At 09:55 -1000 7/23/00, Reese wrote in response to Tim May:
>I remember hearing about a militia group called the Minute Men who
>came under serious federal scrutiny back in the 60s (that's 1960's).
>They hadn't done anything, not anything at all, as I heard it. They
>came under scrutiny because of what they advocated, not because of
>what they had done. Aum Shinrikyo has already received greater bene-
>fit of the doubt, than the Minute Men received.
So? The constition doesn't say "you get all these rights until such
time as you as you commit, are suspected of committing, or associate
with persons who have committed X number of crimes, then we revoke
them all".
>>What new form of McCarthism are folks like Reese and Ernest Hua
>>now >supporting?
>>
>>Last I checked, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say a damn word about
>>my civil rights being lost because I refuse to take a loyalty oath or
>>because I refuse to denounce some members of a group I may have once
>>belonged to or may even still belong to.
>
>Excellent red herring. Again, this didn't occur inside the US, it
>occurred in JAPAN - where they don't have the US Constitution, where
>the reigning government does not recognize civil rights as we under-
>stand them. Nice also, how you try to lump me in with Hua.
Hey there goes another nice fish... The mere fact that this is
occurring in Japan changes very little. Are you arguing liberty for
the USA, tyranny for the rest? The Declaration of Independence
(which lays the moral foundation for our constitutional protections)
make it very clear that our "rights" are not gifts of the government
but are instead basic characteristics that ALL people are entitled
to. The mere fact that Japan may not recognize all of them does not
make them any less real.
>>There ought to be an I.Q. test before people are allowed to join the
>>Cypherpunks list.
>
>The first question ought to be - does American Law apply to foreign
>nationals who are not inside US territories or possessions.
>Second question ought to be, are US Citizens beholden to the whims and
>fancy of foreign governments, for actions undertaken inside US Borders.
1. No. That says nothing about whether or not we can comment on
those actions or consider them in light of the excellent
constitutional framework created in the US. I think that question
would qualify as a Red Herring...
2. No. That doesn't mean that the US Government shouldn't act as a
go between and mediator in difficulties that arise between it's
citizens and other nations. The FBI however is most definately the
wrong organization to serve in this role.
--
Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ#23758827
_______________________________________________________________________________
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware
of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting
victims of the darkness."
-- Justice William O. Douglas
