Re: Cypherpunk fashions for the New Ashcroft Era (Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary)
At 03:14 PM 01/08/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 11:34 PM 1/8/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: I don't know the weaknesses of gait-observing systems, so I can't suggest anything. Kilts for men (over the knee, please, and not for aesthetics). Hoop-skirts for women. A heavy backpack carried asymmetrically (for extra fun, use a canteen where the sloshing water messes with your physics). www.utilikilts.com for the practical but less traditional kilts. And computer bags can be pretty asymmetrical, even if you don't have the new 6.8 pound 17 Macintosh AluminumBook.
Re: CDR: Re: Television
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Anonymous wrote: Sam Ritchie sneered: Hmmm, is someone a wittle upset over a certain recent textual reprimand? No need for petty schoolyard insults, May. What happened to the new year's resolution you made? ~S Am I just imagining it, or is there a definite increase in people never heard from before mounting attacks on list regulars? Good, more power to them. Rage on people! -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
At 1:10 PM -0800 on 1/8/03, Tim May wrote: As cameras become more ubiquitous, more folks may convert to Islam and take up the wearing of the abaya/abiyeh and the male equivalents. Or Jainism? Well, *one* kind, anyway. :-). Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Oh, it seems that I've missed the fact that the situation I was talking about seems to be playing itself out nicely with that dirty bomb guy. Sure, the court didn't say that this applied to his case, but they didn't say it *didn't* apply, either. They've left it wide open. I suspect it won't be long before a similar ruling is made for him.
No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
First, even non-citizens have court rights now being denied to the concentration camp detainees. (Many of you reading this list are residents of the U.S. but not U.S. citizens. You must surely know that if you are charged with some crime you will have the same constitutional protections that actual citizens have--our courts are filled with trials of resident aliens.) Second, losing citizenship is not easy. Check Google on loss of citizenship to find precedents, laws, etc. Basically, even serving in a foreign army does not cause loss of citizenship. (Which is symmetric with how we want other countries to behave when we draft their citizens into our armies--yes, when the draft was in place we expected all males reaching age 18 to register with our draft boards and expose themselves to serving in our military. Many foreigners served in our military.) Basically, citizenship is not revokable. Not even traitors have their citizenships revoked. It can be given up, but not lightly and not without the initiative of the party giving up the citizenship. In any case, this guy's citizenship has not been given up by him. Third, even if it is argued that his actions caused him to lose his citizenship, he would then only be liable for prosecution as a noncitizen (whatever that may be, pace the first point above). To argue otherwise is to argue for an ex post facto law, which the Constitution specifically forbids. He should be charged, if any charges are valid, as any other person should be charged and brought to trial in a U.S. court. (A non-U.S. resident, non-U.S. citizen, such as a German soldier in World War II, may be subject to capture and imprisonment as a POW, and perhaps even to trial in a military court. This is not being done in this case.) In any case, a claim that a state of war exists is flimsy. No declaration of war has been made, neither by the Congress (Congress shall have the power to declare war) nor by the Executive Branch (scholars debate whether the President has this power; in any case, Bush hasn't tried to do it). The 9/11 attackers may or may not have been connected to Bin Laden's group (I think they were), but the state and people of Afghanistan were not in a state of war with the U.S. Possibly Mullah Omar knew of Bin Laden's plans in advance of 9/11, but I have seen no evidence of this. And certainly the rank and file Taliban were not apprised of this sneak attack plan. It looks like Afghanistan's guilt as a country (??) came from its unwillingness to round up Bin Laden and his men after 9/11. (Harboring.) (I could go on about harboring fugitives, extradition treaties, moral responsibilities, U.N. resolutions, etc. The U.S. attacked Serbia basically for harboring Milosevich. And so on. But the real issue is whether this unwillingness to turn over Milosevich, or Chile's unwillingness to turn over its former leaders, and so on, is the same as a country going to war.) Back to Bush declaring this citizen to be unworthy of normal trial procedures. He was and is a citizen. His presence in Afghanistan and even his service in their military does NOT cause him to lose his citizenship. Even if it did, he could not then be tried as a noncitizen for alleged crimes committed when he WAS a citizen, by the no ex post facto laws provisions of the Constitution. Finally, practically speaking, why not have normal trials for these Americans? The Rosenbergs got a real trial, not a military tribunal in Cuba or Diego Garcia. And so on for Walker, Hanssen, etc. Even an obvious foreigner, General Manuel Noriega, received a trial in a U.S. court. It is inconceivable that a low-level American serving in Afghanistan's military knows something which cannot be mentioned in open court (not that this is justification for secret military tribunals, but I mention it anyway). If Bush is not overruled on this declaration of being an Evil Doer end-run of the Constitution, the implications will be dire. The Supreme Court should overrule the Appeals Court and say very simply: This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas did not cause him to lose his citizenship. If he faces charges, he faces them in a U.S. court with full access to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full rights to face his accusers, and so on. And the Supremes ought to chastise the Bush Administration for thinking otherwise. --Tim May
