Militia since it is under federal control and can't be used by the states without federal consent. In other words they are not to base their responce solely on state or federal employees. The implication is that each state is directed to provide for individual firearms ownership. It's also worth noting that if the US is actualy invaded and the federal forces are activated the states are still directed to raise forces independently of the federal forces, and these forces would be under state control and operated in parallel with federal forces. In addition this delegates the states to independant resistance even if the federal authorities surrender. It is a fundamental recognition of the states independence. [1] ] Article II Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. [ This last paragraph describes how the President takes control of the military. It is only after Congress agrees to release the authority. Normal day to day training and patrol duties are responsible to Congress only. ] Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. [ Note this says that federal forces can not be employeed within a state without the explicit permission of the state government during periods of domestic violence. In other words "rioting in the streets" is not a sufficient condition for forced federal involvement through martial law. The state legislature is the prefered authority unless it can't be convened in time. In that case the state governor can make the decision but as soon as the state legislature is convened he's out of the picture. This means that states always have the option of refusing federal assisstance. This means the various forced tax and funds refusal threats of the federal government are unconstitutional. This means states have the option of opting out of any federal gun control regulations. ] THE BILL OF RIGHTS The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [ This one really speaks for itself once you've understood the rest. They are actualy speaking of *two* seperate entities - the single federal Militia *and* the individual citizen. They are *not* one and the same. ] Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ Our current society has a problem with what is understood to be 'reasonable'. This is a strong indication that we need to create a new amendment to better describe the interface, expectations, and limits of actions regarding state representatives and the individual. The only other option is to eliminate laws respecting consensual crimes such as individual drug use, abortion, etc. Arguments based on 'community standard' are inherently broken. It implies the community has some homogenious standard, there is certainly no indication of authority to sample the populate with respect to this question. The religious and free speech and press clauses prohibit it. It further prohibits laws and acts respecting law enforcement based on statistical averages, profiles, mass searches, bumper stickers, public statements not inciteing something worse than domestic violence, etc. Note that this *does* give Congress the option of training the militia for operations involving nuclear, biological, or chemical attack for domestic use. (I believe that any such use must not allow weapons for other than personal defence to these federal forces. No tanks, bombs, missiles, etc.) You can't use an individuals beliefs as a basis for law. In that case, with no sample, the only question is would any citizen object to the behaviour? It is obvious the question must be answered in the negative since you have such an example at hand from the community. This effectively eliminates consensual crimes. If an activity does not cause physical harm to a person, their property, or a voluntary public trust it can't be made against the law at the federal level. (I don't believe a coersive public trust can exist under our Constitution. You can't punish a state or throw a citizen in jail because they object to participate in federal programs.) ] Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [ This one is really short and sweet. If anybody has a right then everybody has the right. There are no womens rights, gay rights, or minority rights; only human rights. This amendment prevents the government from even addressing what a persons rights are by the simple expedient that it prevents the federal or state government from even enumerating what they aren't. In other words unless the authority over some activity is proscribed in the Constitution the question of jurisdiction and decision are the individual states. It also means that the Supreme Court is prevented from using rulings that are of the enumerable type. In other words, simply because there isn't a directive in the Constitution is not sufficient reason to deny the individual the right of expression, or choice of execution. So arguments such as 'assissted suicide" isn't a right because there is no indication in the Constitution are specious and deny recognized fundamental individual rights in the 1st Amendment. So, in the case of gun control if there is a question at the federal level of jurisdiction (ie "What is meant by 'the people'?) the decision goes to the states and their individual constitutions. If it's not covererd in their individual constitutions then individuals in those states may make the decision on an individual basis. The Constitution is designed to fail-safe under questions of federal authority to the states or the individual. If Congress can't provide a delegate entry in the Constitution per the 10 th. it must suggest a constitutional amendment to the states. The current question of gun control has only two outcomes. Either individuals have their right to own guns recognized or the Congress and the state legislatures are required to mold an amendment to clarify the 2nd Amendment. The states can always stop federal aquisition of new authority at this point by simply refusing to put the amendment up for vote. At this point the states have a tacit admission of their supreme authority in such questions. ] Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [ This amendment severely limits what the federal level of authority covers. It requires the Congress to provide a delegate, one or more sentences, in the Constition for all laws (and I believe for all suggested bills as well). it further specifies that in questions of dispute the decision goes to the individual states and their republican governments (ie state constitution). If the indvidual states don't regulate the activity it is up to the individual to participate voluntarily. The United States of America is a balkanized collection if independant states who voluntarily give up limited authority to the federal level, they must explicitly agree to this to become a state. ] The above document was submitted to the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer, it has been expanded since that time. As a result I received various replies. My comments on the replies are included below along with quotes from the replies to clarify context.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

Whatever Jim. Have it your way, a century of precedent means nothing.

