Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:44:28AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > For the Russians, 'a few' was over 70. > I hope for a non-violent restoration - this sort > of thing could give the Libertarian Party legs, > if they handled it right. ROTFLMAO. You a funny man, you ever considered standup? "if they handled it right..." Ha! -- "The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun." | Quit smoking: -- Richard Buckminster Fuller| 240d, 13h ago | petro@ | bounty.org
Re: Extradition, Snatching,and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
-- James A. Donald > > US policy was to restore the status quo ante in > > Afghanistan, put things back the way they were before the > > Soviet invasion. Sarad AV > How does that make things better for 'afghan' people,after > all the bombing done on their home land? Obviously it makes things vastly better, and to those who think the Soviets were progress personified, look at the way the refugees were and are moving.When status quo ante was restored, the refugees came home Much the same story in Nicaragua. The refugees were always going away from the Sandinistas, towards the contras. > > The future of Afghanistan will probably be no less violent > > than it was before the Soviet invasion, but no more violent > > that it was before the Soviet invasion. > Thats the only thing US seems to be doing for afghani people > after all their promises.The US foreign policy is disliked > world wide. The US foreign policy is highly popular in those countries most threatened by the Taliban -- Afghanistan and Uzbekhistan. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG m3BCbcTez7gMAJBd7yGjgbujWjkP967kgrflSJJM 4BtvgmCP/KjctqbJ5y1eHzxxGBFRTBeLGe+iXBMcb
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
At 02:10 PM 12/15/02 -0500, cubic-dog wrote: On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, John Kelsey wrote: ... > running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note > that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private > citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in > the US. (This makes sense, too. My risks of being shot by anyone are > quite low, as I live in a middle-class neighborhood and take reasonable > precautions. But if you're a politician or public figure, you're much more > likely to be a target, and much more likely to be able to hire an off-duty > cop or other carefully-screened person to carry a gun and defend you.) When was the last time in these here Untied Status that a political figure was shot for political reasons? That's not really the point of my example. The fact that privately-owned guns are both: a. Still mostly legal b. Seriously unpopular with many or most of the decisionmakers implies that when there's enough popular support for pro-liberty positions, they can overcome the natural desire of politicians, judges, and bureaucrats to expand their power and budgets without bound. In practice, gun control laws are only really useful as a defense against assassination by random nuts. A serious terrorist or an assassin hired by the opposition party is going to be able to get the necessary weapons, as is a serious criminal. [Discussion of various assassinations that may have had political motive.] You left out Martin Luther King, whose assassination was apparently politically motivated. (You don't have to hold office to be worth assassinating; repressive regimes routinely kill off the most likely opposition leaders, for example.) Also, several abortion doctors have been murdered for political/terror reasons, several civil rights activists were killed in the 50s and 60s, and I believe George Wallace was shot while running for president (I don't know the would-be assassin's reasons, but it wouldn't be hard to guess them.). ... Political assasination by populists in this country? Hardly. Political kidnapping? Nope. I'd say a lot of the reason for this is that there are usually better options available to deal with the problem. You can try to figure out how to evade dumb or evil laws, move out of the state, or even emigrate to another country to avoid them. And if the politicians in power annoy the voters enough, they *will* get voted out. Terrorist tactics are more likely to backfire on your movement (as they have on the anti-abortion movement) than win you supporters. Along with this, most of us realize that we don't want to live in a country where assassination, terrorist bombings, death squads, kidnappings, etc., become the standard way to bring about social and political change. The world's already full of such countries. At the first serious sign of the US becoming such a country, presumably a lot of us will be looking for another place to live. ... --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
hi, --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > US policy was to restore the status quo ante in > Afghanistan, > put things back the way they were before the Soviet > invasion. How does that make things better for 'afghan' people,after all the bombing done on their home land? The future > of Afghanistan will probably be no less violent than > it was > before the Soviet invasion, but no more violent that > it was > before the Soviet invasion. Thats the only thing US seems to be doing for afghani people after all their promises.The US foreign policy is disliked world wide. Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:56:04PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: > I don't know, Ashcroft is adament about the 2nd amendment. It's about the > only good thing I can think of otherwise. He's not as regulatory as his predecessor, but I find it hard to reconcile that statement with the DOJ's actions in court. -Declan
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, John Kelsey wrote: > The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by > running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note Running and winning are 2 different things. So far most libertarians don't win, but it's slowly changing. > that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private > citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in I don't know, Ashcroft is adament about the 2nd amendment. It's about the only good thing I can think of otherwise. > IMO, the Republicans won the midterm elections because most Americans are > more scared of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden than of George Bush and > John Ashcroft. As long as that continues, being seen to take bold and > far-reaching steps to fight the war on terrorism is going to be necessary > for anyone who wants to win an election. So we're going to continue to see > cosmetic security measures (like confiscating nail clippers at airport > gates), and security measures that have horrible potential for abuse (like > letting the president disappear anyone he claims is an unlawful > combattant), and even security measures that are likely to make citizens > less safe from terrorist violence (like invading Iraq). Partly I agree, but the whole Iraq thing is smoke pulled out of thing air. It's so blatently obvious the kid is doing the dad's dirty work for either the oil or revenge (or both!) that most people can see it. They just don't care. OBL is something they really worry about. The twin towers really are gone. That the US government can't put together a commission to burry the facts is pretty amazing though. Everybody must realize there's too much to burry. The US has the dumbest government on the planet, and probably the documentation to prove it. What scares me the most is that the majority doesn't really care that the government is stupid. Sooner or later that's gonna bite them in the butt when the swat teams kick in their doors and blow their heads off. The ones who escape death will just be "non-combatents" and never see the light of day. When just one guy gets that treatment, it's an interesting excercise for lawyers. When 100 people get it, we will have a far more serious problem. But until 100,000 people get turned into non-combatents with no rights, the majority just isn't going to care. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Extradition, Snatching,and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
-- On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote: > Firstly,they cannot be exterminated.There is no proof of > identity as we may have in our countries and no body will ask > for it either,since most don't have one. The Taliban would > have cut their beard and hair and mixed up with civilian > population,while troops can go searching for orthodox > civilians with a taliban look,making it hard to hunt them > down.Once/if the international troops leave afghan,there are > over hundred factions,who will keep fighting among themselves > for 'land' and the taliban will be back. There have always been a hundred factions quarreling over land in Afganistan. The level of violence was tolerable to Afghans and outsiders. What went wrong with the Taliban is that one faction, with outside aid from international islamicists, managed to actually get most of the land. US policy was to restore the status quo ante in Afghanistan, put things back the way they were before the Soviet invasion. It seems to have succeeded well enough, and there is no reason to suppose it will be any less stable than it was. The future of Afghanistan will probably be no less violent than it was before the Soviet invasion, but no more violent that it was before the Soviet invasion. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG k2IMyoZuE05D4VVX0FkW1hRQSzvJRDmLhlhwppHX 4+V+mECM7CjCVvLuL1WVl7q6w8saodTqAtyPLDY7v
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote: > Firstly,they cannot be exterminated.There is no proof > of identity as we may have in our countries and no > body will ask for it either,since most don't have one. > The Taliban would have cut their beard and hair and > mixed up with civilian population,while troops can go > searching for orthodox civilians with a taliban > look,making it hard to hunt them down.Once/if the > international troops leave afghan,there are over > hundred factions,who will keep fighting among > themselves for 'land' and the taliban will be back. I think that's 100% correct. The US's only chance is to build real roads, real schools and real hospitals that actually help the majority of people. Then the talib's (as they called themselves in the 1800's) will have far less clout to deal with. As it is now, they can point to all the 3 year olds we kill and create more soldiers with suicidal ability. The US government is a pack of morons. Until the majority of people actually figures that out, they'll pretty much have free reign to continue their amazing stupidity. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, John Kelsey wrote: > At 09:15 AM 12/13/02 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: > ... > [Discussion of the lack of pro-freedom candidates.] > > >There are more choices than that. It just takes a while for the > >masses to figure that out. When there are no choices, then we > >can fight with weapons. For now, words are sufficient. > > The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by > running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note > that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private > citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in > the US. (This makes sense, too. My risks of being shot by anyone are > quite low, as I live in a middle-class neighborhood and take reasonable > precautions. But if you're a politician or public figure, you're much more > likely to be a target, and much more likely to be able to hire an off-duty > cop or other carefully-screened person to carry a gun and defend you.) When was the last time in these here Untied Status that a political figure was shot for political reasons? While it is certainly arguable that there have been plenty of inter-party assasinations, and despite the vehement protestations to the contrary, it "appears" that the empirical evidence suggests that JFK died as a result of political power plays. McKinley was killed by a whack job at the behest of William Hearst (some liberty taken there with the facts) Garfield was also shot by a serious whacko. Lincoln alone seems to stand as the only political marytr. When the likes of Diane Feinstein and that ilk whimper and cringe at the thought of an armed populace and arm themselves while depriving their constituents of their given rights while retaining those rights for themselves, (Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, but will not grant one) One must question exactly what these "leaders" have in mind. History has shown them (the powerful) as being in no danger from the general population, and whack jobs don't follow the rules. Political assasination by populists in this country? Hardly. Political kidnapping? Nope. Even on a local level, when has a corrupt lethally violent power crazed venal sherrif or top level cop (they certainly exist and have existed) ever really been in fear of a public uprising? When has such an uprising ever happened? The coal field wars of West Virginia back in the 20s started to look like this, and were crushed by the US military. The Bonus Army incident is still rather controversial as to what exactly happened. If any political figure is worried about being assasinated by their constituents, I'd really like to hear why. Where are the teeth to these threats?
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
hi, --- Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >And who supports whom to prevent extermination. Firstly,they cannot be exterminated.There is no proof of identity as we may have in our countries and no body will ask for it either,since most don't have one. The Taliban would have cut their beard and hair and mixed up with civilian population,while troops can go searching for orthodox civilians with a taliban look,making it hard to hunt them down.Once/if the international troops leave afghan,there are over hundred factions,who will keep fighting among themselves for 'land' and the taliban will be back. Regards Sarath. > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote: > > > The Taliban is still very much alive,when troops > moved > > into kabul there were no traces of the > taliban.They > > took what ever they wanted and were 'refugees' > > sneaking out when the bombing started.They placed > what > > they needed ,every body else needed to see.Video > tapes > > of chemical weapon testing,which CNN > released,another > > free advertisement for the taliban regime.Now all > > eyes are on iraq,war games being conducted so that > the > > world does not question man or machine > movement.Some > > regimes do stay for a while,how sucessful they are > > depends on how well they come back after their > fall. > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
At 01:09 PM 12/14/2002 -0500, you wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Tim May wrote: > Secret trials are on the rise. Inasmuch as the U.S. is now throwing its > full weight behind secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret trials, > secret appeals courts, suspension of habeas corpus, detention of Evil > Ones without charge at concentration camps in Cuba, suspension of the > Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and elevation to guilt by I spoke recently with a former DOD lawyer now at a TLA. That lawyer says that the current thinking is that if there is a "cyberattack" from another nation, we are at a state of war and the Fourth Amendment and other prohibitions on government interference with personal property and liberty do not apply.* Only if one believes that what Lincoln did during the war was Constitutional. I think Tim's approach should this come to pass is the only viable one. What if the attacks continue to come from groups with no obvious nation-state sponsorship? steve
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
At 09:15 AM 12/13/02 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: ... [Discussion of the lack of pro-freedom candidates.] There are more choices than that. It just takes a while for the masses to figure that out. When there are no choices, then we can fight with weapons. For now, words are sufficient. The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in the US. (This makes sense, too. My risks of being shot by anyone are quite low, as I live in a middle-class neighborhood and take reasonable precautions. But if you're a politician or public figure, you're much more likely to be a target, and much more likely to be able to hire an off-duty cop or other carefully-screened person to carry a gun and defend you.) But gun owners will largely show up for the Republican candidate when the Democrat makes gun control a big issue, and will largely stay home (thus hurting the Republican) when both candidates have the same position on gun control. IMO, the Republicans won the midterm elections because most Americans are more scared of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden than of George Bush and John Ashcroft. As long as that continues, being seen to take bold and far-reaching steps to fight the war on terrorism is going to be necessary for anyone who wants to win an election. So we're going to continue to see cosmetic security measures (like confiscating nail clippers at airport gates), and security measures that have horrible potential for abuse (like letting the president disappear anyone he claims is an unlawful combattant), and even security measures that are likely to make citizens less safe from terrorist violence (like invading Iraq). Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > Vote? Are you kidding? OK, here is your task. Since all but one > member of congress voted FOR the USA PATRIOT ACT, exactly what All but one member of the Senate. House was a bit better, though still extremely pathetic, and the Democrats voting against it mostly weren't voting against it on principle but out of squabbling with Republicans. -Declan
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Anonymous wrote: > Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to > reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? > I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like > "exercise your right to vote", or "write your > congressperson/MP", etc. In practical terms, in a surveillance You sound like an agent provocateur. So either you're young, or a fed. > society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in > opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil > liberties and civil rights? Why, do PR and write code, of course. As a minority doesn't directly register on the voting radar. Did you expect someobody to start saying 'capping apparatchiks'? I don't think you did. > Do we need a program to oppose the progrom? Deliberately misspelling pogrom, eh. Very clever.
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
Party makes no difference. No one seeks "office" in a slaughterhouse unless he's comfortable killing cows. No one seeks office in government unless he wants more power, and that increase in his power must be a decrease in someone else's. As its first principle, government grows, and the freedom of the governed shrinks.
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Tim May wrote: > Secret trials are on the rise. Inasmuch as the U.S. is now throwing its > full weight behind secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret trials, > secret appeals courts, suspension of habeas corpus, detention of Evil > Ones without charge at concentration camps in Cuba, suspension of the > Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and elevation to guilt by I spoke recently with a former DOD lawyer now at a TLA. That lawyer says that the current thinking is that if there is a "cyberattack" from another nation, we are at a state of war and the Fourth Amendment and other prohibitions on government interference with personal property and liberty do not apply.* -Declan * Yes, you could argue that after the War On Some Politically Unpopular Drugs, the USA Patriot Act's expansion of eavesdropping without a court order, the Dept of Homeland Security bill doing the same thing, the recent FISA appeals court decision, and so on, the 4A has already been eviscerated. But I'd say there's still a small amount of life in it for now.
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote: > The Taliban is still very much alive,when troops moved > into kabul there were no traces of the taliban.They > took what ever they wanted and were 'refugees' > sneaking out when the bombing started.They placed what > they needed ,every body else needed to see.Video tapes > of chemical weapon testing,which CNN released,another > free advertisement for the taliban regime.Now all > eyes are on iraq,war games being conducted so that the > world does not question man or machine movement.Some > regimes do stay for a while,how sucessful they are > depends on how well they come back after their fall. And who supports whom to prevent extermination. > You can't vote your choice when you have gun pointed > at the back of your head. Yup. There are really elections or there aren't. Usually, they aren't. But India is an amazing example of democracy. Corrupt, but it's still got voting that kinda works. > > We just have a few years of hell to go thru, that's > > all. > > for the u.s,it may be a few years,for the rest of the > world,who knows. I think most every place has gone thru more hell than the US. Even with all the ways we've found to kill each other, there are more people living today than ever before. That's part of the problem in a way - fewer resources spread out over more people. It's possible to have a full scale civil war in the us, we've done it before. But it's not likely unless the "powers that be" make some really stupid commands. The rest of the world may be preventing the us from invading Iraq, and then W will have to go back to focusing on the Taliban. Unfortunatly, he supported them when he first took the job and that's an embarasment he'd like everyone to forget. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Friday 13 December 2002 11:44, Trei, Peter wrote: > ... this sort > of thing could give the Libertarian Party legs, > if they handled it right. Hahahahahahaha -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged. --Michael Shirley
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
At 10:06 AM 12/13/2002 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: See Gilmore's proposal. Consider the meaning of reverse-panopticon. Find federal employees and let them know "we're watching you" but don't identify "we". Publish public info. Do this for executives in firms that pander to the Evil. Not just e.g., Ellison ---there are more next-level-down underlings who might just live in your neighborhood. Anyone got ideas for a "neighborhood watch" type sticker which expresses the reverse-panopticon visually? sure, I took a stab at this. i'm not much of an artist, but what the heck: http://fyyff.com/images/binocSmall.jpg http://fyyff.com/images/binocCounted.jpg (after a gary larson _far side_ cartoon that also used binoculars...) -landon [re-lurking]
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
hi, > All represive regiemes are short lived in a > historical context. The Taliban is still very much alive,when troops moved into kabul there were no traces of the taliban.They took what ever they wanted and were 'refugees' sneaking out when the bombing started.They placed what they needed ,every body else needed to see.Video tapes of chemical weapon testing,which CNN released,another free advertisement for the taliban regime.Now all eyes are on iraq,war games being conducted so that the world does not question man or machine movement.Some regimes do stay for a while,how sucessful they are depends on how well they come back after their fall. > > When we can't vote, we can fight. So far the number > of horror > stories is small. But when everyone has a personal > friend or > relative that's been shot, abused, tortured or even > just roughed > up - then they'll know they might be next. And they > might vote to change > things. You can't vote your choice when you have gun pointed at the back of your head. So from a purely machivellian perspective, > the faster > "they" become more repressive and the more people > "they" harm, > the faster things will change. It hasn't happened for the past 50 years. > We just have a few years of hell to go thru, that's > all. for the u.s,it may be a few years,for the rest of the world,who knows. Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
> Interesting approach. But exactly how does that hinder the FBI > demanding a booksellers customer list, or a library's patron > check out record, or a black bag job on a personal computer, or > thousands of CALEA taps, or the Total Information Awareness > project, or the process of designating a US citizen as an enemy > combatant, or the suspension of habeas corpus, etc. > > I was not aware that simple management of my own eyeballs could > have such dramatic, widespread, external effects on gangs of > thugs with guns and high tech surveillance gear all carrying a > "do-whatever-you-like, get-out-of-jail-free card from the US > Congress, and essentially no oversight. Is this kind of like > mind control, or what? Do not underestimate the power of detox. Guns et al are just symbols, 99.999% of proles are kept at bay with software. It is economically unfeasible to use hardware for that. Take a look at happenings in the last decade in europe - anti-comm uprisings had one and only one focal point - TV stations. They live. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:01:05 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > > society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in > > opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil > > liberties and civil rights? > > Stop watching TV ? > Interesting approach. But exactly how does that hinder the FBI demanding a booksellers customer list, or a library's patron check out record, or a black bag job on a personal computer, or thousands of CALEA taps, or the Total Information Awareness project, or the process of designating a US citizen as an enemy combatant, or the suspension of habeas corpus, etc. I was not aware that simple management of my own eyeballs could have such dramatic, widespread, external effects on gangs of thugs with guns and high tech surveillance gear all carrying a "do-whatever-you-like, get-out-of-jail-free card from the US Congress, and essentially no oversight. Is this kind of like mind control, or what?
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Anonymous wrote: > Vote? Are you kidding? OK, here is your task. Since all but one > member of congress voted FOR the USA PATRIOT ACT, exactly what > party or what candidates do you suggest be elected in support of > civil liberties in the US? You don't seem to get this. Or on > Iraq, the democrat and republican leadership, and the republican > and democrat majority in both houses of congress voted for the > carte blanche Iraq war resolution. Exactly who is a voter to > vote for if he prefers peace, or going after real threats like > North Korea instead of just tyrants that pissed off W's daddy? > > We can always pretend we actually have a choice by voting for > the democrat who wants to wiretap you, instead of the republican > that wants to wiretap you. Our choice is not whether or not to > get wiretapped, rather it is to select the administration that > wiretaps us. Ah, DEMOCRACY! There are more choices than that. It just takes a while for the masses to figure that out. When there are no choices, then we can fight with weapons. For now, words are sufficient. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Anonymous wrote: > Interesting approach. But exactly how does that hinder the FBI > demanding a booksellers customer list, or a library's patron > check out record, or a black bag job on a personal computer, or > thousands of CALEA taps, or the Total Information Awareness > project, or the process of designating a US citizen as an enemy > combatant, or the suspension of habeas corpus, etc. > > I was not aware that simple management of my own eyeballs could > have such dramatic, widespread, external effects on gangs of > thugs with guns and high tech surveillance gear all carrying a > "do-whatever-you-like, get-out-of-jail-free card from the US > Congress, and essentially no oversight. Is this kind of like > mind control, or what? All represive regiemes are short lived in a historical context. Living thru them is hell. This one has already begun a rather interesting hypocrisy - they say they support gun ownership, but they have no problem with letting the courts say the opposite. So far they are picking their targets small enough that the masses aren't actually worried that they will be next. But to take total control, they will have to scare the masses in a more effective way. And it's unlikely that "they" will be able to scare them into giving up weapons. And that's the point of an armed citizenry, to overthrow represive regiems. When we can't vote, we can fight. So far the number of horror stories is small. But when everyone has a personal friend or relative that's been shot, abused, tortured or even just roughed up - then they'll know they might be next. And they might vote to change things. So from a purely machivellian perspective, the faster "they" become more repressive and the more people "they" harm, the faster things will change. We just have a few years of hell to go thru, that's all. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 06:43:53 +, you wrote: > If you don't choose to use these methods, the consequences are up to you. > But secure comms alone will only provide you with useful information, by > themselves they aren't enough; you need to vote. Lots of you. > > Nothing else really matters. To "them", and you. > > -- > Peter Fairbrother Vote? Are you kidding? OK, here is your task. Since all but one member of congress voted FOR the USA PATRIOT ACT, exactly what party or what candidates do you suggest be elected in support of civil liberties in the US? You don't seem to get this. Or on Iraq, the democrat and republican leadership, and the republican and democrat majority in both houses of congress voted for the carte blanche Iraq war resolution. Exactly who is a voter to vote for if he prefers peace, or going after real threats like North Korea instead of just tyrants that pissed off W's daddy? We can always pretend we actually have a choice by voting for the democrat who wants to wiretap you, instead of the republican that wants to wiretap you. Our choice is not whether or not to get wiretapped, rather it is to select the administration that wiretaps us. Ah, DEMOCRACY!
