Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[measl]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:

> What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional 
> declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires 
> something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would 

Oh, like the "War on Drugs"?

> There, is that cryptic enough?

Quite.  Thanks.

> 
> jbdigriz

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:55:50PM -0400, James B. DiGriz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> dict.org cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
> 
> War War, n. OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal,

<...>

> 1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force,

<...>

> Note: As war is the contest of nations or states, it always
>   implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch
>   or the sovereign power of the nation. 

Which neatly gets you into the problem of what to call a "civil war".

I've had this discussion with several European friends.  Seems there's a
few definitions of "war" to be found, even in standard dictionaries.
Not all refer to nations or states.  Others may note that a "nation" is
not identical to a "state".  There are stateless nations (e.g.:
Palestine), and states which are host to people of several nations
(e.g.:  the Swiss Federation).

I use the somewhat informal, though largely conformant, definitions of:

   Nation:  a group of people identified by common culture, language,
   beliefs, or institutions.  (my own distilation)

   War:  armed hostilities, especially between nations.  (The Oxford
   Encyclopedic English Dictionary).

One of the most asinine arguments I've heard to date was a commentator
on the BBC/PRI "The World" radio program a couple of weeks back.  Her
statement was that by calling this "a war", the US was validating the
deaths at the WTC/P5 attacks as casualties of war.

Bollox.

Deaths aren't justified or not.  What declaring war (formally or
otherwise) does is put both combatents and other parties on notice (as
the US was most decidedly not prior to the attacks) that there is a
state of armed hostilities.  Actions supportive of the (admittedly ill
defined) enemy may be construed as acts of war against the US.  And
innocents are best advised to stay out of the hot zone.

Peace.  By any means.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?  Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!  http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

 PGP signature

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[James B. DiGriz]

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like
> the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their
> website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 


What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional 
declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires 
something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would 
be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a 
smoking gun to publicly identify such party.

Bin Laden and crew are not a foreign power, unless we are stupid enough 
to turn them into one, a  hostile one. Sheer folly when their precise 
complicity and the extent of their involvement in the attacks has yet to 
  be demostrated outside of their self-promotion and our desire to find 
the guilty parties. Who, I don't believe, give a shit about the Islam 
rampant bs. except as expedient, and as much as about selecting the toll 
collectors for the pipelines to be built through places like Afghanistan 
to China, the former Soviet Republics, etc.

I don't rule out a war. There are grounds for it. That'll be folly, too, 
though, if we pick the wrong enemy, or support the wrong side again. Not 
speaking of Bin Laden now. Or cut another deal with a devil who'll bite 
us in the ass again a few years down the road. If not sooner. If we have 
to have Americans dying in remote, already blown-up, mine-laden poppy 
fields etc. as postulated, kindly let's not do it out of crass political 
expediency. Again. Nothing wrong with revenge for 5000+ dead, either, 
but don't let's get more killed going after the wrong motherfuckers, or 
trying to buy the right ones off.

There, is that cryptic enough?

jbdigriz

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[auto301094]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


Where's the "discovery" here? I posted a story from Stratfor to the list
Tuesday, Sept 25. Oh well, glad you found it anyway.

>Yup, by far the most intelligent analysis I've seen.

It's good, but I'm guessing the classified work from RAND is even better. It all
comes down to who gets the cabinet's ear: I could be wrong, but either way it
looks like the cooler heads at least have a chance this time around.

Here's to hoping.

~F.


> On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 07:50:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: Nathanael Dermyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [FREE] stratfor
> >
> > http://www.stratfor.com
> >
> > This is a website about strategic forcasting.  These people really know
> > their shit.
> >
> > Read these in order ... these are their forcasts for the war we're about
> > be thrown into
> >
> > http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109242145.htm (intro - conceptual framework)
> > http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109252150.htm (war plan - afghan theatre)
> > http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109262355.htm (war plan - us theatre)
> > http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109272330.htm (war plan - intercontinental
> > theatre)
> > http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109282120.htm (war plan - follow up)
> >
> > -Nathanael
>


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Hush 2.0

wl8EARECAB8FAju3fDIYHGF1dG8zMDEwOTRAaHVzaG1haWwuY29tAAoJEKadvsVlUK4P
wVAAniDu4nrqbemrOqboh3wnNa+K/AAJAJ4775cunOECfF46aviHAHb4S3IoOA==
=7Jl5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[auto301094]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

James wrote:

>What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads
>like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit.
>Pure felgercarb.

What objective criteria do you use to tell good analysis from bad?


> Mr. Bin Laden must be flattered no end if
>he thinks that the U.S. reallly considers him personally, or even his
>entire organization, that much of a menace.

You mean the way some people around here are convinced that this list will
somehow be declared a terrorist organization? Like that?


>Doubt he's that stupid, though.

Probably not.

~F.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Hush 2.0

wl8EARECAB8FAju3g1EYHGF1dG8zMDEwOTRAaHVzaG1haWwuY29tAAoJEKadvsVlUK4P
hxcAnjQynztwyO7pYffppJLeL7XstFXPAJ43NKHs9i2t3XCWpdjwF0LN3fe14g==
=UPMk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: new European CDR

[Doobee R. Tzeck]

Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thanks to [EMAIL PROTECTED], there is a new CDR in Europe.

It's not exactly new. See 
http://w8n.koeln.ccc.de/~drt/mailarchive/cypherpunks/Week-of-Mon-20001002/001817

> Here's the CDR's info, see also
> http://koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks
> 
> CCC:
> 
> Operator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscription: "subscribe [password of your choice]" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscription:   "unsubscribe " to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Help: "help" to to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web site: http://koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks
> Posting address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Filtering policy: This specific node drops messages bigger than 32k and
>   every message with more than 17 recipients or just a line
>   containing "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject.
> Digest mode:  this node is digest-only
> NNTP: news://koeln.ccc.de/cbone.ml.cypherpunks
> Message Modification policy:  no modification 
dropping all messages with already seen Message-Id
dropping all messages with 'X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
adding 'X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Privacy policy: ???
subscribtion list is available to all
subscribers and backbone sites. to protect
your privacy you should use nntp or nyms for
reading and remailer for posting.

drt

-- 
"Before the Internet, a certain breed of deconstructionists had a lot of fun
telling everybody that "privileging of dominant paradigms" was wrecking the
world. The Internet has taught us that privileging certain views is
absolutely crucial to avoid drowning in the ravings of idiots." -Keunwoo Lee

Work from home and get paid!

[AmyWilson]

Title: Make Money Primer






  


Make BIG MoneyWorking At Home
Let Make Money Primer help you, our program has made more Millionaires than any other home business opportunity in existance.  We have a proven 20 year track record and will help you succeed.

For detailed information on how you can participate,please visit our web site CLICK HERE
Working From Home Is Our Business


We can show you how you can earn an extra $1,500 to $7,000 per month.  How can we be so certain?  Because, thousands of people like yourself are doing it right now!
How would you like to walk out to your mailbox and find money day after day?


Look at your earning potential (monthly income)

Month 1$326
Month 6$2,069
Month 12$11,565
Month 24$24,187
Month 36$40,781

For detailed information on how you can participate,please visit our web site CLICK HERE
  
  
  
   






Think about this...
 
86% of
  home-based business owners are happier running their own business instead
  of working for someone else.
84% recommend
  working from home to others. 
84% plan
  to still be running their own business in five years. 
20% of
  home entrepreneurs reported that their businesses grossed between $100,000
  and $500,000 last year. 
14% paid
  themselves annual salaries of $50,000 to $250,000. 
29% work
  at home with other family members. 
60% think
  their businesses are doing as well or better than they expected. 
76% expect
  their home-based business' revenues to grow this year. 
  
  
  

  

  
 NOTE: This email was sent to you because your email is part of a targeted opt-in list. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive another email from us again.
   UNSUBSCRIBE ME PLEASE  #022154 
  

  
 
 
  

Re: CDR: Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[James B. DiGriz]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> James wrote:
> 
> 
>>What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads
>>like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit.
>>Pure felgercarb.
>>
> 
> What objective criteria do you use to tell good analysis from bad?
> 


dict.org cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

War War, n. OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal,
quarrel, sedition, werran to confound, mix, D. warren, G.
wirren, verwirren, to embroil, confound, disturb, and perhaps
to E. worse; cf. OF. werre war, F. querre, of Teutonic
origin. Cf. Guerrilla, Warrior.
1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force,
   whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing
   wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition
   of territory, for obtaining and establishing the
   superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any
   other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers;
   declared and open hostilities.

 Men will ever distinguish war from mere bloodshed.
   --F. W.
   Robertson.