I wish.... The point that the government is so far outside the Constitution and any concept of reasonable 'American democracy' should be obvious, it is usually the reason folks come here to discuss their different perspectives of how and why, as well as what to do about it. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

You've yet to show how the airport departure lounge and check-in counter is the proper venue to address this. It isn't.

??? Why 'where' even relevant? If it doesn't apply all day, every day, every place then it applies no place at no time. As to a century of precedence, if it's unconstitutional precedence then yes, it means nothing. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 02:41 PM 11/4/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

...

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

...

States are not prohibited from having a militia, the National Guard is an organized militia, until such time they are federalized, at which point they fall under the Army's Chain of Command.

No, the can't except in cases of invasion.

Can you not read? " No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of" _without the consent of congress_ Hint- the state's have congresses consent. -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...and so I screamed to the throne of heaven. He sat and listened till at last I fell to my knees exhausted, crying "why have you forsaken us?". Long he sat , then finally spoke- what man hath wrought I shall not break asunder." ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 ____________________________________________________________________

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:45:05AM -1000, Reese wrote:

of Nat.Guard troops for civil things. So long as they do not bring in regular active duty military, in violation of the posse comitatus act.

This shows a common but not entirely correct view of the PCA. You may wish to read it for yourself: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html A seperate question is whether the PCA has much meaning anymore; it's just an act of Congress and can be repealed by another. Also the PCA seems to strongly indicate the president can call out the military and for domestic law enforcement without Congress' authorization. -Declan

Reese wrote:

Would you say greeting every police officer you meet by calling them "useless pigs" would be begging for victimhood?

I'd say it's protected speech. If the cop can't handle that, can't live up to his oath to uphold the law of the land, than he shouldn't be a cop. S a n d y

Reese wrote:

At 10:30 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: ...

...

I'd say it's protected speech. If the cop can't handle that, can't live up to his oath to uphold the law of the land, than he shouldn't be a cop.

</idealism> Meanwhile, in real life,,,

Meanwhile, in real life, Reese will play the role of apologist for bully-boy cops when the "cunt" brings it herself. Of course, in the "real world" some of us don't take it laying down. S a n d y Rapists, ask Reese to be your character witness in your next court appearance.

At 12:50 PM 11/4/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

...

At 03:10 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

...

Back to Sandy's coments Re: rape victims. Just because you got a big mouth doesn't mean you should become a victim.

Would you say greeting every police officer you meet by calling them "useless pigs" would be begging for victimhood?

I'd say it was a good litmus test as to who should actually be a police officer. Anyone who got perturbed by such a comment has zero business being a law enforcement officer.

I agree. Given the current crop of cops, is it begging for victimhood? Reese

At 01:03 PM 11/4/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

...

...

I'd say it was a good litmus test as to who should actually be a police officer. Anyone who got perturbed by such a comment has zero business being a law enforcement officer.

I agree. Given the current crop of cops, is it begging for victimhood?

No, you don't actually. You DO miss the point.

Well, that's that - the final arbiter of all things has spoken.

If 'real life' isn't governed by 'principles' then there is nothing but who has the biggest stick.

Which happens to be the entire point that 'principles' were developed, to alleviate the problems of 'big sticks'.

Whatever, Jim. Say, don't you have more url's to forward with only a vague subject line to indicate what they are about? Reese

-- On 4 Nov 2001, at 1:58, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:

What am I missing here? Was the prospective passenger carrying weapons or anything which could be judged as a weapon.? Was the prospective passenger deemed a threat to any of the other passengers or the completion of the flight to its destination? ]

Let us imagine the following scenario. You are going to board a plane. Someone who is known to be, or plausibly alleged to be, a supporter of the terrorist movements the US is currently at war with, also wants to board the same plane. In that situation, your views on their right to travel by plane will probably undergo a sudden change. The enemies of freedom, which this woman certainly is, see freedom as weakness and fear, and use it against us. This creates the danger that they succeed in making us give up freedom, as has perhaps happened in this case, but it is not merely a matter of dumb fucks using terrorism to institute a police state. There is a real threat here, which has to be met with real violence. Analogously in Vietnam, the enemy mingled with the populace, so that even with the best of intentions, US forces wound up killing a lot of ordinary civilians, a problem made far worse by the stupid "body count" policy, where young ambitious officers, like the future Senator Kerrey, were apt to rack up very large body counts by any means convenient. Senator Kerrey was cerrtainly a mass murderer, and the guardsmen who stopped her from flying were certainly thugs, but the reason there are arguably grounds for overlooking Kerrey's cynical murders and the guardsmen's thuggery ,is that in the face of this quite real threat even good people will do things that are hard to distinguish from the things that bad people do. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 27HMOB8BBeIGfg7aT3n+oRAgMH8E0Sjhpgg7w6id 42AvXfoapB6NduA4gJt1a16zWy7lOQmEju4DrrtGm

-- On 4 Nov 2001, at 9:14, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Even in James' wildly exaggerated scenario, I see no reason to stop them from traveling after they had been shown not to be a threat (as was the case with this woman). Nope, political BELIEFS are sacrosanct.

But you would probably prefer to have people with certain beliefs strip searched and anally and vaginally probed before getting on the same plane with them. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YzF8TcXui3VpDHQkZLSRd+xNceerkdDKSh1i44Fg 4zetjA7GyUZx/onIFaIsMwr/+dkpW5JTQGQ21fMXX

On 4 Nov 2001, at 8:59, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Senator Kerrey was cerrtainly a mass murderer, and the guardsmen who stopped her from flying were certainly thugs, but the reason there are arguably grounds for overlooking Kerrey's cynical murders and the guardsmen's thuggery ,is that in the face of this quite real threat even good people will do things that are hard to distinguish from the things that bad people do.

James A. Donald I think "overlooking" is too strong a word, I think it's more reasonable to call it mitigating circimstances. The guardsman needs to have it explained to him (in a way that the lesson will stick) that he does not have the authority to block travellers because he doesn't like their attitude or their political views. I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate, probably a reptimand is good enough as long as it's made VERY clear that any sort of repeat performance will result in sever consequences.

George

At 10:09 AM 11/04/2001 -0800, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:

I think "overlooking" is too strong a word, I think it's more reasonable to call it mitigating circimstances. The guardsman needs to have it explained to him (in a way that the lesson will stick) that he does not have the authority to block travellers because he doesn't like their attitude or their political views. I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate, probably a reptimand is good enough as long as it's made VERY clear that any sort of repeat performance will result in sever consequences.

It's one thing for a minimum wage ArentSoBright security guard to be concerned about the people carrying scary computer parts. (Hi, Dave!) That's a problem, but it's a one-off. This is something different - the Guardsman is sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet he's violating someone's rights in what appears to be a pre-planned retailiation for her political beliefs. That's a one-strike firing offense, like a cop getting caught stealing. The appropriate action is for the Guard's probably non-existent equivalent of Police Department Internal Affairs to find out who else was involved in this offense, and what level of pre-planning really happened - was it truly a random thing? If it was political, that's also sufficiently illegal that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires soldiers to disobey, and failing to do so is another one-strike-you're-out kind of thing. Does the Guardsman only deserve firing, after an appropriate court-martial, or does he also deserve civilian punishment? The separate issue is the airline - the airline employee clearly deserves a reprimand, and whoever told all the other airlines that they don't want this Green Party person flying does as well. They sold her a ticket, and violated their contract to carry her, and the issue of whether it really was safety-related or whether a really egregious breach of contract is a question for a court.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Analogously in Vietnam, the enemy mingled with the populace, so that even with the best of intentions, US forces wound up killing a lot of ordinary civilians, a problem made far worse by the stupid "body count" policy, where young ambitious officers, like the future Senator Kerrey, were apt to rack up very large body counts by any means convenient.

Senator Kerrey was cerrtainly a mass murderer, and the guardsmen who stopped her from flying were certainly thugs, but the reason there are arguably grounds for overlooking Kerrey's cynical murders and the guardsmen's thuggery ,is that in the face of this quite real threat even good people will do things that are hard to distinguish from the things that bad people do.

Amazing! Here you make an "argument" that mass-murder is an acceptable behaviour, while you are simultaneously arguing that a political BELIEF is *not*.

--digsig James A. Donald

This is the exact kind of "logic" and "policy" that gets the US attacked in the first place James. Ultimately, the problem isn't this woman's political beliefs - it's YOUR political beliefs. And the fact that the USG both shares them and *lives by them*. -- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------

From Raymond D. Mereniuk:

:I kinda like a place where there is a rule of law and everything is :totally predictable, something America appears to be moving away :from at this moment. ---------------------- But the situation *is* entirely predictable: Some people in scary positions of responsibility do not want to see, hear, or know The Truth, because they don't know what to do about it. It's all symbolism and familiar stereotype - if you want to get by airport security, . wear an NYPD hat . put a U.S. flag pin on your jacket lapel or somewhere on the top front of your clothing . if taking a book to read, be sure to change the cover to one from those current books written by prominent journalists or other liberal communications personalities . move in a calm manner - no sudden moves, say to help with zippers or anything (remember: they don't trust you, and only they are allowed to determine the course and direction of your next step - any sign of too much or too little self-confidence will be viewed with suspicion) . as you pass by the armed guards, look in their eye, smile sweetly, and say "I'm *so* glad you're here - I feel safer now!" . at the ticket counter, when they ask for your ID, begin with "baahaaahaaa". They will respond with recognition and relax a little. Later, you can send out your posts anonymously and be viciously, uncompromisingly, honest. I think that's how some of the original 'Patriots' did it. .. Blanc

From someone who isn't really John Young:

:This 'Blanc' is now in the databank of crowing terrorists, and will be :reluctantly quoted in the next national high alert. Deceiving the homeland :guardians is treason. ---------------------- But, it's not my fault! As is said of girls wearing overly-feminized clothing: they *asked* for it. .. Blanc (I don't need to cc you; I _know_ you're there)

...

...

...

...

"Blanc" == Blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:

>> From Raymond D. Mereniuk: Blanc> :I kinda like a place where there is a rule of law and everything is Blanc> :totally predictable, something America appears to be moving away Blanc> :from at this moment. Blanc> ---------------------- Blanc> But the situation *is* entirely predictable: Blanc> Some people in scary positions of responsibility do not Blanc> want to see, hear, or know The Truth, because they don't Blanc> know what to do about it. It's all symbolism and familiar Blanc> stereotype - if you want to get by airport security, Blanc> . wear an NYPD hat Blanc> . put a U.S. flag pin on your jacket lapel or somewhere on Blanc> the top front of your clothing If (which I expect in the current climate) the "Holy Old Glory" amendment goes through, you should also take care not to spill any food or drink on the pin. Blanc> . if taking a book to read, be sure to change the cover to Blanc> one from those current books written by prominent Blanc> journalists or other liberal communications personalities Or buy one of Tom Clancy's titles. Blanc> . move in a calm manner - no sudden moves, say to help Blanc> with zippers or anything (remember: they don't trust you, Blanc> and only they are allowed to determine the course and Blanc> direction of your next step - any sign of too much or too Blanc> little self-confidence will be viewed with suspicion) Though if you err, err on the side of submission... Blanc> . as you pass by the armed guards, look in their eye, Blanc> smile sweetly, and say "I'm *so* glad you're here - I feel Blanc> safer now!" But you have to *honestly mean it*... not even a hint of sarcasm. They'll detect that. Blanc> . at the ticket counter, when they ask for your ID, begin Blanc> with "baahaaahaaa". They will respond with recognition and Blanc> relax a little. That would backfire if I did it... don't think they have a file on me... yet. Bye, J PS: Are we cynical bastards or what? :-} -- Jürgen A. Erhard (juergen.erhard@gmx.net, jae@users.sf.net) Invasion! http://invasion.jerhard.org Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) pros do it for money -- amateurs out of love.

On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:

You didn't really read the interview, did you?

The dumb cunt brought it on herself. Even you wouldn't spit in the eye of a cop at your door and expect no action to be taken.

No she didn't. She has a legitimate right to express her political views of her governments actions with no consequences. This is as silly as the hassles other people are getting based on their reading material. You don't seem to understand American freedom either. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------