funsec mailing list archives
Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:37:36 -0400
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:05:55 CDT, Brian Loe said: Hmm... Brian replies to the list, to an e-mail I sent directly to Brian and *NOT* the list. OK.
Really? You gave up your right to defend yourself, your country and your fellow man's rights. The right that rated the highest for these "guys", with the exception of freedom of speech and religion!
Be *very* careful here - are you using the singular "you" referring to me personally, or the collective "you" referring to the population as a whole? (Particularly important since later on, you imply this has been going on for 150 years since Lincoln was president - 110 or so of which I wasn't around to have given consent to "give up" anything...) (Here, I had to fill Brian in on who Jose Padilla was - Brian was apparently unaware that Padilla was a US citizen)
Note that he first had a chance to talk to a lawyer on March 3, 2004 - almost 2 whole years after being taken into custody. (I'm not saying he's innocent - he's quite likely guilty. But at least once upon a time, we gave people a fair trial with legal representation, after actually *charging* them with something...)
I'll bet that if it was even remotely likely that he wasn't guilty there would have been more noise about it
I notice that Brian carefully lopped out the part where I pointed out that CNN.com alone carried 850 or so references to the case, with multiple press releases by the ACLU and other organizations. It's *NOT* like there wasn't noise about it. And the last I heard, our legal system was *NOT* based on "he's probably guilty, he can rot in jail till we get around to charging him with something". (Here, I'm filling in Brian on who Yasser Hamdi was).
American citizen, captured in Afghanistan in 2001, not charged with anything and denied access to lawyers for over 3 years. This one *did* go all the way to the Supreme Court, which finally ruled the Administration had to do *something* with Hamdi, like actually charge him with something...Fuck him. Wrong place, wrong time.
OK, so if a member of *your* family got tossed into solitary confinement for 3 years, and wasn't charged with anything, because they were "wrong place, wrong time", you'd be *OK* on that?
For those who aren't familiar with northern Virginia: Falls Church is close enough to DC that it's a subway stop on the Orange Line - and there's 2 stops even further out. Manassas National Battlefield is some 30 miles out from the Mall. Suspending habeus corpus because there's a enemy army entrenched and encamped less than 30 miles from your seat of government is *slightly* different than doing it because of some ill-defined "terrorist threat".How close is the pentagon?
From Osama bin Laden? Some 8,000 miles, if he's still in Afghanistan.
If you care to point at some *SPECIFIC* threat that's closer, feel free to do so. (For the list - Brian tried to imply that since Lincoln "suspended the Constitution", the current activity was justified. I pointed out in my reply: 1) He suspended habeas corpus, not the Constitution. 2) At the time, Lee's army was in Falls Church and Manassas - less than 30 miles from the capitol. Doing something drastic because there's an enemy army that close is *far* different than doing something drastic because of some vague undefined threat. 3) And on top of all that, it still doesn't mean it was *right*. Expedient, maybe. But except for the most extreme Machiavelli followers, "expedient" and "right" are two different things.
You're asserting that it's perfectly acceptable to hoodwink the population in general, by saying that a program is for something, getting the people's consent to it on that basis, and then use the assent to do something totally different.
Uhhmm... yeah. DUH! Are you truly ignorant of how politicians do business? You have kids so you can't be that young...
The fact that something is done that way does not make it morally clean and righteous.
Was it a LAW that STATED what monies they were going to raise and what they were to be spent on? If so, its not acceptable. If you just believe it because some politician said it was so then you're an idiot and deserve what you get.
Oh, so *now* we have a requirement that the written law of the land be *followed*? That's progress at least - we'll come back to this.
They told us a bunch of stuff about how we need to remain vigilant and fight this war against terrorism until its conclusion... I still don't"We have always been at war with <terrorists>" - where is the "conclusion"?What's your point? Terrorism is just the current hobgoblin...
That *is* the point. The use of "current hobgoblin" to justify something, like (for instance) not wanting to obey a *law* that FISA warrants be obtained. (Remember? A few paragraphs back, you said that not following the law isn't acceptable...) And calling it "the current hobgoblin" isn't answering the actual question, which was "So what defines victory in this war on terrorism"?
That should give you pause right there. But I guess maybe they have *reason* to complain when there's a leak indicating they're doing something illegal or immoral in the name of "protecting" us....
Governments can not be "moral". Things sometimes need to be secret because the leaking of that information tips the government's hand or endangers people. That's just common sense.
I didn't say the government was moral. I spoke specifically of an *action* taken by *actual people*, acting as agents of said government. "I was just following orders" -- every guard at Auschwitz.
And how, exactly, do you know I *haven't* had a problem with them before now?Logs of this list should suffice.
Well, this list only goes back some 8-9 months... http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-September/000084.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-September/000228.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-September/000270.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-September/000279.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-October/000587.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-October/000778.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-October/001124.html (OK, I didn't actually *say* I agreed on that one...) http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-November/001654.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-November/001656.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-November/001660.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/001858.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/001873.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/001900.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/002307.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/002313.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-January/002875.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-January/003001.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-January/003328.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-January/003572.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-January/003555.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004284.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004590.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004595.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004617.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004662.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-February/004699.html (I think *that* one is a good sum-up of government use of technology) http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-March/005676.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-March/005688.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-March/005698.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-March/005820.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-March/005847.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-April/006067.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-April/006110.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-April/006377.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/006892.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/006900.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/006983.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/006994.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/007051.html http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/007111.html (I was wrong on this one...) http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/007126.html (It was Minnesota) http://www.linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2006-May/007276.html Fuck it. It's pretty obvious I have a fairly long-standing problem with them. ;)
Quoting a past American president - making it quite clear that I think it's our moral obligation to question the Administration's actions:Sure is, where are your posts from before Bush was President? I think it would be more accurate for you to say, "making it quite clear that I think it's our moral obligation to question thIS Administration's actions."
The quote from said president, for the benefit of those who didn't get to see the URL: "To announce that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it's morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -- Theodore Roosevelt Looks pretty invariant with regards to which party is in power. And I cited enough URLs in the first note to demonstrate I certainly have been pretty consistent in objecting to *this* administration. Unfortunately, my local outgoing e-mail archive only goes back to 30 Sep 1999, so it's easier to track down things I wrote since then, and then find the matching public archive entry. But since you insist (man, trying to get Google to cough up *old* stuff of yours when you post as much as I do is a *bitch* - and then many of the archives of things I wrote back then have vanished in the mists of time. There's lots of places that ran mailing lists 10 years ago that have since vanished.) http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/15.08.html#subj12 1993. And writing about Big Brother and state/federal powers. And Bill Clinton had been in office some 8 months. http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:6Rv1MJxrrN8J:lists.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/1997-July/001935.html+valdis+kletnieks+owns+integers&hl=en&lr=&strip=1 1997. And I'm only semi-facetiously suggesting that the US Govt might claim ownership of integers... http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf/2000-07/msg00178.html OK, Clinton was a lame duck, but Bush Jr wasn't elected yet. Sendmail 8.11 came out 2 days after I posted this. And I was advocating using crypto in yet-unreleased software to piss off the Echelon crew. Sep 12, 2000, I posted to the Incidents mailing list at Securityfocus, and made the comment: 3) For some people, the issue is not "securing attachments", it's "preventing traffic analysis". The difference is crucial if you happen to have moral objections to things like the FBI Carnivore or NSA Echelon systems. Yep, dissing Clinton's program again. :) (Unfortunately, the archive at SecurityFocus only goes back to 2002, and archive.org doesn't have a copy). Here's an interesting one - I'm commenting about catching dumb terrorists: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21449&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&mode=thread&pid=2268081#2276691 I had *no* idea that less than 6 hours later, Osama bin Laden would try it again... (And before you complain about the sparcity - how much of what *YOU* wrote in 1996 is still online in an easily accessible form? *Especially* things you didn't plan to need to reference a decade from now :)
And really, your posts that show you've complained about this administration before really doesn't disprove my point. We didn't get to this point overnight - we didn't get here with this administration.
And your point is what, exactly? That one was required to disagree with the previous administration in order to disagree with this one? Or that anybody who disagrees with this one can't possibly have disagreed with the previous one? or something else?
This started with Lincoln and as continued since - sometimes slowing down, but never reversed completely. Did you not have an opinion before Bush took office or were things just that great?
Oh, I certainly had an opinion. Regarding Clinton. Regarding Bush Sr. Regarding Reagan. Regarding Carter and Ford too (although that pesky 26th Amendment meant the first presidential election I could vote in was Reagan's first term). I definitely remember thinking "Important people in Washington shouldn't break into doctor's offices to make people look bad" even if I was a bit fuzzy on who Daniel Ellsberg was (hey, cut me some slack - the whole Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg/Watergate/COINTELPRO thing wend down when I was still a pre-teen.. ;) "To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: you can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong." -- HR Haldeman, to Richard Nixon
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports?, (continued)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Matthew Murphy (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Dude VanWinkle (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Drsolly (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Matthew Murphy (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 21)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Matthew Murphy (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Jarrod Frates (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Matthew Murphy (Jul 20)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)
- RE: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Blanchard_Michael (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 21)
- Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports? Brian Loe (Jul 21)