Material support to terrorists "concealing or disguising?"

[Aimee Farr]

Tim said:

> On Friday, September 14, 2001, at 04:16 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> > [Any previous discussion of this? Summary/Conclusions?]
> >
> > Sec. 2339A. (FOOTNOTE 1) Providing material support to terrorists
> >
> > (a) Offense. - Whoever, within the United States, provides material
> > support
> > or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or
> > ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that
> > they
> > are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of
>

Tim said:

> http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/09/msg00577.html

Ouch.

Which said:

 To: cypherpunks at toad.com
Subject: (fwd) "Will You Be a Terrorist?"
From: tcmay at netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: tcmay at netcom.com (Timothy C. May) ]
Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Cypherpunks,

Not all of you like posts that mention "guns" in any form, so if this
the case for you, hit "D" now.

I think the recently-passed Crime Act has implications for what some
are calling "terrorist speech" and that Cypherpunks remailers may be
construed as "PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS" in the
context of being "communications equipment."

Consider this "food for thought."

An excerpt, and commentary by the original anonymous poster, is
included below.

I know that our favorite optimists, Duncan Frissell and Sandy
Sandfort, are fond of saying that it's already over, that we've
already won, that the state is powerless, etc., but when I read the
text of the Crime Bill (available from ftp.nra.org in
pub/legislation), I just can't buy that.

I see a growing police force, I see U.N. blue helmets, I see many more
prosecutions for a growing list of crimes, I see my gun rights being
taken away, and on and on.

In the section below, read carefully the sections about providing
support for "terrorists." Note that belonging to a pro- or
anti-abortion group in which _one_ of the members uses violence (a
fistfight, a jostling of a cop, or a shooting...) makes the group a
"terrorist" group, under the new language of the Crime Act.

I will not be surprised to hear that the Cypherpunks group is
classified as a terrorist group, for a variety of reasons (not the
least of which was the "liberation" of the RC4 code, the
Mykotronx-government deal info, the debates about undermining the
government, the talk of assasination markets, etc.).

Sorry, but I just can't "Don't worry, be happy."

--Tim May