HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:42:52 GMT

In <BzM9Eo.Jvt@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:

>Jyrki Kuoppala (jkp@cs.HUT.FI) wrote:

>: I hear reports of the U.S. military going to Somalia, then declaring a
>: 
Must have been a slow news day in the Finn press :-). Don't you folks
in the rest of the world have jobs or something to do? Bashing the U.S.
seems to be the only pastime you have. Sounds like an aquaintance in
Switzerland who told my wife he knew all about us because he read Time
magazine.

>I just realized where you got this item.  The UN Secretary General wants the
>US to do this.  He also wants us the disarm the clans, train a new Somali
>police/military and help establish a new government.  We turned him down 
>flat.  We're there to help food get through and stop the random looting
>and killing of civilians.  As soon as that's done or somebody comes forward
>to take our place, we're out of there.  Bush is talking two to three months.
>I suspect closer to six, since I expect it will be a long time before the
>Europo-wimps send enough people to make a difference.  (1500 from Germany.
>Give me a break.  There are football games that require more security than
>that.  30,000 are security.  3,000 are targets).

REB

Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.med,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: AMA Calls for Ban on Infant Walkers
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:01:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.165834.22995@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Am I the only person who is disturbed at the way many people seriously
>seem to believe that anecdotal evidence like the above is serious
>evidence against a scientific study?

Welcome to misc.kids.  ("It wasn't true for MY child, so it isn't true.").

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:19839 alt.conspiracy:13425
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 26 Dec 92 22:07:01 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <72433@cup.portal.com> 
L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>f_gautjw@csvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>> I must admit I remain cynical about the article also.  That's not to
>> say that atrocities have not occured in the Bosnian conflict.  But this
>> article seems "overcooked".  It reminds me of the propaganda stories
>> about Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies from their hospital incubators.
 
> Please explain why said article is "overcooked?"  A handful of
> stories from among thousands of rapes a bit too much to bear?

I won't comment on the contents of the article, but I will
point out that the author of this article has cross-posted
it to many inappropriate newsgroups, and he has never responded
to the ensuing criticism directed at the article.  This seems 
to indicate that it might be a propaganda piece designed only
to encourage US military involvement. 

Here are the newsgroups where I've seen this article: 

   1) soc.religion.islam, soc.rights.human, talk.abortion 
   2) alt.sex, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.society.anarchy
   3) alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.true-crime, aus.politics
   4) soc.culture.croatia, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.usa
   5) alt.activism, alt.conspiracy, ?? 
   6) soc.culture.yugoslavia (posted at least twice)
   7) talk.politics.theory, talk.rape, talk.religion.misc

There are probably more newsgroups which I don't know
about, but you get the idea. (Anyone care to add to
the list?)


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:32:21 GMT

>Then why are conservatives still screaming tha the police had be handicapped
>by it?  

Remember the 'Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill' that was in the news, oh, about
a year ago?  The 'conservatives' make such a big fuss over it not getting
passed because of the 'liberal' forces.  The liberals thought it went
too far.

Well, it also didn't get passed because a lot of conservatives refused to
accept it because it didn't go far enough.  One of the big contentions
was that it didn't sweep away Habeus Corpus (sp?).

That's right: The government can't fight crime without the right to throw
people in jail without charge for an unlimited amount of time.

These people will scream about any and all rights that are still left.
They want the ability to 'dissapear' people, South American style.  The
drug czar talks about beheading suspects.  Weopon systems are being
designed and tested to shoot down  private airplanes that won't (or can't)
identify themselves.  People suspected of swallowing drug evidence ARE 
ALREADY BEING REFUSED MEDICAL TRATMENT until they sign a confession.  A
man in Indiana died due to this (it took him all night, and he was quite
noisy about it, and even other prisoners were begging the cops to get some
help), and the court found no chargeable wrong doing.  

Of COURSE they're going to keep telling you to give up more and more of
your rights.  Of course, you seem more than willing to keep doing it.
I'm glad things are nice in your neighborhood.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:54:04 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <BzM9Eo.Jvt@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>I just realized where you got this item.  The UN Secretary General wants the
>US to do this.

