Cauterizing the Cancer Centered in Washington, D.C.

[Tim May]

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 at 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.