From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 21 10:46:57 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17056
for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:46:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.228] (cmhe4.coil.com [198.4.94.228]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA25308; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:53:32 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: COCL online petition to President Bush for YOU to sign,
protecting your constitutional liberties!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: Brad Jansen
To: "'Matthew Gaylor'"
Subject: COCL online petition to President Bush for YOU to sign,
protecting your constitutional liberties!!
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:10:53 -0400
Matt, your subscribers might be interested in sending a message to President
Bush defending out liberties:
> <<...OLE_Obj...>>
> FREE CONGRESS: ESTABLISHES ONLINE PETITION
>
> The Free Congress Foundation's Coalition for Constitutional Liberties is
> establishing a website with an online petition to President Bush in
> support of our civil liberties and constitutional rights. It can be found
> at http://www.DefendYourFreedom.org
>
> I strongly urge Coalition members to go to the website, sign the petition
> and forward this to everyone you know!
>
> "After this horrendous series of attacks our new FBI Director has
> suggested that we may have to limit some of our freedoms in order to deal
> with terrorists. The truth is that if we further emasculate our
> Constitution the terrorists will have achieved the greatest victory
> imaginable. Their triumph won't just be the thousands of people they
> killed, the triumph will be if they see our democratic institutions
> crumble." Paul Weyrich, http://www.freecongress.org/
>
> Free Congress Foundation thinks America is strong enough to protect our
> freedoms and to defeat the terrorists. That is why Free Congress is
> proudly joining the new coalition, In Defense of Freedom. We do so with
> the desire to help President Bush and our nation's lawmakers to chart the
> right course that ensures the terrorists and the governments that harbor
> them will receive their just due while making sure what has always been
> special about America remains as strong as ever.
>
> The petition is a project of the Free Congress Foundation's Coalition for
> Constitutional Liberties.
> For more information on the Coalition:
> http://www.freecongress.org/centers/technology/ccl/
>
> To Make a Tax-Deductible Contribution to this effort, please designate
> your contribution to the Free Congress Foundation's Coalition for
> Constitutional Liberties. Use our safe, secure online form. Click here!
> https://www.econtributor.net/Contribution/Contribution.cfm?AID=XDHIDOFKZFD
> F
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 21 10:53:23 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17298
for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:53:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.228] (cmhe4.coil.com [198.4.94.228]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA25549; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:59:43 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: From The Archives: Israel's Answer To Eliminating Terrorism
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 10:19 PM -0400 5/5/99, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>ISRAEL'S ANSWER TO ELIMINATING SCHOOL TERRORISM
>Copyright by By Dr. David Th. Schiller
>P.O. Box 1363, D-56373, Nassau, Germany
>E-Mail: visier@paulparey.de
>
>The name is Dr. David Th. Schiller, currently residing in the little
>town of Nassau, 70 km northwest of Frankfurt. I work as
>editor-in-chief of VISIER, a 168-pages strong general interest gun
>magazine which I started eleven years ago in Stuttgart and which has
>now grown to be the most influential and best selling gun magazine in
>all of Europe. Of course with a gun magazine published in Germany,
>politics are at the forefront of our editorial work, and we have an
>eye toward the past.
>
>I was born in (West) Berlin in '52 in Germany, moved to Israel in '72
>and served in the Israel Defense Force's Airborne, which means I am
>now a veteran of the '73 war, the Lebanese war, and a number of
>border raids and actions in the occupied territories. Wounded in 1973
>on Suez canal, I later studied political science at West Berlin's
>Free University and mastered with a thesis on the origins of the
>Civil War in Lebanon and a Ph.D. in '82 with a work on the
>Palestinians' "love affair" with terrorism and paramilitary activity.
>When I returned to Germany in '74-'75 for studies I was called upon
>by the Berlin Police department to consult and teach their SWAT team,
>which just came into being after the Munich massacre during the
>Munich Olympics. Over the years this extended into a whole series of
>work obligations with various police departments in Germany and other
>places in the world. Due to my work in the Israel Defense Force (IDF)
>as a drill instructor and weapons specialist and through my academic
>interest, I had something to teach to these people. I also worked
>some years for the terrorism research department of Santa Monica's
>RAND Corporation, and have continued my academic pursuits.
>
>Over the years I published a number of books on shooting, police,
>terrorism, military history etc., most of these under the pseudonym
>of "Jan Boger". You probably might find a photographic journal of
>mine in English on the IDF, called "To Live in the Fire...",
>published in 1977 by the John Olson Publishing Co. in New Jersey.
>
>As you can see, I experienced violence and gun control from both ends
>of the barrel, one might say. And of course, I grew up to be a strong
>believer in the personal right to self defense, especially as I spent
>my childhood in the Berlin equivalent of the Bronx.
>
>Now for Colorado and the US gun control laws in regard to schools:
>
>Way back in 1973 - '74 I lived in a Kibbutz in Northern Israel,
>called Ramat Yochanan. During Passover week in '74 we in Galilee
>experienced the first of a number of specific PLO attacks targeting
>specifically schools and children houses, kindergartens, school buses
>and the like. It started with an infiltration in Quiriat Schmoneh on
>the Passover weekend, where the perpetrators found the school empty
>and locked (of course during the holidays!) and took over a nearby
>residential building, shooting people and in the end blowing
>themselves up. A few weeks later the worst of this series of
>incidents took place in Maalot on May 15th: Three PLO gunmen, after
>making their way through the border fence, first shot up a van load
>full of workers returning from a tobacco factory (incidentally these
>people happened to be Galilee Arabs, not Jews), then they entered the
>school compound of Maalot. First they murdered the housekeeper, his
>wife and one of their kids, then they took a whole group of nearly
>100 kids and their teachers hostage. These were staying overnight at
>the school, as they were on a hiking trip. In the end, the deadline
>ran out, and the army's special unit assaulted the building. During
>the rescue attempt, the gunmen blew their explosive charges and
>sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. 25 people died, 66 wounded.
>
>After this a controversial debate erupted in Israel in regards to
>guns, self defense etc. We heard of course the same dumb arguments by
>some good people, you always hear on these occasions like " We do not
>live in the Wild West here!" Or: "Guns don't solve problems!" or
>similar silly things.
>
>With the help of some smart people, not the least the then
>Commander-in-Chief, Northern Command Paratroop General Raful Eytan,
>all the reservists on the settlements were issued their personal
>weapons, and whoever had a clean track record could get a concealed
>weapons permit. I for instance had and still have one.
>
>Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools
>were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in
>voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without
>armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil
>guard project "Mishmar Esrachi", which even had its own sniper teams.
>The Army's Youth Group program, "Gadna", trained 15 - 16 year old
>kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high schoolboys
>got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, the
>"Herzliyah Bus massacre" (March '78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, 76
>wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security
>measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the
>resort town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the
>police, guarding schools kindergartens etc.
>
>No problems with gun safety there, as most kids in Israel grow up
>used to seeing guns on the street (in the hands of army personnel on
>leave, every soldier takes his/her gun home when on leave!). When the
>message got around to the PLO groups and a couple infiltration
>attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased. Too much of a
>risk here: Terrorists and other evildoers don't like risks.
>
>But what does all that teach us?
>
>(A) schools/kindergartens make for very attractive targets for
> the deranged gunman as well as for the profit-oriented
> hostage gangsters or terrorist group, because:
>
>(1) everybody sane will cave in to the demands of the evildoers
> (even somebody as hard-nosed as Golda Meir, may she rest in
> peace, said during the Maalot incident, that one does not
> make politics on the backs of one's children). Nobody wants
> to play the principles-game when kids are involved. Kidnapping
> has thus often resulted in the paying of ransom demands.
>
>(2) if you crave media attention, as for instance the PLO did
> in the 70's, nothing will catch the headlines better than
> an attack on a school-full of kids.
>
>(B) Now THAT is the underlying "reason" behind each and every
> incident that involved killing sprees in schools... from
> Maalot to Dunblane to Jonesboro. Only recently the French
> had a hostage/barricade incident in a kindergarten: the
> guy wanted money, and the French authorities solved that
> problem very neatly with a stealth-type approach by one
> of their special teams and a .357 bullet in the head of
> the perpetrator, when he refused to surrender. No follow
> up imitations occurred in France.
>
>So you do not have to be a prophet to foresee, that we will see more
>school-shooting incidents in the U.S. or other western nations, where
>media attention is focused on these things and where every incident
>is replayed second by second umpteen times on the tube, thereby
>creating in the minds of certain viewers examples to follow...
>
>Now, can we stop the media from playing out these scenarios in full
>color and gruesome details for hours and hours, again and again?
>Certainly not. We in the terrorism research field have argued for
>decades that it was exactly the media coverage that spurred more and
>each time more violent and extreme terrorist incidents. Could we stop
>the media from advertising the terrorist message? Certainly not.
>
>That is apparently one price we have to pay living in a worldwide
>infotainment society. The airplane hijackings in the 70's and 80's
>are a case in point.
>
>The only thing we can do is protect possible victims...And laws
>written in some books will not achieve that. Never have, never
>will...Enough said. I rest my case.
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 21 10:58:54 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17502
for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:58:53 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.228] (cmhe4.coil.com [198.4.94.228]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA26189; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:11:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:10:26 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: PGP author under fire for terrorist use of crypto
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Craig Phillips
To: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: PGP author under fire for terrorist use of crypto
Matt:
Don't know if this is of interest or not. It appears that Phil Zimmermann
is taking heat directly over the whole crypto - terrorist thing.
Details at:
Regards
--
Craig...
------------------
"I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird
religious cult." --Rita Rudner
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 21:50:37 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA25077
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:50:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA17482; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:48:05 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257
NEWS
Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act
Justice Department proposal classifies most computer crimes as acts
of terrorism.
By Kevin Poulsen
Sep 23 2001 11:00PM PT
Hackers, virus-writers and web site defacers would face life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole under legislation
proposed by the Bush Administration that would classify most computer
crimes as acts of terrorism.
The Justice Department is urging Congress to quickly approve its
Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a twenty-five page proposal that would
expand the government's legal powers to conduct electronic
surveillance, access business records, and detain suspected
terrorists.
The proposal defines a list of "Federal terrorism offenses" that are
subject to special treatment under law. The offenses include
assassination of public officials, violence at international
airports, some bombings and homicides, and politically-motivated
manslaughter or torture.
[...]
To date no terrorists are known to have violated the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act. But several recent hacker cases would have qualified
as "Federal terrorism offenses" under the Justice Department
proposal, including the conviction of Patrick Gregory, a prolific web
site defacer who called himself "MostHateD"; Kevin Mitnick, who plead
guilty to penetrating corporate networks and downloading proprietary
software; Jonathan "Gatsby" Bosanac, who received 18-months in
custody for cracking telephone company computers; and Eric Burns, the
Shoreline, Washington hacker who scrawled "Crystal, I love you" on a
United States Information Agency web site in 1999. The 19-year-old
was reportedly trying to impress a classmate with whom he was
infatuated.
[...]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 21:54:50 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA25236
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:54:49 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA18420; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:05:23 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: ACTION: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
URGENT ACTION ALERT
The Administration's proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 is currently
scheduled for mark-up by the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow
(Tuesday) morning. It is critical that consideration of the
legislation be delayed until the Committee holds comprehensive public
hearings on the serious civil liberties issues the proposal
implicates. The Committee is currently planning to proceed to mark-up
after testimony only from the Attorney General and a short, informal
"briefing" on the issues that raise constitutional concerns.
There is an urgent need for concerned organizations and individuals
to contact members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to delay
consideration of the bill until its impact on civil liberties can be
carefully and fully considered. These contacts need to be made
IMMEDIATELY to delay tomorrow morning's scheduled mark-up.
Committee members and their contact information follows. It would be
particularly useful if constituents of these members express their
concern. Please forward this alert to your members, affiliated
organizations and appropriate mailing lists.
Judiciary Committee List
Name, party, state, phone, fax, e-mail:
James Sensenbrenner, Chair, R-WI, (202) 225-5101, (202) 225-3190,
sensen09@mail.house.gov
Henry Hyde, R-IL, (202) 225-4561, (202) 225-1166.
John Conyers Jr., D-MI, (202) 225-5126, (202) 225-0072,
john.conyers@mail.house.gov
George Gekas, R-PA, (202) 225-4315, (202) 225-8440, askgeorge@mail.house.gov
Barney Frank, D-MA, (202) 225-5931, (202) 225-0182
Howard Coble, R-NC, (202) 225-3065, (202) 225-8611, howard.coble@mail.house.gov
Howard Berman, D-CA, (202) 225-4695, (202) 225-3196,
Howard.Berman@mail.house.gov
Lamar Smith, R-TX, (202) 225-4236, (202) 225-8628
Rick Boucher, D-VA, (202) 225-3861, (202) 225-0442, ninthnet@mail.house.gov
Elton Gallegly, R-CA, (202) 225-5811, (202) 225-1100
Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, (202) 225-5635, (202) 225-6923,
jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov
Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, (202) 225-5431, (202) 225-9681, talk2bob@mail.house.gov
Bobby Scott, D-VA, (202) 225-8351, (202) 225-8354
Steve Chabot, R-OH, (202) 225-2216, (202) 225-3012
Mel Watt, D-NC, (202) 225-1510, (202) 225-1512, nc12.public@mail.house.gov
Bob Barr, R-GA, (202) 225-2931, (202) 225-2944, barr.ga@mail.house.gov
Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, (202) 225-3072, (202) 225-3336, zoe@lofgren.house.gov
William Jenkins, R-TN, (202) 225-6356, (202) 225-5714
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX, (202) 225-3816, (202) 225-3317, tx18@lee.house.gov
Christopher Cannon, R-UT, (202) 225-7751, (202) 225-5629,
cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov
Maxine Waters, D-CA, (202) 225-2201, (202) 225-7854
Lindsey Graham, R-SC, (202) 225-5301, (202) 225-3216
Marty Meehan, D-MA, (202) 225-3411, (202) 226-0771,
martin.meehan@mail.house.gov
Spencer Bachus, R-AL, (202) 225-4921, (202) 225-2082
William Delahunt, D-MA, (202) 225-3111, (202) 225-5658,
william.delahunt@mail.house.gov
John Hostettler, R-IN, (202) 225-4636, (202) 225-3284,
john.hostettler@mail.house.gov
Robert Wexler, D-FL, (202) 225-3001, (202) 225-5974
Mark Green, R-WI, (202) 225-5665, (202) 225-5729, mark.green@mail.house.gov
Tammy Baldwin, D-W, (202) 225-2906, (202) 225-6942,
tammy.baldwin@mail.house.gov
Ric Keller, R-FL, (202) 225-2176, (202) 225-0999
Anthony David Weiner, D-NY, (202) 225-6616, (202) 226-7253
Darrell Issa, R-CA, (202) 225-3906, (202) 225-3303
Adam Schiff, D-CA, (202) 225-4176, (202) 225-5828
Melissa Hart, R-PA, (202) 225-2565, (202) 226-2274, melissa.hart@mail.house.gov
Jeff Flake, R-AZ, (202) 225-2635, (202) 226-4386
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 21:58:31 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA25453
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:58:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA19069; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:16:26 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: How The Feds Misrepresented Anti-Privacy Provisions of 1994 Law
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
HOW THE FEDS MISREPRESENTED ANTI-PRIVACY PROVISIONS OF 1994 LAW
Congress is now contemplating passage of the Mobilization Against
Terrorism Act, which would (among other things) expand government
wiretapping and eavesdropping powers.
Unknown to most Americans, however, is that Congress had already
given law enforcement authorities broad powers to expand electronic
surveillance in the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA), according to political economist Charlotte
Twight in the fall 2001 issue of THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
Among other powers, the CALEA gave the Federal Bureau of
Investigation authority to track the physical location of cell phone
users and to obtain the content of private communications in a
variety of circumstances without a probable-cause warrant. Yet when
testifying to Congress about the proposed CALEA, the FBI's
then-director Louis Freeh repeatedly claimed that CALEA would confer
no new authority on law enforcement officials, provide no information
about the physical location of cellular phone calls, and not weaken
existing privacy protections.
The CALEA episode, argues Twight, demonstrates that Congress is no
match for crafty machinations of bureaucrats expert in masking their
true intentions by hamstringing Congress's ability to understand the
meaning of new legislation -- what Twight calls an example of the
manipulation of "political transaction costs," such as the cost of
understanding the details of legislation.
"The confluence of CALEA, federally mandated electronic databases of
personal information, Carnivore, Digital Storm, Echelon, and the like
have established a web of federal surveillance never before known in
the United States," writes Twight.
"One way or another, we will soon learn that the
resistance-inhibiting power of broad-based government surveillance is
potentially the most liberty-endangering form of political
transaction-cost manipulation confronting Americans -- and
freedom-loving people everywhere -- in the new millennium."
See "Conning Congress: Privacy and the 1994 Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act" by Charlotte Twight (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW,
Fall 2001), at
.
Also see, "Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary
Americans" by Charlotte Twight (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Fall 1999),
at .
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 21:58:40 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA25473
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:58:39 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA18701; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:10:45 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Re: Why Liberty Suffers in Wartime By Declan McCullagh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:29:49 -0700
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Jim Warren
Subject: Re: Why Liberty Suffers in Wartime By Declan McCullagh
>Consider this: During all of America's major wars -- the Civil War,
>World War I and World War II -- the government restricted Americans'
>civil liberties in the name of quelling dissent, silencing criticism
>of political decisions and preserving national security.
So did Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, the
American puppet-Shah's Iran, etc. So what's new?
The only thing that would be new and novel -- and worthy of applause
-- would be if those in power in the US government did *not* trash
our civil liberties.
As Congress and the White Haus are stampeding forward to do so, let
us note how MUCH damage and harm three little airplanes are doing,
NOW!, to US citizens and everything that the United States is
*supposed* to stand for ... including its disregard for our
Constitution.
E.g., "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[4th Amendment]
Apparently, our papers and effects no longer include our [computer]
files or [digital] messages. Or maybe surveilling/searching all
communications is no longer unreasonable. Or perhaps three planes
have provided the probable cause to spy on anyone and everyone the
government choose -- and the oath or affirmation is no more than the
permission granted by Congress.
King George use surely be applauding. (Same for Adolf, Josef, Mao
... and *certainly* Hussein, bin Laden and Kadafi! They WON!)
--jim
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 22:10:34 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA26404
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:10:33 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA18103; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:54:55 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: EPIC's Editorial Collection in Support of Civil Rights
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
==============================================================
Volume 8.18 September 24, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_8.18.html
=======================================================================
Special EPIC Alert
=======================================================================
In the days following September 11, Congress moved quickly to show
support for the President and granted him certain authority to pursue
military matters on behalf of the country. Congress then worked to
provide financial support for rebuilding after the tragedy. Then
Congress acted to improve airline safety, ensure aid to the airline
industry, and begin to restore American confidence in air travel.
Now it may be appropriate for Congress to take a breath before it
tackles the subjects contained in the various bills that will be
circulating on Capitol Hill this week. Unlike the earlier measures
that responded to the immediate crisis, the topics under consideration
this week -- immigration policy, criminal law, electronic
surveillance, and intelligence gathering -- sweep broadly into other
areas and run the risk, particularly at this point in time, of
chipping away rights that safeguard all Americans
In the area of electronic surveillance, Congress should proceed
particularly carefully. There are now a mix of provisions that, if
taken together, would allow more people in government to monitor more
electronic communications of Americans for more reasons under a lower
legal standard than is currently permitted under law. And this new
statutory authority would be broadly exercised in cases completely
unrelated to terrorism.
So, for example, the police could now use "Carnivore" to routinely
capture clickstream data from Internet users -- including the web
sites visited and the pages downloaded -- under the same low standards
that currently permit government access to telephone numbers dialed.
Another provision would significantly expand the use of electronic
surveillance for computer crime investigations. Still another makes
it easier to seize voicemail.
It may be appropriate for Congress to act on a few matters quickly --
improving border security and ensuring adequate resources for
translation and interpretation -- but the vast majority of legislative
recommendations now being faxed around Washington create sweeping
surveillance authority without justification. The adoption now of any
new law enforcement powers unrelated to the investigation and
prevention of terrorist acts should be opposed.
Marc Rotenberg
Electronic Privacy Information Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"But, in a time of widespread anxiety, it is harder to fend off the
siren song of fear sung by those who would have us trade in a little
liberty for a little more safety. There is no such thing as a little
liberty. Before you know it, you don't have any, and America is no
longer the shining beacon of equality and freedom that terrorists
loathe."
--Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 16, 2001
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/sunday/opinion_b34a14
6ad10661f10008.html
"Last week's terrorist attacks caught the United States painfully
unprepared. Whether the carnage was preventable or not, this tragedy
-- and the glaring intelligence failures that let it happen -- must
not be used as a pretext for measures that endanger the fundamental
freedoms that are our birthright. Yes, tough and pragmatic laws are
needed to prevent terrorism and espionage. And that should include
keeping closer tabs on visitors to our country. But terrorism will
have won if those laws unnecessarily fetter the fundamental civil
liberties that have distinguished the United States from the rest of
the world."
--Baltimore Sun, September 19, 2001
http://www.baltimoresun.com/
"There is general acknowledgement that society's delicate balance
between freedom and security will tip toward greater security at the
expense of individual liberties. But the exact spot along that
continuum where Americans will tolerate restrictions on their freedoms
-- and where they will resist -- has not yet been located. Vigilance
will be needed to make sure that the precious freedoms central to the
American idea are not eroded by equally necessary new safety
precautions."
--Boston Globe, September 20, 2001
http://www.boston.com/globe/
"The true measure of the effectiveness of this attack by a shadowy,
hate-filled enemy will lie in how we reassess ourselves and our place
in the world, and how we redefine, as inevitably we will, the balance
between individual liberty and collective, national security. If we
lose our liberties in the name of safety, the terrorists will have
won. That cannot, must not, happen."
--The Buffalo News, September 16, 2001
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20010916/1028304.asp
"[C]ivil libertarians have good reason to be wary of proposals to
expand the government's power to go after suspected terrorists. In
wartime, some people consider basic rights a luxury we can do without.
. . . At times like this, any ideas to help law enforcement against
terrorists deserve consideration--and careful inspection to ensure
that they will hamper our enemies more than they will hurt our
liberties."
--Chicago Tribune, September 20, 2001
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0109200048sep20.story?c
oll=chi%2Dnewsopinion%2Dhed
"[T]he terror attack unleashed on America must not become an excuse
for suspending basic American principles and values. . . . Special
care should be taken to ensure that ethnic profiling of people of Arab
or South Asian background is used judiciously and sparingly by
law-enforcement officials. The hunt for suspected terrorists or
terrorist sympathizers can't justify a descent into unjust police
methods. Wars sometimes occasion a lapse in democratic processes, and
the situation following the Sept. 11 attacks is being characterized as
'war.' This must not mean a lapse in basic civil liberties, or in the
civility with which all people are treated in the US."
--Christian Science Monitor, September 18, 2001
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0918/p8s1-comv.html
"Although more value does need to be placed on low-tech human
intelligence gathering, other tools of eavesdropping need to be used
while balancing the civil liberties of Americans. Proposals to grant
intelligence agencies more latitude need to be revisited and debated."
--Dallas Morning News, September 17, 2001
http://www.dallasnews.com/
"[A] frightful picture is emerging. It seems that American leadership
has resolved the tension between security and freedom by giving
security the priority. Without a debate over how far we can
jeopardize our freedom in pursuit of security, we seem to be inclined
toward doing whatever it takes to feel safer. . . . Imagine being
stopped by a police officer for speeding and when he asks you for your
ID, you reveal not only your name and address but also your religion,
your ethnic and national origin, your financial record, and police or
immigration record if any. This is not only a form of profiling but
also an invitation for discrimination. The smart cards, if
implemented, would be the end of privacy. . . . We must act now. I
invite all who are concerned about our freedoms and the quality of our
civil society to let Washington know our concerns now."
--Detroit Free Press, September 18, 2001
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ekhan18_20010918.htm
"Historically, it has been at times of inflamed passions and national
anger that our civil liberties proved to be at greatest risk, and the
unpopular group of the moment was subject to prejudice and deprivation
of liberty."
--Detroit News, September 21, 2001
http://detnews.com/
"[W]e must uphold our values and protect our constitutional rights.
While retaliating for last week's attacks and upgrading our
intelligence and national security, we must be sure to maintain the
important principles - of civil liberty, ethnic and religious
tolerance, and freedom of expression - that are the foundation and
strength of our nation. If we allow terrorists to alter our values or
way of life, we hand them a victory."
--Indianapolis Star, September 16, 2001
http://www.indystar.org/
"It is one thing to pass emergency legislation; quite another to make
it a permanent part of our law. Any congressional enactment should
come with a sunset provision, requiring the law to lapse after two
years unless it is reenacted. During the interim, Congress should
create a bipartisan commission to consider the fundamental questions
at stake. Then, we can consider more permanent legislation after the
initial panic has subsided. We have used similar devices in the past.
. . . This time, our tradition of civil liberties is being placed at
risk, and there are special reasons that make a sunset provision even
more appropriate. The most obvious is the rush with which the
legislation is being pushed through Congress. . . . The rise of
terrorism undoubtedly requires a serious debate over the proper
balance between liberty and security in the 21st century. But
Congress should not provide permanent answers when we have not even
begun to ask the right questions."
--Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2001
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-092001ackerman.story
"Do Americans really think well of the 'whatever-it-takes' battle cry?
They shouldn't. There are all sorts of 'whatevers' this country could
but shouldn't embrace to fight terrorism. It could unleash police to
search apartment blocks where immigrants are known to live -- hoping
to root out a terrorist needle in the haystack. It could scrap the
rule that suspects be told of their rights to a lawyer and to remain
silent -- hoping that hapless confessions of terror plots will follow.
It could jail suspicious foreigners for weeks -- hoping that
incriminating evidence might eventually show up. Many Americans
recoil at the thought of such blunt tactics, even if they can't say
why. They sense something un-American about combating terrorism by
scrapping the rule of law. They see the folly of defending the land
of the free by shrinking its freedoms. . . . Even if Congress
subscribes to the 'whatever-it-takes' philosophy, it's not clear this
[recently introduced] legislation should pass. The White House has
made no case that existing law enabled last week's attack or hindered
the ensuing investigation. Nor has it established that squelching
civil liberties is a wise response to the threat of terror. In truth,
forsaking American freedom is precisely the wrong answer to the fear
terrorists sow. It gives them the victory they seek. It flouts an
article of American faith: that just as some sacrifices must be made
in safety's name, others must never be made."
--Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 21, 2001
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/703260.html
"[O]ur constitutional freedoms may be about to face their most
serious test in several generations. We can't protect ourselves from
suicide bombers by blindly surrendering our liberty. To do so would
only ensure the victory of fanaticism."
--The New Republic, September 24, 2001
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/
"There must be an exacting examination of how the country can face
this threat without sacrificing its liberties. . . . Americans must
rethink how to safeguard the country without bartering away the rights
and privileges of the free society that we are defending. The
temptation will be great in the days ahead to write draconian new laws
that give law enforcement agencies - or even military forces - a right
to undermine the civil liberties that shape the character of the
United States. President Bush and Congress must carefully balance the
need for heightened security with the need to protect the
constitutional rights of Americans. That includes Americans of
Islamic descent, who could now easily became the target for another
period of American xenophobia and ethnic discrimination."
--New York Times, September 12, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/opinion/12WED2.html
"If the idea takes root that civil liberties should not be permitted
to stand in the way of a war on terrorism, at what point do security
measures start to corrode the very society they are designed to
protect? . . . [it has been said that] Americans would accept neither
identity cards, so reminiscent of the domestic passports that people
associate with totalitarian states, nor the common European practice
of closing a street at both ends and checking everyone there for
immigration violations. Where does a democratic society draw the
line?"
--New York Times (Associated Press), September 16, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/weekinreview/16GREE.html?pagewanted=2
"Unshackling the nation's intelligence agencies will be a more complex
task, not least because it will run into a dilemma: At what point will
the government's powers of investigation and security expand so much
that they begin to erode the civil rights defining a free society -
giving terrorists a moral victory? The balance between security and
freedom is delicate and hard to restore when collective fear tips it
toward greater government control."
--Newsday (New York, NY), September 18, 2001
http://www.newsday.com/
"[T]he United States Senate already has acted precipitately, passing
legislation Thursday evening that enables the FBI to obtain warrants
for electronic surveillance of e-mail and other computer
communications more easily. That initiative, which may result in
severe abrogations of individual rights, is probably the harbinger of
a wave of new restrictions and invasions by government. . . . [B]efore
we assent to any such infringements, we ought to consider how little
has been done to ensure our safety without affronting the
Constitution. . . . Nobody's freedom, for instance, would be harmed by
sealing the pilot's cabin against intruders well before takeoff, or by
installing signal devices that would instantly alert authorities to a
crime in progress. . . . Our leaders never tire of telling us that
America is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in the
history of the world, as well as the most free. Now is the time to
tell them that we can afford to protect our people and our territory
without undermining our freedom."
--Salon.com, September 14, 2001
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2001/09/14/rights/
"If we sacrifice our civil liberties the terrorists will have won. We
must [act] in a way that preserves our civil liberties. It can be
done."
--San Diego Union-Tribune, September 16, 2001
http://www.uniontrib.com/
"In the heat of rightful, red-hot anger, this country may take actions
it will later regret. Congress is weighing a terrorist surveillance
package that clashes with personal liberty and encroaches on some of
our fundamental rights. This country is eager to move fast and hard
in response to the murderous attacks in New York and Washington. No
question, payback is due for the deaths and destruction, and this
newspaper supports a sustained and focused campaign to hunt down the
culprits. Yet members of Congress must keep their heads in this
moment of frustration and outrage. They need to ask tough questions
about each proposed expansion of law-enforcement powers. They need to
realize that the U.S. Constitution is worth defending too."
--San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2001
http://www.sfchron.com/
"To ensure that America's freedom remains strong, Congress should set
aside partisan bickering to help the president track down terrorists.
. . . Likewise, members of the Senate and House need to keep Bush's
words fresh in their minds when considering proposals to reduce
security threats. The constitutional and privacy protections of
law-abiding citizens ought not to be swept aside because of overly
broad or hastily adopted new laws. The country may need new laws to
help federal agents fight well-organized, tech-savvy terrorists. But
in the heartbreak over these evil deeds, lawmakers must take time to
discuss any actions limiting the freedoms that distinguish America."
--San Jose Mercury News, September 16, 2001
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/edit/082562.htm
"'In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test
of its value is not in its taste, but its effects.'" I hope President
Bush, his inner circle and the members of Congress keep hearing
Fulbright's words echoing down the corridors now filled with
policy-making under duress. There must be room for constructive
questioning, even as those entrusted with grave decisions push quickly
to meet the national emergencies in this chilling autumn of 2001.
Witness, please, the rich potential to shape consensus without
abrogating basic democratic rights as Congress and the administration
work though the Bush administration's anti-terrorism proposals. . . .
Concurrent with Ashcroft's proposals, key lawmakers have acknowledged
that legislating in haste can be cause for irreparable damage to the
very rights with which America defines itself. Unlike the sudden,
transcendent disregard for budgets and the social programs that seemed
essential two weeks ago, the regard is high for protecting both
national security and the rights we enjoy as free people. . . . Just
powers are derived from the consent of the governed, whether in time
of war or peace."
--St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 21, 2001
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/opinion/ocl_docs/139821.htm
"If we are to win the war against terrorism, we will need to employ
new weapons. Nevertheless, Congress must proceed very carefully as it
considers Attorney General John Ashcroft's sweeping proposals. Moving
too hastily or going too far could result in unwarranted curbs on
constitutional liberties."
--Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), September 21, 2001
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
"Celebrating the openness of our society, and its ability to
accommodate diversity without constantly coming to blows, is more
important now than ever. This is what the terrorists who have been
implicated in Tuesday's attacks do not understand about America, and
this is why they have chosen to attack us."
--The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), September 16, 2001
http://www.timespicayune.com/
"Essential questions confront us, such as the degree of liberties we
will be willing to surrender in the name of security. The answers
will not come quickly or in unanimity. These rough roads ahead should
not be overlooked in the initial closing of ranks around President
Bush. But this struggle is what separates democracy from the world of
suicidal zealots."
--USA Today, September 21, 2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/e98/raasch/r110.htm
"This is complex legislation that, as Mr. Ashcroft himself has noted,
would affect civil liberties as well as law enforcement. The purpose
should be not to rush and rubber-stamp but to get the balance right.
That's particularly true of the proposals that would infringe on
traditional liberties."
--Washington Post, September 20, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================
Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:
http://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news/
Subscribe/unsubscribe via email: epic_news-request@mailman.epic.org
subject line: "subscribe" or "unsubscribe"
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/
=======================================================================
Privacy Policy
=======================================================================
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our
mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link
to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your email address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under
"subscription information". Please contact info@epic.org if you have
any other questions.
=======================================================================
About EPIC
=======================================================================
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest
research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to
focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper
Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical
record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act
litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information,
e-mail info@epic.org, http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.
+1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully
tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to
1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.
Or you can contribute online at
http://www.guidestar.org/aol/search/report/report.adp?ein=52-2225921
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the
right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of
encryption and expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
---------------------- END EPIC Alert 8.18 -----------------------
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Mon Sep 24 22:44:57 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA27698
for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:44:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.241] (cmhf1.coil.com [198.4.94.241]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA21445; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 01:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 01:02:51 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Portland Orgonian On Choose Freedom, Not Fear By Marie Botchie
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id WAA27698
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:27:02 -0700
To: freematt@coil.com
From: Doug Spittler
Greetings, Matt;
See below an article publish by the Portland Orgonian, authored by
Marie Botchie. The "Doug" referred to is me. I asked her for
permission to post to some other lists. If you think it's appropriate
to yours, please do so. (The "...reading to do." is in part some of
your posts I thought she might be interested in...)
Regards,
Doug.
------------------------------------------
Doug,
Thank you for all that information. I have some reading to do. :)
Here is the web site I was referring to and a copy of my original
article: The web site is just my article posted on-line by the
Oregonian.
Have a great day and thanks again.
Take care!
Choose Freedom, Not Fear
Today, in the aftermath of a horror unimaginable in our lifetime, I
am reminded of the impact fear has on us and how we react.
Daily we are barraged with information through the media, be it
television, radio, or the Internet that instills fear: "Gunman
attacks at local high school", "Aids at an all time high", or "Ten
dead in multi-car pile up on highway". It is endless, and a constant
reminder to us all how fragile life is, and we are afraid.
Because of our fears, we have allowed laws to pass that govern our
individual choices: Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gun laws, drug laws,
parenting laws, and the list goes on. Instead of holding the
irresponsible accountable for their actions, we have decided to
punish the majority. The "Powers That Be" use fear to get us to
succumb to their ideals, and we allow it because we are afraid of the
actions of others and the losses we may incur. Fear is a powerful
way to control people and has been used through out history to take
control of the masses under the pretext of being for "our own good".
On September 11th, 2001, when the unthinkable happened here in the
United States, it added new fears to our list of many. New laws will
be passed, more freedoms removed, and our lives here in the United
States, if not world wide, will be altered forever. It saddens me to
think that instead of dying for the cause of freedom, as thousands
upon thousands have in the past before them, the victims of this
atrocity will be lost at the expense of it.
I bring this up now, only because American's are at their finest in a
time of crisis. We are true to ourselves, true to each other, and
braver then ever. Today we are strong, involved, and active in our
country and community. We are united in a cause far more powerful
than our own personal needs. We can see outside of our individual
boxes and feel the pain of those around us. Today we have a voice!
Today we care about more than ourselves.
Please don't let this tragedy change the foundation for which America
is based on. Don't let the lives of so many be lost in vain. We are
united in this great nationŠuse this time of sadness and unity to
make our country more powerful than ever by giving back the power to
the people as individuals. Trust in yourselves to make the right
choices, trust in your neighbors to do the right things. Goodness
surrounds us. You can see it in the heroic efforts of so many men
and women today, you can feel it in others as you pass them on the
street, despite the horror of such evil.
We do not need to save ourselves from each other. We need to embrace
our differences and grow from them. What will keep us safe is zero
tolerance to the wrong doings of the few. Hold individuals
accountable and keep the rest of us free!
Marie Botchie
September 12, 2001
Vernonia, Oregon
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 08:34:39 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA20010
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:34:38 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA02407; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:10:55 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com (Unverified)
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:40:06 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: More on why liberty suffers during wartime -- a historical view
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:09:29 -0400
To: politech@politechbot.com
From: Declan McCullagh
Subject: FC: More on why liberty suffers during wartime -- a historical view
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/
X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/
*******
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:47:53 -0700
To: declan@well.com
From: David Theroux
Subject: Re: FC: Why liberty suffers during wartime -- a historical view
Dear Declan,
Excellent piece!
As you may well know, the major book on this subject is by our senior
fellow Robert Higgs, CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN: Critical Episodes in the
Growth of American Government (Oxford University Press):
http://liberty-tree.org/ltn/crisis-and-leviathan.html
Here is an excellent article by Dr. Higgs on the subject, "How War
Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century":
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/990700Higgs.html
Here also is a new interview of Dr. Higgs:
http://reason.com/ml/ml092001.html
As for your points about the U.S. Civil War as the precedent for what
lead to the 20th Century's giant leaps into national security
statism, you might find the following of interest:
"The Civil War: Liberty and American Leviathan," with Henry E. Mayer
and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:
http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/991117ipfTrans.html
"The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War between the
States," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:
http://independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/TIR32_dilorenzo.html
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American
Civil War, by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, reviewed by Stanley L. Engerman:
http://independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/TIR21_Hummel.html
Best regards,
David
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
DTheroux@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47051,00.html
>
> Why Liberty Suffers in War Time
> By Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com)
> 2:00 a.m. Sep. 24, 2001 PDT
>
> WASHINGTON -- Anyone worried about the fate of civil liberties during
> the U.S. government's growing war on terrorism might want to consider
> this Latin maxim: Inter arma silent leges.
>
> It means, "In time of war the laws are silent," and it encapsulates
> the supremacy of security over liberty that typically accompanies
> national emergencies.
>
> Consider this: During all of America's major wars -- the Civil War,
> World War I and World War II -- the U.S. government restricted
> Americans' civil liberties in the name of quelling dissent, silencing
> criticism of political decisions and preserving national security.
>
> [...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 11:17:58 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01734
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:17:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA12823; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:02:47 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:01:02 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Homeland Security Tom Ridge's Pathetic Record on Firearms & Rights
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id LAA01734
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: This is an analysis of Pennsylvanian
Governor Tom Ridge's record from 1998 compiled by the Allegheny
County Sportsmen's League, Inc. and several other Pennsylvanian civil
rights groups. Thanks to Roy Pittman
President, Pennsylvania Gun Owner's Association for providing the
information and for mentioning that Gov. Ridge while serving as the
Congressman from the 21st District in Pennsylvania was yet another
Republican sellout who voted for the 1994 crime bill which
criminalized high-capacity gun magazines.]
Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC'S) ANALYSIS OF THE RIDGE RECORD
ON FIREARMS AND RIGHTS
1. ACT 17 of 1995 (S.S.H.B. 110) is the result of Ridge's
Special Session on Crime. The focus was on increasing the regulatory
burden for firearms purchase, ownership and, in some cases, use. The
result has been a virtual breeding ground for slipshod, biased and
politically expedient prosecutions.
2. Mental Health Statutes- For the 1st time ever, an evaluation
(which can be instituted by virtually anyone) by medical
professionals can result in the permanent loss of constitutional
rights. Due process protections, already weakened by inadequate
enforcement of law, have now been virtually eliminated. Consider the
following personal tragedy: See the attached statement of Mr. Russell
Laing
3. Conference of the States (S.R. 12) This effort was a thinly
veiled attempt to REPLACE our current FEDERAL Constitution. The goals
were "fundamental, structural and long term reforms." This Initiative
was conducted in conjunction with the Council of State Governments,
in ALL 50 State Legislatures, utilizing formal resolutions with a
simple majority of States as the goal. Florida Law Professors Steven
Gey, John & Ashley Frost and Nat Stern described this as a "Šrecipe
for a constitutional crisis, and the destabilizing effects of such a
crisis would reach into every aspect of our political, legal, and
economic life." Ridge lobbied hard for this legislation and for the
conference to take place in historic Philadelphia.
4. States Rights and Federal Cops (S.B. 75) This legislation
would have given Federal Law Enforcement, all 57 AGENCIES, the
ability to enforce ALL PA laws with immunity from either criminal or
civil liability. Additionaly there are no requirements for training
in Pennsylvania law. As has been repeatedly demonstrated around our
nation, most recently in Elizabethtown, Federal law Enforcement
operates, at times, outside the law. In the Elizabethtown PA
incident, FBI Agents on a training mission for terrorist incidents
seized a car of teenagers who just happened to be driving down the
street. In the process of this dynamic seizure the agents caused
several car accidents, dragged the children from the car and held
them at gunpoint for a period of time. This action caused outrage
among the local citizens and media when the Agents were not held
accountable for their actions and even tried to intimidate the media
to prevent coverage of the incident. When officials fail to respond
to correct these abuses by law enforcement, their only recourse is
through tort action in civil court. Something Tom Ridge tried to
eliminate via Senate Bill 75.
.
5. Firearms Registration in PA is illegal. However, in 1995 the
City of Pittsburgh and the U.S. Justice Dept. attempted to create a
registry of all gun owners in Pennsylvania's 4th, 12th, 14th, 18th,
20th congressional districts. This registry would be tied to a
geographical interface system so that the locations of gun owners
either as a whole or by specific query could be displayed on computer
generated maps. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League sued to put
an end to this effort. The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
found that this project was illegal under Pennsylvania law and order
the City and their consultants to cease and desist. The City
continues to appeal the previous decision. Although amendments to ACT
17, proposed by the ACSL, were enacted into Law as Act 66, make it a
criminal offense to create such a registry, the Ridge administration
has REFUSES to enforce this provision of the law.
6. Bait & Switch - Gov. Ridge has diverted funds from useful but
low visibility projects to high visibility, "politically correct"
projects. For instance, the criminal records database in Pennsylvania
needs to be modernized and updated. Provisions of the Brady Bill made
$2,000,000 available for that purpose. Instead, Governor Ridge
created a new specialized "Domestic Violence Database." Ironically,
80% of domestic abuse cases would have been included in the general
database. The Pennsylvania state Police continue to suffer with a
communications system so antiquated and unreliable that officers have
taken to using cell phones to call for backup. However, the Ridge
administration has the manpower to institute a communications and
real time record keeping system for law abiding purchasers of
firearms.
7. (Questionable Ethics - Act 17 requires ALL firearms
transactions to take place in a dealer's place of business. Gun Buy
Back programs violate this law. The Ridge administration has allowed
these media spectacles to go unchallenged. Yet, throughout this
state, average citizens are being swallowed up by politically correct
prosecutions. Consider, John Heidler, a 60% disabled Vietnam Veteran,
has been found guilty of violating Sec. 912 of State law. His crime
was the lawful, licensed carrying of a firearm when picking up his
son from school. Mr. Heidler relies on a firearm to defend himself,
and his family, because of his disability. Where is this
administration's concern for Justice?
Gun Owner - Themes for the Pennsylvania Governor's Race
* Ridge has deceived the gun owners throughout his career.
While in Congress, he intentionally voted for the Semi-Auto gun ban.
This was one of only two votes, not counting procedural votes, he had
on the gun issue his last term in Congress.
* As Governor, he has initiated the most striking
anti-individual rights campaign in history. He has attacked almost
every amendment in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution as
well as the Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Consider his legislative agenda:
* ACT 17 - This anti-gun legislation was supported and
initiated at the request of the governor. It represented a
significant change in tactics for the gun control crowd. Instead of
banning specific guns, it created a whole new class of criminal
activity including many non-violent or technical offenses that would
result in the loss of gun ownership rights. This is the same tactic
used by Hitler in Germany. As passed:
1. Act 17 established an instant check system with a State
Transaction fee ($3 at present but will be reviewed in five years)
and an authorized Dealer Transaction Fee ($2).
2. Can allow the police to require dealers to lock their guns in
a vault at the end of each business day.
3. Requires that ALL HANDGUN sales (except maybe those via
parent and child) be sent through the instant check system.
4. Makes the seller of any firearm criminally and civilly
responsible if the gun is used in a crime. If the gun was sold
through a dealer and RECORDED in the STATE POLICE COMPUTER SYSTEM
then that is proof the seller is not criminally liable. However,
there is no mention of removing civil liability from the seller. This
essentially bans the private sale of guns.
5. Created a restricted fund for deposit of the $3 per gun sales
fee. Other legislation being introduced will allow anti-gun groups to
use this fund for "gun-violence education programs" in our local
schools.
Denies DUE PROCESS by allowing ANY MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL
(this includes psychiatrists, social workers, psychiatric nurses) to
declare an individual a threat to themselves or others. That
individual will then have all their guns confiscated and will be
banned from owning or purchasing any gun in the future. The mental
health professional making such claims are given immunity from any
liability for any mistakes they may make. (This was modified in later
legislation so that anyone served with an ACT 302 mental health
commitment would have their guns confiscated without reimbursement.
An ACT 302 is an observational period in a hospital to determine if a
person is mentally competent. Just that fact that they were observed
denies them a basic right without judicial review. Even if they are
released and judged competent they are still denied gun ownership.
This is the current law as of 1/1/1998)
Turns a paperwork offense into a felony. Carrying a concealed weapon
without a valid carry permit (expired, etc) has been moved from a
misdemeanor to a felony. However, not having a carry permit at all
and carrying a concealed weapon is just a misdemeanor! (A correction
was made in 1997, almost three years after ACT 17 passed, however
this penalty is still a misdemeanor 1,which still disqualifies a
citizen from ever owning firearm.)
Supposedly this bill does not allow gun registration. However the
record of sale and instant background check sent to the State Police
Computer contains the buyers Name, Address, Phone Number, SSN and the
type of GUN purchased including make, model, and Serial Number.
Any weapon that launches a projectile by the expansion of a gas (i.e.
BB guns and pellet guns) are classified as firearms.
* Senate Bill #75, Special Session No.1 (printer's No. 97)
introduced by Senators Salvatore, Lemmond, Fisher, Bell and
Andrezeski. Although this bill did not pass it further illustrates
the Ridge Agenda. It would have allowed any FEDERAL AGENT authorized
by the federal government to carry a firearm (FBI, BATF, IRS, Park
Ranger, Postal Inspector, etc) to enforce PENNSYLVANIA LAWS down to
the summary offense level. In addition they would have been given
immunity both criminal and civil for any actions they took while
enforcing those laws. This means that they could have enforced any
state or local law down to, but not including, parking and speeding
tickets. This bill essentially federalized all state and local laws
(felonies and misdemeanors).
* Senate Bill #806, Regular Session of 1995 (printer's No. 855)
introduced by Melissa Hart, et. al. would amend the state
constitution to relax the state limitations on search and seizure. It
makes the State Constitutions provisions on search and seizure in
conformity with the fourth amendment to the federal constitution as
interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Presently the State
Constitution is more restrictive on search and seizure than the
Federal Constitution. This also may apply to the definitions of the
taking of property for civil purposes as well as criminal activity.
In essence this bill if passed would have deleted Section 8 of the
Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
* Right of the victim to be confronted by the accuser - In 1996
or 1997 the Pennsylvania Constitution was changed to allow video
taped testimony as evidence in certain types of cases, ostensibly
child abuse cases. However, there was enough vagueness in the wording
to allow for expanded use of this type of testimony.
* S.B. 653 - Roving Wire Tap Bill This similar bill was part of
the federal anti-terrorist legislation package, but was removed as
being far too intrusive. It was picked up by the Council of State
Governments and pushed at the state level throughout the 50 states.
This if passed allows
1. Roving taps The warrant, allowing the tap, defines a specific
individual rather than a specific phone or communication line.
Therefore, any communication device that individual uses or to whom
he makes a call can be tapped. If an individual calls a another
person, that person and any one he/she calls can be tapped arising
from the call initiated by the first person on whom a warrant has
been issued.
2. "Good faith" wire taps If a specific warrant was not issued
prior to the tap, it can be introduced as evidence if the police were
acting in good faith! See subsection 5a above relative to the roving
feature.
3. Allows any other "police agency" (state, federal, or local
government entity) to tap the phone lines of Pennsylvania residents
without securing a warrant or notifying Pennsylvania authorities.
4. Trial by Jury A ballot Initiative has passed that amends the
state constitution to allow the prosecutor to demand a trial by jury.
Currently the accused can specify a jury or non-jury trial. This
provision can make it cost prohibitive for an ordinary citizen to
challenge wrongful prosecution.
Russ Laing
302 Mental Health Abuse Victim
By way of introduction I am a resident of Allegheny County who, in
early 1996, was twice illegally subjected to brief mental health
detentions under Section 302 of the PA Mental Health Act of 1976, in
an outrageous and illegal manner.
My record is spotless, (I don't even have points on my traffic
record). I was never alleged to have made any threat or
public/private disturbance in either of the two detentions, I hold a
responsible job as a senior member of management at the parent
company of Allegheny General Hospital. I was committed without a
warrant on both occasions by a local (within Allegheny County) police
department, and in neither case was I ever subjected to any kind of
hearing or other formal adjudication.
My case was heard in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
before Judge David Cercone. There were a total of four hearings
utilizing three different members of the District Attorney's Office.
Initially the Judge granted a motion to have my seized valuable gun
collection returned. He then reversed himself and revoked the
original order, without comment. Although I passed the original as
well as court requested psychological examinations with flying colors!
In the final hearing, Assistant District Attorney, Dan Fitzimmons
stated that the 2nd amendment only pertained to the National Guard.
He then cited the provisions of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Crimes
Code governing firearms. Stating that once an Act 302 has been
initiated, regardless of outcome the individual is barred from owning
or possessing a firearm for life! All guns are confiscated without
due process or financial compensation.
Mr. Fitzimmons further argued that even if he upheld my claim that
the provisions of Act 17/66 were overruled that this brief
psychiatric detention of less than five days (Section 302) never
involving any adjudication (such as a warrant or a hearing before a
judge, mental health officer or other lawful authority) may,
nonetheless, constitute being "involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric institution" and therefore preclude firearm ownership
under FEDERAL firearms law.
Both detentions have not only violated Pennsylvania mental health
laws but also my Constitutional Rights to Due Process and unlawful
search and seizure.
To continue my fight, I have retained a second attorney to file a
case seeking to have the local police either justify their actions in
subjecting me to a psychiatric detention, or else have both
"commitments" overturned. In the 2nd episode, the local version of
Barney Fife and company surrounded my home for some 40 minutes with
their guns drawn. They then stormed into my house to find me sleeping
in my bedroom-and all this without a warrant or any other permission
from anyone to enter my home! I feel that I have been in a Stephen
King version of "Andy of Mayberry."
Copyright 1998, by Firearms Owners Against Crime - P.O. Box 74 Presto, PA 15142
###
Gun Registry Law Suit - ACSL et. al. vs. Tom Ridge
<http://w
ww.nauticom.net/www/acsl/register/registration.html>
NRA-ILA Staffers Keep Silent on Gun Legislation? (Ridge's Refusal to
fund Compliance Audit on Pennsylvania Instant Check System to protect
State Police registry)
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 11:43:02 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03466
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:43:00 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA15160; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:41:18 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Politically Incorrect Supporters of Bill Maher
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:35:59 -0400
To: amccormick@home.com
From: Ann
Subject: Fwd: Re: I Support Bill Maher!
If you value free speech and don't like censorship... Pass It On!!
(sorry for any duplicates.. delete the extras)
If you have any ideas or comments pertaining to the site contact me
or John @ john@hlinko.com
Thanks!
ann
>From: SupportBillMaher@millionflagmarch.com
>Subject: Re: I Support Bill Maher!
>To: ann@compassionatemoms.org
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 03:22:29 -0700
>
>Thanks for signing the "support Bill Maher" petition! Now forward
>this email to friends, and get them to sign as well.
>-----------------------
>I'm helping start a campaign. Can you take a few seconds to help?
>
>Bill Maher is being unfairly condemned for comments he made on
>Politically Incorrect. Sponsors have pulled their advertising, ABC
>may cancel the show, and the worst part is that he didn't even say
>the things he was accused of saying.
>
>Our nation is in the midst of a crisis, and we must stand together.
>But we can't allow a small, shrill group to exploit this crisis to
>destroy the reputation of a fellow citizen. That's why we've
>started a petition expressing support for Bill, and asking ABC and
>his sponsors to do the same.
>
>If you agree, please go to http://www.millionflagmarch.com/bill/ and
>sign our petition. Thanks for your help.
###
Bill Maher was right!
----------
by Debbie Schlussel
Schlussel defends Maher against the "silly" backlash that
has accompanied his statement that US foreign policy is
"cowardly." (09/21/01)
And...
'Politically Incorrect' apologizes for political incorrectness
----------
Bill Maher, the irreverent host of late-night talk show
'Politically Incorrect,' apologized for saying some U.S.
military actions were 'cowardly.' The retraction came in
the wake of Sears and FedEx cancelling commercials.
(09/19/01)
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 11:47:27 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03784
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:47:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA15518; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:48:09 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Gun Control and the WTC Tragedy by Dan Mahony
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id LAA03784
Gun Control and the WTC Tragedy
by Dan Mahony
The destruction of the WTC last week was the greatest tragedy in the
history of the Western hemisphere. It may be the be the greatest
man-made tragedy in the history of the world, dwarfing the bombings
of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden and the sacks of Rome and
Constantinople. Unfortunately, it was also the most successful
military action of all time.
Hot air-filled politicians and moronic teleprompter-reading TV
pundits are now beating the war drums. Their propaganda and
thoughtless blather may start an almost unimaginable round of attack,
counter attack, and escalation that could eventually lead to nuclear
and biological Armageddon. When the time comes, it will be
interesting to see how many members of these two odious groups will
be in the first wave of assault troops parachuting into Afghanistan.
Instead let me make a simple suggestion that may have eliminated the
murderous hijackings in the first place.
The second amendment to the US Constitution did not give, it only
recognized the preexisting and inalienable right of a free people to
keep and bear arms. George Washington of late memory said in his
first address to Congress "no man should scruple or hesitate for a
moment to use arms in defense." On Tuesday the federal government -
against reason, law and history - actively disarmed every innocent
citizen before they boarded the four doomed planes.
No one alive in 1970 could imagine a planeload of feminized and
unarmed Americans sitting quietly by while 3-5 box-cutter wielding
highjackers heads turned their plane into third world cruise
missiles. Instead any of the handful of then legally armed Americans
on a typical plane would have dispatched their tormentors quickly.
These ordinary Americans may or may not have saved their plane, but
surely they would have saved the World Trade Center and its thousands
of innocent victims.
For thirty years closet totalitarians like Senator Hilary Clinton and
Senator Chuckie Schumer have worked tirelessly to disarm the US
population. Well-financed and unending propaganda has convinced many
sensitive moderns that abandonment of any right to personal
self-defense is the natural state of man.
Both of our NY Senators travel in armored cars with multiple
well-armed guards ready to protect them. Look at what they do and not
what they say. What is it that they know about their own personal
safety that they do not profess in public and what special privilege
are these worthies unwilling to share with ordinary citizens?
What is to be done? I propose the following easy and wholly voluntary
experiment. Airlines should be allowed to offer two separate types of
flights-"Second Amendment Right-to-Carry Flights" and "Weapons-Free
Flights".
"Right-to-Carry" flights would not require carry on baggage
inspection or intrusive and clumsy metal detectors at the gate.
Citizens using these flights could drive to the airport swiftly
embark and fly off.
Money thus saved would pay for the delay, sophisticated equipment,
personnel and extra holding rooms needed to do full body searches on
everyone flying on the "Weapons-Free Flights". This money would also
pay for special government certificates issued to each of these
passengers stating that they are, in fact, on a weapons-free flight.
Citizens can freely choose their flight of choice.
True to form the bureaucrats are already suggesting even more
draconian schemes to disarm free Americans. I heard the improbably
named Joseph Lawless, Public Safety Director of the Boston MPA, say
that he wants to outlaw even plastic knives in the airport
commissaries. Is this jackass for real or did I accidentally surf
into some sick Comedy Central skit?
Instead we should return to our roots and allow any of our 280
million fellow Americans who wish to protect themselves to exercise
their constitutional right do so. I would feel safer and somehow I
feel most of the victims of the WTC tragedy would agree.
Requiescat in pace.
September 22, 2001
Dan Mahony [dfmahony@yahoo.com] is the managing partner of Lexington
Research Partners a NYC based investment firm.
Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 16:12:57 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA19400
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:12:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA01647; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:17:05 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Clueless CATO Institute Thinks Ban On Knives A Good Thing
Cc: dboaz@cato.org, ieland@cato.org, bill.stewart@pobox.com,
Lizard ,
"Richard B. Boddie"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I usually highly recommend the CATO
Institute as they nearly always take a principled pro-freedom stand
on the issues. Below is an exception. CATO's Ivan Eland writes that
"The ban against sharp metal objects (i.e., knives) aboard aircraft
is a good one." Making airline passengers an even more inviting
target is not something that strikes me as smart idea let alone a
pro-freedom market liberal ideal. In the early 1960s American
airline passengers could carry firearms on their carry on luggage- A
period that didn't see hijackings I might add. It was only after
government regulation via the FAA that effectively emasculated
personal defense from both the pilots and passengers have we seen in
flight terrorism. If you're disappointed with CATO's position I
suggest you contact CATO Executive VP David Boaz .
Write or call the
Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C.
20001-5403, Phone (202) 842-0200, Fax (202) 842-3490]
Don't Give Bin Laden Total Victory
by Ivan Eland , Director of Defense Policy Studies,
Cato Institute
The monstrous and despicable attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade
Center have given the terrorists two victories. We must prevent them
from gaining a third.
The first victory-achieving mass casualties-was obtained with a
nefarious, but deft, lightning strike that converted ordinary
airliners into explosive, building-busting weapons. The second
victory was achieved by inducing first panic, and then fear, into the
American public through the publicity that the attacks received.
The first two victories were wrought by the terrorists' own efforts
but whether they achieve a third victory is up to us. As bad as the
mass casualties and widespread fear were, the worst and most long
lasting scar from the attacks could be an alteration of the American
way of life. Politically, the United States is the freest nation on
earth. Our citizens enjoy freedoms unmatched anywhere in the world.
If the attacks result in the curtailment of American civil liberties
in the name of increased security, the terrorists' triumph will be
complete.
Added airport security might be needed but the measures chosen should
not be applied in a broad and draconian way to show that the U.S.
government is "doing something" about the problem of terrorism. The
government's tendency to overdo its response to crises is well known.
For example, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the
1995 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subway, Congress passed the
draconian Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. That
law reduced civil liberties but did not institute measures that would
have prevented those types of attacks.
Instead, any new airport security provisions adopted should
specifically help address the threat. The ban against sharp metal
objects (i.e., knives) aboard aircraft is a good one. The bans on
electronic ticketing and curbside check-in seem to be an example of
government measures that have only a tangential relationship to the
problem of hijacking. The apparent justification for them is that
terrorists might opt for other means of attack if hijacking with
knives is denied to them. If that is the case, then maybe we should
prohibit all air travel.
Although the public's desire for increased security is
understandable, security measures should not be so onerous that air
travel becomes a nightmare. If the speed limit on the highways were
reduced to 5 miles per hour, many lives could be saved but our
society would grind to a halt (or at least slow down dramatically).
In anything we do in life, we take some risk. Despite the heat of the
moment, terrorist attacks and airplane hijackings are still rare
occurrences.
Terrorism is like water flowing in a stream-it follows the path of
least resistance. Like moving water, which flows around rocks, logs
and other obstacles, terrorists will change their tactics to move
around defenses and attack the weakest point. Terrorism, perpetrated
by loose associations of small shadowy groups, also is hard for
intelligence agencies to detect and is therefore difficult to stop.
We can only institute so many security measures to prevent terrorism
before the burden to an open society is too great.
Therefore, in the long-term, when the dust settles after the
predictable and justifiable military response to this heinous act, we
should ask ourselves why the United States is the target of almost 50
percent of the world's terrorism. That percentage is high for a
nation that is half a world away from most of the world's conflicts,
has no ongoing civil war, and has no hostile neighbors. We should
also ask ourselves whether increased security or intelligence
gathering would trash the civil liberties that make the United States
unique and great. That would be the greatest victory for Bin Laden
and probably the most long lasting tragedy for America.
###
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 16:38:41 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20587
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:38:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA02358; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:28:45 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: The Constitutional Challenge By Charles R. Kesler
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id QAA20587
http://www.claremont.org/precepts/302.cfm
The Constitutional Challenge
By Charles R. Kesler
The 21st century began last Tuesday, with the sickening impact of
jetliners against steel, concrete, and glass. The century arrived
nine months and 10 days late, but then politics doesn't always
observe the calendar.
This is not the first century to begin with a terrorist attack. The
last century commenced, as it were, with the destruction on February
15, 1898, of the U.S. battleship Maine, moored in Havana harbor. More
than two hundred Americans died in the blast. What we would now call
state-sponsored terrorism was immediately suspected as the cause, and
in less than three months the United States and the Empire of Spain
were at war. Less than three months after that, the fighting was over
and America had become a world power, disposing not only of Cuba but
of the far-flung Hawaiian and Philippine islands.
Terrorism soon gave a bloodier hue to events, of course. The 20th
century's peculiar barbarism began in 1914 when a terrorist
assassinated the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The sanguinary thread pulled by that assassin unraveled the states
and nearly the civilization of Europe, unleashing routine mass
slaughter and setting in motion the two tyrannical world-systems,
Soviet Communism and Nazism, whose rise and fall would dominate the
rest of the century's politics.
So we cannot yet discern the ultimate consequences of last week's
attacks on New York and Washington. Whether the carnage piled up by
the terrorists and by our attempts to stamp them out will exceed the
appalling toll accumulated in the last century, we cannot tell. It is
a grim supposition, however, that our enemies like to top themselves,
and that among the terrible surprises they withhold, temporarily, are
weapons biological, chemical, and nuclear. The coming century may be
monstrous, indeed.
Most of us feel this new vulnerability. The country has not suffered
such a calamitous sneak attack since Pearl Harbor. So many Americans
have not died in combat on American soil since Antietam. During the
Cold War we lived with the threat of nuclear attack, but the threat
remained unconsummated and we had the perverse satisfaction of
believing that, if worse came to worse, we'd be avenged almost
instantly. But it is not justice or even vengeance for the hijackers
to have willingly blown themselves up along with their victims.
Our enemies seem to have left us with a stark but simple choice: to
kill them before they kill us. Although there is no denying the good
sense in this advice, in the end it neglects too much the differences
between us and them. "Why We Fight" is a question that a free people
are compelled to answer not merely by invoking the imperatives of
self-preservation but also by reminding themselves of their blessings
and, correspondingly, their duties.
Chief among our blessings is the United States Constitution. Monday
was Constitution Day, marking the 214th anniversary of the
Constitution's signing and its transmission from the Philadelphia
Convention to the U.S. Congress, whither it was sent to special
ratifying conventions in each state.
As American anniversaries go, Constitution Day is a small one, not
even an excuse for a long weekend. But after the savage attacks of
last week, the Constitution suddenly seems more precious, its virtues
heightened and brought closer to home. It is the nature of evil to be
a sort of privation, a negation of what is good; and in reflecting on
the Constitution's goodness we celebrate all those principles that
our enemies hold in contempt.
Human dignity; the rule of law; the equal rights of men and women;
limited government; separation of powers; the consent of the
governed; due process of law; separation of church and state; freedom
of speech and religion -- these are the glories of our constitutional
order. To the tyrants who struck New York and Washington, however,
these are a syllabus of errors.
The World Trade Towers and the Pentagon are symbols of America's
commercial civilization and its military might -- the things that
together used to be called "the arsenal of democracy." But they are
not symbols of democracy per se.
One of the hijacked planes was apparently aimed for the White House.
As symbols, the White House and the Capitol Building come close to
the heart of American republicanism. Their destruction would have
been a grievous, grievous blow -- but one from which the country
would have recovered. After all, the British Army torched both
buildings during the War of 1812 and America bounced back smartly.
Though aiming squarely for American democracy, the terrorists missed
their target last week. You can shatter and implode a building, but
you can't so easily destroy a Constitution.
Already we see the remarkable way in which the Constitution's spirit,
far in advance of any legal proceedings, encourages Americans to
restrain themselves and to rally around the rule of law -- hence, for
example, the ubiquitous and welcome calls to respect the rights of
law-abiding Muslim citizens and resident aliens. It's also a good
sign that Americans are questioning the bureaucracy and loss of
personal freedom threatened by some of the new security measures. A
liberty-loving people should be spirited.
But the acid test of our Constitution's health will be the energy
with which Americans are able to defend themselves and to subdue our
enemies. In the 21st century as before, the Constitution gives us the
tools. Will we be able to finish the job?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles R. Kesler is editor of the Claremont Review of Books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pages copyright © 2001 The Claremont Institute
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Tue Sep 25 16:41:00 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20864
for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:40:59 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.218] (cmhda.coil.com [198.4.94.218]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA02705; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:35:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:33:57 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: When the FBI Guys Come Knocking...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:08:00 EDT
Title: Op-Ed in today's LA Daily News: When the FBI Guys Come Knocking...
By: Dr. Riad Z. Abdelkarim
Email: RiadZuhdi@aol.com
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
When the FBI guys come knocking, it's the worst of times
By Riad Z. Abdelkarim
The ring at my doorbell that Sunday afternoon was
innocent enough. I set aside my laptop computer and my
half-eaten Chicken McNuggets and went to the door.
When I first peered out and saw two sharply dressed
men in business suits and dark sunglasses, I thought I
was being visited by a pair of friendly Jehovah's
Witnesses.
As I opened the door, however, it struck me that these
men were a bit older than the young men of faith who
usually canvassed the neighborhood.
Any lingering doubt about their identities was
immediately erased when the two men flashed their
badges and announced -- in true X-Files fashion --
that they were with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
"What can I do for you gentlemen?" I asked.
My initial puzzled reaction turned to concern when
they explained that they wanted to speak with me
"about the events of last Tuesday," obviously
referring to the horrible terrorist attacks against
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I told them that I would be happy to speak with them
if they made an appointment to meet me later at the
local office of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, where I served as a member of the board of
directors.
Although the agents were somewhat taken aback by my
request, they ultimately agreed. An appointment was
made for the following evening, but the agents never
appeared to interview me nor did they call to
reschedule the meeting.
The next morning, I awoke ill and asked that my clinic
patients be rescheduled before stepping out to pick up
some over-the-counter medication.
During this time, two other agents visited both my
home and work place. When the agents did not find me,
they warned my wife ominously that they "would keep
coming back."
I was finally able to reach one of the agents by
cellular phone, and I made an appointment to meet him
and his partner at a local coffee shop.
What ensued can best be described as a combination of
a fishing expedition and a scene from a
straight-to-video B-movie.
Holding a thin folder stamped "SECRET" in front of
them, the agents initially queried me about my
background. One of them stopped in mid-sentence to
change a question from "When did you come to the
U.S.?" to "Where were you born?"
They appeared somewhat surprised when I mentioned I
was born in Santa Monica, California, and had lived in
Southern California my entire life.
I was then quizzed about my political views with such
vague questions as "Are we the bad guys in this
thing?" I told the agents in no uncertain terms that
there could be no justification whatsoever for the
horrible terrorist attacks that had taken place.
Further, I informed them that my political views are
widely known because I frequently write commentaries
that are published in newspapers around the country.
In fact, in the days following the terrorist attacks,
my commentaries condemning the assaults and expressing
the shared grief and outrage of American Muslims had
appeared in newspapers in California, Texas,
Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, and Madrid,
Spain.
The agents subsequently inquired about my numerous
affiliations with several prominent and widely
respected American Muslim advocacy and relief
organizations. At no time was I asked about any
specific individual, nor was I asked to identify any
suspects in photographs.
The interview's low point came when I asked why the
agents had gone to my clinic, when I had provided them
with a cellular telephone number at which I could be
reached.
Their answer spoke volumes about the aimlessness of
this investigation:
"When we learned that you were out sick, we thought
that our worst fears had been realized -- that you had
fled the country."
I could no longer restrain my laughter.
"Give me a break," I exclaimed incredulously.
To where would I flee? I am an American. I do not
possess nor do I desire any other citizenship.
By the end of the 75-minute ordeal, I was convinced
that the agents were not acting on any specific
information but were instead groping wildly for straws
in the dark.
I found this quite disheartening.
I harbor no ill will toward those agents who
interviewed me. I realize that they were just
following orders. Like other Americans who are Muslims
or of Arabic ethnicity, I earnestly support the FBI's
attempts to vigorously investigate this heinous
terrorist act and bring those responsible to justice.
What I do not appreciate is being singled out for
questioning merely because of my faith, my ethnicity
or my legitimate political activism.
As noted in a Christian Science Monitor editorial this
week, "to have FBI agents with no preparatory contact
knocking on the doors of Arab or Muslim citizens with
no clear ties to acts of crime is a sure way to
instill fear right where cooperation is most needed."
In legal parlance, this practice is referred to as
"profiling." In my book, it's just plain racism.
And it has no place in my country.
---
Riad Z. Abdelkarim is an American-born, -raised and
-educated physician active in the American Muslim
community. He lives in Southern California.
_________________________________________________
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 07:45:10 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA08145
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:45:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.211] (cmhd3.coil.com [198.4.94.211]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA13597; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:57:33 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:56:13 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Walter Williams- We Should Rebel Against the FAA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Walter Williams
September 26, 2001
Airport safety regulations
Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, Czar Norman, has
ordered new, ill-thought out, oppressive airline regulations in the
wake of recent terrorist attacks. Among them: a ban on knives --
plastic or steel -- anywhere in the airport and on airplanes, even in
kitchens, no curbside check-in, restricted carry-on luggage, no
visitors beyond security checkpoints and who knows what else.
[...]
The new air safety regulations are consistent with today's anti-crime
strategies: If people commit crimes with guns, call for gun control;
if people commit crimes with knives, call for knife control. Current
law prohibits pilots from having guns to protect their crew and
passengers. That law should be changed.
Instead of meekly going along with the FAA's new, costly, oppressive
and stupid safety regulations, Americans should rebel against them.
Are we so timid and feminized that we'll accept anything politicians
do in the name of safety?
###
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 10:50:38 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19321
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:50:36 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA24309; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:58:59 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Cato's David Boaz Responds To Ban On Knives
Cc: "David Boaz" , ieland@cato.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 10:23 AM -0400 9/26/01, David Boaz wrote:
>Dear Mr. Gaylor:
>
>You know, I might even agree with you on this one. When you've got 100
>employees writing hundreds of articles, it's hard to agree with every clause
>of every article. And I might even be willing to engage you in dialogue
>about it if you hadn't encouraged every person with an email account to
>flood my inbox with messages -- as if the justice of a position was
>determined by the number of angry emails it generates. That's not my idea
>of rational debate.
>
>Also, next time you attack us, could you spell our name right?
>
>David Boaz
Matthew Gaylor responds:
I would hope it's not a debatable point when your Director of Defense
Policy, Ivan Eland thinks victim disarmament is a good idea when he
states "The ban against sharp metal objects (i.e., knives) aboard
aircraft is a good one." [See
].
I think libertarian economist Walter Williams has the correct, and
libertarian attitude when he wrote: "The new air safety regulations
are consistent with today's anti-crime strategies: If people commit
crimes with guns, call for gun control; if people commit crimes with
knives, call for knife control. Current law prohibits pilots from
having guns to protect their crew and passengers. That law should be
changed. Instead of meekly going along with the FAA's new, costly,
oppressive and stupid safety regulations, Americans should rebel
against them. Are we so timid and feminized that we'll accept
anything politicians do in the name of safety?" [See:
].
So my question to Mr. Eland is why is he willing to accept FAA
regulations over freedom? And isn't Ben Franklin still right when he
wrote: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?
Regards, Matt-
{Note this message is being sent to Freematt's Alerts, multiple
thousands of subscribers worldwide.}
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 11:01:50 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA20072
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:01:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA25372; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:18:19 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Jim Ray On Clueless CATO Institute Thinks Ban On Knives A Good
Thing
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:05:05 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: "James M. Ray"
Subject: Re: Clueless CATO Institute Thinks Ban On Knives A Good Thing
Cc: dboaz@cato.org, ieland@cato.org
Dear Mr. Boaz.
The position taken against knives is illogical, and will extend the
unsafe condition that the FAA has thrust upon the American public.
Please click the following link:
http://www.tlknapp.net/bieser091101frames.html
that's how I and dozens of others feel about all this. I'm also thankful
for the Internet, because many pilots are very eloquent, and they've
described speeches they've given, telling their (few, these days...)
passengers that because everyone's disarmed, there may have to
be a command to swarm any potential suicidal hijacker, suggesting
using the blankets, etc. This obviously happened spontaneously on
(at least) one of the hijackings.
Think about it. Does CATO want law abiding citizens to be better able
to help the captain (who, but for the FAA, could have a revolver with
highly frangible ammo if he/she chose to) in an emergency? Matt is
being kind with the word "clueless." You've been inside the beltway
for too long -- it's a cultural thing (and I perfectly understand, those
are some fabulous parties -- the best!) but this isn't cluelessness, it's
STATISM! -- Yep, the ultimate libertarian-insult. Of course, it's also
clueless in that there are ceramic knives. They exist! Deal with it, if
you have 19 people willing to die things can get bad, and will.
CATO has done just what the news media have done, and failed to
blame the results of FAA-disarmament on (shudder) the FAA! You're
either turning into statist idiots, or the mushrooms on your pizza are
better than you think. Anyway, when CATO spouts stuff like this, it's
time to look at Brookings just to see if there's ANY difference left!
JMR
Regards, James M. Ray
"It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Supreme
Court justices and other constitutional interpreters have typically
fled from the hard moral judgments called for by the Ninth
Amendment." -- Steven Macedo, _The New Right v. The
Constitution_ p. 7.
PGP = 0xAE141134
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 11:15:02 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA20805
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:15:00 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA25987; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:28:22 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Law and War by Jonathan Wallace
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: jw@bway.net
To: freematt@coil.com
Subject: Year zero: War and law
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 03:04:57 GMT
Year Zero
Law and War
by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
September 24, 2001
Year Zero is an episodic series of essays on ethical and practical
implications of the present crisis. Subscribe here:
http://www.greenspun.com/spam/home.tcl?domain=ethspec
The Year Zero page is at http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/
Since Tuesday morning September 11, a certain number of people I
respect have issued calls to treat the killing of 6,000 people in a
few hours that morning as a crime justiciable under law, rather than
an act addressable by war. I think this view is based on a very
substantial misapprehension.
Our system of law is based, as is everyone's, on a couple of linked
assumptions that we don't have occasion to examine very often. First,
law for its full-fledged functioning--as a system, rather than merely
an aspiration--requires some prior stability. Second, that stability
is acquired in part by a judicious application of force, according to
the "rules of law", and therefore with certain checks and balances
applied.
In order to prosecute the people who bombed the World Trade Center in
1993, we had to lay hands on them first. That is the role of force in
connection with the rule of law. We arrested and tried a handful of
co-conspirators who had carried out the assault, but we were never
able to try the people behind them, who were inaccessible to the
F.B.I. and the New York City police.
Law without force is a sham. Like World Court decisions, which are
not binding on any country that chooses to disregard them, court
rulings against Osama bin Laden or others responsible for the mass
murders on Tuesday morning will have no effect if we are not in
physical possession of the perpetrators.
How do you propose to get hold of them, so that legal sanctions can
be effective? Most of the advocates of law over war simply choose not
to answer the question. Professor Francis Boyle, a human rights
advocate, mapped out a legal campaign against Afghanistan which
starts with the invocation of an international treaty against
sabotage signed by both that country and the U.S. The next step
involves petitioning Afghanistan to withdraw its reservation to World
Court jurisdiction, and so on. Nowhere in Professor Boyle's roadmap
is the simple necessary step: "Arrest the defendant."
At a time when two 767's have just slammed into two tall towers,
killing 6,000 people as a geopolitical chess move of awful
brilliance, Professor Boyle's recommendations seem impossibly naive.
While we appeal to international tribunals and ask Afghanistan to
comply voluntarily (an initiative which has already failed), the
adversary will continue fighting back, with bombs, not briefs.
Professor Boyle's idea involves the ultimate in asymmetrical warfare.
Here is what I regard as a simple, striking idea: the police force
required to insure that the rule of law is meaningful in this case is
the United States military. If, in the course of an action
forestalling further harm like the terrible suffering and destruction
caused on September 11, we happen to gain custody of bin Laden,
putting him on trial in New York would be perfectly appropriate. In
fact, it would be far more justifiable than Nuremberg was. Nuremberg
was a post facto attempt to hold governmental actors responsible for
acts they had committed within their own borders, under an
international law of war crimes which did not yet exist. Bin Laden is
not a governmental actor, and in any event, jurisdiction over him for
acts committed within United States borders is clearly appropriate.
Even if Bin Laden somehow fell into our grasp tomorrow, without any
attempt first being made to roll up the Al-Quaeda and related
organizations, the application of legal procedure to him without
military backing would not guarantee the security of the judges and
juries we would be asking to act on our behalf. Crime raised to the
level of war warps our system out of shape. The Sicilian mafia fought
back by murdering prosecutors and judges, who became unwilling to
proceed without military protection. In recent years, we have seen a
similar phenomenon in Columbia, where it has been unsafe to be a
judge acting against the narcoterrorists or against death squads. If
we are not willing in such situations to apply the level of force
necessary to guarantee the security of our legal system, then we are
asking jurors and jurists to sacrifice themselves for nothing.
Law enforcement and war lie on a spectrum and it is hard to say
exactly where one shades into the other. The real question is what is
the appropriate level of force to apply in order to guarantee the
stability and efficacy of the legal solution. Conducted carefully,
the actions we now take against bin Laden, rather than being a
revenge "crusade", will be a war for law.
---
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 11:32:12 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21905
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:32:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA27130; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:45:18 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Dennis Walker on perceived safety that turns us into subjects
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I've known Dennis Walker for many years.
Dennis serves on the central committee of the Republican Party of
Franklin Co, Columbus, Ohio. Dennis was selected as The Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Grass Roots Activist of
the Year Award recipient for 2001. See: http://www.ccrkba.org .]
To: freematt@coil.com
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:22:26 -0700
Subject: The Fourth Amendment
From: "2nd. Amend"
Amendment IV.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized."
Is America dead, or just dying a slow death in the aftermath
of the heinous attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001? Is freedom to die a long, slow incremental death
because people are scared? Or can the American people stand up to
the ineffectual security measures being imposed on us?
Most of the new security imposed at airports are laughable at
best. Having spoken with a security expert at the recent Gun Rights
Policy Conference, he said the new security procedures were a joke.
Others that flew said they really weren't searched. One attendee had
to surrender his butane lighter but was allowed to take pens on with
him.
There is increased security at federal buildings and the post
office, which brings me to the crux of this missive. Last week I
took a mailing over to the Main Post Office in Columbus, Ohio. It
was an issue of the PROponent newsletter. In preparing the mailing,
I made a mistake which was caught by the alert postal employees. The
post office called on Thursday morning and said I had to come in and
correct the mistakes. I said I would be in Monday as I was going out
of town. They said ok.
When going over to the post office to get mailing trays, I
had to tell a young uniformed security guard why I was going into the
bulk mail area. No big problem. When the mail was taken over, the
driver was asked for his driver's license. A bit intrusive, but
bearable.
On Tuesday afternoon when I pulled up to the stop sign, a
young woman said she had to check the trunk of my van. I tried to
say I was only going in to correct my mailing. She walked around the
back of my van and tried the doors. They were locked. She came back
to the driver's window and told me she had to search the back of the
vehicle. I asked why and she said security. I replied no thank you
and left.
I called the lady at the post office and told her we had a
problem in that I couldn't get into the post office. She asked why
and I said they wanted to search my vehicle and I refused. She said
something about security in a federal building. I replied that they
had no search warrant and that they weren't going to search my
vehicle. How was I to correct my mailing. She said I had to have my
vehicle searched. I replied that was unacceptable.
For those of you who know me, I was calm, polite and
respectful. She said she would have her supervisor call me about the
problem. I thanked her and hung up. About ten minutes later, her
supervisor called and we went through the same conversation again.
It ended up with her saying she would have the Postal Inspectors call
me. I thanked her and hung up.
After another ten minutes, the supervisor called me back and
said when I pulled up to the search point, I was to tell the security
person to call her and she would come out and verify who I was. I
again thanked her and hung up.
Tomorrow morning I will see what happens. And yes, the van
will be sanitized.
If we allow ourselves to submit to incidents such as this,
then the terrorists have won and America loses. The person wanting
to search my vehicle had no police powers that I could see. She wore
no firearm. Nor did she have probable cause or a warrant. Nor did
she demand a full vehicle search which would have included looking
under the vehicle with mirrors and looking under the hood. Nor was
there a bomb sniffing dog available.
Yes, we had a terrible atrocity committed in New York
City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, but to succumb to any
infringement of our Bill of Rights will allow the terrorists to win.
They will have forced Americans to surrender precious freedoms in
exchange for perceived safety. Perceived safety that does absolutely
nothing to protect us from terrorists. Perceived safety that turns
us into subjects.
Dennis Walker
NATO Doctrine in defense of the Second Amendment
Peoples Rights Organization is Ohio's most active grassroots
group in the fields of Education, Legislation and Litigation.
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 11:57:31 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23302
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:57:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28485; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:07:05 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Jailings Stirs Questions on Detainees' Rights to Representation
and Bail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[...]
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft reported Monday that 352 people
were being held as part of the investigation. Of that number, 98 were
being detained on suspicion of violating immigration laws, while 254
were held on other charges, including traffic offenses, misdemeanors
and identification fraud.
Lawyers and legal scholars contacted yesterday said they could not
recall a time when so many people had been arrested and held without
bond on charges -- particularly minor charges -- unrelated to the
case at hand. They noted that the Supreme Court permits such
detentions when authorities believe an individual has information
important to another case.
[...]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 12:05:29 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23783
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:05:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28903; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:13:48 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: National ID Card Push Roils Privacy Advocates
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
National ID Card Push Roils Privacy Advocates
By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
25 Sep 2001, 3:43 PM CST
In 1986, while the government of Australia was drafting legislation
requiring citizens to carry a national identification card, civil
liberties advocates formed Privacy International, a group dedicated
to sharing information on similar movements around the globe.
The Australian government later dropped the plan after citizens
literally rioted in the streets in protest.
But in the wake of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, talk of a national
ID system among lawmakers in the United States, U.K., and Australia
is once again putting privacy groups on the defensive.
"This issue is like a bad case of herpes," said David Banisar, deputy
director for the global privacy group. "No matter how many times you
try to treat it, it just keeps coming back."
Over the past two weeks, a number of House and Senate lawmakers have
begun toying with the idea of a national identification card, or
adding a biometric identifier such as a fingerprint to all Social
Security cards.
Banisar said the calls for a national ID card in response to the
recent attacks are misplaced, noting that nearly all of the
terrorists who directly participated in the attacks were in the
United States legally. Banisar added that the primary targets of such
a system would almost certainly be Latin American immigrants.
"The reality is that ID cards will do very little to stop this sort
of stuff, but it will make it much easier to track everybody else for
any number of purposes," he said. "In the end, this would simply give
legal justification for all kinds of profiling that we've seen so
many bad examples of in the past few years."
[...]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 14:08:41 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00915
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:08:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA01687; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:58:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:56:43 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Ohio man's "obscene" sex journal is now public
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:43:55 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh
Subject: FC: Ohio man's "obscene" sex journal is now public
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/
X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/
[Now how long will it take some enterprising person to go to the
courthouse, pay the clerk to photocopy the journal, scan it in, and
post it on the web? Of course, it might be a good idea not to do that
from within Ohio's borders... --DBM]
Background:
"Judge says Ohio man with dirty diary can't change guilty plea"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02468.html
*********
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/news/news01/sep0
1/855902.html
Graphic sex journal made public as plea battle continues
Saturday, September 22, 2001
Tim Doulin
Columbus Dispatch Staff Reporter
A journal that Brian Dalton had hoped to keep private when he pleaded guilty
to a pandering obscenity charge is now a public document.
Dalton's 14-page journal, written in the first person and graphically
depicting the torture and molestation of young children, was filed yesterday
in Franklin County Common Pleas Court by prosecutors opposed to letting him
withdraw that guilty plea.
[...]
Miller has scheduled an Oct. 3 hearing to consider arguments.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 14:22:51 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01761
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:22:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.230] (cmhe6.coil.com [198.4.94.230]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA00997; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:47:55 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:46:39 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Pilots debate tough tactics to foil attacks
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From the Chicago Tribune
Pilots debate tough tactics to foil attacks
By Flynn McRoberts and Rogers Worthington
Tribune staff reporters
September 26, 2001
Gone, for now, is the chatter within flight crews about weather,
flight paths and what to do once they reach their destination. Thanks
to the events of Sept. 11, pilots across America are preparing their
co-pilots and flight attendants for trouble.
In e-mails and pilot lounges, they are swapping ideas about how to
fight back against hijackers: packing firearms, using coffeepots and
cockpit crash axes as weapons, or rolling the plane so attackers are
knocked off their feet.
At least one pilot even urged passengers to rise up and pummel
attackers. It was just the most dramatic example of how, since
terrorists converted jetliners into guided missiles, flight crews
have abandoned the painfully obsolete idea that a hijacker merely
wants ransom money or a trip to Cuba.
As their union leaders and Bush administration officials disagreed
Tuesday on a range of proposals--from arming pilots to federalizing
airport security--pilots and flight attendants continued the debate
in America's cockpits and cabins:
How far should they go in enlisting passengers in the potential fight
against would-be terrorists without scaring most of their customers
away?
That debate has broadened to the flying public with the wide
circulation of one account--a United Airlines pilot who tutored
passengers over the PA system on how to foil any potential hijackers.
"Everybody stand up at once and start throwing things at this person
and his confederates if he has any," Peter Hannaford, a former Reagan
aide, recalled the pilot as saying. "Throw anything you can: shoes,
pillows, books, magazines, even eyeglasses and especially blankets.
Somebody try to rush him and get a blanket over this person and
tackle them to the ground." Hannaford said the passengers on board
the flight from Denver to Dulles applauded. So did many other pilots
who later heard the story.
[...]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Wed Sep 26 17:11:25 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11577
for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:11:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.213] (cmhd5.coil.com [198.4.94.213]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA17638; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:15:34 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Cc: gillespie@reason.com, davidn@reason.org, tcmay@got.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Again more defeatist compromising
commentary. Reason Magazine's contributing editor Cathy Young
writes: "Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt
electronic communications so that they are beyond surveillance?
Frankly, I found it scary even before Sept. 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." In this case I
found Cypherpunk Tim May's sarcastic comment right on
the money. Tim writes: "Between Cato arguing for victim disarmament
and Reason arguing that "right to liberty is preceded by the right to
life," I say we just kill them all and let Rand sort them out." If
you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing please
write to Nick Gillespie Editor-in-Chief of
Reason Magazine and David Nott President, Reason
Foundation.]
September 24, 2001
Civil liberties may take a hit
By Cathy Young
It's such a cliche to say that the reality hasn't sunk in yet -- but
it's true. Despite all the devastating images, part of me still
doesn't belive that the Twin Towers are no more, or that the station
where I have so often arrived in downtown New York by local train
station from New Jersey lies under a pile of rubble, or that
thousands are dead in what is unquestionably the most devastating
terrorist act ever committed, not just on American soil but anywhere.
And there are so many other cliches that come so easily right now and
that are true: above all, that the world will never be the same.
As always, there are those who would exploit an unthinkable tragedy
for their own hateful agendas. On the left, a few commentators, such
as filmmaker-activist Michael Moore, have found this a good time to
decry the sins of American capitalism and US foreign policy for which
we are supposedly being punished by the world's dispossessed.
On the right, a few so-called men of God have found this a good time
to decry the "wickedness" of gays and lesbians, feminists, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and abortion providers, for which we
are supposedly being punished by the Lord.
So far, however, the divisive rhetoric isn't finding many takers.
Americans are united in mourning and just anger. The way we have come
together to help and support those affected by the horror of last
week's bombings shows us at our best as a people.
And yet moments of national unity and resolve are always of concern
to those of us who are concerned with the expanding powers of the
state and the fate of individual rights and civil liberties.
Historically, individual freedom has not fared well in wartime,
understandably so. And whatever military action we may take at the
moment, one of the fears is that a war against terrorism may be, at
least for the foreseeable future, a permanent war.
There are libertarians who say that it doesn't have to be that way.
They argue that, if our government only withdrew from meddling in
regions where we have no real interest, stop playing global
policeman, and limited itself to providing for a national defense
against foreign attack, we wouldn't be a terrorist target.
Alas, this is a myopic position. Aside from whether a 21st century
democracy can survive in isolation, the sort of people who carried
out this monstrous act hate us for much more than our foreign policy.
Note that their targets included not only the Pentagon and
(apparently) Capitol Hill or the White House, but the World Trade
Center - a symbol and a bastion of international capitalism, not of
US military power.
Philosopher David Kelley, director of the Objectivist Center, makes
this point eloquently in an essay on the center's Web site, "The
Assault on Civilization." (which strikes a chord whether or not one
shares the center's philosophy, based on the writings of Ayn Rand).
The fanatics behind the bombings, Kelley writes, hate the West's
cultural power most - "our secular culture of freedom, reason, and
the pursuit of happiness. They hate our individualism; what they want
is an authoritarian society where thought and behavior are controlled
by true believers."
We could stay out of world affairs and they would still hate and fear
our influence.
What to do, then?
To sacrifice our freedoms to fear of terrorism would destroy the very
way of life that we seek to protect and hand the terrorists a
victory. On the other hand, a free society is not a suicide pact.
We will undoubtedly have to put up with tougher security at airports.
The movements of foreign visitors will be scrutinized more closely.
Perhaps most alarming to many civil libertarians, it's likely that
the government will expand its ability to monitor electronic mail,
which has been a controversial issue for some time.
Do I like the idea of the government intercepting e-mail? No. But, as
long as there's judicial oversight and due process, that's no
different from its longstanding power to intercept regular mail.
Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic
communications so that they are beyond surveillance? Frankly, I found
it scary even before Sept. 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.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor to REASON. This column appeared
in the Boston Globe on September 19, 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:22:35 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24252
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:22:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA23275; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:33:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:32:29 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Cathy Young's Anxiety Attack
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt
To:
Cc: , Matthew Gaylor ,
Timothy May , Ron Bailey ,
Declan McCullagh ,
Subject: Cathy Young's Anxiety Attack
Bad enough that a contributing editor to Reason should indulge in the
cliche-ridden handwringing of a statist apologist; far worse that these
less-than-cerebral platitudes should be disseminated via an establishment
publication, where Ms. Young is liable to be seen as a libertarian
emissary.
To Cathy Young: All systems entail risk. As has just been demonstrated,
a government-run system for terrorism-prevention does not eliminate risk.
It only eliminates the superficial appearance of risk. This is far more
dangerous than an honest approach in which risk is recognized and
individuals are encouraged to deal with it instead of running to their
elected representatives and asking to be protected.
"A free society is not a suicide pact"? No, it's a matter of principle,
and of courage. I really think you should reconsider your political
affiliations.
--Charles Platt
Senior Writer, Wired magazine
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:24:22 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24353
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:24:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA24105; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:43:02 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Reason Editor-in-Chief Responds To Young's Defeatist Compromising
Commentary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: "Nick Gillespie"
To: "Tim May" ,
Cc: , ,
,"Charles Platt"
Subject: RE: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:57:57 -0400
All,
I appreciate your response to Cathy Young's recent column that was
originally written for the Boston Globe and posted recently to
reason.com. As I've noted to the Politech list, Young is a highly
valued and often controversial contributor to REASON, both in print
and on line, and I'm happy to post her writings even when I disagree
with her on a specific issue, including encryption and whether the
threat of terrorism should shrink civil liberties.
As you may know, I and other members of the REASON writing community
consistently and adamantly argue in favor of unfettered encryption,
freedom from government oversight, and maximum civil, personal, and
economic liberties in all spheres of human activity. For the
unconvinced, I recommend a wider walk through our site and our print
magazine (including our December issue, which features
Declan McCullagh's contribution--among others--to a symposium about
which civil liberties are most at risk in the government's new total
war against terrorism).
Yours,
Nick
**************
Nick Gillespie
Editor-in-Chief
REASON magazine
**************
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:37:27 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24920
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:37:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA25625; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:10:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:05:55 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Mommy liberty packs a gun
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Mommy liberty packs a gun
----------
by Eliza Gauger
In the wake of September 11, a 17-year old high school
student's drawing of Mommy Liberty is spreading across the
U.S., in newspapers as well as on the Internet, on T-shirts,
and even on coffee mugs. (09/26/01)
http://www.wired.com/news/photo/0,1860,47102,00.html
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:38:58 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24967
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:38:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA25165; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:01:45 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: E-Surveillance Analyses Needed for Internet Caucus Compendium
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: SImparl@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:06:13 EDT
Subject: Fwd: E-Surveillance Analyses Needed for Internet Caucus Compendium
To: freematt@coil.com
Matt,
I am on the Internet Caucus Advisory Committee. Please help, if you
can provide the requested information. Please contact Tim Lordan
with any questions. (His contact information appears at the end of
the e-mail. message.)
Please post this to Freematt's Alerts, if you think your readers will
be interested in this.
Thanks,
Steve Imparl
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:29:48 -0400
Subject: E-Surveillance Analyses Needed for Internet Caucus Compendium
From: Tim Lordan
To:
Internet Caucus Advisory Committee Members (and others):
********* PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY UNTIL Tuesday, October 2, 2001
DEADLINE***************
The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Internet Caucus have called upon the
resources of the Advisory Committee and its members to provide any and all
analyses "of current and future proposals to protect national security and
their impact on the communications infrastructure." (See Co-Chair Letter
September 24 at http://www.netcaucus.org/antiterrorism/letter.gif ).
Therefore, the ICAC staff is asking for any and all analyses and
educational materials on the various anti-terrorism proposals under
consideration on Capitol Hill that affect the Internet or communications
privacy in general. These proposals include: 1) the DOJ anti-terrorism
bill, 2) Rep. Lamar Smith's bill, 3) the Sept. 13 amendment to the CJS
appropriations, and 4) any other bills of being tracked by ICAC members that
were offered in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
We are specifically seeking submissions in the following (overlapping)
categories:
- Title III, including the changes in Title I, subtitle A of the
Administration's bill
- FISA, including the changes in Title I, subtitle B of the Administration's
bill
- ECPA, e.g., the nationwide search warrants in sec. 108 of the
Administration's bill
- Pen Register and Trap & Trace, e.g., section 101 of the Administration
bill
- Encryption
We will compile all the materials we receive and place them into a
Legislative Briefing Compendium and distribute them in printed, online, and
CD-ROM format to Congressional staff.
For this limited instance, you may request that materials be reproduced
without attribution; if you are a law firm, you may submit a memo without
revealing whom it was written for.
If your organization would like to have your analyses included in this
Compendium, please follow the guidelines below.
The Compendium on these electronic surveillance issues is for the sole
purpose of educating Members and staff.
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
The ICAC will accept submissions -- according to the Guidelines below --
until COB Tuesday, October 2, 2001, with the goal of producing the
Compendium and circulating it to Congressional offices on Thursday, October
4. As the deadline draws near, submissions not complying with these
Guidelines risk rejection for lack of time to make necessary revisions.
Each submission should be tailored to a specific section of the Compendium
based on the outline below.
- Title III, including the changes in Title I, subtitle A of the
Administration's bill
- FISA, including the changes in Title I, subtitle B of the Administration's
bill
- ECPA, e.g., the nationwide search warrants in sec. 108 of the
Administration's bill
- Pen Register and Trap & Trace, e.g., section 101 of the Administration
bill
- Encryption
You MUST indicate the appropriate category when submitting. If you have one
document covering more than one category, you have three options: 1) keep it
whole and submit it in the "introduction category" if appropriate; 2)
break it into pieces yourself; or 3) make a request that it remain whole
within a category with pointers from others. Because of the heavy demand and
tight schedule, we cannot promise that requests will be met and we may have
to edit documents if they contain information irrelevant to the outline.
2) Please send materials in an electronic format (e.g. MS Word
[preferred]; WordPerfect, plain text, PDF). Faxes, hard copies and URLs
will NOT be accepted.
3) Materials should include header information in both the email and on the
document.
Please indicate:
* the organization that is submitting (unless submitting without
attribution)
* comments and requests with the contact person of that organization with
their phone number/email.
4) By submitting materials to the Compendium, you are giving us your
assurance that you are giving us all required copyright permissions to
reprint the materials.
5) Email all submissions to briefing@netcaucus.org
An archive of this email will remain at
http://www.netcaucus.org/antiterrorism/ until further notice.
Contact Tim Lordan at 202-638-4370 with any questions.
Tim Lordan
Internet Caucus Advisory Committee
202-638-4370
tim@netcaucus.org
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:53:46 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25796
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:53:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26398; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:18:06 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: John Lott: Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists It's harder to victimize
armed citizens.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id NAA25796
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001226
FIGHTING BACK
Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists
It's harder to victimize armed citizens.
BY JOHN R. LOTT JR.
Friday, September 28, 2001 12:01 a.m.
President Bush yesterday unveiled a plan to tighten airline security,
ranging from employing the National Guard at airports to place more
marshals on flights. Those are important steps, but they won't be
enough, especially since no one knows where the terrorists will
strike next. The only adequate response is to encourage more
ordinary, responsible citizens to carry guns, as Israel has done.
Screening at airports, while important, will always be inadequate;
terrorists will always figure some way to circumvent the controls--
for instance, by bribing airport employees. Strengthening cockpit
doors is probably a good idea, but given current airline design it
may create dangerous differences in air pressure between the cockpit
and cabin. In any case, the door must be opened sometime, to allow
pilots to go to the bathroom or get food.
The marshals program is more promising. Empirical research by Bill
Landes at the University of Chicago found that between a third and a
half of the drop in airplane hijackings during the 1970s could be
attributed to the introduction of armed U.S. marshals on planes and
an increased ability to catch and punish hijackers.
But to put just one marshal aboard every daily flight in the U.S.
would require at least 35,000 officers--far more than currently work
for the FBI, Secret Service and U.S. marshals combined (17,000). And
one marshal might not be enough to foil a whole gang of hijackers, of
the kind used by Osama bin Laden. Clearly it will take a long time to
deploy enough marshals.
There are things we can do in the meantime. There are about 600,000
active state and local law enforcement officers in the U.S. today.
They are currently forbidden from bringing their guns on airplanes.
That should change. They should even be given discount fares if they
fly with their guns. Most pilots have also had military experience.
The request of their union to arm pilots should be granted; this is
what El Al has done for a long time.
Fears of having guns on planes are misplaced. The special, high-
velocity handgun ammunition used on planes packs quite a wallop but
is designed not to penetrate the aluminum skin of the plane. Even
with regular bullets, the worst-case outcome would simply be to force
the plane to fly at a lower altitude, where the air pressure is
higher.
The use of guns to stop terrorists shouldn't be limited to airplanes.
We should encourage off-duty police, and responsible citizens, to
carry guns in most public places. Cops can't be everywhere.
In Israel, about 10% of Jewish adults have permits to carry concealed
handguns. To reach Israel's rate of permit holding, Americans would
have to increase the number of permits from 3.5 million to almost 21
million. Thirty-three states currently have "right-to-carry" laws,
which allow the law-abiding to obtain a permit if they are above a
certain age and pay a fee. Half of these states require some
training. We should encourage more states to pass such law, and
possibly even subsidize firearms training.
States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent
crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings--the type of attack
most associated with terrorism. Bill Landes and I found that deaths
and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80% after
states passed right-to-carry laws.
Passing right-to-carry laws might even deter terrorist attacks. True,
some terrorists are suicidal, but they still want to cause maximum
carnage. They know the "return" on their terrorism would rapidly
diminish to the vanishing point if faced with gun-wielding "victims."
Mr. Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago
Press, 2000).
Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:53:46 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25804
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:53:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26048; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:11:46 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Richard Stevens On His NRA Membership
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Stevens
Subject: Matt -- Something a little different
To: Matthew Gaylor
Matt,
I renewed my membership to the NRA recently -- mainly
to get the magazine -- and received a "Member Survey"
on September 25, 2001.
The first multiple-choice question was:
"What is your primary reason for owning a firearm?
o- hunting
o- collecting
o- personal/family protection
o- do not own any firearms
o- target
o- other _________________"
Now, I ask all NRA members this question:
"What option -- what huge reason for having a firearm
-- is not even presented on the questionnaire?"
How about:
o- Armed citizen
or
o- Defense against tyranny
NRA members need to ask themselves -- and NRA
management:
why doesn't the NRA even present either of these
options to its membership, when these were *the
reasons* underlying the Second Amendment??
--Richard Stevens
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:54:46 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25858
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:54:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26256; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:21:30 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:14:57 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Senator Smith Introduces Bill Allowing Pilots to Carry Guns
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:46:48 -0400
From: Gun_Owners_of_America@mailmanager.net
Subject: More Action on Arming Pilots
Senator Smith Introduces Bill Allowing Pilots to Carry Guns
-- Please contact your two senators and ask them to cosponsor bill
Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
ACTION: Please contact your two senators and ask them to cosponsor
Sen. Bob Smith's legislation, S. 1463. Do not accept a
non-committal reply. Demand to know whether your senators will
cosponsor the bill. Call 202-224-3121 -- to identify your senators,
as well as to send a pre-written message via e-mail, see the
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
on the GOA website.
(Wednesday, September 26, 2001) -- It appears that the crusade for
concealed carry is gaining momentum -- especially as it applies to
pilots. Here's what has happened in the last two weeks:
* Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 2896 to let pilots carry
guns on airplanes for the purpose of defending not only the lives
of their passengers, but other innocent civilians as well.
* Pilots, en masse, are speaking out in favor of this legislation.
* The Air Line Pilots Association has even petitioned Congress,
asking the legislature to let pilots carry guns.
* Web polls, such as one conducted by CNN with over 100,000 votes,
are finding that the overwhelming majority of the public (72%)
favors arming pilots.
And now, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) has introduced S. 1463 to
accompany the Paul legislation. Similar to the House bill, the
language of S. 1463 is sufficiently flexible so that it would
overturn the current FAA regulation encouraging airlines to veto
firearms for pilots. In addition, it would preempt a rumored FAA
regulation which would absolutely outlaw firearms in the hands of
pilots.
Sen. Smith is prepared to force a vote on his language as soon as
the number and range of Senate cosponsors suggest that the language
would prevail in a Senate vote. Therefore, it is imperative that
we get a massive number of cosponsors on this bill.
IMPORTANT NOTE TO PILOTS: Your role is critical in this battle.
Please make sure that you contact your two senators and that you ask
your fellow pilots to do the same. If possible, arrange for a
meeting with your senators so that you and a couple of other pilots
can meet with them.
DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply
to Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.
Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull
being punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National
Review Online article dated September 16, they state, "There is only
one known instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame
yanked objects across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out
into the sky. That was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie
was not intended to teach real-life lessons about physics." (Go to
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml to read the
entire article.)
Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few
bullets to depressurize a plane. "If one round, or two or three for
that matter pierce the skin [of a plane]," says Dan Todd, a licensed
aircraft engineer for 20 years, "it's not necessarily catastrophic."
Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole,
and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the
desired cabin pressure." Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747
can lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure." (Go to
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2474
for articles dispelling myths relating to guns & planes.)
If you are not currently receiving the full GOA membership benefits
(such as The Gun Owners newsletter in the mail), go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm on the web to sign up; or
call toll-free at 1-888-886-GUNS. GOA's upcoming newsletter will be
a SPECIAL ISSUE entirely devoted to this month's bombing, and will
include some of the best commentary on the myths and realities of
allowing guns on planes.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
Senator Bob Smith has introduced one of the most important bills
this Congress. S. 1463 will help drive a stake into the heart of
terrorism by virtually guaranteeing that no American airplane will
ever be skyjacked again.
S. 1463 will allow pilots to carry guns onto a plane, and thus,
allow them to not only protect the lives of their passengers, but
the lives of other innocent civilians as well.
I urge you to cosponsor this legislation right away.
At a time when Americans are fearful of flying and the airlines are
laying off workers by the thousands; at a time when the economic
aftershocks of the September 11 skyjackings are still reverberating
on Wall Street; it is high time to ensure the absolute safety of
airline passengers.
Please don't believe those fear-mongers who would peddle the
Hollywood myth that a bullet hole in a plane's hull can cause
catastrophic depressurization or force the aircraft to crash. That
is science fiction. Think about all the military planes that, in
the midst of battle, have been riddled with dozens of bullets and
continued flying -- only to land safely miles away.
As noted by author David Kopel and pilot Captain Petteys: "There is
only one known instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame
yanked objects across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out
into the sky. That was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie
was not intended to teach real-life lessons about physics."
Kopel also quotes retired Air Force General James Chambers who
points out that "the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes,
such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration/damage from
bullets from enemy fighter jet machine guns."
It is imperative that America not continue its current policy of
making airplanes into gun free zones. America is rejecting this
idea. The Air Line Pilots Association supports arming pilots.
According to a CNN web poll, 72% of the American public supports
arming pilots.
The Smith legislation may be the most important bill you cosponsor
this year. Again, I urge you to sign on to S. 1463. Gun Owners of
America will keep me abreast as to who is signing on to this bill.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 13:55:01 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25866
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:54:58 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA25750; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:14:13 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:09:34 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: In the Next Chapter, Is Technology an Ally?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
September 27, 2001
In the Next Chapter, Is Technology an Ally?
By KATIE HAFNER
OVER the last two weeks, computer scientists and others who think about
technology have wondered aloud about its likely role in countering
terrorism -- or in carrying it out. Have the limitations and dangers of
technology been overlooked? Where, on the other hand, might technological
innovation emerge or be redirected as a result of recent events?
For Ray Kurzweil, an expert in artificial intelligence and an innovative
figure in computing, the events are already accelerating technologies that
allow work, and people, to be dispersed rather than centralized. Security
experts like Peter Neumann point to the renewed interest - and perhaps
unfounded confidence - in technologies to confirm identities and track
movements.
"Overendowing high-tech solutions is riskful," Dr. Neumann said, "in the
absence of adequate understanding of the limitations of the technology and
the frailties and perversities of human nature."
Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Neumann, a computer scientist at SRI International, a
research group in Menlo Park, Calif., were among six technology experts
invited by Circuits to assess the challenges ahead. The other participants
were Bruce Sterling, a science fiction author who writes frequently about
technology; Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School who has
written extensively on law and the Internet; Severo Ornstein, a retired
hardware engineer and one of the computer scientists who worked on the
original Arpanet, the precursor to the Internet; and Whitfield Diffie, the
inventor of public key cryptography, a method of encoding electronic
communications.
Each has been in the public eye for a decade or more, thinking and writing
about the promise and peril of technology. Some are more sanguine than
others about a high-tech society.
Their discussion, conducted last weekend by e-mail, touched on technology's
possible uses in fostering security and on the issues that will arise along
the way. Here are excerpts from the conversation.
Q. What role will technological innovation play in responding to terrorism?
Lessig These attacks could spur a great deal of technological innovation.
The hard question is whether the innovation will be tailored to protect
privacy as well as support legitimate state interests in surveillance and
control. We as a culture think too crudely about technologies for
surveillance. The conflict is always framed as some grand either/or. But if
we kept pressure on the innovators and, in particular, the government, to
develop technologies that did both, we could preserve important aspects of
our freedom, while responding to the real threats presented by the attacks.
Kurzweil The Sept. 11 tragedy will accelerate a profound trend already well
under way from centralized technologies to distributed ones and from the
real world to the virtual world. Centralized technologies are subject to
disruption and disaster. They also tend to be inefficient, wasteful and
harmful to the environment. Distributed technologies, on the other hand,
tend to be flexible, efficient and relatively benign in their environment
effects.
In the immediate aftermath of this crisis, we already see a dramatic
movement away from meetings and conferences in the real world to those in
the virtual world, including Web- based meetings, Internet-based
videoconferencing and other examples of virtual communication.
Despite the recent collapse of market value in telecommunications,
bandwidth nonetheless continues to expand exponentially, which will
continue to improve the resolution and sense of realism in the virtual
world. We'll see a great deal of innovation to overcome many of the current
limitations.
Diffie Revision of the air traffic control system together with that of
other industrial command and control phenomena will push reliability and
security in computing and computer communications. Such systems may provide
a testing ground for the command and control of ballistic missile defense
systems in which response times may be slower but the spectrum of phenomena
requiring analysis will be broader.
Attempts to control the use of cryptography and other security measures
will make the development of improved command and control networks more
difficult and may impede this task by limiting the people who can
contribute to approved government and contractor personnel.
Lessig This "scenario of terror" was not low tech, for its impact was not
just the impact of the souls who were lost. As powerful was the effect of a
world watching as it occurred. The technology of a networked world meant
that scores of television cameras would be trained on the south tower, to
capture the horror of the delayed second impact. And the extraordinary
impact of these killings in two cities is the product of a heavily
integrated - technologically integrated - world community. Terrorists take
advantage of this technology to have the effect they seek. Elsewhere, in
places without this technology, it would not have the same effect.
Diffie Larry, this is a great observation. I wonder if it will be possible
to discover whether the attackers had that subtlety of thought.
Q. Larry Lessig says that the hard question is whether innovation will be
tailored to protect privacy as well as support legitimate state interests
in surveillance and control. Do you agree that we as a culture tend to
think too crudely about technologies for surveillance? Where do you think
the trade-offs should be?
Neumann The most elaborate technological measures are likely to be
inadequate, misused and subverted. Surveillance is all too easily misused.
Trapdoors in cryptography to facilitate law enforcement can be misused.
Existing system security is seriously flawed. As a result, we must avoid
expecting technological security measures to be adequate in protecting
privacy. So, ultimately, we have a double-edged sword. Techniques to
protect can be used to subvert, attack or otherwise compromise human
rights, nation states and organizations. The problems are inherently human,
and technology can be used for good or bad.
Sterling The question is badly put. I don't worry much about Big Brother
states surveilling average citizens. It's just not cost-effective, and what
Mom says in Peoria just doesn't interest the serious power players in
spydom. I do worry plenty about sneaky political operatives carrying out
dirty-tricks campaigns against the private lives of prominent politicians.
The payoff there is huge. It can destabilize legitimate governments more
effectively than terrorism.
I don't think there's a good trade- off here. If we're going to use
surveillance as a weapon, then we should trust our democratic traditions
and arm the population with it.
Kurzweil The nature of these terrorist attacks and the organization behind
it puts civil liberties in general at odds with legitimate state interests
in surveillance and control. The entire basis of our law enforcement
system, and indeed much of our thinking about security, is based on an
assumption that people are motivated to preserve their own lives and
well-being. That is the logic behind all of our strategies from law
enforcement on the local level to mutual assured destruction on the world
stage. But a foe that values the destruction of both its enemy and itself
is not amenable to this line of attack.
Lessig This is a critically important insight. The real problem we face is
not slowness in technological innovation. The real problem is slowness in
legal and civil rights innovation in response to the technological change.
It was not until the late 1960's that the Supreme Court finally held that
wiretapping was regulated by the Fourth Amendment.
The reason for this failing has lots to do with the way lawyers think. We
are reactive traditionalists. It is hard to think creatively. But if we
used the same kind of innovative creativity that our Framers used in
crafting our government, we could craft creative balances between
technological capabilities and human weakness. Technologies can't be
guaranteed to be used only for the good. But technologies placed within
well-crafted institutional structures can be made more likely safe than not.
Diffie (Disclosure: I am in the protection business.)
In my view the natural trade-off is a broad public right to inquire (i.e.,
listen to the radio, point infrared sensors around, make video recordings,
analyze the data from the sensors with computers, etc.) and the right of
the individual to employ protection from surveillance (cryptography,
insulated walls, wearing a mask, using pseudonyms, etc.). This presumes a
commercial right to make and sell products that support the individual's
desire for privacy.
I read in the documents of the revolutionary era a recognition of a broad
right of the individual to act on self-perceived interest and generally not
to be required to cooperate with someone else's view of those interests.
This seems to me roughly what freedom means. The trends in contemporary
society that most bother me are not so much government use of wiretaps or
video cameras but such things as the requirement that cash transactions
over $10,000 be reported to the I.R.S., that I must show identification to
travel, etc.
Ornstein I think there is a genuine tension between the desire for security
and for privacy/individual freedom. This is just an instance of the more
general conflict between the needs and desires of the individual and those
of the larger society.
Today's technology permits small numbers of people to wreak a
disproportionate amount of havoc. (Without jet airplanes, the hijackers
couldn't have done much damage with their box cutters.) I suspect the
debate about where to draw the security line will probably be ongoing and
will depend on how much damage occurs in the future: The more damage, the
tighter we'll circle the wagons.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 14:00:45 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26138
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:00:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26954; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:30:36 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: White House- People have to watch what they say
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 03:59:40 -0400
From: Paul Spirito
Subject: "a transcription error"
Organization: Nihidyll
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/28/business/media/28TUBE.html
[...]
On Wednesday, Ari Fleischer, the White House press
secretary, denounced Mr. Maher, saying of news
organizations, and all Americans, that in times like these
"people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
When the White House later released the official transcript
of Mr. Fleischer's briefing, the portion of his comments
urging people to "watch what they say" was not included.
When that sparked yet another round of discussion over Mr.
Fleischer's comments, Anne Womack, an assistant to Mr.
Fleischer, said yesterday that the transcript did vary from
the remarks Mr. Fleischer made. She called it "a
transcription error."
[...]
In a more subtle reaction to a break with the unified front,
correspondents for newspapers and television networks said
administration officials stopped returning their phone calls
for a time after they expressed skepticism about the White
House assertion that Air Force One had been threatened by
terrorists. That story was challenged in several news
accounts this week and the White House abruptly stopped
talking about it.
The Bush administration's sensitivity about coverage of the
crisis was also on view this week when the State Department
spokesman, Richard Boucher, criticized the Voice of America
for defying State's wishes and broadcasting a report based
on its interview with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the reclusive
leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia.
[...]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 14:04:49 2001
X-FreePort-Flags: R
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26428
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:04:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26654; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:26:35 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: President Bush on national ID cards; followups to European use
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:29:48 -0400
To: politech@politechbot.com
From: Declan McCullagh
Subject: FC: President Bush on national ID cards; followups to European use
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/
X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/
See also:
"President Bush Nixes National ID Card"
http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/27/1739211&mode=thread
*********
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:09:10 +1000
To: declan@well.com
From: Roger Clarke
Subject: Re: FC: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
>Australia had a fight about this some few years ago (the ID card fans lost):
>http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/
Re the Australia Card scheme, see also:
Just Another Piece of Plastic for your Wallet: The 'Australia Card' Scheme
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/OzCard.html
Prometheus 5,1 (June 1987). Republished in Computers & Society 18,1
(January 1988), together with an important Addendum, published in
Computers & Society 18,3 (July 1988)
Re inhabitant registration schemes, see also:
Human Identification in Information Systems:
Management Challenges and Public Policy Issues
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/HumanID.html
Chip-Based ID: Promise and Peril
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/IDCards97.html
--
Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Fellow Department of Computer Science
The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA
Information Sciences Building Room 211 Tel: +61 2 6125 3666
*********
From: PRGormley@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:40:55 EDT
Subject: Re: FC: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
To: declan@well.com
Not that I am an advocate of national ID Cards, as a criminal defense
attorney my knee-jerk response would be against them - but I seriously
question (bearing in mind my stated position) what we would have left to lose
in terms of personal liberties.
We're already widely tracked by SSN despite FCRA/GLB acts, we already have
passports - aren't we already on a national ID system?
- Paul Gormley
*********
From: "Trei, Peter"
To: "'declan@well.com'" ,
"'joseg@guardiasociados.com'"
Subject: RE: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:43:15 -0400
> Jose M Guardia writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> In fact, a mandatory ID is *current* policy all over Western Europe. I'm
> not implying it should be also in the US, I just wanted to clarify the
> fact
> that it's something "normal" in democratic countries as well.
>
> Best
>
> Jose
>
This is utter nonsense. None of the following Western European
countries require ID cards: Britain, Ireland, Danmark, Norway,
Finland, or Sweden.
WE Countries which do require them include Germany, France
Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.
Outside, WE, none of the following require them: US, Canada,
New Zealand, Australia
(none of the lists above are exhaustive)
Source: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
(this is a good source, and shows how some countries
have successfully prevented governments from imposing ID cards.)
If nations are going to insist on ID cards, they should do them
in an efficient way; tattoo each citizen's name and number on
their forearm. This method is tried and tested, and found very
effective: he or she cannot lose, forget, or lie about their ID.
Peter Trei
*********
From: Puzzleelement@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:44:16 EDT
Subject: Fwd: National ID card - response from German scientist/web publisher
To: declan@well.com
Return-Path:
References:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:48:47 +0200
To: Puzzleelement@aol.com
From: "Dre."
Subject: Re: National ID card
Cc: nancyjoyalvarez@hotmail.com, MBottis@aol.com,
FloridaDemocrat@yahoogroups.com, Csinger7373@aol.com,
SGOODMANTV@aol.com, VINLINE@aol.com, cseiersen@trammellcrow.com,
CitizensForLegitimateGovernment@yahoogroups.com,
fight-the-right@yahoogroups.com, fringefolk@yahoogroups.com,
Dem-FL@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Also sprach Puzzleelement@aol.com um 11:13 Uhr -0400 am 24.09.2001:
>Matt Drudge writes:
>http://www.drudgereport.com/id.htm
>>A proposal for the creation of a national ID card was presented to
>>President Bush in recent days, top government sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
>
>http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.htm
>>``We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized
>>and embedded in the ID card,'' Ellison said in an interview Friday night
>>on the evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.
>>``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,'' he said. [...]
>>``We're quite willing to provide the software for this absolutely free,''
>>he said.
>
>----
>
>(...)
>
>Dear Declan,
>
>According to Drudge, Larry Ellison is now offering to donate the technology
>to create a national ID card. What else would we expect from a firm that
>was created by the CIA:
>
>http://beta.kpix.com/news/scripts/fri5pm.htm#77tz:_Ellison
>
>(...)
C'mon my dear American friends, is that your greatest worry?
In Europe, national ID cards are common in every country since at
least 50 years now, and there have never been any privacy problems.
Even not after the computer-readable IDs were introduced some 15
years ago which caused a lot of resistance on sides of privacy
advocates.
There is much more privacy-relevant activities going on, let me tell
you this as a citizen that has been spied out by you my friends and
allies since my birth (Hi Langley! Hi Fort Mead!).
And the security aspect of the IDs? Do you really think a Florida
Highway Patrol knows how a true Iowa drivers license looks like? Or a
NY cop can tell if he checks an Omaha license?
To base ID'ing on drivers licenses that can be counterfeit by any
skillful 5th-grader is ridiculous! Together with the fact, that after
a move from town A to city B, no-one is required to get registered
with the local authorities (as is in Europe), it is nowhere so easy
for an extremist / militant / terrorist to become invisible...!
[In Germany, when you move and sign a rent-contract with your new
landlord or buy a house, you have to sign a form that your landlord
has to forward to the local authorities. You're requested to see the
local administration office near you and either apply for a new ID
(that lists your residential address) or get an address sticker as a
patch for the old ID which then gets an official stamp.
Of course, that didn't prevent some of the WTC terrorists to rent
apartments in Hamburg, simply because they had absolutely no criminal
history, but at least the police is able to quickly follow the traces
and ID their contacts and helpers...]
BTW, we too have a discussion going on, wether the IDs should include
finger prints, as a "unique mean of ID". But I find the argumentation
very lame: if anyone can manage to counterfeit those sophisticated ID
cards, then including the right fingerprint will certainly be no
obstacle.
But I guess it'll rather be dropped because of the costs to issue new
IDs for 110 M Germans or more than a half billion EU-Europeans
(Easterners and Russians not counted)
One might have to think this over in the age of biometric-ID'ing
coming up, but that's probably beyond the scope of discussion here...
(correct me if I'm wrong!)
best regards
Dre.
p.s. beware of the WTC-vote virus that'll wipe out your hard drive!
for details, please see the below mentioned web site!
*********
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:10:28 +0200
To: declan@well.com
From: Tor Fosheim
Subject: Re: FC: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
Declan,
This needs further clarification. Most EU countries have national ID
cards - passports - but few demand that their citizens carry them at
all times. It is impossible in any modernized nation to get by
without som form of identification, but that does not mean that
states are imposing them on their citizens or that police can stop
any person on the street and demand to see their papers. This is
certainly not the case in european nations, with one exception that I
know of:
In France they have enacted laws for immigration (in the mid-nineties
i believe), where any person of foreign "appearance" - african or
asian - can be asked for their ID at any time. This is the only law I
know of that demands any part of the populace to carry ID cards and
produce them to authorities, and it was not without protest that it
came to life.
In Britain they have been debating national ID cards for ages, and
there seems to be a consensus against them. It remains to be seen
wether events of late will change that, but it just might.
So, there seems to be some confusion about ID-papers and the laws
that govern them. We all have ID papers, but not the laws that allow
them to be checked by police unless they have a court order,
suspiscion of a crime or something similar.
In any case, no european country has anything even close to Ellisons
proposed smart-cards with fingerprints or DNA strings programmed into
them that can be checked against a national database. It is highly
unlikely that it will ever happen either. So is a common EU ID-card,
at least for next ten years or so.
Regards,
Tor Fosheim,
Oslo
*********
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:50:12 +0100
To: declan@well.com, Jose M Guardia
From: Tim Dedopulos
Subject: Re: FC: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
Hi Declan, Jose
>In fact, a mandatory ID is *current* policy all over Western Europe.
>I'm not implying it should be also in the US, I just wanted to
>clarify the fact that it's something "normal" in democratic
>countries as well.
... except for the UK. At least, until now. As this link shows,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1559000/1559245.stm
the idea isn't going down too well, but the government's majority in parliament
is huge, and there's no stopping it. It has been suggested that UK ID cards
would include photo, current address, date of birth, SSN, and, strangely,
details of entitlement to social security benefits -- so any police officer
stopping a Brit in the street would immediately be able to see whether
he was on Social or not, which seems likely to be used to make
prejudicial assessments.
--
Imagine there were two of you. Which one would win?
tim@midnight.demon.co.uk
*********
From: John Armitage
To: "'declan@well.com'"
Subject: RE: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:49:42 +0100
Hi Declan
Just to correct your last correspondent who seems to believe that ID cards
are current policy in Europe: They aren't. In fact, there is likely to be
one hell of a fight over it in the UK. See below for a taste from today's
Guardian.
John
=======================================
Identity cards
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,557630,00.html
Un-British or vital? The ID debate
THE GUARDIAN
As introduction becomes more likely, opinions differ on both ethical and
practical grounds
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Tuesday September 25, 2001
The Guardian
David Blunkett's suggestion that the introduction of compulsory identity
cards in Britain could be necessary as part of the fight
against terrorism yesterday stirred a range of criticism - from rightwing
libertarians who claimed it would be "un-British", to
those who warned the move would be ineffective and expensive.
However, an opinion poll at the weekend showed that 86% of people supported
some form of ID card. The government was
seriously considering their introduction, Mr Blunkett said.
[...]
*********
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:52:34 -0400
From: Tom BOURKE
Subject: Re: FC: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
To: declan@well.com
Declan,
There are no identity cards in Ireland or the UK... yet...
Although I suspect the UK will try and bring them in soon...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21849.html
Tom
(From the UK, with his wife from Ireland)
NJ, USA
*********
From: "Singleton, Norman"
To: declan@well.com
Subject: RE: More on national ID card and use in western Europe
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:41:47 -0400
>In fact, a mandatory ID is *current* policy all over Western Europe. I'm
>not implying it should be also in the US, I just wanted to clarify the fact
>that it's something "normal" in democratic countries as well.
Another reminder that democratic does not equal free.
*********
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 14:41:08 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28327
for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:41:07 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [198.4.94.208] (cmhd0.coil.com [198.4.94.208]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28818; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:00:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
Message-Id:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:59:31 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Comments On Cathy Young's Defeatist Compromising Commentary From
Reason Magazine
Cc: gillespie@reason.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id OAA28327
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:52:41 -0700
To: Matthew Gaylor
From: David Theroux
Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Dear Matt,
Good for you.
Best regards,
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
DTheroux@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
###
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:10:38 -0600
From: "L. Neil Smith"
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Matthew Gaylor
Subject: Re: [smith2004-discuss] Defeatist Compromising Commentary
From Reason Magazine
Matt --
I will deal with the assholes, CATO and _Reason_ with enthusiasm,
just as soon as my other writing chores this week are completed. I will
make them sorry they were ever fucking born.
Sharpening my teeth,
N.
--
......................................................................
L. NEIL SMITH is the award-winning author of more than 20 novels about
individual liberty and the right to own and carry weapons. Read more
than 80 articles and speeches: buy _LEVER ACTION: ESSAYS ON LIBERTY_,
for $21.95+$6 S&H from http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/leveraction.html
Order Neil's latest novel, _HOPE_ (with Aaron Zelman), get free stuff
and a special offer: click on: or read
about MAKING A MOVIE OF _The Mitzvah_ the action-adventure thriller by
Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith -- and maybe even help get it done! --
click on .
Watch for L. Neil Smith's long-awaited _THE AMERICAN ZONE_ plus a new
_trade_ paperback edition of _The Probability Broach_ from Tor Books,
respectively, in November and December, 2001.
AUTOGRAPHED COPIES of _Lever Action_, _Hope_, _Forge of the Elders_,
_Henry Martyn_, and a few others (sorry, supplies of _The Mitzvah_ are
sold out) are available from the author. For details, write to Neil at
.
###
From: Nilsphone@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:15:22 EDT
Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
To: freematt@coil.com
CC: gillespie@reason.com, davidn@reason.org, tcmay@got.net
In a message dated 2001-09-26 17:21 Pacific Daylight Time,
freematt@coil.com writes:
>"Between Cato arguing for victim disarmament
>and Reason arguing that "right to liberty is preceded by the right to
>life," I say we just kill them all and let Rand sort them out." If
>you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing please
>write to Nick Gillespie Editor-in-Chief of
>Reason Magazine and David Nott President, Reason
>Foundation.]
>
I think Reason got it wrong. Crypto technology might simplify a
terrorist's life a little, that is all. If there are no secure channels,
terrorists can meet in person. The "GO" order can be done in the clear,
"lets go" needs no encryption. Alternatively, low volume comm
between people who know each other, and can meet beforehand,
can easily be done using one time pad, which are drop dead easy to
use, foolproof (as long as you don't lose or re-use them) etc, but not
suitable for mass communication. I can write a one-time-pad program
in minutes that does it all for you. You need a source for the pads, GM-tubes
are best, rooms full of lava lamps and a digital camera have been used.
Not very hard, can be set up at a central location, once, and then the pads
distributed by hand. (This latter is a must and the catch in mass
communications.)
Nils Andersson
(long time Reason subscriber, from the beginning in the 70-s)
nils@codeart.com
Phone: 877 CODEART
###
From: WalkerBill@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:20:42 EDT
Subject: Wimps at Reason, pilots
To: freematt@coil.com
I hadn't expected anyone at Reason to think that banning encryption could:
1. Work at all, or
2. be a good idea.
Very disappointing. The good news is that the pilot's union has
called for arming the pilots. This is the issue that we should
concentrate on, because:
1. It will really hurt the gun control people to fight this issue
even if they "win". Pilots will resent being disarmed and the public
will resent the lack of security. The AOL poll showed 78% in favor of
arming pilots; not scientific but probably fairly representative of
the average idiot (the smart people aren't on aol and probably don't
even bother to rig their polls....)
2. If the pilots are armed, this will set a precedent of militia-type
measures to fight terrorism, rather than more federal control.
###
From: "RV Head" <4whp@home.com>
To: "Matthew Gaylor"
Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:27:44 -0400
X-Priority: 3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Gaylor"
[snip]
> you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing please
> write to Nick Gillespie Editor-in-Chief of
> Reason Magazine and David Nott President, Reason
> Foundation.]
>
>
This is easily explained by the exigencies of deadline journalism.
I too write an "Opinion" column on deadline, and sometimes it isn't all that
easy to come up with anything that hasn't been better said by Hunter
Thompson.
As an Opinion columnist, my job is to provoke. I don't care if anybody
agrees with me, and I really doubt that I convince anyone who doesn't
already feel the same way I do about whatever it is I'm writing, but my
success is measured by the number of hits received by my page on the
magazine's web site AND by the number of people who take the time to write
to my editor. (Interestingly enough, they NEVER write to ME ...)
Keep the faith, Man ...
###
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:52:08 -0700
To: gillespie@reason.com, davidn@reason.org, tcmay@got.net
From: "E.J. Totty"
Subject: Getting real
Cc: Matthew Gaylor
Dear Editor,
Matt Gaylor () sent me
a missive that was produced by Cathy Young. It seems
that Ms/Miss/Mrs. Young chooses to believe that it is
OK to suppress liberty in times of adverse reaction by
other members of the human community.
Let me see if I get this straight: She wants
to forgo any talk of protecting the right to privacy,
merely that some members of a group 'may' have planned
their acts through the use of encryption.
Did I get that correctly?
So, if I speak fluently in a language not
understood by 99 percent of the population of the earth,
I am now to be considered as some kind of conspirator?
I hasten to remind you that there is quite a
following of those who speak the native 'Klingon' language,
and they are able to communicate quite well in complex
thoughts. Do we outlaw that as well?
Do we relegate all of humanity to communicating
in one common language merely that tyrant may know all?
No secrets anymore?
It matters not that there may -- or may not -- be
any evidence that the actors used any form of crypto in
communicating. So what if they did?
Young's comments are typical knee jerk feminist
reaction: If it shoots, ban it! If it cuts, ban it! If it encrypts,
ban it! If it impregnates, ban it! If it does ANYTHING we just
happen to dislike, BAN IT!!!
So, okay, let's make yet another law.
Let's look at the 'law' angle one more time.
Let me ask: What man made law has ever stopped
anything from happening? Can you, or Young, name even
one man made law that has? Just one?
Time for a clue: Only the bad guys get to break
the law, because they are expected to. The good people --
whose lives have been made a living hell by 'laws that are
for our own good' -- get to be put through the grinder for
merely wanting to exercise their rights.
So, let me ask: What the hell good is a right if
it declared null and void at the drop of a hat, merely that
some jerk has abused it, or worse yet, that some politico
has decried its exercise because, well, it 'might' have been
abused by a 'suspect' to a crime?
Rights aren't called rights for nothing.
So, Young wants to 'feel' safe?
Feeling safe is nothing more than an aphorism for
getting so drunk on some drug, that you just don't give
a damn anymore. In the case of the current sense, it is
merely that she 'thinks' that by depriving all people of a
right, that she can then freely imbibe in the elixir of
ignorance, and not feel a thing when the fecal matter hits
the fan.
I've said this so many times before:
"So, why the laws? The only reason is: To
harass the innocent, making it likelier for the bad to
take easy advantage of the weak, and ultimately for
the idiots in high office to point out why we need
even more rights restricting laws (that don't do a
damned thing to protect anyone), since the current
ones are not effective enough at causing mass
murder of the sheep. It'll be that way until we have
no rights left, and then the government may annihilate
the population at will, as we will then all be criminals
for trying to exercise any rights -- at all."
And:
"Benjamin Franklin had this to say about those
who would surrender their liberty for safety:
"Those who would surrender their liberty
for little added safety, deserve neither."
"Decoded: Just because you want to 'feel'
safe, does not imply that I must be stripped of my
rights, for you have no right to deprive me of mine,
merely that you may 'feel' a certain way. Taken in its
totality, if I may feel safer that you are dead, then you
must be killed. Take away my rights, and you will lose
yours -- completely.
"Embodied within that comment, is the idea
of two entirely different concepts: Feeling vs Being.
"You can 'feel' safe, but not 'be' safe.
"Conversely, you can be safe, but not feel
safe, merely that you understand that you are never,
in this life, safe from anything.
"History is my witness: Those people aboard
those jetliners certainly 'felt safe', but they weren't
safe at all."
And, here is Young, propounding that privacy
is passé. One wonders just how long it will be before
your magazine is subsumed into the greater socialist
demagoguery . . .
If you keep this crap up, you can expect
me to revoke my subscription, and refuse and further
issues.
--
In Liberty,
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.
-- WILLIAM PENN (1693)
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
###
Subject: FW: My Reason reply
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:37:20 -0700
Thread-Topic: (no subject)
Thread-Index: AcFHygXLF93PhSkwQvul++hR9+vDnAAhu0lwAAMMy2A=
From: "Mike Denny"
To: "Matthew Gaylor (E-mail)"
Hey Matt,
Mike Alissi, Reason editor wrote back to me on my comment on Cathy
Young's article so I gave him a piece of my mind.
Mike Denny
Mike@theDennys.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Denny
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:29 PM
To: 'Mike Alissi'
Subject: My reply
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your reply. The tone of Cathy Young's article
rubbed me the wrong way. And while I do feel that Reason covers
the issues of government waste and abuse fairly well, articles
that encourage the antidote for government waste, individual action
freedom and responsibility seem few and far between. It is almost
like you don't really believe that liberty is a high ideal and
that you believe it is reasonable to compromise it if you can
find a good enough excuse.
What is Cathy Young saying here?:
1) "Historically, individual freedom has not fared well in wartime,
understandably so." - Is Reason saying that the loss of freedom
in wartime is acceptable or even necessary? I disagree!
2) "Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic
communications so that they are beyond surveillance? Frankly, I found
it scary even before Sept. 11 - precisely because of the threat of
terrorism." - Are the people at Reason more afraid of terrorism than
they love Freedom? I don't.
3) "Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is
preceded by the right to life." - Is Reason saying that these two
issues are mutually exclusive? I don't think like that.
3) "There are libertarians who say that it doesn't have to be that
way...
They argue that, if our government only withdrew from meddling in
regions where we have no real interest, stop playing global
policeman, and limited itself to providing for a national defense
against foreign attack, we wouldn't be a terrorist target. Alas, this
is a myopic position." - Does Reason think that it is not a good idea
to evaluating our foreign policy in the region? Or that non-intervention
is the same as isolationism? Or does Reason think that the US has simply
been
an angel in the region and that there is absolutely nothing that these
terrorists could reasonably want from the US and that they simply want
to kill US citizens for the hell of it? - I don't!
4) "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are
no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks."
You know Mike, these last two comments really bother me and here's why.
I've noticed that Reason frequently treats the libertarians as silly
and impractical. And while it remains to be seen how much a political
force they actually become, whether we vote for them or not, they are
the true ideological heroes of the freedom movement. As a long-time
Republican, I am sick of their current lack of focus on liberty and
freedom that drew me to the RP in the 80's. Like the Republicans,
it seems that Reason has lost it's appreciation for freedom as an
ideal. Without this ideal, I feel that Reason, along with the
Republicans,
are simply adrift. People that are passionate about the ideal of
freedom,
the core value of this country and its Constitution, deserve better
treatment in your magazine. Until they get it, I will simply scan your
articles to find the good stuff but will not truly support your work.
I want to know that a publication really cares about what I care about
before I start sending money.
I will watch for more articles that reflect this line of thought and
pass
them on to you. But now that you have heard from me, I hope you will
be able to recognize them yourself, hopefully before they make it to
print.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael Denny
2435 Lake Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
415-750-9340
Mike@theDennys.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Alissi [mailto:malissi@reason.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:12 PM
To: Mike Denny
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Mike -
Your comments are really disturbing and I could not disagree more.
Can you please tell me which articles of ours - in the print and online
edition - have given you the impression that we are "soft on liberty?"
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Alissi
Publisher, Reason
malissi@reason.com
From: "Mike Denny"
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:02:49 -0700
To:
Subject: Civil liberties may take a hit
Dear Reason,
I read with interest Cathy Young's article on how "Civil Liberties May
Take a Hit". While it
is appropriate in these times to consider such things, I found her
willingness to accept the
loss of Liberty as an appropriate response to terrorism unfitting for
your magazine.
But I shouldn't be that surprised. This has been your editorial bent for
some time. I subscribed
to Reason for years because I thought that it was a "light for Freedom".
But then I noticed
that when it really got down to business, you were "soft on liberty". So
I stopped
subscribing to the magazine but kept in touch via the Internet and your
email articles.
Now I'm wondering where you provide value at all.
I'm sorry but that's how I feel and I wanted you to know.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael Denny
2435 Lake Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
415-750-9340
Mike@theDennys.org
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
From freematt@coil.com Fri Sep 28 14:47:32 2001
X-FreePort-Flags:
Received: from bronze.coil.com (bronze.coil.com [198.4.94.1])
by aztec.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28690
for