HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: U.S. government kidnapping people
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:40:45 GMT

A repost from alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc:

From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:36:23 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley

In article <BzGy1v.16p@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>Does it matter?  Remember this is the good ol' U.S. of A. (*ahort*),
>where the Supreme Court has said that it's ok for law enforcement
>officials to kidnap foreign nationals abroad and bring them to
>trial in the U.S. for violations of U.S. law.

Just an update for those who haven't heard: the foreign national who
was kidnapped has been freed and returned to Mexico.  The case against
him was tossed out for lack of evidence: the US gov't had nothing to
back up their accusations that the doctor who was kidnapped had anything
to do with the torture and killing of the American DEA agent, so the
judge threw them out of court.  It appears that the lower-level judges
are still somewhat honest even if the Supreme Court has been taken over
by "anything the executive branch does is fine" ideologues.

Then the prosecutors tried to get the poor guy held on the grounds that
he was an illegal immigrant!  (He was KIDNAPPED to bring him into the
US and he's being charged with being an illegal immigrant).

He's back in Mexico and here's the latest: now the US gov't has officially
asked the Mexicans to prosecute him!



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Flame
Summary: Life in a den of thieves
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:44:45 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Dec14.161814.28441@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, caress@berdis.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter N Caress) writes:
< In article <305@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

<>|  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
<>|  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
<>|  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
<>|  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
<>|  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |


< The Internet to which John Kreznar's article was posted was developed and 
< built with money from DARPA and the NSF, both government agencies. Also, 
< many government agencies receive this newsgroup, so the article was pro-
< cessed and distributed in part with taxpayer's money. This generates 
< demand for taxation when it is feasibly avoidable, thereby accelerating 
< the supplanting of personal choice by collective dictate and making John
< Kreznar guilty of a most serious crime against humanity. See you at the
< Nuremberg trials! 

< (just kidding)

You may be "just kidding", but this is a serious problem.  If one
lives in a den of thieves, it is just very difficult avoiding being an
accessory to the crime, especially in areas where the thieves enforce
their monopoly.  Any suggestions?

I would very much like to avoid even the dishonesty that you describe
without inconveniencing myself even more than I already do (which most
would consider already rather extreme and foolish just for the sake of
honesty).

(Of course, I pay for my network connection out of my own pocket
(through UUNET).)

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7004 alt.rush-limbaugh:12031 talk.abortion:52540
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:11:16 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 17-Dec-92 Re: Pro-choicers must
condo.. by Christopher J Burian@ux4 
> It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
> by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
> hypothermia.

    I would suggest we consider the conservative of approach of looking
at infanticide and abortion from an anthoropolical prespective.  We can
then build on the experience of other cultures.  A gentle death by
hypothermia as suggested by Mr. Burian is certainly among the more
esthetically pleasing ways to commit infanticide, and was no doubt used
in most primitive cultures that experienced the requisite weather, as
infanticide was a widespread (universal) practice in primitive cultures.
 Though many primitive cultures did have an abortion procedure, these
procedures were more dangerous than we would allow today.  (Birth also
was also much more dangerous in primitive cultures.)    
    To judge the infanticide of these peoples as evil is to lack empathy
about the lifestyles of these people.  If we had existed in some tribe
before modern technology, would we really wish to insist on unsafe
abortion instead of infanticide for a perceived moral high of believing
our tribe's method killing off potential unwanted children is superior? 
What percentage greater adult women deaths would be required before our
claim to moral superiority would be naseous?  Also one must consider
that infanticide was often chosen so that an older child would receive
the nutrution necessary to become a healthy adult.  Would you as mother
of an eight year child and neonate really not kill the neonate even
though by the act of feeding both the eight year old and the neonate you
risk both becoming mentally retarded adults?

    I do not believe that infanticide has suddenly become evil because
of the safe abortion technologies that modern medicine has produced. 
Perhaps, infanticide of non-deformed neonates should be illegal for much
the same reason that we have speed limits.  Not every speed limit
reflects an socially optimal choice between the desires of drivers to
arrive quickly at their destination and the desire of society to
minimize risk of damage to car, body and life, yet some line must be
drawn.  Birth seems not an unreasonable line for the healthy
fetus/infant.  That the choice of birth is completely arbitrary is fine,
since any line will be arbitrary.  I think it is mistake to attempt to
rationalize this arbitrary line with the "inside the woman rhetoric". 
When "pro-choice" people make too much of this line they risk arguments
like Mr. Burian's above or Mr. Nyikos claim that topologially a baby is
not inside in the mother.  Let's try to keep our morality relative.

Michaeloomis
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:12:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.175758.11568@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <312@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

>>If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
>>taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
>>this differ from slavery?

>As long as the end is _collectively_ approved, why should it matter whether a 
>given individual dissents, 

Because individuals have rights.  If the majority wishes to enslave a minority,
it is still slavery and it is still morally wrong.  A 51% vote does not 
somehow magically make every action morally acceptable, whether you are 
talking about theft, slavery, murder, or censorship.

