IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)

[keyser-soze at hushmail.com]

At 12:44 PM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2 at terabites.com wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
>>There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics 
>>catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books 
>>on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another. 

>There's a huge difference between a book that blows the whistle on government 
misdoings and abuses versus a book that gives a detailed recipe on how some 
disgruntled lunatic with $10 in their pocket can kill tens of thousands, maybe 
even millions, of other people "from your basement, in your spare time".
Many of the works in the Loompanics catalogue are practical, how-to, manuals on manufacture and use of weapons, some now classed as illegal.

>ESPECIALLY when that book discusses (and presumably encourages) the distribution of anthrax and other home-cultured lethal pathogens by letters in the mail, and in light of recent events bearing a striking similarity to that, I think it's obvious that people who bought this guy's book or CD are certainly at least among the list of prime suspects.  (And I'd think that it simply makes sense to investigate, and monitor the activities of the rest of the purchasers to try to uncover if they're just "curious" as an academically interesting subject, or to see if they have a more sinister purpose.)

The barriers to law enforcement in obtaining this type of information is part of the balance struck between individual civil liberties and the easy with which law enforcement is able to carry out some of their mandate to identify and capture criminals.  It is only in a police state that law enforcement's job is "easy."  Despite my concern over the possession of such information by some who have plans to use it to hurt others, I have no interest in seeing this balance tipped toward enforcement.


>Obviously we as a nation were largely blindsided by the September 11th disaster, and we've been roundly criticized due to the obvious failure of intelligence to see this coming and head it off somehow.  While we can't ALWAYS achieve that, it's clear that we need to do better in that area.

Anyone who looked for their inept government security agencies to provide all or most of their security were fools.  Any who continue to look for this protection going forward are larger fools.  To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, "A fool and their life are soon parted."  Your safety is most assured when you take personal responsibility.

The reasons for this failure have been much publicized and ignored over the past two decades.  The massive funding of these agencies post Sept. 11 are unlikely to have any immediate positive effects as money was never the primary problem.


>There's plenty of other things that "ordinary" folk simply don't have much need to buy and own.  [very-]Large-denomination currency, perhaps.  

This seems to be based on the assumption that one does not have a fundamental right to property: the right to possess it or transfer it.  That roadblocks need to be erected to prevent us from efficiently exercising this right.  The right to privacy, especially financial privacy is a basis of democratic government.  By limiting the manner in which one may hold property, especially without the knowledge of government agencies or ones neighbors, we greatly limit our freedom of private property ownership and privacy.

>Nuclear weapons. 
> High explosives and blasting caps.  Shoulder-launced antiaircraft missiles.  
I'm sure you can think of others.  I'd put anthrax and other biological or 
chemical weapons into that category, too.  I'd hope that anyone buying (or 
attempting to buy) such stuff would at least slightly raise an eyebrow on the 
part of SOMEONE charged with helping to maintain a society that's safe to live 
in.  It's clearly NOT enough to only monitor such things on the part of madmen 
like Saddam Hussein... clearly, we have crazy people right here in the United 
States, too.  They're no less in need of at least some oversight to make sure 
that they don't go off the deep end and endanger as much as an entire city (or 
possibly even worse).

>From the Declaration of Independence the right of individuals to overthrow their governments when THEY feel that it has come ignore basic civil liberties has been enshrined.  While some might insist that massive civil unrest is the only legitimate means of achieving an overthrow I would remind you that fewer than 10% of the American Colonials took an active part in the Revolution.  This was definitely a case of asymmetrical warfare and the British considered these Colonists terrorists (although this term was not used).  Without the help of France is most unlikely that our side would have prevailed.

Abraham Lincoln :
"Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." 
"First Inaugural Address" (available at http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) 

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." 
(Speech in the United States House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848) 

You or I certainly couldn't consider overthrowing our government with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. The individual possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is fundamental to exercise of our rights.  The Supreme Court essentially came to this conclusion in the case of Miller vs. U.S, but shortly thereafter it beat a hasty retreat in Case vs. U.S.

"In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench m!
ortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."  http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html

So, where we sit now is that we have a fundamental right to overthrow our government by violence but the discussion of this subject or possession of the means is a felony.


>>But I hardly think it's 
>>consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them, 
>>or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing.

>It's hardly reasonable for taxpayers as a whole to have to pay the high costs of security that are created by an irresponsible individual who is creating a very dangerous situation just to earn a few fistfulls of dollars (and to quite purposefully create that danger).  When someone creates a highly dangerous condition that results in heavy costs to someone else (whether to correct the problem, or even to protect themselves against the possible problem) then courts have traditionally found that the damaged party has a civil claim against the person creating that hazard.

But since this expensive security has now been shown to be ineffective don't you think those citizens are entitled to a refund?  These expenditures were foolish but should individuals be held responsible for the folly of their fellow citizens?  Should I be able to sue our government for reimbursement of the costs of living in a gated and guarded community because I think the police have "created a dangerous condition" by not providing an adequate level of protection to my family?  This is a fools game.


>Again, the First Amendment has its limits.  If some organization were to publish a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to create an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... purely as a matter of national security.  

Section 4.0 Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons
http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html

>Just as very few Americans (in fact I suspect this is true for most of the 
world) will shed great tears when ObL is captured or killed, I think that few of them will be very upset when this guy selling "murder millions of your fellow citizens" cookbooks is eliminated.

Nor shall I when those of my fellow citizens who with a fundamental lack of constitutional awareness call for such results meet a similar fate.

>Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free 
>society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue.

>Clearly we're going to lose some of our freedoms.  :-(((  I just hope that those losses can be minimized.  Meanwhile, it's bastards like this guy selling these terrorism training manuals who are ultimately more part of the problem than they are part of the solution.

This no more a far gone conclusion than that some of those who passed these new measures or attempt to enforce them will lose their lives in doing so.