From: Craig Strickland <tgi@null.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:44:41 +0800
To: CypherPunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Not a Logic-Newbie / Re: Queries from a Cyper-newbie?
In-Reply-To: <199707290236.EAA08713@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970729041243.034287ac@mail.emi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:36 07/29/97 +0200, Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>At 18:24 07/28/97 -0700, Chris Avery <cavery@ccnet.com> wrote:
>>... What gets me is the blind arrogance with which govt "servants"
>>assume that their (even if legitimate) pursuit of crime somehow
>>excuses or justifies diminishing privacy rights for everyone else...

Unfortunately, you're doing exactly what the "servants" want you to.  You're 
falling for their [believable] lie that they "need" to diminish your rights 
in order to do their job in fighting crime.  This is a difficult issue to 
oppose, since it leads directly to the accusation "if you oppose the 
government's need to have the keys to your house, then you must support 
crime".  But, it makes you more manageable to the "servants" as they ever so 
slowly encroach on your rights until there's pitifully little remaining.

It's too easy to look at each "minor inconvenience" as the incremental and 
cumulative erosion takes place and say "what could the harm be in that?"  
Perhaps very little, but it's the end result that's important.

It's important to recognize that the crime-fighters are violating the laws 
that were put into place to protect the citizens from the government.  A 
trivial example is the "seizure laws" that have become popular recently in 
"cracking down on the drug problem".

Please note carefully that the Constitution specifically prohibits the 
seizure of property without due process.  The current "anti-drug" seizure 
laws have eliminated due process and are therefore, by definition, in direct 
violation of the Constitution.  They are unconstitutional, and (if the 
Judicial branch weren't also corrupted) would be struck down instantly upon 
the first attempt to enforce through the Courts.

Please next note carefully that each office-holder in this country swears an 
oath to uphold the Constitution, and note also that an attempt to violate or 
destroy the Constitution is defined as an act of treason.

Thus, the introduction, vote "aye" for, passing, and enforcing such "laws" 
are each acts of treason.

How far can you trust the law-makers and law-enforcers when THEY THEMSELVES 
are law-breakers?  It's not even inadvertent or accidental.  Those who draft 
bills to introduce such legislation are directly intending to "bypass" or 
"circumvent" the Constitution.  Translated from "servant speak", that means 
"oppose" the Constitution.

Another point not to miss is that the "seizure laws" created a potent and 
immediate conflict of interest.  Those that you trust to "protect and serve" 
you now have a strong financial incentive to abuse the seizure laws, since 
the "loot" goes directly to fill up departmental coffers.  Here in Florida, 
seizures of boats and aircraft are so common that they aren't mentioned on 
the news nor in the paper.  Small businesses are ruined as millions of 
dollars of capital equipment is seized by the very officers that are rewarded 
[promotions, bonuses, budget increases next year] for their actions.  We've 
seen many cases that were completely groundless, but no judge ever sees the 
[lack of] evidence.  The owners are almost never charged with any crime.  The 
"goods" are simply taken, and the officers walk away.  The end.

The voting public loves it because it's made the law enforcement tax burden 
lighter, and anything that cuts costs is acceptable, especially since "the 
only people being hurt are those evil drug lords".  Tell that to the pilot & 
owner of an airplane seized due to a single marijuana cigarette butt found in 
his cargo hold.  He wasn't charged, and there were more than 40 people that 
had access to his plane, including baggage handlers and maintenance crews.  
If there had been a Constitutionally-mandated trial, the evidence wouldn't 
have the slightest chance of reaching a conviction.  No drug history 
whatsoever, accurate FAA records and customer invoices, nothing.  No link 
between the pilot and the butt.  But, the illegal law "authorizes" the police 
to line their departmental pockets, while the aircraft loan is foreclosed and 
he's out of business.  A stupid result [from the government's point of view] 
since he's no longer going to be paying the taxes on the revenue his business 
generated, and his unemployed former employees don't pay theirs.

Just the kind of abuse that was envisioned when the Constitution was being 
drafted.  Privacy is one of the fundamental links in the ability of citizens 
to protect themselves from a government that becomes too powerful and too 
abusive.

>... one of the
>major reasons for the erosion of our civil rights is usurpment of
>them by civil servants. In effect, the "servants" have armed themself
>and taken over control of the manor from its owners--their "masters."
>
>  "Legitimate needs" seem to have usurped "legitimate rights."

Absolutely!  Very well put.

	Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties -- the
	very heart and soul of our personal and national lives. They
	secured those liberties. They safeguarded them. This Bill of
	Rights is our guarantee of freedom.

The "servants" would have you believe that the Federal Government "created" 
the rights that you have [what's left of them, anyway].  Moreover, that those 
rights are equally subject to suspension/revocation at the government's whim. 
 Rather like when a parent "grounds" their child.  Don't fall for it.

- --
Internet:  tgi@null.net                   Physical:  26 11'46"N  80 14'20"W
Web:       http://pobox.com/~tgi/         Amateur:   KE4QJN
PGP Key:   Available from key server: pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu
           Fingerprint: E6 E1 25 DE 7C 6F 34 CD  E7 75 ED 21 7E 45 6E D7

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who
would resist us have been totally disarmed."  Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun
Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, January 1994,
Page 3.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQEPAwUBM92l2TOTF4+oUwAJAQFUxwfPbHaSbexYKZcm6CFm0tbvuxAEQp3reI02
eXJUXi44lAoqZeKFvh3fE3PT4U/N/pcfTT3VWAzS7d6EOT/4cPNhYuSXtcurplEF
e4g5fQlP6fjXvw50Ugv3ZkHLRJfPdyCOlAR9ntWCJ1rZj7L1j7XzpOuu9EwAdSVp
h1NB4gLBEQqiprq90faBqrJ3+NSjyICIVtMUdpr9NGBw/1kLP5rzhR6Tjp9Ph/qZ
Qks8rOvKdb+aOPvd3HJ+xLg2OCq8hc1vC9hSQRsaJYTbSJnOmq8MtR4PKV4AiYF5
pCO5qJa2Pt+2kK5t8YUlPdxzMNx5GrCw8iycLL1T8sMQ7g==
=w+8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----