RE: Sedition
Faustine wrote: > I bet a person could really learn a lot by spending some quality time > with Google, taking careful notes on the differences between posts you ignore, > ones you're content to dismiss with frosty condescension, what really seems to > bother the hell out of you, ones that should bother the hell out of you but you > choose to ignore, etc. etc. It's a wonder someone hasn't pulled a number on > you already. Sometimes I wonder about "Agent Farr" though. I do, too. But, clearly, I'm not an agent. A field agent would look away from the moving bright spot, take in the whole room, and see the wolf with the flashlight sitting in the corner. (That's a ancient Texas proverb, BTW, "House cats do not eat wolves. Wolves eat house cats." Never made sense to me, aside from the obvious. If anybody here knows the true meaning/origin of that, I would be interested to hear it.) ~Aimee
Re: Sedition
At 05:13 PM 11/13/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 02:20:28PM -0500, Faustine wrote:
> > It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and
> > everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington.
>
>Of course, if you're a hardcore libertarian ("abolish all
>unconstitutional federal agencies, and that's most of 'em! let's
>revert back to the firearms laws we had 150 years ago!"), then you
>don't get listened to.
>
>Having more "pro freedom policy analysts" in Washington won't
>accomplish much until other things change too.
>
>-Declan
Anyway, don't we have dozens (hundreds?) of pro-freedom policy analysts in
DC. Between CATO and all the rest. Haven't the commies been complaining
about our massive numbers "funded by the corporations".
DCF
Re: Sedition
At 08:34 PM 11/13/2001 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- > > Federal law prohibits paramilitary training and the > > manufacture or transport of weapons with the knowledge or > > intent that they will be used to create a civil > > disturbance. (Ref 10) Federal law differs from most state > > laws prohibiting paramilitary training in that it applies > > only to the trainers, not the trainees. Under most state > > laws governing paramilitary training, participation as a > > trainee is also illegal. On 12 Nov 2001, at 21:38, Tim May wrote: > Unconstitutional nonsense. > > So, Agent Faustine, report me. In my observation, obviously unconstitutional laws tend to be selective applied against people that are unsympathetic, and, most importantly, cannot afford lawyers. Fortunately we can all afford firearms, some of high accuracy, range and penetration. Soon we may all be able to afford tools for individually selective bioagents and WoMD. What these downtrodden need most is a bit of ideological enlightenment and training. Tim, would you care to name your favorite "militia" training web sites? Anyone know if any of the once popular but now out-of-print Palladin books are circulating in e-book form?
Re: Sedition
-- > > Federal law prohibits paramilitary training and the > > manufacture or transport of weapons with the knowledge or > > intent that they will be used to create a civil > > disturbance. (Ref 10) Federal law differs from most state > > laws prohibiting paramilitary training in that it applies > > only to the trainers, not the trainees. Under most state > > laws governing paramilitary training, participation as a > > trainee is also illegal. On 12 Nov 2001, at 21:38, Tim May wrote: > Unconstitutional nonsense. > > So, Agent Faustine, report me. In my observation, obviously unconstitutional laws tend to be selective applied against people that are unsympathetic, and, most importantly, cannot afford lawyers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG eZYA39J/SxZX58rliPwWpS60vIeG4es982gl0jKy 4DZuq0YWXG0k1alT3ivx5tFtuw9WjujtxHELLH//+
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
declan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 02:20:28PM -0500, Faustine wrote:
> It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and
> everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington.
>Of course, if you're a hardcore libertarian ("abolish all
>unconstitutional federal agencies, and that's most of 'em! let's
>revert back to the firearms laws we had 150 years ago!"), then you
>don't get listened to.
Who says all libertarians are obliged to come on like a ton of bricks?
There's no reason you can't keep your hardcore beliefs to yourself while
doing the most rigorous and objective analysis you can. That's the one
real difference between being just another partisan and a serious analyst
who commands repsect, when you think of it.
Earning a reputation for using only the highest standards and most rigorous
methodology comes first, the way I see it. Your principles and priorities
never change, but by not revealing them to people all at once, you're able to
find your way into projects and situations where they can have a significant
impact. That's the plan, anyway.
>Having more "pro freedom policy analysts" in Washington won't
>accomplish much until other things change too.
Sadly enough, you're probably right.
But isn't it about time somebody started trying? I think so.
