Senator John Ashcroft's Comments
R. Knauer-AIMNET
To whom it may concern:
I thought the following would be of interest to you and your
organization. Please feel free to pass it along to others and to post
on your web site. This is an OPED that Senator John Ashcroft wrote
for the United States Information Agency. If you have any questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. My phone # is
202-224-4591. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Richard Smotkin
Technology Advisor
September 30, 1997: USIA
The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part
by representing the most inviting form of communication ever
developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to
share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all
branches of government closer to the public that they serve. The
Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and
conquer the distances between them and potential customers.
Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving
home. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students
-- rural, suburban, and urban -- are increasingly able to access a
wealth of information with their fingertips that was previously beyond
their reach.
In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge
of this new means of commerce, communication, and education,
government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness
the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and
controls. Yet, the Clinton Administration is trying to do just that.
The Clinton Administration would like the Federal government to
have the capability to read any international or domestic computer
communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest and discuss
financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information
sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish
this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the
keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet
communications.
This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans'
privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that
our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption
technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders
of international cyber-surfers, but the Administration threatens to
render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and
unemployed.
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit
crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity.
However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our
homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government
the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our
communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to
protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value.
Two-hundred-years of court decisions have stood in defense of this
fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting
should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.
The President has proposed that American software companies
supply the government with decryption keys to high level encryption
programs. Yet, European software producers are free to produce
computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing
keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software
value security above all else. These buyers will ultimately choose
airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs
to which the U.S. government maintains keys.
In spite of this truism, the President is attempting to foist
his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer
industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology
bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this
industry. Three months ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard
encryption code that protects most US electronic financial
transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers was broken by a
low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.
In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government
as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason .....
there are 72 quadrillion different combinations in a 56-bit code.
However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion different
combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.
Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of
the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with
Administration policy, to force American software companies perpetuate
this already compromised 56-bit encryption system. In spite of the
fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available
on websites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly,
European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology
(originally developed by Americans) to the U.S., but U.S. companies
are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other
countries.
I believe that moving forward with the President's policy or the
Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre
of government peeping toms and causing severe damage to our vibrant
software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of
catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Majority
Leader Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals.
The Leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption
legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S.
encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal
footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry
with a quasi-governmental Board that would decide encryption bit
strength based on the level of international technological
development.
U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies --
value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen
months, the processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed
with which today's fastest computers calculate will be slug-like
before the next millennium .... or the next presidential election
comes along. The best policy for encryption technology is one that
can rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll
back encryption limits as needed.
The Administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly
unhealthy precedent, especially given this Administration's track
record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people
communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal
intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the
keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our
medical records, or translate our international communications.
Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be
realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those
who, use the Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material;
deliver that material via the Internet, or individual users. The
implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch
individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers and
students.
In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic
conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to
update international copyright law. These treaties would extend
international copyright law into the digital environment, including
the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive
response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of
the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must work to
keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important
protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread
distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the
Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of
1997.
Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to
balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and
technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the
electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual
end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and
include some language that could create legal uncertainty. This vague
language could lead to laws that ignore technical realities, blindly
shifts liability and frustrates serious issues. The language must be
clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with
the Senate's ratification of the treaties.
Another issue which could prevent the Internet from reaching its
potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow
discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological
development that holds much commercial, social, and educational
promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after
we have fully examined and understand the impact that unequivocal
taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax
Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities
and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of
online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is
important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local
jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on
electronic commerce.
On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of
19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash
American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy
on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually
injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role
should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their
highest and best.
R. Knauer-AIMNET
>This is the the part that worrys me...quasi-governmental board?
I am sure he means the usual - a group of powerful global
industialists and their Fascist govt pals.
Like DuPont with the freon business, and A. (Adolf) Lincoln with
Yankee shipbuilding.
Gotta protect those vital industries - for da' Chil'run.
Bob Knauer
W T Shaw
In article <3436e1b6...@news.iquest.net>,
let....@the.dogs.of.paintball.com (Cry Havoc !) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 11:39:20 GMT,
> rckt...@ix.netcom.com (R. Knauer-AIMNET) wrote:
>
> > The Leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption
> >legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S.
> >encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal
> >footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry
> >with a quasi-governmental Board that would decide encryption bit
> >strength based on the level of international technological
> >development.
>
> This is the the part that worrys me...quasi-governmental board?
> Everything else "sounds" good.
>
>
Some echoes of misunderstanding are clear, that encryption is easily tied
in strength to bit length of the key. It may or may not be so done,
depending on the algorithm.
Even a monoalphabetic substitution scheme used in common cryptograms has
far too many bits in the key to be acceptable by even the current
standard. And, as many know from what my work, bit-strength of keys may
be hard to pin down, or even closely estimate.
--
wts...@itexas.net--crypto
-----
hvnrgvnlH htmrsg viz boozvi hwizdpxzy.
David Howe
On 5 Oct 1997 22:17:53 GMT, an...@bwh.harvard.edu (Andre Robatino)
wrote:
> Does this strike anyone else as being silly? I mean, if utterly unbreakable
>128-bit encryption is already available outside the country, is it really
>worth the trouble to ban export of 130-bit encryption?
I could live with it. We could slap together a "noddy" app that uses
some trivial algorithm (xor for example) with a 4000 bit key, then
lobby for export levels to be raised to this "keylength standard" :+)
__--== DHowe (is at) Tecsun.Demon.CoUk ==--__
R. Knauer-AIMNET
> Does this strike anyone else as being silly? I mean, if utterly unbreakable
>128-bit encryption is already available outside the country, is it really
>worth the trouble to ban export of 130-bit encryption?