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
> Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to > reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? > I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like > "exercise your right to vote", or "write your > congressperson/MP", etc. In practical terms, in a surveillance > society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in > opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil > liberties and civil rights? > > Do we need a program to oppose the progrom? See Gilmore's proposal. Consider the meaning of reverse-panopticon. Find federal employees and let them know "we're watching you" but don't identify "we". Publish public info. Do this for executives in firms that pander to the Evil. Not just e.g., Ellison ---there are more next-level-down underlings who might just live in your neighborhood. Anyone got ideas for a "neighborhood watch" type sticker which expresses the reverse-panopticon visually?
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 08:17:27AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: | All represive regiemes are short lived in a historical context. | Living thru them is hell. This one has already begun a rather | interesting hypocrisy - they say they support gun ownership, but | they have no problem with letting the courts say the opposite. | So far they are picking their targets small enough that the masses | aren't actually worried that they will be next. But to take total | control, they will have to scare the masses in a more effective way. | And it's unlikely that "they" will be able to scare them into | giving up weapons. And that's the point of an armed citizenry, | to overthrow represive regiems. | | When we can't vote, we can fight. So far the number of horror | stories is small. But when everyone has a personal friend or | relative that's been shot, abused, tortured or even just roughed | up - then they'll know they might be next. And they might vote to change | things. So from a purely machivellian perspective, the faster | "they" become more repressive and the more people "they" harm, | the faster things will change. | | We just have a few years of hell to go thru, that's all. Your comments remind me greatly of the Gulag Archipeligo, especially the bits about those crushed early after the revolution. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
RE: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: > For the Russians, 'a few' was over 70. > I hope for a non-violent restoration - this sort > of thing could give the Libertarian Party legs, > if they handled it right. Agreed. And they may have not even need to handle it perfectly right, since the main theme of the Libertarians is to restore the Constitution. I certainly hope for a non-violent solution. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
Mike Rosing wrote: [...] > When we can't vote, we can fight. So far the number of horror > stories is small. But when everyone has a personal friend or > relative that's been shot, abused, tortured or even just roughed > up - then they'll know they might be next. And they might vote to change > things. So from a purely machivellian perspective, the faster > "they" become more repressive and the more people "they" harm, > the faster things will change. > > We just have a few years of hell to go thru, that's all. > > Patience, persistence, truth, > For the Russians, 'a few' was over 70. I hope for a non-violent restoration - this sort of thing could give the Libertarian Party legs, if they handled it right. Peter Trei
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
Anonymous wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:47:25 -0800, Tim May wrote: >> >> America used to disdain the secret trials, the Star Chamber proceedings so >> endemic in other parts of the world. Now we have them. >> >> We will reap what we sow. >> >> --Tim May > > Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to > reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? > I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like > "exercise your right to vote", or "write your > congressperson/MP", etc. In practical terms, in a surveillance > society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in > opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil > liberties and civil rights? > > Do we need a program to oppose the progrom? Dear America, Yes, It's hard, but here's how. First, you can make comms unreadable. There are well-known ways to do this. Second, you can make comms untraceable. Ways to do this exist, and better ones are being developed*. Third, you can make comms available to everyone - the 'net might help here. If you don't choose to use these methods, the consequences are up to you. But secure comms alone will only provide you with useful information, by themselves they aren't enough; you need to vote. Lots of you. Nothing else really matters. To "them", and you. -- Peter Fairbrother
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
> society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in > opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil > liberties and civil rights? Stop watching TV ? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:47:25 -0800, Tim May wrote: > > America used to disdain the secret trials, the Star Chamber proceedings so endemic >in other parts of the world. Now we have them. > > We will reap what we sow. > > --Tim May Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like "exercise your right to vote", or "write your congressperson/MP", etc. In practical terms, in a surveillance society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil liberties and civil rights? Do we need a program to oppose the progrom?
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 05:54 PM, Anonymous wrote: On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:47:25 -0800, Tim May wrote: America used to disdain the secret trials, the Star Chamber proceedings so endemic in other parts of the world. Now we have them. We will reap what we sow. --Tim May Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like "exercise your right to vote", or "write your congressperson/MP", etc. Newcomers to Cypherpunks have 10 years' worth of archives to savor. --Tim May "Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert A. Heinlein