No, it was from U.S. newspaper reports copied to usenet (somewhwere in
the somalia group I think).  The U.S. troops were saying they have a
duty to seize khat when confronted.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: Shoot-to-Kill in Belfast
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:22:47 GMT

subject: Shoot-to-Kill in Belfast
posted by: autonome forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from: ECN London

5 December 1992

SHOOT-TO-KILL IN BELFAST

A young Irish republican was shot dead by police in Belfast on Wednesday
25th November in what seems to have been a pre-planned shoot-to-kill
operation. 22 year old Pearse Jordan was driving along the Falls Road when
his car was rammed and forced onto the pavement by two cars. As he
stumbled from the car he was shot in the back three times with a Heckler
and Koch rifle, by an undercover member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Pearse Jordan, who was an IRA volunteer, was unarmed and had made no
attempt to run away when he got out of the car.

As usually happens in such cases, the RUC immediately launched a
propaganda offensive to hide the true facts of the killing. For instance it was
initially reported that the shooting was connected with the discovery of a
bomb-making factory in a nearby house. In fact, the house that was raided
was over half a mile way, and nothing was found in the house or at any
other building that night.

After Pearse's murder, local people held a candle-lit vigil at the scene.
Thousands of people attended Pearse Jordan's funeral, resisting attempts by
the RUC to intimidate them. At one point, women mourners prevented an
RUC armoured car from driving through the funeral cortege.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.165059.15776@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>>It has been *legal* for *years* for IRS enforcement personnel to seize
>>the assets of people whom they accuse of nonpayment of taxes owed. This
>>seizure can take place *before* guilt or innocence is established, and
>>recovery of assets in the event that the case falls apart has proven
>>to be problematic. The courts have *not* been striking this down.
>>
>>Do you plan to write your congress-critter about *both* abuses of con-
>>stitutional liberties?

>Are you suggesting that because the IRS has been doing this stuff,
>I must: a) support the IRS in this behavior, and b) accept the idea
>that, because the IRS has been doing it, it is now a valid precedent
>for all law enforcement agencies?

No to a), and yes to b). Precedent being what it is, by definition.

I'm saying that if you grant the power to government to abridge a right
formerly protected, one cause for the exercise of that power becomes
eventually indistinguishable from any other. Either deny the power or
plan to see its use extended. I think Jefferson and others had more
than a few thoughts on this continuing human problem. But they were
probably excessively disabled by acquaintance with history.

>As I recall, the Bill of Rights contains a provision regarding
>'unreasonable searches and seizures'. I would categorize both the
>IRS and DEA seizures as 'unreasonable'. Unfortunately, the Reagan/Bush

I believe that was my point.

>Supreme Court, led by that friend of individual liberty, William
>Rehnquist, doesn't agree.

Left again. The power of the IRS to make such seizures was certainly
*not* promolgated by the Rehnquist Court. That issue was settled at
a time before either of us was born, and was implicit in the original
amendment that allowed the passage of the income tax law, which laid
the precedent. If you can ever find a copy, you may wish to read the
address by Virginia Senator Byrd to the House of Burgesses, in which
speech he pointed out the many future transgressions against liberty
that passage would bring -- and which have come to pass. It's a piece
of work. (Virginia, by the way, never ratified, thus demonstrating
that not *all* state legislatures were then dominated by wishful
fools.)
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:50:59 GMT

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>Not exactly. It is now *legal* for drug enforcement personnel to seize
>the assets of people whom they want to accuse of drug trafficking. This
>seizure can take place *before* guilt or innocence is established, and
>recovery of assets in the event that the case falls apart has proven
>to be problematic. The courts have *not* been striking this down.

Consider:

It has been *legal* for *years* for IRS enforcement personnel to seize
the assets of people whom they accuse of nonpayment of taxes owed. This
seizure can take place *before* guilt or innocence is established, and
recovery of assets in the event that the case falls apart has proven
to be problematic. The courts have *not* been striking this down.

