ENT_ice

11-11-96. WaPo Page One:

   "Preventing Terrorism: Where to Draw the Line? With
   Militias, U.S. Adopts Preemptive Strategy"

      This strategy requires aggressive and potentially
      controversial tactics as investigators infiltrate groups
      and bring charges on the basis of allegedly criminal
      plans that are conceived but not carried out. Federal
      agencies are more willing to launch investigations when
      people talk about committing violent acts, and
      investigators are more prone to use ordinary citizens as
      informants.

      According to legal experts, the mere discussion of a
      crime, no matter how fanciful it may be, can constitute
      a criminal conspiracy. "The classic example is that you
      are guilty of a crime if you conspire with someone else
      to stick pins in a voodoo doll in the belief that your
      enemy will fall dead," said Albert Alschuler, a law
      professor at the University of Chicago.

   -----

   http://jya.com/entice.txt  (13 kb)

   ENT_ice

At 11:55 AM -0500 11/11/96, John Young wrote:
>   11-11-96. WaPo Page One:
>
>   "Preventing Terrorism: Where to Draw the Line? With
>   Militias, U.S. Adopts Preemptive Strategy"

>      According to legal experts, the mere discussion of a
>      crime, no matter how fanciful it may be, can constitute
>      a criminal conspiracy. "The classic example is that you
>      are guilty of a crime if you conspire with someone else
>      to stick pins in a voodoo doll in the belief that your
>      enemy will fall dead," said Albert Alschuler, a law
>      professor at the University of Chicago.

I don't think I'll be asking this particular expert anything important.
(Charitably, maybe he was quoted out of context.)

Even in this country, with its odd brand of justice, I'd like to see the DA
that will bring charges on "conspiring to commit voodoo," much less the
judge and jury that would eventually convict.

Ham sandwiches notwithstanding, there are powerful limits on what
conspiracy charges are feasible to bring.

(BTW, I doubt even the Cypherpunks members could be plausibly indicted on a
conspiracy charge, even though many of us speak openly of seeking the
overthrow of some or all of the U.S. system. Most of us avoid the key
ingredient of "violent," though those preaching the assassination of public
leaders as a method of overthrowing the system are certainly closer to the
line, and may even be over it. What saves them is that law enforcement, if
they've been made aware of these posts, dismisses them as ravings. This
benign neglect will probably change rather quickly if one of the offshore
betting markets starts carrying odds that a particular judge or other
public figure will be killed. And if he _is_ killed, look for
interrogations of the AP "ringleaders"--and maybe many of the rest of us,
who have spoken out for anarchy and the like--that will make the FBI
interrogations of the nuPrometheus League case pale by comparison.)

--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> ...This benign neglect will probably change rather quickly if
> one of the offshore betting markets starts carrying odds that a
> particular judge or other public figure will be killed. And if
> he _is_ killed, look for interrogations of the AP "ringleaders"
> --and maybe many of the rest of us, who have spoken out for
> anarchy and the like...

Just a reminder of the appropriate response in such a case.
Just keep repeating the four magic words, "I want a lawyer."
Co-operation buys you NOTHING.  (I hereby christen this the
"Jewell Rule" for obvious and topical reasons.)


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > ...This benign neglect will probably change rather quickly if
> > one of the offshore betting markets starts carrying odds that a
> > particular judge or other public figure will be killed. And if
> > he _is_ killed, look for interrogations of the AP "ringleaders"
> > --and maybe many of the rest of us, who have spoken out for
> > anarchy and the like...
> 
> Just a reminder of the appropriate response in such a case.
> Just keep repeating the four magic words, "I want a lawyer."
> Co-operation buys you NOTHING.  (I hereby christen this the
> "Jewell Rule" for obvious and topical reasons.)

"Me too."

Seriously, this is the best course of action.

