Trying again (Re: failure notice)

[Tim May]

Attempting to get this through. About half of the messages I have tried 
to send to lne.com have failed with this error, the same reported by 
others. Some of these I have resent, others I have just let sit in my 
error box.

I value lne.com a lot, but the various weirdnesses (e.g., 24 hours 
without any messages, then a burst of them, and these bounces) may cause 
me to switch to some other node.



On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 10:07 AM, MAILER-DAEMON at got.net wrote:

> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at got.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following 
> addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <cypherpunks at lne.com>:
> 209.245.148.2 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 550 <cypherpunks at lne.com>... User unknown
> Giving up on 209.245.148.2.
>
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
> Return-Path: <tcmay at got.net>
> Received: (qmail 19567 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 18:01:22 -0000
> Received: from 66-81-40-74-modem.o1.com (HELO localhost) (66.81.40.74)
>   by always.got.net with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 18:01:22 -0000
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:01:01 -0800
> Subject: Re: CNN.com - Bush defends tribunals, saying 'we're at war' 
> -November  29, 2001
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v472)
> From: Tim May <tcmay at got.net>
> To: cypherpunks at lne.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> In-Reply-To: <20011130120605.A13067 at weathership.homeport.org>
> Message-Id: <36F4438C-E5BC-11D5-9093-0050E439C473 at got.net>
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.472)
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 09:06 AM, Adam Shostack wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 08:21:32AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
>> | On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 07:55 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>> |
>> | >       Dubbya should be impeached, and both he and Asscruft arrested
>> for
>> | > treason.
>> |
>> | Quite interesting the language they keep using: "Terrorists don't 
>> have
>> | rights."
>> |
>> | The 1200 persons detained without due process, without habeas corpus,
>> | for close to three months, are presumed to be "terrorists" and thus
>> are
>> | denied the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
>>
>> No, they're not.  See this article in yesterday's Times:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/national/28LEGA.html?ex=1007614800&en=
>> ec5ced02619720c8&
>> ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER
>>
>
> I see nothing in this article to alter the gist of what I said. The
> article says 1100 were held at one time. 548 still being held. Yeah, the
> charges are vague "immigration violations," but we know why they were
> really detained and are still being held. (BTW, lawyers for a bunch of
> them, those who have managed to get lawyers that is, have said their
> clients would like to return to their home countries. Should be SOP to
> let a "immigration violation" detainee solve the problem by leaving,
> right?)
>
> An undisclosed number of those detainees are being held incommunicado as
> "material witnesses." Not as immigration violations, but as "material
> witnesses." The same vague basis could be used to arrest and detain
> without charge dozens of folks just like us on our list.
>
> Civil liberties types used to gasp at British plans to arrest suspects
> without charge and hold them for up to 72 hours on the say-so of a
> burowcrat...look at the holding of 548-1100 people for a period of
> weeks-months without any charges being filed in open court.
>
> "Immigration violations" and "material witness" my ass!
>
>>
>> What grounds Ashcroft is using to deny them their civil rights is not
>> clear.
>>
>> Who will rid me of this meddlesome Constitution, indeed.
>>
>> | The police state measures rushed into law by Congress will be used to
>> | suppress dissidents long after this war is over.
>>
>> Quite sad.  There was an article in IP last night about Canada doing
>> the same thing; defining protesters as terrorists.  (There's a history
>> here; the RCMP was quite vicious in its post-arrest treatment of
>> protesters against some Indonesian dictator a few years ago.)
>
> I expect the next Cypherpunk to be arrested will be tried under these
> new "terrorist" laws.
>
> I won't go so far as to predict that a dozen active list members will be
> rounded up in pre-dawn raids and held incommunicado and without charges
> being filed promptly, and with normal bail procedures, but it wouldn't
> surprise me.
>
> What it will probably take is for some kind of ricin attack on Federal
> Persecutor offices. A few dozen dead Feds and I'd expect every group
> that has ever discussed ricin and sarin to be raided.
>
> Terrorists have no rights. First we determine them to be terrorists,
> then we hold a military tribunal. Amerikan justice is the envy of the
> world.
>
> --Tim May
> "How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things
> have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to
> make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"
> --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
>
>
--Tim May, Corralitos, California
Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." 
--Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.