Politics is the art of passing off the absurd as meaningful.
Bob Knauer
John Bischoff
<snip for brevity>
> Another issue which could prevent the Internet from reaching its
> potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow
> discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological
> development that holds much commercial, social, and educational
> promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after
> we have fully examined and understand the impact that unequivocal
> taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax
> Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities
> and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of
> online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is
> important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local
> jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on
> electronic commerce.
>
> On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of
> 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash
> American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy
> on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually
> injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role
> should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their
> highest and best.
Taxing the Internet is what ought to be bothering folks.
Note the word "prematurely".
I am also uncomfortable with the "settle this new frontier" concept.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
John
David Sternlight
Andrew Mobbs wrote:
>
> In article <6193mh$f...@mufasa.harvard.edu>,
> Andre Robatino <an...@bwh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >R. Knauer-AIMNET (rckt...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> [snip]
> >: The Leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption
> >: legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S.
> >: encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal
> >: footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry
> >: with a quasi-governmental Board that would decide encryption bit
> >: strength based on the level of international technological
> >: development.
> >
> >128-bit encryption is already available outside the country, is it really
> >worth the trouble to ban export of 130-bit encryption?
>
> the US will always be ahead of the rest of the world in crypto and
> security technology. Do the US senate realise that (probably) the best
> PRNG known came from Thailand, one of the most popular block ciphers
> from Switzerland, and some of the best protocol research from the UK?
> (Apologies to anyone who feels left out, this is off the top of my
> head).
Please reread the needle in the haystack argument. The US is massively ahead
in mass market software used in the rest of the world, and there is no
evidence despite manful attempts for big rewards, that foreign products will
displace that. Thus export controls don't assume foreigners can't, won't, or
haven't developed good algorithms. They assume that foreigners will continue
to use US mass market software without local crypto add-ons for "innocent"
plaintext, thus preserving a valuable intelligence and security resource.
David
David
Bill Unruh
In <876337...@mist.demon.co.uk> io...@mist.demon.co.uk (Iolo Davidson) writes:
>Therefore the US laws against exporting crypto software are
>nothing to do with limiting the availability of crypto to
>unfriendly foreign governments, but are to enable the routine
>snooping on everyday personal and commercial traffic of friendly
>nations, and masquerading these regulations under the umbrella of
>arms control legislation was entirely bogus. This is the best
Actually they are no longer under the arms control. They are now on the
Commerce Export control list. You might say that this is a more honest
place to put them if David;s argument is correct. Unfortunately the
effect is exactly the same, so it unclear to me whether or not such
evidence of honesty in government is worth much.
David Sternlight
In article <876337...@mist.demon.co.uk>, iolo at mist dot demon dot co
dot uk wrote:
>In article <343BB1D5...@sternlight.com>
> da...@sternlight.com "David Sternlight" writes:
>
>> Please reread the needle in the haystack argument. The US is massively ahead
>> in mass market software used in the rest of the world, and there is no
>> evidence despite manful attempts for big rewards, that foreign products will
>> displace that. Thus export controls don't assume foreigners can't, won't, or
>> haven't developed good algorithms. They assume that foreigners will continue
>> to use US mass market software without local crypto add-ons for "innocent"
>> plaintext, thus preserving a valuable intelligence and security resource.
>
>Therefore the US laws against exporting crypto software are
>nothing to do with limiting the availability of crypto to
>unfriendly foreign governments, but are to enable the routine
>snooping on everyday personal and commercial traffic of friendly
>nations, and masquerading these regulations under the umbrella of
>arms control legislation was entirely bogus. This is the best
>demonstration of the US Government's hidden agenda in crypto
>legislation, a hidden agenda you claim does not exist.
To the contrary I have never claimed the intel agenda didn't exist. Quotes,
please.
In any case I don't speak for the USG so your conclusion is unwarranted.
David
--
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability
to uninformed opinion."--John Lawton
Cipher
In article <876434...@mist.demon.co.uk> Iolo Davidson,
io...@mist.demon.co.uk writes:
>Nowhere do I conclude that you speak for any government or
>indeed anyone at all. My conclusion was that The US government
>has a hidden legislative agenda regarding crypto, and that the
>stated aims are false and a blind to ease passage of the
>hidden objectives.
And one of those is the removal of the Fourth Amendment from the
Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is such an impediment to effective law enforcement!!
Cipher/Member news.newusers.questions Moderation Board
Visit my Mac help site at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
PGP Public Key available at my website
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBM81uIbKO9JtAv+/uEQKiBACg0InZT+DGQBNFWAZ4/2Rbm4i2X/8AnjkS
xeNHEHShMX0KgKmIttKbduQn=467z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 11 Oct 1997 07:08:08 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <876434...@mist.demon.co.uk> Iolo Davidson,
>io...@mist.demon.co.uk writes:
>>Nowhere do I conclude that you speak for any government or
>>indeed anyone at all. My conclusion was that The US government
>>has a hidden legislative agenda regarding crypto, and that the
>>stated aims are false and a blind to ease passage of the
>>hidden objectives.
>
>And one of those is the removal of the Fourth Amendment from the
>Constitution.
>
>The Bill of Rights is such an impediment to effective law enforcement!!
Yeah, let's put the needs of the State ahead of the rights of
citizens, like good Fascists do.
Bob Knauer
Anthony E. Greene
On Wed, 08 Oct 97 19:10:11 GMT, io...@mist.demon.co.uk (Iolo Davidson)
wrote:
>In article <343BB1D5...@sternlight.com>
> da...@sternlight.com "David Sternlight" writes:
>
>> Please reread the needle in the haystack argument. The US is massively ahead
>> in mass market software used in the rest of the world, and there is no
>> evidence despite manful attempts for big rewards, that foreign products will
>> displace that. Thus export controls don't assume foreigners can't, won't, or
>> haven't developed good algorithms. They assume that foreigners will continue
>> to use US mass market software without local crypto add-ons for "innocent"
>> plaintext, thus preserving a valuable intelligence and security resource.
>
>Therefore the US laws against exporting crypto software are
>nothing to do with limiting the availability of crypto to
>unfriendly foreign governments, but are to enable the routine
>snooping on everyday personal and commercial traffic of friendly
>nations, and masquerading these regulations under the umbrella of
>arms control legislation was entirely bogus. This is the best
>demonstration of the US Government's hidden agenda in crypto
>legislation, a hidden agenda you claim does not exist.
Quite the contrary. The NSA/FBI have been quite open in that a key
reason for export control is the fact that common use of strong crypto
would inhibit collection and analysis of casual communication. They may
have hidden agendas, but this is not one of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony E. Greene <agreene...@pobox.com> remove ".nospam"
Use PGP -- Envelopes and Signatures for Email
What is PGP? <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/pgp/>
My PGP Key: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/pgp/agreene.key>
FREEWARE Win95 PGP 5.0: <http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 11 Oct 1997 18:48:46 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Absolutely!! Can't have the Amendments getting in the way of Crime
>Stopping, now can we?
JBGTs wouldn't know an Amendment if it bit them square on the ass.
I mean, Fascists don't need no steenkin' Amendments.
After all, Lincoln didn't either.
Bob Knauer
Cipher
In article <343f8138...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> R. Knauer-AIMNET,
rckt...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Yeah, let's put the needs of the State ahead of the rights of
>citizens, like good Fascists do.
>
>Bob Knauer
Absolutely!! Can't have the Amendments getting in the way of Crime
Stopping, now can we?
Cipher/Member news.newusers.questions Moderation Board
R. Knauer-AIMNET
>Quite the contrary. The NSA/FBI have been quite open in that a key
>reason for export control is the fact that common use of strong crypto
>would inhibit collection and analysis of casual communication. They may
>have hidden agendas, but this is not one of them.
Why would JBGTs want to listen in on "casual" conversation?
I mean, don't they have better things to do like machine-gun innocent
men, women and children in their home from helicopter warships,
torture them for 81 days, gas and burn them, and imprison the
survivors with a kangaroo court?
You know, more productive things - like at WACO, Amerika's Mi Lai
Massacre.
Bob Knauer
Cipher
In article <876688...@mist.demon.co.uk> Iolo Davidson,
io...@mist.demon.co.uk writes:
>The NSA/FBI are not the government, and do not pass legislation.
Uhmmmmm.... maybe they are.
Ever wonder why Clinton with his "Most ethical administration in history"
keeps getting off the hook for scandal after scandal?
Christ, the press has better success at finding facts than Freeh's boys
and girls. And now Reno wants to give Freeh veto power over yet another
investigation.
Now since Billy actively supports anything Freeh wants in the crypto
arena, guess where that investigation is headed. The FBI and Justice
won't find anything. Hard to find anything when you're not really
looking.
And whats with the nuclear scientist being appointed to run the FBI crime
lab? Hey a guy with no forensic experience wouldn't see a screw up if it
bit him on the ass. Maybe that's the way Freeh wants it. An ignorant
person in charge of his crew, still free to do as they wish, for business
as usual.
Steve Brinich
Cipher wrote:
> Now since Billy actively supports anything Freeh wants in the crypto
> arena, guess where that investigation is headed. The FBI and Justice
> won't find anything. Hard to find anything when you're not really
> looking.
Reluctant as I am to come to this conclusion, a connection between
Clinton's support for FedEnforcer power grabs and Reno's willingness
to accept "The d/o/g/ cat ate the files you want" excuses does explain
a few things....
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
David Sternlight
In article <62dn1q$m...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Cipher
<cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>And whats with the nuclear scientist being appointed to run the FBI crime
>lab? Hey a guy with no forensic experience wouldn't see a screw up if it
>bit him on the ass. Maybe that's the way Freeh wants it. An ignorant
>person in charge of his crew, still free to do as they wish, for business
>as usual.
Why are you surprised? We now have a biologist with no aerospace
experience (David Baltimore, the new President of Cal Tech) in charge of
JPL.
It's called the theory of the all-purpose manager, first flogged on an
unsuspecting world by the Harvard Business School.
Jerome A. Schroeder
>The NSA/FBI are not the government, and do not pass legislation.
>No doubt they influence the government, who collectively realise
>that they cannot do as the spooks advise openly, so disguise
>surveilance enabling bills under the mantle of arms control.
>
>The hidden agenda of the US government is to pass laws enabling
>the police state without owning up to the public that that is
>what they are doing. Saying that the spooks discuss their
>desires for easy surveilance openly does not excuse the
>government granting those wishes by provisions hidden within
>laws purporting to keep weapons out of the hands of unfriendly
>foreign powers, particularly as the provisions patently cannot
>do that.
NSA/FBI are part of the government, but only part. We tend to think
of government at a monolith with a common goal and ideals.
Fortunately for us, they are nothing of the sort. A more accurate
image would be of a herd of cats harnessed to a single sled. The
direction the sled heads is the result of those several cats pulling
in various directions.
At the moment two of those cats are pulling in the same direction, and
dragging along an indifferent team. The rest of the governmental
felines are licking themselves or contemplating dinner.
It is our obligation to throw snowballs at the team, exciting them
enough to move in a different direction.
Jerry
>
>--
>SINCE HUBBY HE'S 1/3 MAN
> TRIED AND 2/3 BRUTE
> THAT SUBSTITUTE Burma-Shave
>
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 19 Oct 1997 19:28:58 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Ever wonder why Clinton with his "Most ethical administration in history"
>keeps getting off the hook for scandal after scandal?