~Faustine.
***
The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms.
- --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its
affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version)
iQA/AwUBO/GpGvg5Tuca7bfvEQJ1XQCeJ3efzreFj4YxtvJZr85mv8gyOPoAnR8+
7sbb9F8lmeMtKq8Lkc3E6Sw1
=XzAW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 11:20 AM, Faustine wrote: > Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked > into incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different > issue from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. > No, _you_ miss the point: that I was not "incriminating" myself in any > way. I'll bet you all were running the risk of facing arbitrary enforcement of a whole slew of restrictions on firearms, explosives, etc. Talking about organized training in a public forum isn't going to make it any easier for you. >You and your kind need to read up on Burroughs' "The Policeman Inside." >"If we do not censor ourselves, others will do it for us." >"Cypherpunks should voluntarily restrict the topics they discuss." >"We should impose voluntary self-labeling of all posts, so that Congress >will not." >"I must not think certain thoughts, and I must report others who do." Quite a nice little collection of straw men you have there. Too bad for you they have nothing to do with what I think. The archives speak for themselves; I doubt you can find one post where I said any of that claptrap. > I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people > might be able to use something against any given person, it's > counterproductive and > potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. >>Ah, weapons training by me and my friends is somehow counterproductive >>and dangerous? The fact that the First and Second Amendments protect >>such activities is counterproductive and dangerous to you? Absolutely not. I've made it crystal clear how I feel about gun ownership, the right to defend one's life and property, and the first and second amendments. I draw the line at initiating force though. What I find dangerous and counterproductive is your repeated escalation and provocation of law enforcement. Surely you knew by responding to the troll you'd be kicking it up yet another notch. What's the point? Aren't you in enough of a balance of terror already? I guess not. >Please explain how my one paragraph summary of my weekend activities >provided "dangerous" people with knowledge they didn't already have. The dangerous people I have in mind are all the pissed-off federal agents on the "domestic terrorist" jihad who are circling the wagons and looking for more rope to hang you with. I have no idea how much they knew about whatever you were doing, but it was the first time I ever saw you speak as if you're getting something in particular organized. That's the way it came across. How much of all this boils down to the fact that you profoundly relish playing high-stakes intimidation games and would love to be known far and wide as a "force to be reckoned with"? Just a thought. >Your "policeman inside" has been getting way too loud. Stop listening to >her or him. Bah, I just believe in taking personal responsibility for my statements and actions in a public forum. Show me where I ever said anything pro-censorship. > Having moral courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people > who >wish you ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but > I'll be >damned if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a > mistake by talking about it. >>Your concern for me is touching, but it is inappropropriate. Some kind >>of chick thing, I guess. Nah, just a common human feeling called sympathy. >Butt out. As you wish. >Also, your comments were a lot more than concerns about me. You also >implied that my exercise of my fundamental rights of free speech, free >association, Second Amendment rights, etc. was somehow putting the list >and its members at risk. No, just that due to your wee touch of megalomania, you didn't much mind when the troll was characterizing the entire group as having something rightfully to fear from the sedition laws because of support for encryption itself. That's not right. > If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months > ago. > Nothing has changed. >Why do you continue to waste our time, then? And since you have >repeatedly urged that I simply filter you out, I say, "Physician, heal >thyself." What makes you think I want or need to filter you? >Meanwhile, I'll continue to talk about what I think is important. >All of you who are calling for restraint, for self-labeling, for >installing new moderators...I suggest you either start a new mailing >list or set up a CDR node implementing your policies on restraint, >labeling, and niceness. Please direct your rant to the appropriate person(s) or anyone remotely connected to the above complaints. Thanks! ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7
Re: Sedition
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 02:20:28PM -0500, Faustine wrote:
> It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and
> everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington.
Of course, if you're a hardcore libertarian ("abolish all
unconstitutional federal agencies, and that's most of 'em! let's
revert back to the firearms laws we had 150 years ago!"), then you
don't get listened to.
Having more "pro freedom policy analysts" in Washington won't
accomplish much until other things change too.