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Well, I don't know that it's as bad as he was making it out to be, but I wouldn't say that it's as cheery as you seem to think it is, either. While that case in particular seems very obvious, it sets a dangerous precedent. Also note the wording: A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled President Bush has the authority to designate U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and detain them in military custody if they are deemed a threat to national security. Since terrorists are the enemy, and they (obviously) operate within our borders to do harm, it's not a terrible stretch to think that it won't be long before a US citizen who's actually here in the states could be designated an enemy combatant. And obviously, they needn't have actually committed a terrorist act--we want to prevent such things, right? So they would be suspected of conspiracy to do something terroristic. The end result being that US citizens who have committed no actual terrorist acts could be deemed enemy combatants and thus not allowed to have all the nice benefits of citizens, such as trials and what have you. And then it's just a matter of pissing the right (wrong?) people off, and away you go, never to be heard from again... On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 22:35, Michael Cardenas wrote: I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the time he was fighting the US. The ruling says that he was squarely in teh war zone and discusses the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time.
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
At 09:41 PM 1/8/2003 +0100, you wrote: On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, James A. Donald wrote: In today's Vietnam women commonly dress like Ninjas, completely covering every square inch of skin. Even the eyes are covered with dark glasses. The costume however is tight, covering the face but revealing the figure. It doesn't matter what you wear. Even if everybody would be wearing a flowing robe and a face mask (fat chance; right now donning this would invite for some deep anal probing), you would still have parts of your body exposed, THz waves could probe beneath clothing unless it's metallized, you would still emit volatile MHC fragments, drop pieces of cells with your DNA in it, have a specific gait, etc. I'm not sure this has changed, but I've never been interrogated for wearing a motorcycle helmet and tinted faceplate. Multisource integrative telebiometrics takes giant pain to fake. No one is going to go through it, so your attempts to fake it would raise red alarm all over the place. Men's fashions, however, change at the speed of glaciers, so there is little chance of that becoming acceptable for men. Just outlaw this crap already. Once it's on every street corner it will be too late. Time to offer paintball bounties. steve
Re: Definitions, Proofs, Derivations
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Ken Hirsch wrote:
In general you have to consider the whole system, including derivation
rules, not just the axioms, although you can certain start with a set of
axioms like:
{ x=1, x=2}
or, come to think of it,
{ 1=2 }
You'd first have to define what '=' means, that would be your axiom. 'x',
'1', and '2' would simply be symbols derived from the definition of '='.
--
We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
are going to spend the rest of our lives.
Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Television
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Todd Boyle wrote: And anyway, you don't come into a community that is working based on certain shared assumptions, and start questioning the assumptions. Actually that is -exactly- what one should do. No man is the communities nigger. Or as Decarte once said: If you want to have a open mind, at least once in your life you have to question everything. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Television
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 07:38 PM, Anonymous wrote: Sam Ritchie sneered: Hmmm, is someone a wittle upset over a certain recent textual reprimand? No need for petty schoolyard insults, May. What happened to the new year's resolution you made? ~S Am I just imagining it, or is there a definite increase in people never heard from before mounting attacks on list regulars? Indeed, someone must have posted the list address to Mother Jones or Utne Reader or somesuch. A lot of people unfamiliar with crypto, with crypto politics, or even marginally familiar with the issues of Clipper, Echelon, Carnivore, and liberty have appeared recently. I don't list regulars are exempted from attacks, but newcomers should at least know what the issues are. Most of the newcomers don't, and don't care that they don't know. Their motives are obvious. --Tim May
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:35, Michael Cardenas wrote: I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the time he was fighting the US. The ruling says that he was squarely in teh war zone and discusses the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. And the court specifically said its ruling did not cover Jose P. Taliban, the (alleged) would-be dirty bomber. But I strongly disagree with some of the dicta in the ruling: if there is any time that the courts need to let the administration have its way, it's during war time. (I paraphrased that.) My view is, if there's any time the courts need to keep a closer eye on the administration, it's during a popular war. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged. --Michael Shirley
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon. This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their crimes against the Constitution. It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and vice-versa of course). Private citizens are not bound by the Constitution either of course (it binds only the governments). The Padilla case will be more important than the Hamdi case because he was arrested in Chicago rather than Afghanistan. Under the traditional laws of war, Padilla (if he is an enemy soldier) could have been executed as a spy since he entered the country in civilian clothes rather than in uniform. All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their uniforms so they can get off on a technicality if captured. I wonder what an Al-Quida uniform looks like? DCF
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
SIgh. Although I read May's Crypto Anarchy piece and liked it, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that he's just another dimwitted fascist who by accident had a few interesting ideas. You're Guilty for Not Doing Your Homework. Mr. May's views on sick, disabled, niggers and women are available to everyone with access to usenet archives, which means everyone. For example, type this: 'disabled author:[EMAIL PROTECTED]' (sans quotes) in with all of the words field at http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search and you'll get the idea. It doesn't mean that I don't credit him for efforts in other areas. People are too complex to be classified on one aspect only. Would I fuck a beautiful female republican ? Most certainly. Even Bush saying sensible things doesn't make them wrong.
Pigs Kill Family Pet
Pigs think they are untouchable in the post-9-11 enviromnent. Many pigs need to be killed. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/police.kill.dog/index.html - COOKEVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Police video released Wednesday showed a North Carolina family kneeling and handcuffed, who shrieked as officers killed their dog -- which appeared to be playfully wagging its tail -- with a shotgun during a traffic stop. ... The family was driving through eastern Tennessee on their way home from a New Year's trip to Nashville. They told CNN they are in the process of retaining a lawyer and considering legal action against the Cookeville, Tennessee, Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol for what happened to them and their dog. In the video, released by the THP, officers are heard ordering the family, one by one, to get out of their car with their hands up. James Smoak and his wife, Pamela, and 17-year-old son Brandon are ordered onto their knees and handcuffed. ... The Smoaks told CNN that as they knelt, handcuffed, they pleaded with officers to close the doors of their car so their two dogs would not escape, but the officers did not heed them. ... The tape then shows the Smoak's medium-size brown dog romping on the shoulder of the Interstate, its tail wagging. As the family yells, the dog, named Patton, first heads away from the road, then quickly circles back toward the family. An officer in a blue uniform aims his shotgun at the dog and fires at its head, killing it immediately. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
RE: Pigs Kill Family Pet
Eric Cordian[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Pigs think they are untouchable in the post-9-11 enviromnent. Many pigs need to be killed. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/police.kill.dog/index.html - COOKEVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Police video released Wednesday showed a North Carolina family kneeling and handcuffed, who shrieked as officers killed their dog -- which appeared to be playfully wagging its tail -- with a shotgun during a traffic stop. ... The family was driving through eastern Tennessee on their way home from a New Year's trip to Nashville. They told CNN they are in the process of retaining a lawyer and considering legal action against the Cookeville, Tennessee, Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol for what happened to them and their dog. In the video, released by the THP, officers are heard ordering the family, one by one, to get out of their car with their hands up. James Smoak and his wife, Pamela, and 17-year-old son Brandon are ordered onto their knees and handcuffed. ... The Smoaks told CNN that as they knelt, handcuffed, they pleaded with officers to close the doors of their car so their two dogs would not escape, but the officers did not heed them. ... The tape then shows the Smoak's medium-size brown dog romping on the shoulder of the Interstate, its tail wagging. As the family yells, the dog, named Patton, first heads away from the road, then quickly circles back toward the family. An officer in a blue uniform aims his shotgun at the dog and fires at its head, killing it immediately. I read about this a couple days ago. The reason for the stop is interesting - apparently Mr. Smoak left his wallet on the roof of the car. After they started down the highway, it blew off, scattering bills. Another driver saw the flying wallet and currency, thought it had been thrown out the window, and called it in as a carjacking/robbery in progress. The cops accepted this, hence the felony stop. Peter Trei
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether this man's service in a foreign army is naughty enough to lose him his constitutional rights. First of all, I don't even think that depriving someone of their constitutional rights is the major issue in this case. On a very simplistic level (apparently the only level that Tim May seems to think Tyler Durden operates on), the US trial by a jury of your peers and innocent until proven guilty are not supposed to be Rome-like luxuries of being a citizen. They in theory represent a system that protects the accused from basically being the target of whatever political interests may be in charge. By bypassing this system, isn't there a subtext here that on some level says He's guilty if we say he's guilty? In other words, they apparently don't trust that our legal system works the way they (Bush and the military) want it to. In this sense, our legal system is now caricatured as being essentially a luxury of US citzenship, as opposed to reflecting some basic human right. Yes of course I know that there are probably practicalities involved: If we don't try him as an enemy combatant then he might go free and kill more US soldiers. But again, this statement assumes complete and infallible knowledge on the part of the military concerning this man, and then the right to bypass the rights of American citizens to determine what to do with him. It's a bad sign. -TD If *that* decision-making process has weaker legal protection than a normal criminal trial would have had, the effect is that the legal protection of the whole system is reduced. If the process of removing someone's constitutional rights is not itself subject to those rights, then those rights are hollow and can be removed at will. Ken Brown _ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 08:35 PM 1/8/2003 -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote: I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the time he was fighting the US. The ruling says that he was squarely in teh war zone and discusses the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. But how could he be in a war zone when there is no declared war? If the President orders our troops into a region does that now become a de facto declaration of war? steve if America were tempted to ''become the dictatress of the world, she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.'' What empires lavish abroad, they cannot spend on good republican government at home: on hospitals or roads or schools. A distended military budget only aggravates America's continuing failure to keep its egalitarian promise to itself. -- John Quincy Adams (extended)
[Fwd: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken.]
Anyone have any idea what the fuck this is? Is the post office subscribed to cypherpunks? - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ; Sender = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject = Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants Delivery Time = January 09, 2003 (Thursday) 10:46:04 Policy = Dirty Words Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. - End forwarded message - -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer, lindows.com hyperpoem.net | GNU/Linux software developer people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred Listening to: Rusted Root - martyr That government is best which governs not at all. - Henry David Thoreau [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : First, even non-citizens have court rights now being denied to the concentration camp detainees. (Many of you reading this list are snip The Supreme Court should overrule the Appeals Court and say very simply: This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas did not cause him to lose his citizenship. If he faces charges, he faces them in a U.S. court with full access to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full rights to face his accusers, and so on. And the Supremes ought to chastise the Bush Administration for thinking otherwise. --Tim May The supposed justification is that the guy was picked up on the battlefield. I say that on a battlefield, war or no war, they guy's citizenship is irrelevant. Where I differ with the current decision is that once he is detained, effectively removed from battle, his citizenship becomes of paramount importance. Some might argue that there is some sort of intelligence issue in between the two states. Perhaps. So I agree, you are right in what you say but watch what happens if Shrub gets to place more justices in the federal system. It'll get worse than it already is. M
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 07:06 AM, Ken Brown wrote: Michael Cardenas wrote: I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the time he was fighting the US. Hey, I'm not a USAan and I don't even live there. But I think I know your Constitution well enough to know that I never read the bit about how long you have to live in a foreign country to lose your rights. This is correct. There are U.S. citizens who have spent the past 50 years living in Britain, or France, or even Afghanistan. Until they renounce (or are stripped, which is very, very rare), they remain U.S. citizens. This is the way the system now works. Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether this man's service in a foreign army is naughty enough to lose him his constitutional rights. If they strip him of his citizenship, this cannot be done retroactively. That would be an ex post facto law, in essence. Thus, regardless of what is _now_ done to him, citizenship-wise, he was a citizen when he allegedly committed whatever crimes he is not being informed of, his lawyers are not being informed of, and which the U.S.G. considers too sensitive (har har) to tell _us_ about. (In fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that he is just a routine spear-carrier.) --Tim May The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 09:55 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: While I agree with most of Tim's post, it's not as hard to lose your US citizenship as he makes out. I grew up as a US expatriate in various European countries, including the age period when compulsory military service ... Of course, you could appeal, but your options were pretty limited. Fine, then take away his citizenship, using established and formal procedures. This zeroes the clock. For things he does after the clock is zeroed, he does not have citizenship status. For things he did before the clock was zeroed, he was of course a citizen. (There is the ancillary issue I raised, that it is a misconception for people think the Constitution and Bill of Rights only applies to _citizens_. It applies to those facing trial in the U.S. or its territories (mostly), save for cases where an illegal immigrant, for example, is deported out of the U.S. promptly.) Mr. Hamdi seems to have US citizenship almost by accident - he was apparently born in the US while his Saudi father was receiving military training here, and returned to Saudi soon after. He joined the anti-US forces in Afghanistan, apparently voluntarily, and bore arms against the US. By all the rules I lived by as an expatriate, he could be stripped of his citizenship in a heartbeat. But they didn't, and haven't. As for his almost by accident, this may be so, but so what? But what I object most strongly is the neologism 'enemy combatant'. Most of these people are in fact POWs, and should have all the protections of such. Indeed. Mr Padilla, the other US citizen tagged in this way, is a much more worrying case. He was born in the US, always lived here, and was arrested in the US. Bush and his gang have stuck the 'enemy combatant' label on him, and he is now denied most of his Constitutional rights. As were the 1000 Arabic-ancestry men rounded up and held on vague material witness grounds. A police state. The Bill of Rights is toilet paper. --Tim May As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself. -- David Friedman