Note: As war is the contest of nations or states, it always
  implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch
  or the sovereign power of the nation. A war begun by
  attacking another nation, is called an offensive war,
  and such attack is aggressive. War undertaken to repel
  invasion, or the attacks of an enemy, is called
  defensive.


This is not the definition used in the analysis, which references the 
much-bandied "war on terrorism". Granted that the English language is no 
longer what it was after nearly a century of concerted corruption 
through constant misuse  by all stripes of propagandists, disinformation 
artists, and damned liars, but any analysis that supplants shoddy 
analogies and metaphor for precise usage (and I'm wondering for what 
reason) is suspect. Also granted that this is what the politicians are 
touting, with only tangential suggestions of conflict with other states.

That's just for starters. It gets worse from there. Since that's the 
major premise of the article, though, I see no point in proceeding further.

> 
> 
>>Mr. Bin Laden must be flattered no end if
>>he thinks that the U.S. reallly considers him personally, or even his
>>entire organization, that much of a menace.
>>
> 
> You mean the way some people around here are convinced that this list will
> somehow be declared a terrorist organization? Like that?
> 


Or like the way governments have got into the habit of placing 
individuals into roles formerly reserved for nations and states. They 
should be more careful about that. Sets a dangerous precedent, if you 
ask me.I don't think the idea is to acknowledge sovereign powers, 
either, incur an obligation to treat with, etc., but that's the 
inescapable conclusion. Better hope the sheep don't look up, huh?

> 
> 
>>Doubt he's that stupid, though.
>>
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> ~F.


Some people may hope he is.

jbdigriz

An apt lyric for today\'s situation in America

[keyser-soze]

Don't Dream It's Over

Written by: Neil Finn
Performed by: Crowded House

There is freedom within, there is freedom without
Try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
There's a battle ahead, many battles are lost
But you'll never see the end of the road
While you're travelling with me

Chorus
Hey now, hey now
Don't dream it's over
Hey now, hey now
When the world comes in
They come, they come
To build a wall between us
We know they won't win

Now I'm towing my car, there's a hole in the roof
My possessions are causing me suspicion but there's no proof
In the paper today tales of war and of waste
But you turn right over to the T.V. page

Hey now, hey now
Don't dream it's over
Hey now, hey now
When the world comes in
They come, they come
To build a wall between us
We know they won't win

Now I'm walking again to the beat of a drum
And I'm counting the steps to the door of your heart
Only the shadows ahead barely clearing the roof
Get to know the feeling of liberation and relief

Hey now, hey now
Don't dream it's over
Hey now, hey now
When the world comes in
They come, they come
To build a wall between us
Don't ever let them win

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like
> > the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their
> > website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
> > 
> > -Declan
> 
> What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a
> Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal
> necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as
> the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt
> state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such
> party.

As the US President is CinC of the US armed forces, he may deploy these
forces as he sees fit.  However, Congress holds the purse strings, and
the impeachment vote.  My understanding is that the War Powers Act,
passed in the wake of the SouthEast Asia Disagreement of 1965-1975,
limits such deployments to 30 or 90 days.

I have to admit being somewhat confused myself over just what
distinctions there are between a formal declaration, and a vote of
support such as we saw following the 9/11 attacks.  I believe a formal
declaration would entail far more Presidential support and powers,
resources for the military, including likely more sweeping restrictions
on civil liberties.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?  Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!  http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

 PGP signature

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[Steve Schear]

At 03:25 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>One of the most asinine arguments I've heard to date was a commentator
>on the BBC/PRI "The World" radio program a couple of weeks back.  Her
>statement was that by calling this "a war", the US was validating the
>deaths at the WTC/P5 attacks as casualties of war.
>
>Bollox.
>
>Deaths aren't justified or not.  What declaring war (formally or
>otherwise) does is put both combatents and other parties on notice (as
>the US was most decidedly not prior to the attacks) that there is a
>state of armed hostilities.  Actions supportive of the (admittedly ill
>defined) enemy may be construed as acts of war against the US.  And
>innocents are best advised to stay out of the hot zone.

This is IMHO naive.  Have you ever been in a brawl?  Unlike most silver 
screen fights my experience is that the first person to get in a good one 
usually decks the opponent and its over.  If the first one to throw the 
punch can sneak up on the opponent or create over confidence in the other 
party by getting them to think that no violent reply will be forthcoming if 
attacked (in New York we called that "sucker punching") then the odds of 
success are that much more increased.  "The Art of War" is still a good 
source of combat advice.

steve

America needs therapy

[Steve Schear]

Its angering how much lip service though little progress has been made 
since 1973 on freeing America from her chemical dependence on petroleum in 
general and mid-east oil specifically.  If the U.S. had no direct economic 
interests in the mid-east would it be propping up the governments of 
Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or contending with Iran and Iraq, etc? 
More likely our response to problems in the area would be similar to our 
involvement in West Africa.  This dependance has made us little more than 
oil junkies and you know that junkies will do whatever it takes to get 
their next fix.  If America wants to break this cycle of state violence and 
co-dependency it needs to get energy therapy in a hurry.

steve

Re: Alert! Congress to target "TOXIC MOLD!"

[Steve Thompson]

Quoting Duncan Frissell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> During the 20th century government employees murdered 170 million people.
> During the 20th century everyone else murdered 20 million people. A word to 
> the wise...

Looks like the laity have some catching up to do.


Regards,

Steve

-- 
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[Karsten M. Self]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 03:45:07PM -0700, Steve Schear ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 03:25 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > One of the most asinine arguments I've heard to date was a
> > commentator on the BBC/PRI "The World" radio program a couple of
> > weeks back.  Her statement was that by calling this "a war", the US
> > was validating the deaths at the WTC/P5 attacks as casualties of
> > war.
> > 
> > Bollox.
> > 
> > Deaths aren't justified or not.  What declaring war (formally or
> > otherwise) does is put both combatents and other parties on notice
> > (as the US was most decidedly not prior to the attacks) that there
> > is a state of armed hostilities.  Actions supportive of the
> > (admittedly ill defined) enemy may be construed as acts of war
> > against the US.  And innocents are best advised to stay out of the
> > hot zone.
> 
> This is IMHO naive.  Have you ever been in a brawl?  

Have you ever been in a brawl where one side (or both) has friends?

> Unlike most silver screen fights my experience is that the first
> person to get in a good one usually decks the opponent and its over.
> If the first one to throw the punch can sneak up on the opponent or
> create over confidence in the other party by getting them to think
> that no violent reply will be forthcoming if attacked (in New York we
> called that "sucker punching") then the odds of success are that much
> more increased.  "The Art of War" is still a good source of combat
> advice.

Sucker punching tends to violate the norms of honorable conduct.  If you
down the first guy, but have to deal with three of his friends, the
issue becomes a bit less clear cut.  Concepts of "unfair advantage" tend
to escalate:  sucker punches lead to friends, knives, back alleys,
and/or heat.

That's more or less where the perps of the 9/11 attacks find themselves
at the moment.

The other side of the argument is the bee'n'the bull theory.  Sure, the
bee can get in the first lick, but you've now got one pissed-off bull.
If your sucker punch *doesn't* land the fellow, you've got consequences
to deal with.  I'd say the US is currently stung, but by no means
hurting in any diminished-capacity sense of the word.  This doesn't
strike be as good strategic thinking on our oponents' part.

I did make a halfhearted attempt to search through TAoW looking at
strategic guidelines.  I'll give it another shot and see what I turn up.

Peace.

- -- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?  Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!  http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7t6X8OEeIn1XyubARApr5AJwPUGhTsll52UypCfAqua/WFAssIQCfUy1Z
iPG8lP8cqvwHdGTseIKXBc4=
=tMHU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[auto301094]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

James wrote:

>This is not the definition used in the analysis, which references the
>much-bandied "war on terrorism". Granted that the English language is no
>longer what it was after nearly a century of concerted corruption
>through constant misuse  by all stripes of propagandists, disinformation
>artists, and damned liars, but any analysis that supplants shoddy
>analogies and metaphor for precise usage (and I'm wondering for what
>reason) is suspect. Also granted that this is what the politicians are
>touting, with only tangential suggestions of conflict with other states.


Good points; though to be fair, there is a body of fairly influential literature
out there that does address the problem you're getting at. You might be
interested in a book (available as a free online pdf) called "Countering the
New Terrorism". http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR989/ I read it when it
came out in 1999, probably ought to have another read myself...

Here's a summary:

Traces the recent evolution of international terrorism against civilian and
U.S. military targets, looks ahead to where terrorism is going, and assesses
how it might be contained. The authors consider the threat of information-based
terrorism and of weapons of mass destruction, with an emphasis on how changes
in the sources and nature of terrorism may affect the use of unconventional
terror. The authors propose counterterrorism strategies that address the
growing problem of homeland defense.

Chapter One: Introduction
Ian O. Lesser

Changing Terrorism in a Changing World
Study Approach and Structure

Chapter Two: Terrorism Trends and Prospects
Bruce Hoffman

Introduction
Trends In Terrorism

Terrorist Tactical Adaptations Across the Technological Spectrum and Their
Implications
Conclusion

Chapter Three: Networks, Netwar, and Information-Age Terrorism
John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, and Michele Zanini

A New Terrorism (with Old Roots)
Recent Views About Terrorism
The Advent of Netwar--Analytical Background
Middle Eastern Terrorism and Netwar
Terrorist Doctrines--The Rise of a "War Paradigm"
Information-Age Terrorism and the U.S. Air Force
Policy Implications and Conclusions for the USAF

Chapter Four: Countering the New Terrorism: Implications for Strategy
Ian O. Lesser

Introduction
Understanding and Countering the "New" Terrorism
Terrorism in Strategic Context
The Lessons and Relevance of Counterterrorism Experience
Conceptualizing National Counterterrorism Strategy

Conclusions

more pdfs: http://www.rand.org/hot/newslinks/terrorism.html


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Hush 2.0

wl8EARECAB8FAju3p2QYHGF1dG8zMDEwOTRAaHVzaG1haWwuY29tAAoJEKadvsVlUK4P
DSIAn1Nfp28gVe5MM0rR5VFNFPEfrjcCAJ9gkYIIubnT+6ML1XcE8KiRjAQolw==
=ZEPf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

NO FRIENDS OF LIBERTY IN FOXHOLES? by David M. Brown

[Matthew Gaylor]

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE  ISSUE 141 
October 01, 2001


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

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- LNS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PUBLISHER L. Neil Smith 
WEBMASTER Ken L. Holder 
WEB HOSTING   William Stone 
HONORARY EDITOR   Vin Suprynowicz   
EDITORJohn Taylor   
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NO FRIENDS OF LIBERTY IN FOXHOLES?
by David M. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Exclusive to TLE

Are there no libertarians in foxholes?

In a recent op-ed first published by the _Boston Globe_, reprinted by
_Reason Magazine_ at their web site, then reprinted by the electronic
newsletter _Freematt's Alerts_, Cathy Young opines that maybe
individual rights and human freedom aren't so sacrosanct after all --
not if we're in a foxhole and the terrorists are lunging at us with
box-cutters in their teeth.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no
libertarians in them either, Young suggests.

I don't know. It's a theory. Perhaps no foxhole residents possess any
convictions of any kind. Perhaps the human spirit simply shrivels and
withers in foxholes. But I doubt it.

"Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic
communications so that they are beyond surveillance?" Cathy Young
asks. "Frankly, I found it scary even before September 11 --
precisely because of the threat of terrorism. It is said that there
are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians
in times of terrorist attacks. Even in the Declaration of
Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life."

How sad to read these comments. Is Cathy Young implying that if I
don't want the government to be able to open my mail at will, I'm an
enabler of terrorism?

I agree that the right to liberty is _grounded in_ the right to life.
It pertains to what my right to life entails in a social context --
what others owe to me and what I owe to them, if we are to be able to
function in support of our own individual lives and also get along
with each other. It's true that the right to liberty doesn't mean the
right to do any old which thing I choose to do. I don't have the
right to threaten my neighbors or do arbitrary violence to them. If I
act as a criminal, I do forfeit the right to walk as a free person.
And if government has (true) probable cause to suspect me of
criminality, yes they should have every reasonable power to
investigate.

But how can I be asked to forfeit my right to protect my own personal
privacy in advance of _any_ reasonable evidence of _any_
rights-violating wrongdoing or planning of same?

When I am in a public context like an airport, whose managers might
reasonably request the ability to search my suitcase as a condition
of my doing business with them, I can understand submitting to an
inspection ... though I might not agree with it and might even think
it's offensive and obtuse, depending on how long they linger over the
underwear.

But Cathy Young is talking about another case altogether. She is
suggesting that I must give up a particular right to act on my own
behalf when the private enterprise involved is entirely willing to
sell (or give me) the particular good which Young says I have no
right to possess: robust encryption software.

Why? Because I "might" act as a criminal? Or does encrypting my
private stuff per se constitute a violation of somebody's rights?

And if so, whose?

Young also says that it would be okay to check out my electronic mail
as long as there is "due process." Well, that sounds okay, though
with the FBI's notorious Carnivore technology, my private email may
well be read in full if the Carnivore system gleans one or two
suspect words. No warrant required.

Surely Cathy Young is aware that the government does not always have
good reasons for the things it does. At least if the feds and the
cops must apply for a warrant, they has to give a court _some_ before
prying into my personal things. But from what I gather, Carnivore is
premised on the notion of _not_ having to bother about warrants
before inspecting the email of particular individuals. It supposedly
can gulp and scan every single piece of email that goes through a
particular electronic hub, without any differentiation between one
individual and another. Tha

Beyond SURVIVOR - SEX SURVIVOR

[AnnaWilliams]

   SEX SURVIVOR 
YOU KNEW IT WAS COMING! WELL! ITS FINALLY HERE! 
  S E X V I V O R


Who Will Out-Suck   Can They Out-Fuck 
 What will be the Out-CUM!


See what they didn't have the balls to show you!!


4 Men and 4 Womnen Locked in a Erotic SEXUAL Competition


http://www.sexvivor.tv/index123.html


TV can't touch it - Cable is Afraid of it 
But we have all the uncencored Raw Footage


Much BETTER than SURVIVOR 
Way BEYOND TEMPTATION ISLAND 
Much too Hot for BIG BROTHER


WHO WILL BE THE SEXUAL SURVIVOR? 
REAL PEOPLE - REAL SEX COMPETITIONS 
FORBIDDEN SECRETS REVEALED


Survivor Got You Interested 
Big Brother wet your Appetite 
Temptaion Island Excited You 
Let SexVivor - UNLOCK your true Curiosity


How far will they go? 
What will they do? 
YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO take a PEEK 
All the Forbidden footage is Revealed


Could You be a SEX SURVIVOR


Real People in EXCITING 
Sexual Challenges 
No scripts, No actors, 
Reality at its Best and Worst! 

http://www.sexvivor.tv/index123.html

NOTE: This email was sent to you because your email is part of a targeted opt-in list. 
If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your 
email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive 
another email from us again. http://www.removeyou.com #022154 

America needs an enema...

[measl]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Steve Schear wrote:

> Its angering how much lip service though little progress has been made 
> since 1973 on freeing America from her chemical dependence on petroleum in 
> general and mid-east oil specifically.  If the U.S. had no direct economic 
> interests in the mid-east would it be propping up the governments of 
> Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or contending with Iran and Iraq, etc?

While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and
all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-(   Unfortunately, we are just as
interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we
please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet.  The U.S. has a
rather intense ego problem.

This is *not* to say that your point doesn't have a great deal of
validity, for obviously it does.
 

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Overactive Bladder?

[huggybear500]

Title: New Page 1







  
  

  
 Investigational Overactive Bladder Treatment

National Clinical Trial

Do you or someone you know experience any of these symptoms? 

  
    *Urinary leakage?
    *Difficulty
  controlling the urge to urinate?
    *The perception of
  the need to urinate frequently during the day or night?
  
Learn more about this research
study:

Volunteers 18 years of age and older are currently being screened for participation in a
nationwide research study for overactive bladder. The purpose of this research study is to
evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an investigational medication designed to control
overactive bladder. 

  Qualified participants will receive study related exams and study medication.
CLICK HERE TO OPT-IN FOR
MORE INFO
*
Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter
cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes contact
information and a method of removal. 
To
be DELETED
from our mailing CLICK
HERE. 
If you
have any questions or comments, this message was sent by: 
An
Independent Advertising Agency:
Click Here To Contact Them Or Ask Questions
*

  

This is a test

[CDR Anonymizer]

This is only a test. Please feel free to delete this mail.

Nuclear reactor sites no longer readily findable on Web

[Tim May]

I was checking some of my URLs for maps of nuclear power plants, maps 
once heavily publicized as parts of civil defense preparedness plans 
from the U.S.G.

Guess what? Many of them are gone. The Web caches are not fully useful, 
as the indexed sites point to the subpages containing the large image 
GIFs (and other formats). So Google's cache has the first page, but all 
attempts to access the subpages give the same "information no longer 
available" sorts of messages.

The main Nuclear Regulatory Commission site no longer allows downloading 
of maps, and results in this message:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/GEOSPATIAL/lvsites.html
Nuclear Site Locations

This site is no longer available.


For another example,

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.html

"Unsuccessful Access to INSC Information



The page you requested cannot be found on this server. Please check your 
URL for spelling errors. If you requested access to the maps of nuclear 
power reactor locations, these maps have been taken off-line temporarily 
pending the outcome of a policy review by the US Department of Energy 
and Argonne National Laboratory. "

Maybe this is a temporary thing, maybe some lower-down burrowcrat 
thought to himself: "Oooh, I could lose my job for having a map of 
nuclear power plants at my site!

Fortunately, the U.S.G. has no monopoly on simple maps of where nuclear 
power plants are!

http://www.nucleartourist.com/   still works.

I wonder for how long? How long before printing something so simple as a 
map, a map which has been around for decades, is considered espionage?

As Nietzsche once said, be careful how you choose your enemies, for you 
will become them.


--Tim May

Oracle must die

[CDR Anonymizer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Quoting Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle:

"We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint
digitized and embedded in the ID card"

"We need a database behind that, so when you're walking into an airport
and you say that you are Larry Ellison, you take that card and put it
in a reader and you put your thumb down and that system confirms that
this is Larry Ellison"

"We're quite willing to provide the software for this absolutely free"


When Smith&Wesson gave in to the statists, a death penalty was declared
on their company. The means of execution being a total boycott of all
company products by all informed freedom-loving people. The boycott is
biting, and others in their industry have taken notice.

Now, Larry Ellison, effectively the avatar of Oracle corporation, has
decided that privacy is an illusion anyway - and that he is more than
happy to collaborate in deliberate state destruction of the essential
right to keep your mouth shut and your past to yourself.

Partly Oracle corporatons seems to be looking for corporate-welfare (of
course they're giving it away; the first hit is always free). Partly
they just are that statist. Look at their attempt to red-tape their
rival, Microsoft, into second place.

The crimes are: (1) insulting the memories of those killed, by trying
to hitch a free ride on the emotional backblast of the 911 attacks. (2)
treason against individual sovereignty, by aiding and abetting the
enemies of freedom (3) attempted murder of the rival company Microsoft.

The sentence is: death, by massive boycott

If you work at any level (management, design, or implementation) with
Oracle software, you are asked to:

- - Refuse to implement any new project using Oracle software.

- - If you are already using Oracle software and can switch, do so. There
are several alternatives.

- - If you are financially tied to an existing Oracle installation, refuse
to upgrade it or buy any further software from Oracle, except security
patches. At your first opporunity, transition to an alternative vendor.

- - If you are in a management postion, recommend against Oracle software
citing this boycott as a reason why the company may become unstable and
unable to hold up its contractual obligations.

- - If you are working inside Oracle, give your notice.

Please distribute this message to all your colleagues who work or might
in future work with Oracle products.



|\_/|
|~ ~| This message brought to you by the Swamp Fox
 \o/

- -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
 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=mNLr
- -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
 
iD8DBQE7t/CfWHIN/gDHuuMRAjxUAJ98fUSqAyMz3v1B3StR2DNl7krv4gCgtKtA
nys3C0fjWxrHe+VU1T5DZ9o=
=08/z
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

How Much is your House Payment?

[dsingh]

We will help you get the mortgage loan you want!

http://m0106252000.mysprintfast.com/mortgage%20files/testindex.html 
http://m0106252000.mysprintfast.com/mortgage%20files/testindex.html";>AOL 
Link

Whether a new home loan is what you seek or to refinance
your current home loan at a lower interest rate, we can help!

Mortgage rates haven't been this low in the last 12 months,
take action now!

Refinance your home with us and include all of those pesky
credit card bills or use the extra cash for that pool you've 
always wanted...

Where others say NO, we say YES!!!
Even if you have been turned down elsewhere, we can help!

Easy terms!  Our mortgage referral service combines the
highest quality loans with the most economical rates and
the easiest qualifications!

Take just 2 minutes to complete the following form.
There is no obligation, all information is kept strictly
confidential, and you must be at least 18 years of age.  
Service is available within the United States only.
This service is fast and free.  

Free information request form:
PLEASE VISIT

http://m0106252000.mysprintfast.com/mortgage%20files/testindex.html 
http://m0106252000.mysprintfast.com/mortgage%20files/testindex.html";>AOL 
Link