From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:45:27 -0800 (PST)
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: ENT_ice
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961111165503.006adfec@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <328829AD.4CA2@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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...