>John, as long as he or she is free to leave the 
>collective anytime they want, thereby forsaking all of the benefits, as well 
>as the liabilities, of that particular Social Contract?

Why should people who want to deal with one another peacefully and honestly
have to leave the country?  I would suggest that if YOU want to steal MY
property, you ought to be jailed or run out of the country.  There are plenty
of places on this Earth where your sick ideals are practiced.  If the
majority of your neighbors want to steal from, enslave, or kill you, it is
THEY, not you who are wrong and ought to be required to change their ways.

A 51% vote is not sufficient to justify a violation of anyone's rights and 
neither is a 99% vote.  If you want to live in a country where is this not the
case, there are plenty of others for you to choose from.

--Brian
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7003 alt.true-crime:282 aus.politics:2109
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.true-crime,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:55:39 GMT
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group

allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:

>In article <2102.2b2f9181@mbcl.rutgers.edu> imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>	What follows is an article from the New York Times.  Why am I posting
[... deleted ...]
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Shahid N. Imran, Systems Administrator   || Phone:    (908) 932-4864

>I object strongly to your political persuasions being forced onto this group.
I object strongly to you quoting 200 lines of someone elses article, just
because you don't know how to run a newsreader.

>Your political beliefs are fine,but keep them to yourself.
Why's that? So you won't have your morning cup of coffee spoiled?

>I don't believe in GOD
Me neither. This is relevant? By THE way, I've NOTICED you like TO use
upper CASE letters. Lose this habit now, as it's linked to madness on the
net. Keep it up, and before you know it, you'll find yourself posting
to sci.physics on how TIME HAS INERTIA.

>and I allow for The survival of the fittest,
You *allow* for it? You leave room in your monthly budget for unexpected
survivals of the fittest? You buy your shoes half a size larger than you
need, because you're constantly aware of the survival of the fittest? You
always get to the bus stop 15 minutes early, because you know the fittest
might survive at any moment? When you have a party, do you buy an extra 
slab of beer, because the fittest might survive after all, and crash your
party? When buying jeans do you think "Ok, a bit baggy, but they'll shrink
in the wash, and hey - the fittest might survive, come to think of it."

>as in the Darwinism ideology.
As in the Darwinism *ideology*? I guess you're not doing biology or 
politics at Uni, are you? The poor old bugger must be spinning in his grave
after that one. I always thought people who interpreted Darwin as moral
philosophy were just a figment of the imagination, dreamed up by lefties
so they'd have someone to argue against. And yet there you are.

>All wars are based on some stupid idea of religion.
That does include the Korean war, doesn't it? And WWII? And WWI? And
Vietnam? How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

>allanc

Oh Allan, you're such a prune head.


							Steve
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:30:04 GMT


In article <12129@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, 
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) said:

> I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Those who desire to give
> up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they
> deserve either."
>
> (Quote from memory, not verbatim)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -- Benjamin Franklin, in "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" (1759)

...as quoted and attributed in _The Great Thoughts_, edited by George
Seldes, Ballantine Books, 1985.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Local help for attacking CO#2
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:34:21 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1gaiccINN45h@ossi.ossi.com>, news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand) writes:

> Library is funded by gov't, and there fore has to pull said book off
> shelf (or worse, destroy it!)

...a good reason for libraries to be funded voluntarily rather than
through taxes.  Then there can be "gay positive" and "gay negative"
and "gay neutral" libraries, satisfying all except those intent on
imposing their views on others.  With free funding, diversity can
blossom.

One problem with tax funding under a democratic political government
is that voters must approve, meaning that only the "least common
denominator" spending is acceptable.  Why constrain libraries so?  In
addition, tax funding is a criminal act because it forces its victim
to toil on behalf of an end without regard to his personal choice in
the matter.

 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: U.S. government kidnapping people
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.004045.7311@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
:judge threw them out of court.  It appears that the lower-level judges
:are still somewhat honest even if the Supreme Court has been taken over
:by "anything the executive branch does is fine" ideologues.

My country is a bit like that too.  We had a decent judge recently who
exposed an official cover-up of some dubious arms dealing with Iraq 
Unfortunately the whole affair has now been handed over to the Spycatcher
case judge, so we can now expect a whitewash and nothing new to come out.
Still, what did leak has confirmed all the rumours that Private Eye have
published over the last many years, making it much easier to believe the
rest of their exposes: you guys may still manage to lock Bush up for treason
for selling Tow missiles to your enemies yet...

G
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6970 talk.abortion:52324
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Summary: Pro-choice and taxation are logically incompatible
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:35:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Dec16.182933.8161@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

> > = (John E. Kreznar) writes:

> >Pro-Choice Loses a Round

> How do you figure?

> >It used to be that you had a choice on whether to support abortion
> >counseling.  Now, unless you have evaded the clutches of the United
> >States Government, you no longer have that choice.  Within the space
> >of a week, a judge declared the so-called ``gag rule'' invalid, and
> >United States President-elect Bill Clinker announced that he would
> >sustain such a policy.  This means that part of your toil is applied,
> >by way of taxation, in support of abortion counseling, whether or not
> >you would so choose on your own.