-Declan
Re: Sedition
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 11:20 AM, Faustine wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tim wrote: > On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 08:42 PM, Faustine wrote: >> Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and >> sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing >> happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't >> in on >> your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at >> face value >> and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti- >> paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not. > >> I'm not kidding. I was there from Friday morning to last night. > > Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked > into > incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different > issue > from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. No, _you_ miss the point: that I was not "incriminating" myself in any way. You and your kind need to read up on Burroughs' "The Policeman Inside." "If we do not censor ourselves, others will do it for us." "Cypherpunks should voluntarily restrict the topics they discuss." "We should impose voluntary self-labeling of all posts, so that Congress will not." "I must not think certain thoughts, and I must report others who do." > > I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people > might > be able to use something against any given person, it's > counterproductive and > potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. Ah, weapons training by me and my friends is somehow counterproductive and dangerous? The fact that the First and Second Amendments protect such activities is counterproductive and dangerous to you? Please explain how my one paragraph summary of my weekend activities provided "dangerous" people with knowledge they didn't already have. Your "policeman inside" has been getting way too loud. Stop listening to her or him. > Having moral > courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people who > wish you > ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but I'll be > damned > if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a mistake by > talking > about it. Your concern for me is touching, but it is inappropropriate. Some kind of chick thing, I guess. Butt out. Also, your comments were a lot more than concerns about me. You also implied that my exercise of my fundamental rights of free speech, free association, Second Amendment rights, etc. was somehow putting the list and its members at risk. >> As for "getting slapped around," I presume you plan to back this up >> with >> something more than your "intuition"? > > It's not about intuition, just reading the news and putting two and two > together. Everything I've seen about what's happening these days > indicates that > law enforcement will be looking for any excuse they can find to crack > down on > people they don't like. If they can keep people off planes for moronic > reasons > like reading Hayduke and Harry Potter, what else are they going to do > with > what's already on the books? It's probably just a bad case of > pantscrapping > paranoia, but I still think it's better to think a few steps ahead. > > If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months > ago. > Nothing has changed. > Why do you continue to waste our time, then? And since you have repeatedly urged that I simply filter you out, I say, "Physician, heal thyself." Meanwhile, I'll continue to talk about what I think is important. All of you who are calling for restraint, for self-labeling, for installing new moderators...I suggest you either start a new mailing list or set up a CDR node implementing your policies on restraint, labeling, and niceness. --Tim May "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to imposed a police state
re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 08:42 PM, Faustine wrote: > Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and > sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing > happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't in on > your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at face value > and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti- > paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not. >I'm not kidding. I was there from Friday morning to last night. Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked into incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different issue from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people might be able to use something against any given person, it's counterproductive and potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. Having moral courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people who wish you ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but I'll be damned if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a mistake by talking about it. >As for "getting slapped around," I presume you plan to back this up with >something more than your "intuition"? It's not about intuition, just reading the news and putting two and two together. Everything I've seen about what's happening these days indicates that law enforcement will be looking for any excuse they can find to crack down on people they don't like. If they can keep people off planes for moronic reasons like reading Hayduke and Harry Potter, what else are they going to do with what's already on the books? It's probably just a bad case of pantscrapping paranoia, but I still think it's better to think a few steps ahead. > (gratuitous ad hominem snipped) > - From the "Allegiance to the US" section of the handbook on reasons > for denying > clearance: > Gee, I haven't sought "clearance." If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months ago. Nothing has changed. (snip) >Unconstitutional nonsense. It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington. I've never misrepresented myself or what I think here, even when it goes against what passes for the conventional wisdom around here. >So, Agent Faustine, report me. "Agent Faustine?" Are you totally out of your skull on crack? Use your reason: if I were with the FBI I never would have bothered. What a slap in the face. Do you always make false accusations to get out of an argument? >I wish I'd had your report to distribute to the group on Friday night. >Adding your name to the checklist of enemies would have been useful, Unreal. >but at the time I didn't think you were quite as much of an enemy as the >obvious names. Whatever warped interpretation you may have of me, I'm not your enemy. I'll bet whoever started this thread is laughing his head off about now. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/FyfPg5Tuca7bfvEQLcAACg4D20Vwa/yT/Lf0Ysv/U5RFCPSs8AoO7y Bj3tB4oekrjekb0ePLw0VGoX =Pkvp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sedition
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:37:39PM -0500, Faustine cited: > http://www.dss.mil/training/adr/alleg/allegF.htm Which says: > Laws are on the books in 41 states to ban either the militias themselves or > paramilitary training or both. (Ref 11) [...] > California. Anti-paramilitary training. Cal. Penal Code ' 11460. [...] Let's check the above, using California as an example since that's what started this thread. What I found here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=62867026669+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Says in the relevant section: 11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars by both. As used in this subdivision, "paramilitary organization" means an organization which is not an agency of the United States government or of the State of California, or which is not a private school meeting the requirements set forth in Section 12154 of the Education Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerilla warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with, school activities. Faustine's loose definition of "paramilitary training" may seem to apply, but if you read carefully, the legal definition used in the California penal code is a bit narrower. Naturally I'm not arguing that such laws are just, sound, or advisable. ObCypherpunk: Look for "instruction in hacking techniques or computer breaking-and-entering not performed by a state-licensed instructor" next. -Declan
Re: Sedition
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: >> Several of us were in the Sierras this past weekend for a training >> session on weapons use, explosives, terrorism measures, and methods for >> monkey wrenching the U.S. government so as to paralyze its police state >> moves. >> For security reasons, the location was not publicized. > > So why are you publicizing it after the fact? Is it really worth the > risk > you're taking by mentioning it just to respond to a taunt by some > ignorant > smugster behind a remailer? If questioning your commitment is all it > takes > to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. <...> > No need to be on such a hair trigger: the archives speak for themselves. > For you to keep tossing out all this sucker-bait-for-feds in the name of > furthering your one-man strategic deterrence campaign is a bit excessive. > Once you've established your credibility there's no real reason to keep > raising the stakes. Especially not in response to someone blowing virtual > spitwads at you from behind a remailer. Mr. May is our lightening rod. When he goes away, it's time. Time to fight, time to run, time to shut up and get with the program, whatever, but it'll be time for it. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein
Re: Sedition
On Sunday, November 11, 2001, at 08:35 PM, Anonymous wrote: > >How more noble can a man's life end, then to love his country, or > his cause, his family, his friends -- more than himself? More noble to die in bed of old age, children raised to be self-sufficient and independent, bills paid up and burial money in the bank. Country and Cause are often masks, cover for hooligans and blackguards. It is not noble to die in defense of family and friends, to die in such cases is a failure, but at least it's a failure in the attempt to do ones duty than in the attempt to avoid it. "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > If questioning your commitment is all it > takes to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. >>You, thank Baal, have no knowledge of what "pushes my buttons." True, but even the most casual perusal of the archive suggests you've got plenty of them. I bet a person could really learn a lot by spending some quality time with Google, taking careful notes on the differences between posts you ignore, ones you're content to dismiss with frosty condescension, what really seems to bother the hell out of you, ones that should bother the hell out of you but you choose to ignore, etc. etc. It's a wonder someone hasn't pulled a number on you already. Sometimes I wonder about "Agent Farr" though. >You also have almost no list experience here (though this has never stopped >you from lecturing us on things you've read about in books). OR: "damn whippersnapper!" >I write about what I desire to write about. Of course. As long as you aren't getting jerked around, more power to you. >Now that the training camp is over, there is no threat to the security >of the operation. They lack time machines. Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't in on your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at face value and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti-paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not. Odds are you don't care one way or the other, but it seemed unnecessarily reckless, that's all. For your own sake. > I'm sure anyone who bears ill-will to the group is finding this whole > thread quite instructive--undoubtedly the point of the original post in the > first place. Good show. How sickening to think that now you have to worry > about getting anti-paramilitary training statutes dumped on you (on top > of anything else) just because a few people couldn't resist showing up a > stupid troll. >>And which "anti-paramilitary traning statutes" would these be? (gratuitous ad hominem snipped) - From the "Allegiance to the US" section of the handbook on reasons for denying clearance: http://www.dss.mil/training/adr/alleg/allegF.htm Laws Regarding Private Militias Federal law prohibits paramilitary training and the manufacture or transport of weapons with the knowledge or intent that they will be used to create a civil disturbance. (Ref 10) Federal law differs from most state laws prohibiting paramilitary training in that it applies only to the trainers, not the trainees. Under most state laws governing paramilitary training, participation as a trainee is also illegal. Laws are on the books in 41 states to ban either the militias themselves or paramilitary training or both. (Ref 11) The two types of laws operate differently. Anti-paramilitary training laws ban groups whose members know or intend that a civil disorder will result from their activities. Anti-militia laws ban all unauthorized militias, regardless of whether the participants have any specific criminal intent or knowledge. Anti-militia laws generally require evidence that a group of people are associated together in a formal military-type organization. Anti-paramilitary training statutes, by contrast, can be used against groups as small as two or three people. Both types of laws generally exempt organizations like hunting clubs. These laws are seldom enforced, but they are relevant to an adjudicative determination that an individual is engaging in either lawful or unlawful militia activities. The state laws and the legal citations for them are as follows: Alabama. Anti-militia. Ala. Code ' 31-2-125 Arizona. Anti-militia. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 26-123. Arkansas. Anti-paramilitary training. Ark. Code ' 5-71-301 to -303. California. Anti-paramilitary training. Cal. Penal Code ' 11460. Colorado. Anti-paramilitary training. Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 18-9-120. Connecticut. Anti-paramilitary training. Conn. Gen. Stat. ' 53-206b. Florida. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 870.06, 790.29. Georgia. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ga. Code Ann. '' 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152. Idaho. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Idaho Code '' 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105. Iowa. Anti-militia. Iowa Code ' 29A.31 Illinois. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 1805, para 94-95. Kansas. Anti-militia. Kan. Stat. Ann. ' 48-203. Kentucky. Anti-militia. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 38.440. Louisiana. Anti-paramilitary training. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 117.1. Maine. Anti-militia. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 37-B, ' 342.2. Maryland. Anti-militia. Md. Code Ann. art. 65, ' 35. Massachusetts. Anti-militia. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 33 ' 129-132. Michigan. Anti-paramilitar
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > If questioning your commitment is all it > takes to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. >>You, thank Baal, have no knowledge of what "pushes my buttons." True, but even the most casual perusal of the archive suggests you've got plenty of them. I bet a person could really learn a lot by spending some quality time with Google, taking careful notes on the differences between posts you ignore, ones you're content to dismiss with frosty condescension, what really seems to bother the hell out of you, ones that should bother the hell out of you but you choose to ignore, etc. etc. It's a wonder someone hasn't pulled a number on you already. Sometimes I wonder about "Agent Farr" though. >You also have almost no list experience here (though this has never stopped >you from lecturing us on things you've read about in books). OR: "damn whippersnapper!" >I write about what I desire to write about. Of course. As long as you aren't getting jerked around, more power to you. >Now that the training camp is over, there is no threat to the security >of the operation. They lack time machines. Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't in on your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at face value and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti-paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not. Odds are you don't care one way or the other, but it seemed unnecessarily reckless, that's all. For your own sake. > I'm sure anyone who bears ill-will to the group is finding this whole > thread quite instructive--undoubtedly the point of the original post in the > first place. Good show. How sickening to think that now you have to worry > about getting anti-paramilitary training statutes dumped on you (on top > of anything else) just because a few people couldn't resist showing up a > stupid troll. >>And which "anti-paramilitary traning statutes" would these be? (gratuitous ad hominem snipped) - From the "Allegiance to the US" section of the handbook on reasons for denying clearance: http://www.dss.mil/training/adr/alleg/allegF.htm Laws Regarding Private Militias Federal law prohibits paramilitary training and the manufacture or transport of weapons with the knowledge or intent that they will be used to create a civil disturbance. (Ref 10) Federal law differs from most state laws prohibiting paramilitary training in that it applies only to the trainers, not the trainees. Under most state laws governing paramilitary training, participation as a trainee is also illegal. Laws are on the books in 41 states to ban either the militias themselves or paramilitary training or both. (Ref 