cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-04 - McVeigh is not the issue!

Header Data

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: e393faa800abbe8279a5afba4caddb8710918df1bfed362724ebcb92b01cebe0
Message ID: <v0310280bafba6a8c2fcf@[207.167.93.63]>
Reply To: <3393682D.167E@ai.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-04 01:01:26 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:01:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:01:26 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: McVeigh is not the issue!
In-Reply-To: <3393682D.167E@ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <v0310280bafba6a8c2fcf@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 11:43 AM -0700 6/3/97, Paul Bradley wrote:

>Whether McVeigh himself did it or not is questionable, I believe he did,
>this is just a gut feeling, no jury should have convicted him on the
>pathetic collection of circumstantial evidence presented.

Count me as one who believes the evidence was overwhelming. Unlike the OJ
trial, which I found myself drawn into on a daily basis, I ignored this
whole thing as much as  possible (not for ideological reasons...it just
didn't seem interesting to me). From what I did hear of it, the evidence
that he did it was positively convincing.

I've said I could understand McVeigh's motives, not that I think he was
right in doing it, and not that I think he should escape punishment or be
shown mercy. There are big differences in all of these issues.

I don't see the McVeigh issue as one where we need to get into a pissing
contest. He blew up the building, he got caught, he got convicted, and now
he'll spend another $15 million of our money appealing his conviction for
the next several or more years.

Time to move on.

What I think we can mostly all agree on are the civil liberties issues
involved in the aftermath of the OKC case, the Atlanta bombing, and the TWA
explosion. The demands for travel documents, the calls for limits on
bomb-making instructions, etc. These are clearly unconstitutional if
required by the government.

(The airlines claim the FAA is requiring traveller identity. Maybe yes,
maybe no. The airlines are profitting from the requirement, for the reasons
we've discussed here before. Any extension to further "position escrow"
(which is what I call the increasing requirements that citizen-units report
their identities when travelling) would, as I understand the Constitution,
violate various freedoms to move about with government interference.)

These are the serious issues.

--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."

Thread