From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 06:42:21 +0800
To: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>
Subject: Re: The Net and Terrorism
Message-ID: <199607041917.MAA05137@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:43 PM 7/4/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote:
>On  3 Jul 96 at 14:48, jim bell wrote:
>[..]
>> But as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's a big difference between "We're 
>> gonna do this!" and "Someday we may have to do this."    My impression is 
>> that the government has tried to completely erase the dividing line
>> between these two concepts.
>
>As far as the government is concerned, "gonna do this" and "may have 
>to do this" is the same, since the "this" is illegal.  There is no 
>dividing line. 

A couple of decades ago, a relative of mine was in the Army Reserve.  Every 
summer, they went on exercises, and in one particular exercise (this is 
probably true of all of them, as well), they invented some sort of fictional 
scenario in which America was bordered by two fictional countries, the one 
to the south was called "Taco Land" and the one to the north was called "Big 
Tree Land."  I complimented him on the Army's ability to hide the meanings 
of these fictions so well!  B^)

Naturally, the Reserve went out and set up camp, etc, and did everything an 
army was supposed to do under such exercises.

So why were they allowed to do this, while ordinary citizens weren't?  Now, 
you may respond, "Hey, they're the Army, that's their job and they're 
allowed!"  Maybe.  But then again, as "ordinary citizens" we have a job to 
do as well.  And part of that job may involve ensuring that if the 
government stops being limited to the strictures of the Constitution, they 
can take it down and replace it with something better.  (See Declaration of 
Independence, for example.)


Frankly, nothing of what I've heard that this Arizona group did ought to be 
illegal.  I interpret the 2nd amendment ("arms") to include the dictionary 
meaning, "objects used as weapons," so I don't see any legitimate 
restriction of explosives.  As for scouting, practicing, and making 
possible-but-not-certain plans, I see nothing wrong with this either.  
(Remember, the Army has plenty of plans, too... few of which ever are 
carried out.)


>I suspect that since they (alegedly) had specific targets
>planned it leaned closer to the "gonna do this". 

Then, unfortunately, your "logic" is atrocious.  If you see a likely enemy, 
it makes sense to identify his assets well in advance of any actual 
hostilities, even if those hostilities are not certain. (to fail to do so 
would be completely irresponsible.)   That's what these people appear to 
have done.

> From the minimal discussion in the media I have read,
^          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's a CLUE.  The reason there's been "minimal discussion" is because the 
lap-dog media wants to avoid the entire "we're gonna do this/someday we may 
have to do this" issue.   It's not that they want to put the dividing line 
in a slightly different location, they want to deny that there is ANY SORT 
of a dividing line at all!  For the media to acknowledge that the people 
have a RIGHT to simply collect weapons of all kinds, including explosives, 
for a potential future confrontation with the government would, then, 
require debate as to how far this could go.  I think that would lead to the 
logical conclusion is that no action is illegal short of actually engaging 
in an attack.


> it appeared to be another 
>'revenge for waco and ruby ridge' action rather than a 'defense of 
>civil liberties from a potential totalitarian government' action.

I don't really see any valid distinction, here, except in _time_.


> (I'm rather skeptical as to how blowing up a specific IRS office would
>be effective were the government to change into a totalitarian regime.)
>
>Rob.

Local people can be expected to act locally.  They'll take care of their 
part of town, you take care of yours, right?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com