Do you plan to write your congress-critter about *both* abuses of con-
stitutional liberties?
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Next Target: Bosnia
Summary: Newsweek reports U.S. war plans for Bosnia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:15:29 GMT
Keywords: treachery trickery deceit deception Bosnia war bosnia



Next Target: Bosnia
===================

The December 28th issue of *Newsweek* magazine (the one with 
Hillary Clinton on the cover) is reporting that President Bush 
has decided to "take a last foreign-policy stand -- trying to 
stop the blood-bath in Bosnia." ("Next Target: Bosnia", pages 36- 
37). "As U.S. forces landed in Somalia and showed they could deal 
with that calamity, pressure grew to do something -- really *do* 
something -- to help Bosnia."

The article trots out the tired old "nazi war crimes" comparison 
to justify the huge risk to American lives (not to mention the 
huge cost in dollars that the U.S. supposedly doesn't have.) Once 
more, the U.S. is portrayed as motivated *only* by humanitarian 
reasons.

"The Pentagon has a plan, and it's jokingly referred to as 
FUCOP... It represents months of brainstorming [by military 
leaders]."

*Newsweek* reports that "whatever Bush settles on will become 
Clinton's enduring problem." [B.R.  I would add that it will 
become *our* enduring problem as well.]

The article notes that the U.S. government is pushing hard for 
the U.N. to fall in line with its war plans. The sought-for U.N. 
resolution on the matter calls for halting the destruction in 
Bosnia by "applying massive force against Serbia."

The U.S. hunger for involvement in the region has met with some 
opposition from Cyrus Vance, former U.S. secretary of state, who 
"requested a special meeting with Bush to plead against any 
intervention."

"Can air power alone do the job? Air Force Gen. John Loh, head of 
Air Combat Command, recently said it would be 'very difficult to 
force a fundamental change in the action in Bosnia solely through 
the use of air power.' Instead, he says, 'I think there's a role 
for a joint operation' -- meaning troops on the ground as well."


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Synopsis/Review by Brian Redman
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
End




Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:40:28 GMT

In article <bob1.725046465@cos>, bob1@cos (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>Sorry Mark, I'm not blind to the faults of our government, nor am I blind
>to areas where things can be improved. It's simply that I can't recall the
>last time (or any time) when I stuck my nose and mouth into the internal
>affairs of Finland, The United Kingdom, or the countries of any of the
>other U.S.'s self appointed critics. If that pisses them, or you, off
>try and imagine how upset I will be.

Perhaps that's at least partly because the Finnish government has not
pressured the country you live in to institute a drug prohibition, is
not trying to change the patent and copyright legislation of it, is
not forcing the country to conform to the Finnish ideas of export
regulations, is not in the habit of invading other countries and shoot
some people to kidnap their heads of state and engage in other acts of
terrorism, does not hold the world's biggest nuclear arsenal (I
think), and so on.

//Jyrki
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Smithfield, RI 02917
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:16:34 GMT

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

>I sincerely hope that armed police officers never break down
>your door, throw you to the ground, handcuff you, terrify 
>your children and destroy your possesions, only to find later
>that they have made a mistake.  If they do, however, please
>be assured that they will apologize very nicely.

Police officers are humans too. Humans make mistakes. Nobody is perfect,
unless, of course, you are Bill Clinton. To condemn the police for making
a mistake is hypocritical unless you condemn everyone else in the world
who has also made a mistake.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
-- AT&TNet: +1 401 273 4669               /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: Jarett.Weintraub%bbs@jptcs.com (Jarett Weintraub)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: What, you're kidding, right?
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: Jarett.Weintraub%bbs@jptcs.com (Jarett Weintraub)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10a S/N 202921

Okay, at first I thought to myself, "What is this Silliness?" After all,
it's only a little law. Than I thought, well, now wait a minute here. Lets
look at this carefully. This law, like the law against suicide involves
controlling a decision which is purely personal, a freedom that doesn't
affect anyone else on a constitutional level, and so ought to be protected.
Then I thought again, when someone mentioned driver's licenses. Driving on a
PUBLIC roadway is not a right, but a privilege. In order to do so, you must
adhere to arbitrary laws governing the ue of those roads. Just because the
Constitution limits the powers of government to control our rights doesn't
mena that everything we do is something we have a right ( in the legal
sense) to do, and thus may bring a constitutional challenge to. So, what you
have here is NOT  a constitutional issue or even a freedom issue. (Also,
someone might want to argue that your not wearing a helmet does have a
social cost, thus negating your "noone is hurt by it" argument.

*Note: No animals were killed in the construction of this sig.*

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: OPIN:Slick Willy's Business Team
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:37:27 GMT

In article <R6gNwB3w165w@nyxfer.uucp> ww@nyxfer.UUCP writes:

>First it should be noted that the establishment media have, for
>the most part, supported Clinton's selections. This reflects a
>general tendency within the ruling class to back Clinton for the
>time being. The bourgeoisie hopes that Clinton will either be
>able to quell the raging capitalist economic storm or at least be
>able to keep the masses' anger in tow.

Questions of substance aside, I ask everyone to read the above para
purely as a piece of writing.

Talk about boiler-plate!  If these neo-stalinist boobies were not
guilty of silent acquiescence to the slaughter of millions, their
crimes against language alone would earn them a spot in hell's
lower circles.

Norman Miller
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.004340.23957@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <BzM9Eo.Jvt@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>>I just realized where you got this item.  The UN Secretary General wants the
>>US to do this.
>
>No, it was from U.S. newspaper reports copied to usenet (somewhwere in
>the somalia group I think).  The U.S. troops were saying they have a
>duty to seize khat when confronted.
>
>//Jyrki

From a story in the Chicago Tribune, 12/14/92, sec. 1 pg 5 entitled
"U.S. Drug Laws Clash With Somali Tradition".  I posted the whole thing
in talk.politics.drugs and, I think, alt.society.civil-liberty, with the 
Subject: line the same as the article title:

   ...
   Military officials are saying they consider it within their duties to seize
 qat from Somalis if they find it, even though their UN mandate to protect
 relief supplies to famine victims does not mention drugs.
   "As far as the American military is concerned, qat is an illegal
 substance, according to U.S. law here," said Col. Fred Peck, spokesman for
 Operation Restore Hope.
    "If we see drugs we will seize [them] and we have seized some already."
    ...
    "They came to help us.  They haven't invaded to change our way of life,"
 complained Dr. Mohamed M. Ali, a London-trained physician at Mogadishu's
 Digfer Hospital and a casual user.
    In Somalia, qat chewing is above all a social activity, he said.
    ...
    Somalis see nothing wrong with qat, which they have been chewing for
 centuries.  Instead, as Muslims they are worried that American forces
 will introduce large quantities of alcohol into their country.
    ...
    When you drink whiskey you can't tell who is your brother and you will
 attack everybody," said Hassan Alrashid Abdalla, a security official with
 one of the factions.  "But when you chew the green grass you can remember
 who is your brother."
    ... 

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:49:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism

As quoted from <BzMDI7.7JI.2@cs.cmu.edu> by zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller):

> Of course not everyone will agree with me.  The invasion of Panama was "to protect the canal treaty".  If so, why was that not the focus of Noriega's
> trial or the media coverage?

Is that in fact a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for which he can be tried?  If France 
continues to violate the GATT rules, can we arrest and try Francois Mitterand?

> As for foreign involvement, I don't hear the Cubans yelling for the US to harrass their country.  I don't hear the Puerto Ricans asking to remain a territory.
> I know the Somali's are happy we are there, but I suggest two things:  (1) why did we wait so long, and wouldn't the Bosnian's be happy to see us too? and (2) let's see how long the US remains and what they do afterwards.
> 
You don't hear the South Africans yelling for the U.S. to harass THEIR country
either.  Are you opposed to the anti-apartheid boycotts?  I'm not.

YOU may not hear the Puerto Ricans asking to remain a territory, but then I
suspect that your hearing may be somewhat faulty, since there are Puerto
Rican groups which call for commonwealth, statehood and independant status
respectively.  So far, the commonwealth faction has had the votes.  It's THEIR
choice not yours.  If they decide they want to be independant or a state, 
they'll let you know when they vote.

> It's amazing to me that citizens of the US will not doubt that crimes occurring
> in other countries are wrong, but when someone tries to tell them of questionable activities in their own country, they shrug it off, ignore it, or tell someone they must be lying or have false information.  The 'sense of security and trust' here is sometimes scary.
> 
There are plenty of questionable activities in the country.  There's no need
to invent spurious ones.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc