HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: PRC nationals from Aust. need your help
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:44:06 GMT
Reply-To: 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear friends and colleage,

Many people have responsed for the call of "Collection of the document about
the humn right abuse in China". We sincerely appreciate such support for our
course here in Australia. Some politicians of Australia are trying very hard
to convincethe Governmetn and public that "Majority of the PRC nationals will
be safe if they are repatriate back to china" because "eventhough there are
some cases of human right absuse, but that does not indicate that the fate of
majority PRC nationals here will be in jaopardy".

Please help us by sending the materials relavent to that argument and proof to
us.

Liaison Officer Yaming Zhang

Special Committee for Chinese Student

89P2820@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      forward to the net:  one more important points
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:22:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

Following is a mail I received about the safe-return-ratio statistic
discussion. I think its another important point. So, I forward it to
the net for potiential use in the lobby.

Kevin

-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 18:15:32 HST
From: XXX-XXXX TXXX  <xxxxxxx@UHUNIX.BITNET>
To: edt2lrf@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
Subject: re:Two important points

I would like to add one point, that is, for safety reason, ALMOST ALL of those
who went back China after 6.4 DID NOT do anything, at least PUBLICALLY, for
democracy and human rights of China, during their stay in China. It is not surpr
surprising that even those who were actively involved in the Democratic Movement
in US could be back safely.  The message from the CCP is very clear: Whatever
you HAVE DONE in the past, the CCP will welcome you as long as you can forget
your previous mental illness, and you want to be a "good guy" of the CCP.
However, if you still can not recover from your illness, still can not forget
those who died in 6.4 and those who are still in the CCP's prison, and even
dare to do something again in China, Sheng Tong is a very good example.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dnmao@mich.cern.ch
Subject:      Senate fails to override Bush's veto on CMFN bill
Reply-To: dnmao@mich.cern.ch
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:08:06 GMT

Just heard this from radio. The vote reslut was 59/40.
Dongning Mao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re: Boston rally in protesting Shen Tong's Arrest
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:07:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

I absoletely agree with you. That's why I put the phrase in quotation marks.
I use this phrase to indicate that if it is not for a green card related bill
there would be much much few CSS willing to write their checks to an
organization called CSSA/IFCSS. Don't you see: so many "sign me on" message
popped up on the net? I can predict that after the S1216 signed buy Bush
or unfortunately aborted, there will be a lot "sign me off" when hot debate
starts about general IFCSS fate, human rights in China.

Kevin

> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 14:11 CDT
> From: HUIWEN XIE <HXIE@MACC.WISC.EDU>
> Subject: Re: (COPY) Re: Boston rally in protesting Shen Tong's arrest
>
> Hi, Kevin at UCLA: I think it is improper to say "green card fund", particular
ly
> in this net.
From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~})
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.213702.2819@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>>   Once again, I want to remind you that we need to be positive and
>>constructive. Even if you strongly oppose something, being sentimental
>>or cynical will not acheive anything.

>Don't push your morals or your assumptions on me. If I want to be negative,
>I'll be negative. And in my opinion, I wasn't negative. I merely expressed
>the observation that the Americans I knew who were aware of the bill opposed
>it. This is true, and I clearly marked it with "(as far as I can tell)".

Huh ... I think you are responding to the wrong article here.  I believe
Mr. jingyao was responding to Mr. Eddie Cheng (echeng@phys.psu.edu)
when he made the above comments.  Isn't it embarrassing to get
angry for the wrong reason? :-) :-) :-)

Unless, of course, if you are Mr. Eddie Cheng himself.  (Hi Eddie!)

>Mark Libucha

 Ya-Gui Wei
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Two important points
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:35:45 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics


	I don't know what is being defined as people who "vigorously participated
in pro-democracy demonstrations".  As a simple illustration, could IFCSS
publish a list of former or current IFCSS officers who had visited China,
or is visiting China, after 4/11/90?

	CAD (MinLian) and CDF (MinZhen) are welcomed to do the same.  

	People above who visited under fake name/identity could be excused.



