Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:24:51 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult

> On the subject of cults, neither do cult leaders sit on panels at the
> Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference and mingle with the leading
> lawyers, law professors, NSA employees, and Justice Department
> representatives.

Never heard of the Pope then...

or Reverend Moon perhaps?

Or Mother Teresa...

Or perhaps the crazy guy from Oklahoma or Kansas or wherever who sat with
Bush during the final moments of his first election. I believe he was also
there when Desert Storm was launched. Has a big university named after
him. Oh Jesus, just can't think of his name...

Cults of personality are a function of being human, not what that human does
with their time.

You are confusing cause and effect.

> Where we differ is that first, I don't worry overmuch about what some
> foreigners are doing to other foreigners. I take George Washington at his
> word: avoid foreign entanglements. Not America's business if the Hutus are
> killing the Tutsis, or vice versa, or if the Nazis are killing the Jews, or
> vice versa.

And, yet, at the same time he had no compunction at all against buying arms
and influence from France...

Are any of them American Jews?...

Remember one thing oh Great Bawana Hunter May...

He who stands alone, dies alone.

What I would like to see is our favorite TLA jack-booted thugs to surround
some poor compound and then find themselves surrounded by thousands of
pissed-off gun-toting Americans daring the chicken-shits to do anything
about it. Any TLA clown that doesn't put their guns down immediately clearly
doesn't make much of the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution. And any
soldier who fires on Americans is clearly going against prima facia evidence
that the framers intended for American military force to NEVER be used
against American citizens on American soil. The soldier who killed the kid
down in the valley and got off scott free should face charges of treason.
So should his commanders all the way to ole Billary.

Consider, the law recognizes a parents right to sue an amusement park
because some incidental activity led to emotional distress what prevents us
from sueing the federal government for various criminal and civil penalties
relating to the physical and emotional suffering their actions have caused.
Hell, file a suite in the name of all Americans...

    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |          Participation requires more than just bitching!           |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http:// www.ssz.com/  |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> Jim Choate writes:

JC> And any soldier who fires on Americans is clearly going against
JC> prima facia evidence that the framers intended for American
JC> military force to NEVER be used against American citizens on
JC> American soil.

	Being a Pennsylvania native, I refer you to the 'Whiskey
Rebellion', 1791-4, western Pennsylvania.  Mr Washington, one of those
framers, sent American troops (militia, under federal control) against
American citizens on American soil.  And I don't recall Mr Washington
being impeached for violating the Constitution (although Jefferson did
resign as Secretary of State, in part, over this).  A page with some
discussion of this is <http://www.camconet.com/bradford/rebell.HTM>,
but I think it's too optimistic on one point.  It says that without
the 'Rebellion' "the government of today might be the aristocratic
monarchy that Hamilton and the Federalists tried so hard to install".
It may have delayed it, but our government certainly seems to rule
based on the Divine Right of Bureaucrats.

- -- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of
Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the
shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQBVAwUBM/810fCBWKvC9LiRAQGO8QH/dDfWFmBuGilbrYhv6JmLu1NZkkIUe+GZ
TrdN4aoKA4iNEassUeevM3b8+esFe/fgUQIElw+GP/vaceTXx3J+Eg==
=NJ0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 23 Aug 1997, Firebeard wrote:

> >>>>> Jim Choate writes:
>
> JC> And any soldier who fires on Americans is clearly going against
> JC> prima facia evidence that the framers intended for American
> JC> military force to NEVER be used against American citizens on
> JC> American soil.
>
> 	Being a Pennsylvania native, I refer you to the 'Whiskey
> Rebellion', 1791-4, western Pennsylvania.  Mr Washington, one of those
> framers, sent American troops (militia, under federal control) against
> American citizens on American soil.  And I don't recall Mr Washington
> being impeached for violating the Constitution (although Jefferson did
> resign as Secretary of State, in part, over this).

The militia is different from the military force.  The U.S. Constitution
explicitly states in Article I, Section 8, that the militia may be called
forth (by the federal government) to enforce federal law.  The army and
other military forces, however, were not given this power and were not
intended to be permanent establishments, either.  The reason for the
establishment of the militia was to provide for a permanent defense force
avoiding the dangers to liberty of a standing army.  The army was never
intended to be used for law enforcement and could only be used against
American citizens in a time of rebellion, such as the Civil War.  Over
a hundred years ago, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed which forbid the
military from arresting or questioning American citizens.



Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBM/9JHCzIPc7jvyFpAQF8mggAvCcdMuMFRpJzXndcT9PBLllscU5nUrWa
9tmfiqc8TGyunCgvBV0Ti+nYgO04Y36SQae087YRMxkydrSPbgJ8Mm2UMOPoPkv8
oVToNKWiKMOP22u0xXwRM0l7tEmsHgMjB0pxxDFj+ADYLi4ooMx35yl7qbUT7Edb
AEWT/Aq/pNrF5qa05ikCp61fp7bO6dyMFywfms/qOlpmm33/gAJoq4/II0hSazDL
kPF8bYpQ5JG4ABYFm/s5ilKOsmG5A5X/vRSojPi/HUaQkdBVpZVSE1sMLtIpGAdE
u6vV+VuS7lareaM/586oVV1jJ0i2HAAXd74LSUdrZgriLTeXvHLbPw==
=9W+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> Mark M writes:

MM> On 23 Aug 1997, Firebeard wrote:

>> >>>>> Jim Choate writes:
>> 
JC> And any soldier who fires on Americans is clearly going against
JC> prima facia evidence that the framers intended for American
JC> military force to NEVER be used against American citizens on
JC> American soil.
>>  Being a Pennsylvania native, I refer you to the 'Whiskey
>> Rebellion', 1791-4, western Pennsylvania.  Mr Washington, one of
>> those framers, sent American troops (militia, under federal
>> control) against American citizens on American soil.  And I don't
>> recall Mr Washington being impeached for violating the Constitution
>> (although Jefferson did resign as Secretary of State, in part, over
>> this).

MM> The militia is different from the military force.

	It is?  It seems to me that military force is military force,
regardless of what uniforms it's dressed in.  I forgot that it's so
much nicer to be shot by the New Jersey National Guard than the US
Marine Corps.  And Washington sent in the militia only because he
didn't have enough 'regular' troops.

MM> The U.S. Constitution explicitly states in Article I, Section 8,
MM> that the militia may be called forth (by the federal government)
MM> to enforce federal law.  The army and other military forces,
MM> however, were not given this power

	But they were not explicitly denied it, either.

MM> and were not intended to be permanent establishments, either.

	Agreed.  Has anyone ever attempted to sue the US Army as being
unconstitutional, given the prohibition of a standing army?

MM> Over a hundred years ago, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed which
MM> forbid the military from arresting or questioning American
MM> citizens.

	Ah, Congress had to pass a law to ban it, eh?  Well, what
Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away - and did.  I don't recall
the exact law or bill, but they exempted the military from the Posse
Comitatus Act in one of the 'War on Drugs' laws.

	At any rate, the 'War on Drugs' is a bad idea, and the use of
the military as police, domestically or abroad, is a bad idea.  I'm
just not certain which is worse.

- -- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of
Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the
shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQBVAwUBM/9+6/CBWKvC9LiRAQH0dgH9FuLZS4XuLux1vHo40tuozZliIIqjtY4p
ILtZUm1P7MUoCernF2Yrc3YmmByauPKGZIo2dWaZJH+RBy1hZOS5XQ==
=YU0z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 23 Aug 1997, Firebeard wrote:

> MM> The militia is different from the military force.
> 
> 	It is?  It seems to me that military force is military force,
> regardless of what uniforms it's dressed in.  I forgot that it's so
> much nicer to be shot by the New Jersey National Guard than the US
> Marine Corps.  And Washington sent in the militia only because he
> didn't have enough 'regular' troops.

The states have more control over the militia than the federal government.
Also, it is important to keep in mind, that at the time the Constitution
was ratified, the militia consisted of every able-bodied, white man between
the ages of 18 and 45.  Because the militia consisted of "ordinary" people
instead of professional soldiers, it was not seen as a risk to liberty
like a standing army, much in the same way that trial by jury is not as
dangerous to liberty as trial by a military commission.  Hamilton wrote
in Federalist #24:

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of
danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to
treat it with gravity or with raillery... .  Where in the name of
common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our
brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?  What shadow of danger
can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their
countrymen... ."

> MM> The U.S. Constitution explicitly states in Article I, Section 8,
> MM> that the militia may be called forth (by the federal government)
> MM> to enforce federal law.  The army and other military forces,
> MM> however, were not given this power
> 
> 	But they were not explicitly denied it, either.

The purpose of the Constitution was not to explicitly deny certain powers
of the federal government, but to explicitly grant powers to the federal
government.  The ninth and tenth amendments make this very clear.

> MM> and were not intended to be permanent establishments, either.
> 
> 	Agreed.  Has anyone ever attempted to sue the US Army as being
> unconstitutional, given the prohibition of a standing army?

The army can only be funded for two years at a time.  Congress renews
funding every two years to the army.  The army cannot exist without
Congress' approval.  A prohibition of a "standing army" would not have
been very meaningful given that there is no clear definition of this
term.

> MM> Over a hundred years ago, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed which
> MM> forbid the military from arresting or questioning American
> MM> citizens.
> 
> 	Ah, Congress had to pass a law to ban it, eh?  Well, what
> Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away - and did.  I don't recall
> the exact law or bill, but they exempted the military from the Posse
> Comitatus Act in one of the 'War on Drugs' laws.

The "drug war" activities of the army are perfectly within the limits of
the Posse Comitatus Act.  Military officers watch out for drug
traffickers and call out law enforcement to make an arrest.  The military
cannot make any arrests themselves.  This probably violates the spirit of
the Posse Comitatus Act, but not the letter.  I'm not exactly sure of the
historical context of the Posse Comitatus Act, but I do think it was
passed in reaction to the powers the president gained during the Civil War.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and instituted martial law
without Congress' approval, which is almost certainly unconstitutional.
As late as 1870, some people were still being tried by military commission
even though the Civil War had already ended.  This was probably the case of
Congress reacting to an unconstitutional exercise of power on the part of
the president and the military rather than abolishing a constitutionally
protected practice.



Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNACH1izIPc7jvyFpAQGAVAgAhUybvYYQpucp9OjemQYiCxKB2k5Ijb9Z
+xsR4yIGOAp8kVSI83HvrBYZxfd7DFLrs822qzt0OBhr7AQJgiwgs89aYbKbOKk/
BixjhG3lT7ccKnuMHwwVzXcBFzGqxdBJ/FzMFxn4Q6zqwsG0xM59Gu5B+sIcX7pL
Qei7vTrN+KVYYoFTMC7wvkQk2VqTp5WRjSmPFj6Iz5slNOszKtYTlX9eriWAng3E
6rcITYQqMrkH+4fyZ5tgmsH36UxtMHHu3Avpy4VvoJe+0BeeAQOr0JWcyvmdhhif
NEy6TTvCmlqoXqSTaQenhERDE0LODZQ5Q5M9BdGLQpOzZEVMoO3Fyg==
=0gE8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <vpzpq8o2dw.fsf@sten.tivoli.com>, on 08/23/97 
   at 07:23 PM, Firebeard <stend+cypherpunks@sten.tivoli.com> said:

>>Mark M writes:

>> The U.S. Constitution explicitly states in Article I, Section 8,
>>that the militia may be called forth (by the federal government) to
>>enforce federal law.  The army and other military forces, however,
>>were not given this power

>But they were not explicitly denied it, either.


Well there are two opposing camps on the Constitution.

On one side you have the Libertarian view that the Constitution is a
limiting document. The Federal government only has the power that is
explicitly granted and no more.

On the other side we have the view you have presented that unless
explicitly denied the Federal Government can do anything it pleases.

Anyone who has studied the writings of our Founding Fathers can clearly
see that they intended for the Constitution to be a limiting document. The
States had just finished fighting a long war against an oppressive,
distant centralized government had had no intentions of creating another
one in its place.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM/90nI9Co1n+aLhhAQFqPAP/dJLzpe2H5X7d1VEemxERLrduj+8/r8vd
5UUlNOTR2e3NxEzAPw5RY/L09HS5w5aKlrdhUNtyWtsDt+qzPs172NMXScXlw8BO
BhEcZpT7XtyTs4yHnp9B7hISb3YdGADl4oL5xw/Ljw0Uq7ivKwF6iqBvAUnbMymn
fZIFU0xMLSM=
=dXM5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 1:34 PM -0700 8/23/97, Mark M. wrote:

>The militia is different from the military force.  The U.S. Constitution
>explicitly states in Article I, Section 8, that the militia may be called
>forth (by the federal government) to enforce federal law.  The army and
>other military forces, however, were not given this power and were not
>intended to be permanent establishments, either.  The reason for the
>establishment of the militia was to provide for a permanent defense force
>avoiding the dangers to liberty of a standing army.  The army was never
>intended to be used for law enforcement and could only be used against
>American citizens in a time of rebellion, such as the Civil War.  Over
>a hundred years ago, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed which forbid the
>military from arresting or questioning American citizens.

By the way, a more recent example than that of the Whiskey Rebellion of
U.S. troops (regular army, not state Guard units) being used within the
U.S. against U.S. citizens was the action by Hoover against the
strikers/rioters and "Hooverville" residents in D.C., circa 1930. Hoover
sent in Army troops, led by either Gen. Pershing, as I recall (and maybe
Patton and/or Eisenhower...my CD-ROM encyclopedia is not handy, and a Web
search on some of the terms didn't quickly show any hits of direct
relevance, and I don't have the time to do more searches).

Also, I recall U.S. Army regulars being sent in in several of the riots of
the last 30 years, including, as I recall, Watts, Camden, and the recent
L.A. riots.

What the constitutional issues are I have little idea.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

MacArthur, whose aide was Eisenhower.
MacN

> U.S. troops (regular army, not state Guard units) being used within the
> U.S. against U.S. citizens was the action by Hoover against the
> strikers/rioters and "Hooverville" residents in D.C., circa 1930. Hoover
> sent in Army troops, led by either Gen. Pershing, as I recall (and maybe
> Patton and/or Eisenhower...my CD-ROM encyclopedia is not handy, and a Web
> search on some of the terms didn't quickly show any hits of direct
> relevance, and I don't have the time to do more searches).