RE: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: [...] Second, losing citizenship is not easy. Check Google on loss of citizenship to find precedents, laws, etc. Basically, even serving in a foreign army does not cause loss of citizenship. (Which is symmetric with how we want other countries to behave when we draft their citizens into our armies--yes, when the draft was in place we expected all males reaching age 18 to register with our draft boards and expose themselves to serving in our military. Many foreigners served in our military.) Basically, citizenship is not revokable. Not even traitors have their citizenships revoked. It can be given up, but not lightly and not without the initiative of the party giving up the citizenship. In any case, this guy's citizenship has not been given up by him. [...] While I agree with most of Tim's post, it's not as hard to lose your US citizenship as he makes out. I grew up as a US expatriate in various European countries, including the age period when compulsory military service was a very real personal issue. What could an could not affect your US citizenship was a topic of interest, research, and discussion in the expat community (this was in the 60's and 70's). Basicly, getting drafted and serving in a foreign army (of an ally) was not a problem. Voluntarily entering a foreign military service most definitely was. Taking a civil service job was risky; and riskier the higher you went - being a department head at a foreign state run university was riskier than being an associate professor. Note that I talk about risk rather then certainty. If what you did didn't piss off the USG, you were cool. If it did, they'd decide according to what fit the USG's interest. The US fliers who served with the RAF in the Eagle Squadron prior to Pearl Harbor didn't lose their citizenship. Of course, you could appeal, but your options were pretty limited. Mr. Hamdi seems to have US citizenship almost by accident - he was apparently born in the US while his Saudi father was receiving military training here, and returned to Saudi soon after. He joined the anti-US forces in Afghanistan, apparently voluntarily, and bore arms against the US. By all the rules I lived by as an expatriate, he could be stripped of his citizenship in a heartbeat. --- But what I object most strongly is the neologism 'enemy combatant'. Most of these people are in fact POWs, and should have all the protections of such. Mr Padilla, the other US citizen tagged in this way, is a much more worrying case. He was born in the US, always lived here, and was arrested in the US. Bush and his gang have stuck the 'enemy combatant' label on him, and he is now denied most of his Constitutional rights. If it can happen to him, then the government can 'dissapear' anyone it wants. Peter Trei
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
At 05:10 PM 01/08/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... Cowboy hats are much more common in Cypherpunks Bay Aryan meetings And for that matter, what about cypherpunks of non-aryan descent? We've had some Branch Dravidian folks around as well I've usually been the one wearing the fedora in cooler weather, and a few people wore Red Hats back in the day.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:35:36 -0800, you wrote: I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the time he was fighting the US. The ruling says that he was squarely in teh war zone and discusses the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. Where in the Constitution do we learn that being in a foreign country for years separates a United States Citizen from the rights provided by the Constitution? Exactly what period of years triggers this denial of Constitutional rights? Please provide a map of the boundaries of the war zone for Mr. Bush's War on Terror. If the President may deny habeas corpus in the absence of a declared war, and if the geography of a war zone is fluid and undefined by the government, and if the time period of absence from the US and relationship to time of capture is undefined, please show how denial of habeas corpus cannot be applied to every US Citizen who has ever been abroad, upon declaration of enemy combatant status by the United States Military, solely, under this ruling. Last, if well established bedrock rights written into the highest law of the land like habeas corpus are denied by a government, please describe the moral authority underwhich that government may claim a right to be obeyed. Describing the power to capture, torture, imprison and kill, and the willingness to do so is not considered a moral authority in this question. I guess Citizens should wait on events, while dangers gather? Citizens should forgo any preemption of those who would attack freedom?
Re: [Fwd: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken.]
