From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 06:20:40 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <alan@ctrl-alt-del.com>
Subject: Re: Why I think Jim Bell is getting railroaded
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970520212520.00afa470@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <33837141.2F1C@ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Alan Olsen wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> I think that the Government is trying to make an example of Mr. Bell.  I
> think
> that much of the charges reported in the news are flase.
> 
> Here is why...
> 
> 1) They claim that Jim was actively trying to disrupt 911 service and poison
> the Bull Run water supply.  These are non-political targets.  Jim only thinks
> in political targets. 

He only mouths off on cypherpunks about FBI agents and such but 
I know a lot of terrorists who consider the 911 system a political
target. The UVF in Ulster blew up a dam (so they could blame it on
the IRA). 

I would not depend on Bell to any extent in any circumstance to
be reliable.



> 2) The warrent is sealed, yet the media is reporting all sorts of things  about
> the case.  Where is the information coming from?  

Who says they have any at all? The US press does not need
information to publish articles. Bell has published his stuff
very widely.


> 3) The suspected crimes list keeps changing.  How many times has the
> "official" story changed?  Each time it gets more and more lurid.  

Expanding is the word. Put someone under a microscope and you
are liable to find out quite a bit about them. 

Bell is not the kind of loon to stick one's neck out for. It may
well be that he did not explicitly advocate murder but he danced
awfully close to that line. My understanding is that the original
charge relates to statements made in person that were interpreted 
as threatening. Each act individually may not amount to a 
criminal act but together they could well do so.

For example in the 1970s a series of articles was written
under the pen-name "Brownie" advocating the "Ballot Bomb"
strategy in which political action would be used to compliment a
terrorist campaign. Now it is arguable that the articles were or
were not protected speech under the first amendment but consider 
the situation if that person were to say to someone such as a policeman 
"I know how to fix you". If as would be quite likely the policeman 
was aware of the "Brownie" letters the intent to communicate a
threat of murder would be quite plain.

Before charging to the rescue its a good idea to make sure
that you are rescuing the right person. Government agents
also have the right not to be threatened with murder.


The first amendment has never been interpreted as making
threatening speech or fraud legal, even by those such as
Jefferson who argued against libel laws.


	Phill