Here's the current scorecard from the Washington Weekly.
Bob Knauer
-----
The Most Ethical Administration in History
List of Alleged Crimes and Abuses of Power by the Clinton
Administration.
For reasons of brevity, titles of individuals are omitted and
allegations are listed in summary style only. Each allegation has
been described in detail in the Washington Weekly over the past
few years.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton
(1) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud
the Small Business Administration of $300,000.
(2) Used State Police for personal purposes.
(3) Abused his position as governor to extort sexual favors
from employees.
(4) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating
evidence against political opponents: Steve Clark, Terry Reed,
and Larry Nichols.
(5) Knew about drug importation and distribution by a friend
and campaign contributor, Dan Lasater.
(6) Allowed drug money to be laundered through ADFA.
(7) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy
Malak who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as
"suicides" or "accidents."
(8) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days
behind the Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War.
(9) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal
referral.
(10) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws.
(11) Violated the Constitution by signing into law an ex
post facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
(12) Fired RTC chief Albert Casey to allow his friend Roger
Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations.
(13) Fired FBI director William Sessions and the entire top
management at the FBI to prevent an autonomous FBI from
investigating the suicide of Vince Foster and other scandals.
(14) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey who
prevented Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.
(15) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their
silence about Clinton's crimes.
(16) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector
General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy
Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee
files were searched and leaked to the press.
(17) Appointed friend and felon Webster Hubbell to number 3
position in Justice Department in order to be able to block
Whitewater criminal referrals by RTC investigator L. Jean Lewis.
(18) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a
Tennessee Democrat.
(19) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, without the mandated "advice and
consent" of the Senate, to derail a probe of his and Hillary's
financial dealings.
(20) Committed witness tampering by causing bribes to be
paid to Webster Hubbell.
(21) Committed witness tampering by causing a job with the
NSC to be offered to former Trooper L.D. Brown in return for
Brown's silence on several Clinton crimes.
(22) Rifled through L.D. Brown's personnel file at the CIA
in an attempt to find damaging information on Brown, a witness to
many Clinton crimes.
(23) Blocked Justice Department prosecution of Arthur Coia,
a union Mob puppet and heavy Clinton donor.
(24) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal
property.
Bill Clinton is under investigation by an Independent
Counsel and by Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore
(1) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal
property.
(2) Participated in an illegal fund-raising event at the Hsi
Lai Temple were campaign contributions were laundered through
nuns.
Al Gore is under investigation by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton:
(1) Accepted a $100,000 bribe, laundered through cattle
futures, from Tyson Foods Inc.
(2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while
overseeing legislative reform of same.
(3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira
Magaziner in the Health Care Task Force trial.
(4) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred
documents that were the target of a court probe.
(5) Obstructed justice by ordering the removal and shredding
of Vince Foster's documents on the night of his death.
(6) Hired Craig Livingstone to conduct a political
intelligence operation against her opponents.
(7) Defrauded the U.S. Treasury of more than $10 million by
funneling Community Development Financial Institutions grants to
financial institutions in which she has an interest.
(8) Ordered Treasury officials to cover up the fraud by
fabrication of false documents.
Hillary Clinton is under investigation by an Independent
Counsel.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Webster Hubbell
(1) Convicted for defrauding the federal government (FDIC
and IRS).
(2) Executed obstruction of justice in the Justice
Department in several cases: The Inslaw case, and the RTC
criminal referrals on Whitewater.
Webster Hubbell has resigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Magaziner
(1) Violated federal law when he held Health Care Task Force
Meetings in secret and refused to release documents.
(2) Lied in court about the composition of the Health Care
Task Force.
A criminal referral by Judge Royce Lamberth was not acted
upon by the Clinton-appointed U.S. Att. Eric Holder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Nussbaum
(1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation
by blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal
of documents, and by retrieving Foster's pager from Park Police.
(2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC
through White House liaisons.
Bernard Nussbaum has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Stephanopoulos
(1) Accepted a $600,000 loan below market interest and with
insufficient collateral from NationsBank, a bank having business
before the Clinton Administration.
(2) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(3) Obstructed justice by attempting to have Whitewater
investigator Jay Stephens at the RTC fired.
George Stephanopoulos has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Espy
(1) Accepted bribes from Tyson Foods Inc. and other
companies which were under regulatory control of his Agriculture
Department.
Mike Espy has resigned and is awaiting indictment by a
special prosecutor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Altman
(1) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(2) When caught, lied to Congress about having lied to
Congress.
(3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block
the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis.
Roger Altman has resigned but is still carrying out
assignments for the White House
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Brown
(1) Negotiated a $700,000 bribe with the Vietnamese
government.
(2) Accepted a $60,000 bribe from Dynamic Energy Resources.
(3) Sold seats on foreign trips to DNC contributors.
Was under investigation by an independent counsel when he
died in a plane crash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Les Aspin
(1) By denying them military protection equipment, Aspin was
responsible for the death of Army Rangers in Somalia.
Les Aspin resigned and died before he could be held
accountable in a public forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Kennedy and David Watkins
(1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.
(2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this
scheme.
Kennedy and Watkins have resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cornelius
(1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office.
Because those documents later became the subject of a trial
against Office Director Billy Dale, that became an obstruction of
justice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy Thomasson
(1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health
Care Task Force and the size of its budget.
(2) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the
office of Vince Foster.
(3) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Williams
(1) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the
office of Vince Foster.
(2) Solicited and accepted a $50,000 campaign contribution
from Johnny Chung in the White House in return for Hillary
Clinton meeting with Chinese businessmen.
Margaret Williams has resigned.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Steiner
(1) Lied to Congress about conversations with White House
personnel about the RTC.
Joshua Steiner has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Cutler
(1) Lied to Congress about the contents of redacted
documents.
(2) Attempted to withhold vital information from Congress, a
felony.
(3) Obtained a confidential Treasury report and showed it to
witnesses before they testified before Congress in the Whitewater
hearings. Lied to Congress when he denied having coached
witnesses.
Lloyd Cutler has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mack McLarty
(1) As chairman of Arkla, was responsible for the bribing of
public utility officials.
(2) Conspired with Democratic Congressional Leadership to
block access by investigators to vital documents in a
Congressional hearing.
Mack McLarty escaped prosecution when a lobbyist working for
him was convicted of bribery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Ickes
(1) Broke into New York Republican headquarters in 1970. Has
never been indicted for this crime which was similar to what the
Watergate Plumbers spent time in jail for.
(2) Had contacts with the Arkansas-based Park-On-Meter
company which received questionable loan from Clinton's ADFA and
was alleged to be involved in arms manufacturing.
(3) Worked for Mafia-controlled labor unions.
(4) Set up a $56 million slush fund by Union Mobsters for
use in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.
(5) Arranged meeting between Mob figure and Clinton campaign
contributor Arthur Coia and Bill Clinton.
(6) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.
(7) Improperly discussed a $500,000 contribution in a memo
to businessman Warren Meddoff, using White House computer,
telephone, and fax. Faxed instructions on how to launder
contributions through tax-exempt organization to evade scrutiny
of FEC.
(8) Attempted to obstruct justice by orchestrating an
approach to Whitewater witness Beverly Basset Shaffer.
Harold Ickes was fired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Lindsey
(1) As treasurer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign in
1990, he signed withdrawals from Perry County Bank, the president
of which was indicted for conspiring to conceal these withdrawals
from the IRS and FEC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Benett
(1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General
staff.
(2) Launched a politically motivated investigation of Radio
Marti, a staunchly anti-Communist radio station run by the
government.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federico Pena
(1) State and federal contracts were awarded to companies in
which he had a financial interest.
The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to
appoint a Special Counsel.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Cisneros
(1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover.
Henry Cisneros is under investigation by a Special Counsel.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Reno
(1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the
Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
(2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens
of the United States.
(3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of
the United States.
(4) For more than a year stalled the appointment of a
special counsel to investigate clear evidence of campaign
fundraising illegalities.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Reich
(1) Lied to Congress when he wrote that there were no memos
circulating in the Labor Department instructing staff to gather
political material against the Contract with America. Such memos
were later published.
Robert Reich has been replaced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Shalala
(1) As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison
instituted speech codes which were found to be unconstitutional
in federal court. Instituted tough-police star chamber
proceedings to drive politically incorrect people off campus.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Browner
(1) Used the EPA to campaign against Republicans running on
the Contract with America, an illegal use of the executive branch
for political campaigning.
Carol Browner is under investigation by Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Achtenberg
(1) Violated the First Amendment when she ordered HUD
lawyers to silence citizens who spoke out against planned housing
projects.
(2) Exceeded her authority when she had HUD staff threaten
Allentown County to withdraw an "Use of English language
encouraged" ordinance.
Roberta Achtenberg has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deval Patrick
(1) Used extortion to force banks to give preferential
treatment to minorities.
(2) Was found by the Supreme Court to have been abusing his
position to subvert the election process in a manner that created
more safe "black" seats.
Congress began investigating the possibility of impeachment
based on abuse of power. Deval Patrick has resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Babbit
(1) Paid a penalty for violating campaign finance laws
during his 1988 presidential campaign.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Lau
(1) Started a criminal probe of Secret Service agents John
Libonati and Jeffrey Undercoffer after they had testified that
the Secret Service was not the source of the list used to compile
FBI files in the Filegate scandal.
(2) Provided confidential depositions of White House
staffers to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler ahead of Whitewater
hearings in 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Shapiro
(1) Leaked information to the White House Counsel's office
that FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene had revealed in a confidential
FBI interview that it was Hillary Clinton who hired Filegate
operative Craig Livingstone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel O'Leary
(1) Accepted $25,000 dollars from Johnny Chung in return for
meeting with members of the Chinese Government.
(2) Paid outside consultants to prepare a list of "hostile
reporters."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Holder
(1) As U.S. Attorney stonewalled repeated criminal referrals
of Clinton administration employees by courts of law and by
Congress.
Eric Holder was rewarded with a promotion to Deputy Attorney
General.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Potts
(1) Issued a "shoot to kill" order against the Weaver family
near Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Larry Potts was promoted by FBI director Louis Freeh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lake
(1) Gave the green light to an illegal arms pipeline from
Iran to Bosnia. The pipeline was reportedly used to smuggle
drugs.
(2) Lied to Congress about the illegal pipeline.
Anthony Lake withdrew his name from consideration for
director of the CIA.
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Huang
(1) Committed espionage on behalf of Lippo Group and the
Chinese government.
(2) Facilitated payments from the Chinese government to Bill
Clinton and the DNC through Charlie Trie and others.
John Huang has resigned and is refusing to testify to
Congressional investigators.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The only Clinton Cabinet Secretaries who are not under
investigation for criminal acts and have never had criminal
allegations raised against them in public are Richard Riley,
Secretary of Education, and Madeleine Albright, Secretary of
State.
Published in the Sep. 29, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly.
Copyright © 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com).
Mark Meiss
In article <344b6633...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
R. Knauer-AIMNET <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 19 Oct 1997 19:28:58 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever wonder why Clinton with his "Most ethical administration in history"
>>keeps getting off the hook for scandal after scandal?
>
>Here's the current scorecard from the Washington Weekly.
>
>Bob Knauer
> (11) Violated the Constitution by signing into law an ex
> post facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
--Mark
--
Mark Meiss | Undergraduate, | Knowledge Base | Devotee of
mme...@indiana.edu | CS & Mathematics, | Editor/Programmer | loud and
(812) 857-8787 | Indiana University | UITS Support Center | obnoxious music
-------------All opinions are mine------No one sane agrees with me-------------
David Sternlight
In article <344afbb4...@news1.wolfenet.com>,
jer...@nicht.wolfenet.com (Jerome A. Schroeder) wrote:
>NSA/FBI are part of the government, but only part. We tend to think
>of government at a monolith with a common goal and ideals.
>Fortunately for us, they are nothing of the sort. A more accurate
>image would be of a herd of cats harnessed to a single sled. The
>direction the sled heads is the result of those several cats pulling
>in various directions.
>
>At the moment two of those cats are pulling in the same direction, and
>dragging along an indifferent team. The rest of the governmental
>felines are licking themselves or contemplating dinner.
>
>It is our obligation to throw snowballs at the team, exciting them
>enough to move in a different direction.
Evidence suggests that on this one snowballs don't work and that an
avalanche isn't available. Perhaps we should be throwing meatballs. A few
big computer and software firms have been trying, but more is needed.
Greg Hennessy
In article <david-20109...@lax-ca66-48.ix.netcom.com>,
David Sternlight <da...@sternlight.com> wrote:
>It wasn't a complaint but a remark on the inappropriateness of the
>original comment.
What is the difference between a complaint and remarking on
inappropiateness?
Eric Postpischil
Mark Meiss wrote:
> Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
Perhaps the courts have ruled that way, but somebody will have to
explain to me how the wording in the Constitution implies that. The
relevant sentence is set apart as its own paragraph. In entirety, it
is: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That
looks pretty clear to me -- it makes no distinction for civil versus
criminal.
-- edp (Eric Postpischil, http://edp.org)
"Always mount a scratch monkey."
Disclaimer: The opinions of Digital Equipment Corporation do not
reflect mine.
Mark Meiss
In article <344BA0...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>,
Eric Postpischil <e...@zk3.dec.com.nospam> wrote:
>Mark Meiss wrote:
>
>> Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
>> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
>
>Perhaps the courts have ruled that way, but somebody will have to
>explain to me how the wording in the Constitution implies that. The
>relevant sentence is set apart as its own paragraph. In entirety, it
>is: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That
>looks pretty clear to me -- it makes no distinction for civil versus
>criminal.
I believe the reasoning of the courts has been that since 'Bill of
Attainder' refers specifically to criminal cases, the ex post facto
reference does as well. Sorry for not stating this earlier. My point was
that this was not inconsistent with modern understanding of the
Constitution.
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 20 Oct 1997 18:47:25 GMT, mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark
Meiss) wrote:
>...with modern understanding of the Constitution.
You mean revised understanding, more in line with Marxist doctrine.
Bob Knauer
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 20 Oct 1997 17:31:19 GMT, mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark
Meiss) wrote:
>>Only congress shall declare war and position troops, yet Bubba The War
>>Hero penned E.O. 25 which put US troops in Bosnia under UN command.
>>That alone is treasonous to say the least.
>Read up on the War Powers Act of 1974. Look, quoting balderdash verbatim
>from your favorite ultra-conservative conspiracy rag doesn't constitute
>either knowledge or research.
You might practice what you preach. The president does not have
unlimited authority to wage war. Already one Christmas has come and
gone when the troops were supposed to return, and last I heard they
are gonna be over there indefinitely. So much for "balderdash".
I'm still waiting for you to present us with evidence on your earlier
comment about "Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes
violate the Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law." You
can't because it is not there. At least I am presenting something
people can research if they want.
Unlike you, I have actually read the Constitution, and
UltraFarLeftWing it is not. There is not one piece of marxist dogma
anywhere in the Constitution, yet the FarLeft supports marxism to the
extreme with its confiscatory tax schemes.
BTW, I do not read any "ultra-conservative conspiracy rags", unless
you are referring to the magazine put out by the National Rifle
Association. I'll bet you think gun control is good too.
Bob Knauer
NRA Life Member
Mark Meiss
In article <344bbc08...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
R. Knauer-AIMNET <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 1997 18:47:25 GMT, mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark
>Meiss) wrote:
>
>>...with modern understanding of the Constitution.
>
>You mean revised understanding, more in line with Marxist doctrine.
Am I to take this to mean that you favor an unchanging interpretation
of the Constitution -- in other words, that whatever the original
intent behind a phrase was, shall be preserved forevermore without
modification or reinterpretation?
Glenn Everhart
Mark Meiss wrote:
>
> In article <344b6633...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> R. Knauer-AIMNET <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >On 19 Oct 1997 19:28:58 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Ever wonder why Clinton with his "Most ethical administration in history"
> >>keeps getting off the hook for scandal after scandal?
> >
> >Here's the current scorecard from the Washington Weekly.
> >
> >Bob Knauer
>
> > post facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
>
> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
>
>
> --
> Mark Meiss | Undergraduate, | Knowledge Base | Devotee of
> mme...@indiana.edu | CS & Mathematics, | Editor/Programmer | loud and
> (812) 857-8787 | Indiana University | UITS Support Center | obnoxious music
> -------------All opinions are mine------No one sane agrees with me-------------
at the time it was being considered. A lawsuit could very probably
have prevailed, since it exceeded the prior rule about such things.
The courts have held that making an increase retroactive to the
announcement of such was OK (questionable notion...) but making
it retroactive before that has not been upheld far as I know.
Tax law a "civil law"? You mean you think that nonpayment cannot
result in jail?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Further information can be acquired at http://www.sputum.com/ucepage.htm
You can express your displeasure with Mr. Enlow by contacting him at:
en...@direcpc.com
Control: cancel <344BA7...@gce.com.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: ...!news.tamu.edu!newshost.comco.com!news.altair.com!thetimes.pixel.kodak.com!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.92.55.84!feed.nntp.acc.ca!199.60.229.5.MISMATCH!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nspixp!newsfeed.btnis.ad.jp!newsfeed1.btnis.ad.jp!news.fsinet.or.jp!ubc.co.jp!nobody
From: god...@pagesz.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <344BA7...@gce.com.gov>
Approved: god...@pagesz.net
Message-ID: <cancel.344...@gce.com.gov>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: Glenn Everhart <ever...@gce.com.gov>
X-Cancelled-By: god...@pagesz.net
Organization: UBC
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:31:34 GMT
Lines: 2
This article cancelled within Tin.
Mark Meiss
In article <344b8102...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
R. Knauer-AIMNET <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Only congress shall declare war and position troops, yet Bubba The War
>Hero penned E.O. 25 which put US troops in Bosnia under UN command.
>That alone is treasonous to say the least.
Read up on the War Powers Act of 1974. Look, quoting balderdash verbatim
from your favorite ultra-conservative conspiracy rag doesn't constitute
either knowledge or research.
--Mark
--
Mark Meiss | Undergraduate, | Knowledge Base | Devotee of
mme...@indiana.edu | CS & Mathematics, | Editor/Programmer | loud and
(812) 857-8787 | Indiana University | UITS Support Center | obnoxious music
-------------All opinions are mine------No one sane agrees with me-------------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Further information can be acquired at http://www.sputum.com/ucepage.htm
You can express your displeasure with Mr. Enlow by contacting him at:
en...@direcpc.com
Control: cancel <62g4h7$3b3$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: ...!news.tamu.edu!newshost.comco.com!news.altair.com!thetimes.pixel.kodak.com!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.92.55.84!feed.nntp.acc.ca!128.230.129.112.MISMATCH!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nspixp!newsfeed.btnis.ad.jp!newsfeed1.btnis.ad.jp!news.fsinet.or.jp!ubc.co.jp!nobody
From: god...@pagesz.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <62g4h7$3b3$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
Approved: god...@pagesz.net
Message-ID: <cancel.62g4h7$3b3$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark Meiss)
X-Cancelled-By: god...@pagesz.net
Organization: UBC
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:31:54 GMT
Eric Postpischil
Mark Meiss wrote:
> Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
Perhaps the courts have ruled that way, but somebody will have to
explain to me how the wording in the Constitution implies that. The
relevant sentence is set apart as its own paragraph. In entirety, it
is: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That
looks pretty clear to me -- it makes no distinction for civil versus
criminal.
-- edp (Eric Postpischil, http://edp.org)
"Always mount a scratch monkey."
Disclaimer: The opinions of Digital Equipment Corporation do not
reflect mine.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Further information can be acquired at http://www.sputum.com/ucepage.htm
You can express your displeasure with Mr. Enlow by contacting him at:
en...@direcpc.com
Control: cancel <344BA0...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: ...!news.tamu.edu!newshost.comco.com!news.altair.com!thetimes.pixel.kodak.com!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.92.55.84!feed.nntp.acc.ca!199.60.229.5.MISMATCH!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nspixp!newsfeed.btnis.ad.jp!newsfeed1.btnis.ad.jp!news.fsinet.or.jp!ubc.co.jp!nobody
From: god...@pagesz.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <344BA0...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>
Approved: god...@pagesz.net
Message-ID: <cancel.344...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: Eric Postpischil <e...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>
X-Cancelled-By: god...@pagesz.net
Organization: UBC
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:31:48 GMT
Mark Meiss
In article <344BA0...@zk3.dec.com.nospam>,
Eric Postpischil <e...@zk3.dec.com.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
>> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
>
>Perhaps the courts have ruled that way, but somebody will have to
>explain to me how the wording in the Constitution implies that. The
>relevant sentence is set apart as its own paragraph. In entirety, it
>is: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That
>looks pretty clear to me -- it makes no distinction for civil versus
>criminal.
I believe the reasoning of the courts has been that since 'Bill of
Attainder' refers specifically to criminal cases, the ex post facto
reference does as well. Sorry for not stating this earlier. My point was
that this was not inconsistent with modern understanding of the
Constitution.
--Mark
--
Mark Meiss | Undergraduate, | Knowledge Base | Devotee of
mme...@indiana.edu | CS & Mathematics, | Editor/Programmer | loud and
(812) 857-8787 | Indiana University | UITS Support Center | obnoxious music
-------------All opinions are mine------No one sane agrees with me-------------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Further information can be acquired at http://www.sputum.com/ucepage.htm
You can express your displeasure with Mr. Enlow by contacting him at:
en...@direcpc.com
Control: cancel <62g8vt$5aj$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: ...!news.tamu.edu!newshost.comco.com!news.altair.com!thetimes.pixel.kodak.com!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.92.55.84!feed.nntp.acc.ca!128.230.129.112.MISMATCH!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nspixp!newsfeed.btnis.ad.jp!newsfeed1.btnis.ad.jp!news.fsinet.or.jp!ubc.co.jp!nobody
From: god...@pagesz.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <62g8vt$5aj$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
Approved: god...@pagesz.net
Message-ID: <cancel.62g8vt$5aj$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark Meiss)
X-Cancelled-By: god...@pagesz.net
Organization: UBC
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:31:40 GMT
Glenn Everhart
Mark Meiss wrote:
>
> In article <344b6633...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> R. Knauer-AIMNET <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >On 19 Oct 1997 19:28:58 GMT, Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Ever wonder why Clinton with his "Most ethical administration in history"
> >>keeps getting off the hook for scandal after scandal?
> >
> >Here's the current scorecard from the Washington Weekly.