It's trend antiv-virus/spam mail scanner. Some idiot at the patent office (what, you thought they'd hire anything other than idiots over there?) configured it to bounce certain words at a certain previous jobs it was decided that words such as shit fuck piss cunt twat dick cock motherfucker asshole should not be in emails. So we just wrote them as F U C K, etc... --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Cardenas wrote: Anyone have any idea what the fuck this is? Is the post office subscribed to cypherpunks? - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ; Sender = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject = Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants Delivery Time = January 09, 2003 (Thursday) 10:46:04 Policy = Dirty Words Action on this mail = Quarantine message
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 10:11 AM 01/09/2003 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and vice-versa of course). Private citizens are not bound by the Constitution either of course (it binds only the governments). The Feds keep asserting that the Constitution doesn't apply to them outside the US. A militia wouldn't have been in Afghanistan, or at least wouldn't have been attacking the Taliban government over there, though they (or hired mercs) might have gone after Al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs stationed in the Holy Land. The Padilla case will be more important than the Hamdi case because he was arrested in Chicago rather than Afghanistan. Under the traditional laws of war, Padilla (if he is an enemy soldier) could have been executed as a spy since he entered the country in civilian clothes rather than in uniform. But Padilla's a citizen, so entering the country in civilian clothes doesn't make him a spy, though spying might make him one. All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their uniforms so they can get off on a technicality if captured. I wonder what an Al-Quida uniform looks like? I believe their fatigues uniform consists of pants and a shirt in arbitrary colors and low cost :-) Their dress uniforms are the turban and long shirt deal, but that's not for foreign expedition use.
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:07:50 -0800, you wrote: This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas did not cause him to lose his citizenship. If he faces charges, he faces them in a U.S. court with full access to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full rights to face his accusers, and so on. But isn't the point of the Bush-Military that he does not face charges, he is like a captured German Luftwaffe Pilot in 1944 in France -- he is to be held in a prisoner of war prison until the end of hostilities (never, since you can't defeat a method like Terror), and repatriated to the country of his military commanders (never, since it is a group, not a country, and they will all be killed)? But the point is more dangerous. The point is that the military alone can decide if you are an enemy combatant, and if they do, you can be held in secret anywhere, without notice to anyone, with no legal representation, until the day you die. A person disappears. That's all we would know, if that's the way the military wants to play it. Land of the free, home of the brave.
Re: Indo European Origins
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Soma? Despite the fact that I've read large chunks of the Rig Vedas, I don't remember anything called Soma (unless this is a Brave New World Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Mahabaratabut I don't imagine this is what you are referring to... Then you need to read the Vedas [there is only one Rig-Vega, which is the oldest of the four Vedas] again more closely. Soma is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Vedic hyms. Soma is both an intoxicating elixir, and the god that represents it. Soma is sometimes thought to have been alcohol, a mead-like substance, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, or other nourishing substances. (The composition of soma is hotly debated by scholars -- I have no firm answer myself.) Soma is said to have nourishing properties, and even the power to instill immortality. (C.f. the eclipse myth of the Hindu demon Rahu.) And, as you mention, soma is a prozac/valium or MDEA-like socially acceptable drug in Huxley's classic, as well as a brand name for the muscle relaxant carisoprodol (whose effects are a great disappointment, if one is expecting it to be anything like the Hindu or Huxley substance of the same name.) The original poster was, no doubt, refering to the original Soma, however. -MW-
Re: Indo European Origins
At 03:32 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Soma? Despite the fact that I've read large chunks of the Rig Vedas, I don't remember anything called Soma (unless this is a Brave New World Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Mahabaratabut I don't imagine this is what you are referring to... Well then do a fucking google on the word in the Indian context. Maybe your highschool has firewalled off anything that will lead you to Hoffman, Ott, Huxley, etc. Hmm, the 21st century: all the world's libraries at your fingertips, but now you're obligated to use them! ... Of course Hitler and the gang appropriated this term and pumped it with some very different meanings, LIST: even playing with a kitten and a laser pointer get tiring eventually. Tyler, we know this shit. We're not undergrads doing September here. Next you're going to tell us how the swastik was a groovy Amerind sign before it was coopted by Austrians. Or continue to slog through the history of the old world tribes. See _guns germs and steel_, btw. including notions of racial purity. I was curious as to whether Tim May meant this version of the term or what (and all that is concomittant, including hoped-for genocides), in which case bludgeoning him with a heavy, blunt object in the base of the skull would be a break for all humanity. -TD Here's a very general clue: Tim has a clue. Tim's exposed himself under that nym for some time now, do some research. Another hint: keep your irony meter powered up when reading posts here. Carefully remove the sarcasm filter from the satire window to detect tongue-in-cheek rays. Bigger hint: you might have saved us all some once-ever-so-precious-bandwidth by writing off Aryan as a simple sound pun: Bay Area -an, get it? Finally, here's something to keep in mind: culture != race. You can slam a culture --after all, values are choices-- pretty rationally, thought there's not much evidence for slamming gene-based human groups. You can decry zionist colonialism without animosity towards hebrews. You can mock decrepit urban negro, or appalachian caucasoid, or suburban soccermom culture without impugning the genome of the actors. But this explaining of the obvious is becoming painful, please assume we're a group of at least peers, if not polite tolerant but decreasingly amused elders. Merci
Re: [Fwd: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken.]
The most likely explanation is that some subscriber to one of the cypherpunks lists is using an account on some machine at USPTO.GOV (which is the Patent and Trademark Office, not the Post Office), and their mail server not only has an antivirus filter but also a bad language filter. While I don't like such things, at least it has the technical decency to send bouncegrams to the sender, though the technical cluelessness not to include the original MessageID header in the bouncegram (presuming that the original message had one), i.e. it's broken, and it also indicates the delivery time but not the Date: header from the original message (which, though they're often missing, can be important when trying to identify a specific message, especially when there's no MessageID header.) I'm guessing that this is the product from http://www.mailwise.com/ (which is where www.scanmail.com redirects to...) which filters away SPAM, Viruses and unsavory content. In case you're not aware, back when the list was dealing with radical concepts like cryptography and implementations, as well as speculative rants like Assassination Politics, there were usually Feds subscribing to it, either openly or not, just as there have been Feds reading Usenet for a long time. Whether most of them are still around or have decided that it's mostly the same old group having the same old rants is an issue I'll leave to Major Variola to tell us :-) At 10:24 AM 01/09/2003 -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote: Anyone have any idea what the fuck this is? Is the post office subscribed to cypherpunks? - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t aken. Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ; Sender = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject = Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants Delivery Time = January 09, 2003 (Thursday) 10:46:04 Policy = Dirty Words Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. - End forwarded message - -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer, lindows.com hyperpoem.net | GNU/Linux software developer people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred Listening to: Rusted Root - martyr That government is best which governs not at all. - Henry David Thoreau [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
If Bush can decide alone whether or not we are at war, and if Bush can decide alone with whom we are at war, and if Bush can decide alone what the boundaries of the war zone are, and if Bush can decide alone what behavior makes one an enemy combatant, then we have one person, a totalitarian dictator, who can disappear you, imprison you, and kill you, at will, with no right of review by a court for any of it. That totalitarian dictator is Bush. Do his war powers extend to cancelling elections? Why not? Can't judges disappear as well as anyone?
It's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack
Seems the folks at www.theneoproject.com have decided to continue work on factoring Microsoft's Xbox public RSA key. It's unlikely their random prime attack will amount to anything. Nonetheless, it's good to have examples of perfectly legal reverse engineering to counter all the DMCA hype. We will close with the following exerpt from this news story, as covered by VNU Net, a British publisher. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1137916 The Neo Project began at the start of this year to try to crack Microsoft's private RSA-576 key by using a distributed computing network. This move followed RSA Security's original RSA-576 Factoring Challenge, posted last July, which offered crackers $10,000 to break the encryption algorithm. After successfully meeting RSA's challenge this week and publishing the factors on the internet, Neo Project announced that it would focus on Microsoft's implementation of the algorithm used for digital rights management in its Xbox console. Oh my. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Pigs Kill Family Pet
No they don't; or they wouldn't have had the balls to stop the car in the first place. -p - Original Message - From: Miles Fidelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Pigs Kill Family Pet -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law Apparantly the police in Tennessee agree with your sig line.
Re: Pigs Kill Family Pet
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: COOKEVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Police video released Wednesday showed a North Carolina family kneeling and handcuffed, who shrieked as officers killed their dog -- which appeared to be playfully wagging its tail -- with a shotgun during a traffic stop. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law Apparantly the police in Tennessee agree with your sig line.
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Steve Mynott wrote: Read the Rig Veda and break out the soma (if you know what it was). Or better, what it is :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 22:10 Europe/London, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... Cowboy hats are much more common in Cypherpunks Bay Aryan meetings Uh...do you actually hold Aryan meetings? Is this a white supremist thing, or will the following be welcome: Iranians Afghans Most people hailing from Northern India Turks I would imagine so since ironically the Aryans came from what is now Northern India and Iran up to about 1000BC. The word is even derived from Sanskrit. Read the Rig Veda and break out the soma (if you know what it was). -- Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Indo European Origins
Steve wrote... I would imagine so since ironically the Aryans came from what is now Northern India and Iran up to about 1000BC. The word is even derived from Sanskrit. Read the Rig Veda and break out the soma (if you know what it was). Soma? Despite the fact that I've read large chunks of the Rig Vedas, I don't remember anything called Soma (unless this is a Brave New World Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Mahabaratabut I don't imagine this is what you are referring to... As for the ultimate origin of the Aryans, it is far older than 1,000BC. As far as I understand it, the Aryans emanated from the lower reaches of the Caucus Mountains, and moved into Greece, Europe, Asia Minor, Central Asia, and the Northern Part of the Indian subcontinent. (I've read wildly conflicting reports as to when, but I remember ending up believing it happened around 13,000BC.) Early theories were that the Aryans had learned horseback-based military tactics before the indigenous peoples, but emerging theories have them slowly growing out of Asia minor via agricultural advances. Most of the people from the British Isles over to Northern India speak a variant of the original Indo-European language, with Sanskrit and Lithuanian likely being the closest languages surviving. Some interesting exceptions (I believe) are the Basque in Spain, Hungarians, The (Italian) Etruscans, and (as far as I remember) the Flemish. As I remember too, the Greek 'Linear A' script seems to be a pre-Indo-European leftover, and 'Linear B' shows the clear input of I-Es. (That the Basque and other groups claiming to be 'unique' has apparently been confirmed via the use of mitochondrial DNA techniques, which can determine when various human sub-populations diverged. this apparently mirrors the linguisitic evidence quite precisely.) So what current users of the term Aryan seem to be unaware of is that Iranians, Afghans, and tons of others are actually Indo European and hence Aryans. (Meanwhile, Iraqis, Saudis and all other Arabs along with Jews are Semites and not IndoEurpoean at all.) Of course, they DO tend to have somewhat lighter skin than many of the 'locals' (in fact, the Indian caste system seems to have codified this fact). But those who use the term Aryan these days seem to have inherited all of the Nazi bullshit mythological baggage. Now there may be exceptions, so that's why I asked. Of course Hitler and the gang appropriated this term and pumped it with some very different meanings, including notions of racial purity. I was curious as to whether Tim May meant this version of the term or what (and all that is concomittant, including hoped-for genocides), in which case bludgeoning him with a heavy, blunt object in the base of the skull would be a break for all humanity. -TD From: Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 19:41:42 + On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 22:10 Europe/London, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... Cowboy hats are much more common in Cypherpunks Bay Aryan meetings Uh...do you actually hold Aryan meetings? Is this a white supremist thing, or will the following be welcome: Iranians Afghans Most people hailing from Northern India Turks -- Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Quantum suicide without suicide
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 12:32 PM, George Levy wrote: As you can see, suicide is not necessary. One could be on death row - in other words have a high probability of dying - and make decisions based on the probability of remaining alive. Being on death row, dying of cancer, travelling on an airline, or sleeping in our bed involve different probability of death... These situations only differ in degrees. We are all in the same boat so to speak. We are all likely to die sooner or later. The closer the probability of death, the more important QS decision becomes. The guy on death row must include in his QS decision making the factor that will save his life: probably a successful appeal or a reprieve by the state governor. No, this is the good news fallacy of evidential decision theory, as discussed by Joyce in his book on Causal Decision Theory. The good news fallacy is noncausally hoping for good news, e.g., standing in a long line to vote when the expected benefit of voting is nearly nil. (But if everyone thought that way, imagine what would happen! Indeed.) The guy on death row should be looking for ways to causally influence his own survival, not consoling himself with good news fallacy notions that he will be alive in other realities in which the governor issues a reprieve. The quantum suicide strategy is without content. As you see, suicide is not necessary for QS decisions. No, I don't see this. I don't see _any_ of this. Whether one supports Savage or Jefferys or Joyce or Pearl, I see no particular importance of quantum suicide to the theory of decision-making. It would help if you gave some concrete examples of what a belief in quantum suicide means for several obvious examples: -- the death row case you cited -- the airplane example you also cited -- Newcomb's Paradox (discussed in Pearl, Joyce, Nozick, etc.) -- stock market investments/speculations --Tim May
RE: Indo European Origins
Tyler Durden[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Most of the people from the British Isles over to Northern India speak a variant of the original Indo-European language, with Sanskrit and Lithuanian likely being the closest languages surviving. Some interesting exceptions (I believe) are the Basque in Spain, Hungarians, The (Italian) Etruscans, and (as far as I remember) the Flemish. Basque is unique, as you say. The main other European non-IE group is the Finno-Ugric, comprising Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and a handful of other minor languages (I'm half Estonian by ancestry). Flemish is firmly in the IE group, somewhere between German and Anglo-Saxon. See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2282/finno.html for more info on the Finno-Ugric languages. (No, I don't speak Estonian) Peter Trei