> Oh, get a life.  What paTHETIC, childish whining.  Are you saying that
> except for *abortion*, there is NOTHING in the federal budget you
> disagree with?

Certainly not.  I disagree with _all_ of it.  The distinguishing thing
about this part of it is that it is _defended_ on grounds of personal
choice.  For the rest, one may suppose that its proponents _intend_ to
supplant others' personal choices, or are oblivious to them; for
spending on abortion or abortion counseling this argument doesn't
work, so I can't imagine how its proponents apologize for it.

> >The irony is that many self-proclaimed ``pro-choice'' people consider
> >this change to be a victory!

> It is, you horse's ass.  Even if YOU don't agree, pro-choicers sure as
> hell consider taxes for abortion counseling to be a good thing.

If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, does this
not constitute a denial of that person's choice?  How can a
pro-choicer consider denial of personal choice to be a good thing?

> >> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.... shall exist within the United
> >> States." 
> >>                       -- The Thirteenth Amendment

> >If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
> >taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
> >this differ from slavery?

> HAW HAW HAW.  Are you serious?

Yes.  Can you answer the question?

> >If civilization is to have a future, it must include widespread
> >respect for simple human dignity: allowing the other person go his or
> >her own separate way in peace.

> Exactly.  Mind your own business and quit venting your hatred on poor
> people stuck between a rock and a hard ass.

Hatred?  I'm advocating freedom for each person to create and
peacefully exercise personal choice for himself or herself, and you
call it hatred?

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6991 talk.abortion:52490
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Summary: We HAVE left!
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:25:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Dec18.175758.11568@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> In article <312@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

> >If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
> >taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
> >this differ from slavery?

> As long as the end is _collectively_ approved, why should it matter whether a 
> given individual dissents, John, as long as he or she is free to leave the 
> collective anytime they want, thereby forsaking all of the benefits, as well 
> as the liabilities, of that particular Social Contract?

Some of us _have_ left --- long ago!  In fact, some of us have
recognized that we never actually _were_ members, because the
``membership agreements'' that we signed were silent to the point of
fraudulence regarding the full implications of membership.  And we do
every reasonable thing we can imagine to forsake all the benefits.  We
are not responsible for compelled benefits.  But we find it difficult
to defend ourselves against those who do not acknowledge our
non-membership.

 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:49:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.231331.10926@klic.rain.com> 
keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:

[.. massive deletions ..]

> What are the powers delegated to the Constitution?  Well, read section 8. 
> It's longer than I wish to quote directly, but in summary: the government 
> can borrow and coin money, tax, run courts, a patent office, a post office,
> and a military, and declare war.   That's IT.  There is nothing in there
> about personal safety, charity, disaster relief, education, undeclared
> war, substance abuse, or the environment.  

The states are not prohibited from enacting legislation in 
any of these areas (with the exception of undeclared war), 
as long as the proposed legislation is constitutional.

> All these things were known
> about in 1789.  They were not included because there were not supposed
> to be there, as the copious writings of the founders attest. 

The states were primarily interested in keeping the power of the
Federal government in check so that they could retain legislative
authority over their own affairs.  A system of "limited government"
was designed to prevent the state's power from being usurped by
the Federal government.

>Keith Lofstrom


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6969 alt.true-crime:280 aus.politics:2091
From: s9000289@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.true-crime,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:18:28 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <1992Dec18.005214.25192@cs.su.oz.au>, allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:
> In article <2102.2b2f9181@mbcl.rutgers.edu> imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>	What follows is an article from the New York Times.  Why am I posting
>>it here?  I feel that some of the issues pertain to at least some of the
>>threads I have seen in this group (and the other groups that I am posting to).
>>The article is about the calculated destruction of the Bosnian Muslims.  The
>>article contains extremely graphic descriptions of brutality, torture, and
>>rape.  
>>  [..]
>>
> 
> I object strongly to your political persuasions being forced onto this group.
> The history of Serb/Croat dispute should have been handled by the UN,if the
> two peoples cannot stop this by themselves.Then the UN should,BY force.
> Failing that,the world can end up like the US and Aus in regards to Vietnam.
> 
> Your political beliefs are fine,but keep them to yourself.
> I don't believe in GOD and I allow for The survival of the fittest,as in 
> the Darwinism ideology.
> All wars are based on some stupid idea of religion.
> allanc
> 

Political beliefs should be discussed, not always kept to oneself.  Wars are
fought over many issues not just religion.

Your understanding of "survival of the fittest" seems to be an extremely
primitive one.  The above article shows the evil in humans; anyone who
feels outraged by what is described also knows that compassion and a sense 
of justice are also part of the nature of humankind.  These feelings are 
as much a part of nature as those of hunger and pain.  They are part of 
what makes us "fit".     


Cameron
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty