At 3:39 AM -0400 4/22/01, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> > > May says:
>> > People have constitutional rights and these rights are not abrogated by
>> > an "intervention."
>>
>> > A person may only be held or confined against his will if due process is
>> > satisfied. This usually means at least a preliminary hearing, after the
>> > usual "initial period" has passed.
>
>Bell's AP includes neither a system of due process nor a method for the
>accused to confront his accusor. do you think he's rejected the AP as
>invalid, or simply realizing how beneficial simple rights as these are when
>being accused of crimes? is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
>himself rejected those rights for others?
1. Bell was not charged with writing an illegal essay.
2. Bell was not charged with plotting to set up an AP lottery.
3. What Bell may or may not have written about does not affect in any
way the operation of the U.S. legal system.
4. You need to think more critically. Why you are on this mailing
list remains a mystery.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