> >
> >Bob Knauer
>
> > post facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
>
> Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
>
>
> --
> Mark Meiss | Undergraduate, | Knowledge Base | Devotee of
> mme...@indiana.edu | CS & Mathematics, | Editor/Programmer | loud and
> (812) 857-8787 | Indiana University | UITS Support Center | obnoxious music
> -------------All opinions are mine------No one sane agrees with me-------------
at the time it was being considered. A lawsuit could very probably
have prevailed, since it exceeded the prior rule about such things.
The courts have held that making an increase retroactive to the
announcement of such was OK (questionable notion...) but making
it retroactive before that has not been upheld far as I know.
Tax law a "civil law"? You mean you think that nonpayment cannot
result in jail?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Further information can be acquired at http://www.sputum.com/ucepage.htm
You can express your displeasure with Mr. Enlow by contacting him at:
en...@direcpc.com
Control: cancel <344BA7...@gce.com.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: ...!news.tamu.edu!newshost.comco.com!news.altair.com!thetimes.pixel.kodak.com!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.92.55.84!feed.nntp.acc.ca!199.60.229.5.MISMATCH!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.gsl.net!news-tokyo.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nspixp!newsfeed.btnis.ad.jp!newsfeed1.btnis.ad.jp!news.fsinet.or.jp!ubc.co.jp!nobody
From: god...@pagesz.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <344BA7...@gce.com.gov>
Approved: god...@pagesz.net
Message-ID: <cancel.344...@gce.com.gov>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: Glenn Everhart <ever...@gce.com.gov>
X-Cancelled-By: god...@pagesz.net
Organization: UBC
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:31:34 GMT
David Sternlight
In article <344bb938...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, rckt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:52:44 -0700, da...@sternlight.com (David
>Sternlight) wrote:
>
>>The notion that you are not responsible for what you republish (unless you
>>are writing a critical comment about it) is dubious at best.
>
>>Republishing scurrilous material (except when associated with criticism of
>>the material) and then refusing to defend it is, in my opinion, the act of
>>a coward.
>
>Lighten up, fer chrissakes. Reposting is as old as the Internet.
So are lies, misleading information, personal attacks, spamming and any
number of other things. So what?
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On 20 Oct 1997 15:55:38 GMT, mme...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark
Meiss) wrote:
>Horse shit. Only ex post facto criminal statutes violate the
>Constitution. The tax increase was a civil law.
Rebuttal compliments of Rev. Dan <dte...@atmel.com>:
+++++
Where is the delineation between "civil" and "criminal" law made in
the Constitution? (answer, nowhere).
The Constitution sez:
Article I Section 9:
"The privelege of the writ of habeus corpus shall no tbe suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety
requries it. No bill of attainder of ex post facto law shall be
passed."
Notice that it doesn't say:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed in cases of
criminal law, but may be passed in cases of civil law"
Nor does it say:
"Ex post facto laws may only be passed by marxist leaning Presidents
especially when supported by left wing pinko queer academic clinton
suck butts...."
+++++
As usual, the Rev. does not mince words.
Bob Knauer
Jerome A. Schroeder
>In article <62dn1q$m...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Cipher
><cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And whats with the nuclear scientist being appointed to run the FBI crime
>>lab? Hey a guy with no forensic experience wouldn't see a screw up if it
>>bit him on the ass. Maybe that's the way Freeh wants it. An ignorant
>>person in charge of his crew, still free to do as they wish, for business
>>as usual.
>
>Why are you surprised? We now have a biologist with no aerospace
>experience (David Baltimore, the new President of Cal Tech) in charge of
>JPL.
>
>It's called the theory of the all-purpose manager, first flogged on an
>unsuspecting world by the Harvard Business School.
>
>David
Its nature's way. MBA's and their ilk are like mushrooms and fungae
that clear away the dead wood so that new plants can grow.
When a company gets too large and incompetant to survive, MBA's are
brought in to put it out of its misery and clear the way for new and
vital companies.
The health of any organization is inversely proportional to the number
of MBAs and Lawyers on staff.
Jerry
R. Knauer-AIMNET
>The health of any organization is inversely proportional to the number
>of MBAs and Lawyers on staff.
Damned Straight!
Bob Knauer
Roger Fleming
This thread has nothing to do with crypto and very little to do with security.
Please trim your newsgroups line.
____________________________________________________________________
| Roger Fleming |Who remembers when the net community |
|Any opinions are not |hunted down and unplugged spammers faster |
|those of my employer |than they could rear their heads? It was, |
|(so far as I know) |umm... last year, wasn't it? |
|>>\/\/\\/\>\//\////>\//\\///>\//\\/\/>\///\\/\>\/\///\\>\\//\\\\>>|
| Accustom yourself to give careful attention to what |
| others are saying, and try your best to enter into |
| the mind of the speaker. |
| - Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_ |
|__________________________________________________________________|
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 06:00:53 GMT, Fat_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Isn't it interesting that the ONLY ones alledged commiting crimes are
>democrats and in this posted claptrap and not ONE SINGLE Republican?
>My cousin alledged my aunt had wheels instead of feet, I guess we will
>have to start rolling her down hills. What in the fuck does this right
>wing gibberish have to do with PGP?
Spoken like a true FOB.
I'll bet you wouldn't know an honest day's work if it slapped you
square on the ass.
Bob Knauer
"Without Censorship, Things Can Get Terribly Confused In The Public Mind."
- General William Westmoreland
R. Knauer-AIMNET
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 06:03:28 GMT, Fat_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>well, at least now we know that you are objective. You whole post
>is totally worthless. Grow the hell up, or at least loosen your arm
>band, it's cutting off the blood supply to your small republican
>brain.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
I'll bet you haven't worked a day in your entire life.