A friend of mine tells an interesting story.
On driving to a convenience store early in wee hours, he sees a man
splayed across the hood of a parked car, perhaps dead.  Being the good
citizen he is he tracks down a police car and reports the incident.
Instead of investigating the "body," the police decide to pull him over
and write him $700 in tickets for various fictitous violations (all of
which were later thrown out).  He, as would any reasonable
citizen, protested, not so much for the tickets, but for the
possibility that the prone man might need medical attention.
(The incident was not called in on the radio).  He took the
tickets and remarked something to the effect of, "I can't
believe this is what one gets for trying to be a good citizen,
trying to get involved."  Officer's response:  "Yep.  Next time 
don't bother."  Eventually, some 30 mintues later the police drive to the
location and revive what was a sleeping bum, take my friend to the station
and make him wake his wife to bail him out to the tune of $250.

Total cost: $300 in legal fees to fight the "violations."

>From that point on he vowed never to make statements to police except in
the highly unlikely event that he might somehow become the prime suspect
of a murder investigation and counsel suggested he do so.

Whenever a police officer asks questions more substantial than "can I see
your license" or "do you have registration" he simply clams up shurgs
his shoulders, or otherwise makes completely unsubstantial responses which
drip apathy from all four corners.

If questioned about his non-responsiveness he smiles patiently and begins
thusly:

"Let me tell you a story officer... once upon a time a man was minding his
own business at 2am on the way to the convenience store...."

You can never win.  Don't try.

Readers might remember my own account of being interrogated for attempting
to purchase a car in cash at a "we hate drug dealers" dealership in
Virginia.  Cops know enough to play on human nature.  Most people want to
show the officer they are cooperative, to prove their good will.  Most
people will try to win the war of wits and waive away all their rights
simply because an officer asks if its ok with you if he violates your
rights politely.

"If you have nothing to hide, why can't I search the trunk?"
"You don't mind if I come in do you?"
"Why don't you come down to the station, it will only take a few minutes."
"If I find anything after I get a warrant, I'm not going to be happy."
"We can do this the easy way, or the hard way."
"Who are you protecting?"
"Tell us how you found the napsack, we want to make a training video."

What most citizens fail to do is call the bluff.  If every citizen made
every curious police officer go to a magistrate and sign for a warrant,
police would be a whole lot more careful about which cases they decided to
bother a magistrate with.

Be patient.  Make them get the warrant.  Make sure you tell them,
politely, that it is your hope that more people will do as you have, that
the magistrate will begin to wonder at all the warrant applications that
are suddenly coming in for this officer and the lack of corresponding
arrests.  Perhaps someone will pay attention.

> 
> 
>  S a n d y
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

John Young wrote:
>    11-11-96. WaPo Page One:
>    "Preventing Terrorism: Where to Draw the Line? With
>    Militias, U.S. Adopts Preemptive Strategy"
>       This strategy requires aggressive and potentially
>       controversial tactics as investigators infiltrate groups
>       and bring charges on the basis of allegedly criminal
>       plans that are conceived but not carried out. Federal
>       agencies are more willing to launch investigations when
>       people talk about committing violent acts, and
>       investigators are more prone to use ordinary citizens as
>       informants.
>       According to legal experts, the mere discussion of a
>       crime, no matter how fanciful it may be, can constitute
>       a criminal conspiracy. "The classic example is that you
>       are guilty of a crime if you conspire with someone else
>       to stick pins in a voodoo doll in the belief that your
>       enemy will fall dead," said Albert Alschuler, a law
>       professor at the University of Chicago.

In 1968, while sitting at my desk in 144th Signal Battalion supply, I
consciously poked pins into a mock-up doll of the Battalion Sgt. Major,
while the E7 Battalion Supply Sergeant looked on in horror.

His name was Lovgren; was from Haiti or the Dominican Republic, as I recall.

A day or two later (can't be exact), said Sgt. Major was in the hospital
with anomalous stomach pains, which scared the shit out of the E7 Sgt.
What came of it?  Nothing I remember, except that the E7 hated the Sgt.
Major anyway (called him Hogjaw), so I guess he didn't care.  He did
insist I quit sticking pins into dolls, which was OK with me; it was
just something to experiment with.  All depends on who you line up with
in the end...