hmm. since i made the original statement which seems to have aroused the
beast, let me clarify some important points, the subtlety of which has
completely flown over the heads of many reading this now irrelevant thread:
1. I believe firmly in individual rights and in the right to due process
and equal protection under the law. i also believe these rights apply
to -anyone- outside of the united states, even if that person is not a us
citizen, when being investigated by us leas.
2. I pointed out the irony that bell himself, in his AP, offered no such
rights at all.
3. I disagree with bell's AP and his personal indiscretions for which he
has been tried to the very core of my soul...but i personally would never
resort to an AP-style system of justice as bell advocated...i prefer point
#1 above.
phillip
<begin soapbox> btw, I will offer a paraphrase of tim may's well-applied
advice to many on this list (though I personally don't have 'thousands of
articles' to refer you to): do the research -- read declan's articles, read
the AP document and message threads, read the constitution, read the
federalist and anti-federalist papers. then re-read what i wrote. i'm
pleased bell is enjoying the due-process he deserves. hmm...imagine if the
govt. produced an AP document in which the govt. could randomly decide to
anonymously and randomly 'take someone out' with no due process...you'd puke
at the thought and scream for freedom from the rooftops. label the author a
cypherpunk targeting irs agents, catch him stalking or whatever you want to
call it, and now he's a special victim...please reserve the moral relativism
for high school philosophy. <end soapbox> time to end this tired thread.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aimee Farr
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:52 PM
> To: Faustine
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
>
>
>
> Faustine wrote:
>
> > Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> 1. No, she didn't. You falsely attributed this statement to me.
>
> The relevant post:
> ======================
> Tim May quoting Zakas:
>
> > 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.
> <snip>
>
> At nigh 4 a.m. on the tail of a "Saturday night" ...people get points for
> typing.
>
> ~Aimee
>
> ========
>
> > >>is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
> > > >himself rejected those rights for others?
>
> 2. The list is configured to reply-to-sender. If you are going to directly
> attribute or engage, copy the relevant individuals. :) The
> exceptions I have
> noted: when you wish to use the list as an intermediary to avoid subpoena
> parties, certain third party inboxes, "friendship trees," and people that
> have "plonked" you (since there is no point in copying them).
>
> 3. The quote you attributed to me was written by one certain VC-affiliated
> Greek God, and he did so at 4 a.m. on a "Saturday night." Again, while I
> can't say, circumstances might call for a certain degree of tolerance.
>
> > What are you talking about? Let me spell it out for you: we refer
> > to rights
> > because we live in the goddamn United States of America. We have
> > these really
> > interesting little old things in our country known as the
> > Constitution and the
> > Bill of Rights. You might have a look at them sometime, if your
> > law school isn't keeping you too busy with all the coursework.
>
> A lawyer would probably the last person to take such a line of argument. I
> have finished my "coursework." Recon the archives before you
> engage somebody
> to avoid "tickling tiger tails," in the wise words of Mr. John Young. :)
>
> > I hope you'll remember this one thing: to paraphrase Chomsky,
> >
> > IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE YOU
> > DESPISE, YOU DON'T
> > REALLY BELIEVE IN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS AT ALL.
>
> You are preaching to the choir, Faustine.
>
> > I can't think of anything more fundamental than this.
>
> I can't either.
>
> > Whether or
> > not Bell is a
> > raving headcase stalker who should be in jail is an entirely
> > separate issue
> > from whether or not he deserves a fair trial.
>
> I don't think the individual was questioning a "fair trial," I think his
> intent was to inquire as to the lines of ethical thought that
> were going on
> at the time.
>
> > If you really
> > rejected the idea
> > of arbitrary personalized enforcement of justice without the rule
> > of law, you
> > wouldn't dream of making this argument. Are you saying you want
> > to ignore the
> > bill of rights and let it come down to thug versus thug, where
> > the innocent
> > never have a chance either way? Is that what you really want?
> > Think about it.
>
> Well, even though I did not make these comments or even allude to them, I
> have thought about it. I'm thinking this is how the world works. I know of
> some people that have had intensive legal battles that might even
> agree with
> this statement within the context of civil litigation.
>
> > The one thing I know is this:
> > Everyone deserves a fair trial.
> > Even lunatics. Even you.
>
> What is a "fair trial?" A "trial-by-the-rules?" Does Choate want to quote
> the Constitution? I always have to explain to people where the
> 'real' rules
> come from, the rules that have direct bearing on the outcome. They often
> don't seem 'fair' to them. While US lawyers are great champions of the
> American justice system, we are also the greatest discontents.
>
> ~Aimee