11) The two types of laws operate differently. Anti-paramilitary training laws ban groups whose members know or intend that a civil disorder will result from their activities. Anti-militia laws ban all unauthorized militias, regardless of whether the participants have any specific criminal intent or knowledge. Anti-militia laws generally require evidence that a group of people are associated together in a formal military-type organization. Anti-paramilitary training statutes, by contrast, can be used against groups as small as two or three people. Both types of laws generally exempt organizations like hunting clubs. These laws are seldom enforced, but they are relevant to an adjudicative determination that an individual is engaging in either lawful or unlawful militia activities. The state laws and the legal citations for them are as follows: Alabama. Anti-militia. Ala. Code ' 31-2-125 Arizona. Anti-militia. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 26-123. Arkansas. Anti-paramilitary training. Ark. Code ' 5-71-301 to -303. California. Anti-paramilitary training. Cal. Penal Code ' 11460. Colorado. Anti-paramilitary training. Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 18-9-120. Connecticut. Anti-paramilitary training. Conn. Gen. Stat. ' 53-206b. Florida. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 870.06, 790.29. Georgia. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ga. Code Ann. '' 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152. Idaho. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Idaho Code '' 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105. Iowa. Anti-militia. Iowa Code ' 29A.31 Illinois. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 1805, para 94-95. Kansas. Anti-militia. Kan. Stat. Ann. ' 48-203. Kentucky. Anti-militia. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 38.440. Louisiana. Anti-paramilitary training. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 117.1. Maine. Anti-militia. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 37-B, ' 342.2. Maryland. Anti-militia. Md. Code Ann. art. 65, ' 35. Massachusetts. Anti-militia. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 33 ' 129-132. Michigan. Anti-paramilitar
Re: Sedition
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > You, thank Baal, have no knowledge of what "pushes my buttons." You also > have almost no list experience here (though this has never stopped you > from lecturing us on things you've read about in books). > > I write about what I desire to write about. 'Freedom for me, not for thee' -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Sedition
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > So why are you publicizing it after the fact? Is it really worth the > risk > you're taking by mentioning it just to respond to a taunt by some > ignorant > smugster behind a remailer? If questioning your commitment is all it > takes > to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. You, thank Baal, have no knowledge of what "pushes my buttons." You also have almost no list experience here (though this has never stopped you from lecturing us on things you've read about in books). I write about what I desire to write about. Now that the training camp is over, there is no threat to the security of the operation. They lack time machines. > I'm sure anyone who bears ill-will to the group is finding this whole > thread > quite instructive--undoubtedly the point of the original post in the > first > place. Good show. How sickening to think that now you have to worry > about getting anti-paramilitary training statutes dumped on you (on top > of > anything else) just because a few people couldn't resist showing up a > stupid > troll. And which "anti-paramilitary traning statutes" would these be? Tell us what your college professors told you...but check it against reality before passing it on. > Even worse,in true "have you stopped beating your wife" fashion, it > makes it > appear that everyone who posts here and is passionate about encryption > is doing > something rightfully covered by the sedtion laws, which couldn't be > further > from the truth. I resent this profoundly, but I'll talk about what and > why I do > what I do (or don't do) on my own time, not as a response to someone > baiting > me. What you "resent profoundly" does not matter. And what is done by other memmbers of a list does not establish guilt by association, except in your fevered mind. For example, the discussion I contributed to on hacking the air traffic control system for political purposes makes you guilty of which crime and in which way? > > > Here's hoping your temper doesn't get the better of you. > You are ignorant of my mental state of mind. Twit. --Tim May "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to imposed a police state
Re: Sedition
Faustine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >Tim wrote: > >>Several of us were in the Sierras this past weekend for a training >>session on weapons use, explosives, terrorism measures, and methods for >>monkey wrenching the U.S. government so as to paralyze its police state >>moves. > >>For security reasons, the location was not publicized. > > >So why are you publicizing it after the fact? Is it really worth the risk >you're taking by mentioning it just to respond to a taunt by some ignorant >smugster behind a remailer? If questioning your commitment is all it takes >to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. > >I'm sure anyone who bears ill-will to the group is finding this whole thread >quite instructive--undoubtedly the point of the original post in the first >place. Good show. How sickening to think that now you have to worry >about getting anti-paramilitary training statutes dumped on you (on top of >anything else) just because a few people couldn't resist showing up a stupid >troll. > >Even worse,in true "have you stopped beating your wife" fashion, it makes it >appear that everyone who posts here and is passionate about encryption is doing >something rightfully covered by the sedtion laws, which couldn't be further >from the truth. I resent this profoundly, but I'll talk about what and why I do >what I do (or don't do) on my own time, not as a response to someone baiting >me. > >No need to be on such a hair trigger: the archives speak for themselves. >For you to keep tossing out all this sucker-bait-for-feds in the name of >furthering your one-man strategic deterrence campaign is a bit excessive. >Once you've established your credibility there's no real reason to keep >raising the stakes. Especially not in response to someone blowing virtual >spitwads at you from behind a remailer. > >Here's hoping your temper doesn't get the better of you. > >~Faustine. > DNS has been giving me grief into the wee hours so I figure I'm pretty slow myself but I'm thinking you just could be a mite clueless. *When asked by parents why you're taking so long in the bathroom : A: Oh, I'm just shooting up so I can put up with you guys at the dinner table. *When asked by the priest how you spent your weekend : A: Oh we had an orgy and sacrificed a goat to Satan at midnight on Saturday. The blood was really tasty. Then we stalked hot teen virgins at the church picnic. *When asked by the drug police how you spent your weekend : A: Oh, we moved 100 lbs of crack from our labs to NYC and wasted a prosecutor who was giving us a little grief in LA. *When asked (observed speaking) by the counterterrorism official how you spent your weekend : >Tim wrote: > >>Several of us were in the Sierras this past weekend for a training >>session on weapons use, explosives, terrorism measures, and methods for >>monkey wrenching the U.S. government so as to paralyze its police state >>moves. When asked by a member of the Comittee to Stamp Out Violence in the Media what your favorite movie is you launch into detailed descriptions of Pulp Fiction and praise each scene lavishly and then challenge her to a game of DOOM. When asked about my opinion for what needed at the library in my town ( since I'm not responsible for doing anything about it but know a few folks who are ) I say there should be more hardcopy porno and a better IN connection. Then I don't waste my time answering questions that will never be implemented anyway. Is that enough? So if false it is art and even if it is true, so what? Studying tactics & methods is not planning some sort of an attack.
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >Several of us were in the Sierras this past weekend for a training >session on weapons use, explosives, terrorism measures, and methods for >monkey wrenching the U.S. government so as to paralyze its police state >moves. >For security reasons, the location was not publicized. So why are you publicizing it after the fact? Is it really worth the risk you're taking by mentioning it just to respond to a taunt by some ignorant smugster behind a remailer? If questioning your commitment is all it takes to push your buttons, I'd say that's less than optimal. I'm sure anyone who bears ill-will to the group is finding this whole thread quite instructive--undoubtedly the point of the original post in the first place. Good show. How sickening to think that now you have to worry about getting anti-paramilitary training statutes dumped on you (on top of anything else) just because a few people couldn't resist showing up a stupid troll. Even worse,in true "have you stopped beating your wife" fashion, it makes it appear that everyone who posts here and is passionate about encryption is doing something rightfully covered by the sedtion laws, which couldn't be further from the truth. I resent this profoundly, but I'll talk about what and why I do what I do (or don't do) on my own time, not as a response to someone baiting me. No need to be on such a hair trigger: the archives speak for themselves. For you to keep tossing out all this sucker-bait-for-feds in the name of furthering your one-man strategic deterrence campaign is a bit excessive. Once you've established your credibility there's no real reason to keep raising the stakes. Especially not in response to someone blowing virtual spitwads at you from behind a remailer. Here's hoping your temper doesn't get the better of you. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/Ba5vg5Tuca7bfvEQILpQCgyskPRaOtobm5RT15ikyYUbG1/0IAoJEk XBhgBhj8Ff/etP9ODTWuiTjv =mPTL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Sedition
More like corruption...the intimidation and suppression of moderate viewpoints through public ridicule, an ideological culling based on fears of association, and then a real or perceived compromise from which there is no return? Some would profess American Constitutional ideals, but use methods that strike me as distinctively un-American in character. ~Aimee "In troubled waters, there's good fishing."
Re: Sedition
> Yeah, that's that Buddhist retreat center, right? Very serene between > weapons practice. Meditation is very much a part of weapons control. Read Musashi's "Book of the Five Rings." Many of the Samurai were Zen students, and more than a few were actually Zen masters. Also read Jocho Yamamoto's book, "The Hagacure", he was a 16th Cent. Zen Samurai/monk. The book later came to be used as required reading for the glorius "Spirit Wind" pilots in WWII. How more noble can a man's life end, then to love his country, or his cause, his family, his friends -- more than himself? BlackWing
Re: Sedition
Whew! I was getting a little worried. Went out and dug up my silenced MP5, then went back and buried it again, did that 3 fucking times this weeked. > > Several of us were in the Sierras this past weekend for a training > session on weapons use, explosives, terrorism measures, and methods for > monkeywrenching the U.S. government so as to paralyze its police state > moves. > > For security reasons, the location was not publicized.