	 Eddie
Xref: sparky talk.politics.china:1403 soc.culture.china:26580
From: mth015@marshall.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Question:  Immigration quota used by Protection Bill?
Date: 25 Sep 92 19:21:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Marshall University

In article <Bv3EE3.8tB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, ziniuwei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Ziniu Wei) writes:
> 
> I have a question that how much immigration quota will be used by the Chinese
> Protection Bill?
> 
> I am a Chinese student coming here after April, 1990.  I support the bill
> because it will save ten thousand Chinese here, although I am not eligible for
> the bill.  My question is will the protection bill cost so much immigration 
> quota that it will be harder for people like me to try to immigrate after
> graduation? (Suppose they successfully change to H-1 visa and wait for green
> card)

Don't worry! State department will give Chinese (mainland) more quota if
this bill become law. Let's put this way. Suppose we have $40,000 Chinese
eligible for the bill, then State department will give extra 10,ooo quota
to support the bill. I know 10,000 < 40,000. But, most of 40,000 Chinese
already got Green card or will get Green card soon through normal procedure.
I think 35,000 could or will get CARD anyway. Now, you can answer your
question.
Have a nice day and a bright future.		
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(phil.physics.orst.edu)" <xia@PHIL.PHYSICS.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more concern on protection bill
Reply-To: "(phil.physics.orst.edu)" <xia@PHIL.PHYSICS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:42:17 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Sep 30 14:15:14 1992
>Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:07:22 PDT
>From: zhangw@RESEARCH.CS.ORST.EDU
>Subject:      Re: more concern on protection bill
>......
>Don't say more on "S1216 will also benefit Group-B". Peolpe are not so
>easy to be fooled!
            ^^^^^^
>--ZW

The logic here is very simple.

1. If CSS come here before 4/11/90 don't have PR, they are still trying
   to find jobs.  Most of them are smart as you are and are real
   competitors with you.  You should notice this first.

2. If those CSS get their PR, the difference is that they can get jobs
   requiring PR.  That means they can get jobs that not available for
   you.  They leave less competitive job market for you.  If you agree
   you should thank those "Group A" people bringing more chance for you.
   :-)

   No offence.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: protection policy reversal in Australia
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.160129.22851@news.iastate.edu> zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:
>>... the Australian
>>government has reversed its protection policy for chinese students
>>in that country. 18,000 chinese nationals will be forced to return
>>to China according to this new policy.
>
>They won't, if they have the academic ability strong enough to stay 
>there. 

  Seems someone is eager to have a toast, to having 18,000 Chinese
  driven out Australia.

>>	Can any one confirm this news?
>
>It is true. The international political game is almost over there.

  Who is the winner, if it's a game?

>>	If this is true, this instance serves as an alarm to us here
>>in USA and a wake-up call for those who always looks on but does nothing.
>                                                                   + except
>that works harder academically, to get the Human Rights.

  Only people with academical achievement are entitled to human rights?

>PS: Australia and USA governments are not international police, which
>exclude many possibilities.

  Who said they are?

-ping

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: jhao@hila.hut.fi (Jixiang Hao)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:35:49 GMT

I have really nothing against some of Tibet (XiZhang) people's claiming
for the self-determination, for more freedom, etc. But I am really get sick
of some of your guys and supporters lying about the history.

 richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca wrote:
> ..... a lot of stuff deleted ..............
>do not condone what the Brits may or may not have done in Sikkim.  They 
>are concerned with the most immediate problem facing the Tibetan people
>today: the occupation of Tibet by China.  
            ^^^^^^^^^^
Man, I sincerely ask you to give me evidence: WHEN was Tibet an Independent
country other than a chinese territory for last several centuries and 
recognized by other countries in the world?

And where does it come a *Occupation* for a country, who exercises its own
sovereign power on its own territory though it was really bloody and shameful?
Is it also a *Hi-Tech* production?   ;-/

I am not defending for what CCP's criminal doing for our own people and culture
(BTW, are you guys aware of how many nationalites in china when you are
talking about chinese? ),  actully I hate those who force/forced people
became their *slaves* both physically and spiritally,  whoever they are: CCP
or Dalai Lama or British Empire, Nazi-Hitler or Japanese Fascism bandit.

And a lying is not better than those devil either.

From my friend's point of view,  we would like to see Tibet independent right
now. Because four classmates of mine were assigned to work in Tibet after 
graduation from university, and I would assume that they could return home 
happyly instead of choosing drinking for releasing the pain of forced to
leave the relatives, and don't forget the endless tear of their girl friend or
wife and family members.

Best Regard,


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Zhang Yun Fei)" <zhang@BU-AST.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Boston rally in protesting Shen Tong's arrest
Reply-To: "(Zhang Yun Fei)" <zhang@BU-AST.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:44:51 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

This is forwarding message appear at local network

Yun Fei Zhang
----------------------------------------------------
>From june@bu-pub.bu.edu Sat Sep 26 13:06:18 1992
To: june4@bucrsb.bu.edu
Subject: shen tong rally


Boston Students Rally to Protest Shen Tong's Arrest

A large crowd of Chinese students in Boston area gathered
(09/25, Friday, 2-4pm) at the State House of Massachusetts
in a rally to protest Shen Tong's arrest.

The rally was originally initiated by concerned American students
at Boston University and Brandeis University. But once Chinese
Students Association at Boston University (CSA) was informed
of the rally, it immediately went into mobilization for the
rally. The Chinese student representatives met the rally
organizers and participated in the planning. Chinese students
were alerted through email network, telephone calls and direct
personal contact.

As a result of active mobilization, a strong Chinese constituency
participated in the rally: Chinese students from BU, Brandeis,
Harvard, MIT, Northeastern, BC and other universities rallied
together with their American peers. Representing Chinese students,
Dr. Zhao Haiqing, spoke for an urgent need of increasing concern
over Chinese human rights.

Association of Hongkong Chinese for Human Rights in China also showed
a strong presence in the rally. Its leader Mr. Xie emphasized that
while demanding Shen's release, we should not forget other political
prisoners still in jail. All its members at the rally wore large
photos of Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, Xu Wenlie, and other political
prisoners.

Shen's friends Marshall Strauss and Ross Terrill also spoke at the
rally. After the rally, the participants marched to join a Clinton
campaign rally nearby.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 29 Sep 1992 23:22:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


My suggestion to richter is to wait for sometime before making and comments
on the Tibet matter.  At least wait until these territory become independent
country.

Tao
-- 
p
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Zhao Haiqing will be at Columbia Teachers' College
Reply-To: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:17:01 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

Sunday 9/27, 2:30pm, Dodge Hall Rm179, to discuss with
Chinese students on the work, stretegy and other topics
related to the Protection Bill.

Dodge Hall is located on W. 120 St, btw Broadway and Amsterdam.
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:27:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>Def'n: invasion: Entering with hostile intentions; to enter as an enemy, 
>with a view to conquest or plunder; to enter by force;..(Webster's Dict.)
> 

Do you think it is also an invasion that the Union's force 
marched to Gorgia? If it is so, than invasions don't mean bad.

[stuff deleted]

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:47:50 GMT

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>In article <liqiang.717872979@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>>Absolutely.  And if the US South wants independence then the question 
>>>should be addressed, peaceably by referenda, I would hope.  Do you 
>>>think the Tibetan people are capable enough to decide for themselves 
>>  	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>in a referendum?
>>> 
>>
>>The use of the term "people" is very confusing and misleading:
>>
>>Adolf Hitler said, "Die Leute der Deutschland ...";
>>Chairman Mao said, "The Chinese people ...";
>>Saddam Hussein said, "The Iraqi people ...";
>>President Bush said, "The American people ...";
>>...........................................
>>Now you are saying, "... the Tibetan people ...". Please clarify or you might
>>as well just mind your own business.
> 
>What is your point?  Is this all you can offer to the discussion?   

Generally speaking, anyone who has access to the net has at least a college
degree and deserves respect intellectually. Please don't use such ambiguous
terms to intimidate them.

In history, truth doesn't always go with someone who always quotes "the 
people" and the Chinese have had extremely rough experience with such
hypocrites, period.

>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641

- Li, Qiang
From: grd@VESTA.PHYSICS.UIOWA.EDU (Grant Denn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: NRAO uses WHAT?
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:06:45 GMT


I just received a talk on the National Radio Astronomy Observatory from 
Dr. Paul Vanden Bout, an executive and scientist there.  Part of his slide show
was a truck, used at the VLA in New Mexico (the VLA is a radio telecope), that
was seized by 'Drug runners'; he said it was great, all plush inside with
an extra fuel tank, and "it didn't cost a cent."

Except about $8 Billion a year on subsidies to law enforcement.

Grant
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 12:38:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>P92-27                                      Food and Drug Administration
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                       Sharon Snider - (301) 443-3285
>Aug. 25, 1992                               (Home) -- (301) 622-0977
>
>
>    The Food and Drug Administration today proposed banning 415 ingredients   
>from seven categories of nonprescription drugs because they have not been     
>shown to be safe and effective for their stated claims...
>    "We are taking this action because no proof has been submitted to FDA     
>that shows the ingredients are effective for the conditions claimed," said    
>FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D...

Kind of reminds me of a book I read a little while ago: _Hitler's Justice:
The Courts of the Third Reich_ by Ingo Moller (a German law professor).
It quotes the famous opinion by a Nazi apellate court that goes something
like "...the doctrine that everything not specifically forbidden is 
permitted should be replaced by the doctrine that everything not specifically
permitted is forbidden."]]A

Don't expect this situation to change any time soon.  Along with the
knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of ending rent control,
viz., "How can you *advocate* throwing people out into the street", the
knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of charitizing welfare,
viz. "How can you *advocate* letting people starve to death?", and the
knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of ending the War on
Some Politically Incorrect Drugs, viz. "How can you *advocate* hard-drug
addiction?", the "progressive movement" has ingrained in the populace the
knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of replacing the FDA
with a pro-choice system, viz., "How can you *advocate* Thalidomide babies?"


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6604 talk.politics.misc:49578 misc.legal:18090
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Baldur von Shirach, call home
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:30:14 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

> >Why is it that ANYONE besides the owners and/or renters of the house
> >can consent to a search 

srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

> The rule, generally, is that anyone with the right to access a common
> area may give consent for that area to be searched.

A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court extended this.  Now, anyone who
the police BELIEVE has access to a common area can give permission for the
area to be searched, even if the person does not in fact have such access.

The precedent was established when a former girlfriend of a suspected drug
user gave permission to have her ex's apartment searched.  The police
assumed she also lived in his apartment, searched it without a warrant,
found drugs and busted him.  Even though it turned out that the girlfriend
didn't actually live there, the conviction was upheld because the police
were supposedly acting in "good faith" even though they were wrong.

Things are worse than you think....  and they're getting worse.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: Max Monningh <mmonningh@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 03 Oct 92 05:54 PDT
Subject: Illinois MJ initiave Phone number
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1484000057:000:335
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mmonningh    Oct  3 05:54:00 1992





The Illinois Marijuana Initiave now has a telephone number and answering
machine. 

              Illinois Marijuana Initiative (708)859-0499

"Please make a note of it!"

Regards.max                                             
							mmonningh@igc.org
                                                        maxwell@fnal.fnal.gov
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: spelling this stuff out clearly
Date: 6 Oct 1992 19:30:35 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

>...this discussion is not about scoring points; it is
>about permitting or prohibiting the destruction of western civilization...

Destruction of Western Civilization predicted!

>Next idiot, please.

-- 
Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same distance from the
Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures where there are canals,
we believe, and water.  If there is water, that means there is oxygen.  If
oxygen, that means we can breath.    -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: uk09365@nx01.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:41:15 GMT

> In article <1992Sep26.140604.2464@m.cs.uiuc.edu>  
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >According to a letter I received from Terry Bruce, my U.S.  
Representative:
> >
> >"Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture
> >as a law enforcement mechanism for almost two hundred years.
> >Traditionally, the crimes that triggered forfeiture have been those
> >which threatened the government's revenue interested such as smuggling
> >or tax evasion or crime which has a preceived threat to the public
> >health."
> >
> >Is this true, false, relevant to War-on-Drugs forfeitures?
> 

Until the 1984 (?) enhancements to the RICO laws, forfeiture
 - excepting admiralty cases - was (almost) entirely an
in personam procedure.  The property was forfeited only if it
had direct relationship to the crime and only upon 
conviction on criminal charges.  The shift has been toward
use of in rem proceedings, ie. civil claims against the
property rather than the owner.  Now any property with a
conceivable nexus to illegal activity is seized and the
burden of proving innocent owner status etc. is placed on
the owner.

Robert K.
    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs