On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:07 PM, Luthor Blisset wrote:

At 05:39 PM 10/15/01 -0700, somebody wrote:

...

5000 people went through a 1000-degree meat grinder on 9/11 without an opportunity for any due process, and don't fucking forget it.

Do you seriously think that justifies suspension of due process? If you don't, why did you bring it up? That aside, I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that you shouldn't treat people like collateral damage unless you wish to receive similar consideration...

The Constitution applies at _all_ times. It is not something that is only for nice, calm situations. The Bill of Rights does not say that the various parts of the Bill of Rights are suspendable when someone decides there is some reason to. This means the USA Bill, with its suspension of big chunks of the Fourth Amendment, is ipso facto unconstitutional. My belief is that every Congresscritter who voted to pass this USA Bill should be tried and executed. As for the 600 "Arabic-looking" men (maybe a few women, I don't know) being held without charges being filed in a timely way, I'll chortle if even 10 of them become vengeance-seekers in the next 10 years. Someone held unjustly, without charges being filed, is morally obliged to kill his oppressors. --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787

On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:50 PM, Luthor Blisset wrote:

At 06:16 PM 10/15/01 -0700, somebody with the password to tcmay@got.net wrote:

...

On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:07 PM, Luthor Blisset wrote:

...

...

Do you seriously think that justifies suspension of due process? If you don't, why did you bring it up? That aside, I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that you shouldn't treat people like collateral damage unless you wish to receive similar consideration...

...

The Constitution applies at _all_ times. It is not something that is only for nice, calm situations.

The Bill of Rights does not say that the various parts of the Bill of Rights are suspendable when someone decides there is some reason to. This means the USA Bill, with its suspension of big chunks of the Fourth Amendment, is ipso facto unconstitutional.

You won't hear any disagreement from me, man. I was wondering if Anonymous was actually attempting to justify suspension of due process. Incedentally, I wonder if the USA Bill will get overturned by the Supreme Court anytime soon... Naaaa... Gr.

Watching the "cyber liberties" and "libertarian" crowd fall all over themselves to urge suspending basic liberties, I'd say there is zero chance the Supreme Court will overturn this or the other steamrollering pieces of repressive legislation. All of the major networks are reporting polls on "How many civil liberties are you willing to give up in order to assure safety?" The worst of majoritarian rule, as the numbers show that about 80% of the sheeple favor giving up First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and other core rights. (The one odd reversal seems to be the trend on the Second...apparently women and other liberals are buying guns in record numbers.) My view toward all of these "public surveys" is simple: "You are quite welcome to vote to give up _your_ civil rights. But try restricting my access to crypto, my ability to defend myself, my requirement that evidence be presented against me in a timely fashion, and so on, and you've forfeited your life." I listened last night to some of the "Wall Street Journal" editorial staff opining on CNN that "there may be a constitutional right to privacy, but there is no constitutional right to anonymity." Wrong on both counts. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. But if there is a requirement that government not enter homes or look through papers without legal process, which is what I think of as a "right to privacy," then the issue about a putative "right to anonymity" comes in as follows: "Can government insist that people only communicate with others when they know the identity of their communicants and vice versa?" The answer is that the Constitution says government may not interfere in this kind of speech. This means I don't need permission to communicate with "Anon E. Moose" and he or she doesn't need permission from the government to communicate with _me). Thus arises the "right to anonymity," from the lack of any power granted by the Constitution for the government to say whom may speak to whom. And yet the WSJ, Reason, and all of the Usual Suspects are racing to re-interpret the Constitution to allow the suspension of habeas corpus (production of evidence in a timely, e.g., short, period), the revocation of the Fourth (medical, financial, other records seizable without proper warrants), the Sixth (speedy trial, etc.), and probably a bunch of other things. Hell, at this rate we may see quartering of troops! ("If it is deemed important enough, the Homeland Security Directorate may deem certain houses to be used for accommodation of Geheimstaatspolizei Troops, er, the National Guard."). Never has Ben Franklin's dire warning been more apropos. This challenge is comparable to the challenge faced when the First Fascist suppressed the Southern States, except more so in many ways...because the technological powers of control are ever so much greater today than they were in the America of the 1860s. Cauterizing the entire Washington, D.C. area might slow them down, though. --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 Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Anonymous wrote:

...

"In a high-security wing of Manhattan's Metropolitan Correctional Center, an unknown number of men with Middle Eastern names are being held in solitary confinement on the ninth floor, locked in 8- by 10-foot cells with little more than cots, thin blankets and, if they request it, copies of the Koran. Every two hours, guards roust them to conduct a head count. They have no contact with each other or their families and limited access to their lawyers.

5000 people went through a 1000-degree meat grinder on 9/11 without an opportunity for any due process, and don't fucking forget it.

Yeah, and it's shit like _this_ that made it *inevitable*. -- 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 Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:50:46PM -0700, Luthor Blisset wrote:

Incedentally, I wonder if the USA Bill will get overturned by the Supreme Court anytime soon... Naaaa... Gr.

On what grounds? What arguments would you lodge against the eavesdropping and wiretap sections? Fourth Amendment? This is not an idle question; I'd actually be interested in pointers to analysis on the subject. But just as the Supremes have failed to strike down many unconstitutional laws, I suspect they can find a way to avoid having to do that (so much jurisprudence is devoted to how striking down laws by the judiciary should be a measure of last resort). -Declan