From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 02:15:55 EDT On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) writes: >Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >is so >simple, everyone's missing it. > >1. Educate the kids to be against it. >2. Re-Legalize it. >3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >solving). Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems that someone else has the same idea. >This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, >than >anything anyone else has come up with. > >Think of it as evolution in action. > >-- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | >Keep >weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | >Your >hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | >Powder >on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | >Dry. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Oct 1996 00:58:20 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 01:08:00 PST On Oct 01, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) >writes: >>Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >>is so >>simple, everyone's missing it. >> >>1. Educate the kids to be against it. >>2. Re-Legalize it. >>3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >>they >> want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >>solving). > >Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because >I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems >that someone else has the same idea. These days, if someone accuses me of being insensitive, I know without any doubt whatsoever, that I'm on the right track. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. These signs began to appear all over yesterday. WARNING THIS AREA HAS BEEN DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. Boundaries _________________________ Dates and Times _________________________ Larry D. Soulsby Chief of Police (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:06:20 -0500 (CDT) I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > From: Black Unicorn > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > WARNING > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > Boundaries _________________________ > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > Larry D. Soulsby > Chief of Police > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:07:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") OCTOBER'S EVE ============= Sherman Skolnick Commentary 09/30/96 ------------------------------------ (From Mr. Skolnick's recorded message: 312-731-1100) ---------------------------------------------------- Hi! Sherman Skolnick, Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts, 9800 S. Oglesby. Some say the First Lady is facing criminal indictments, and the indictments (some state, some federal) have already been handed up by a grand jury but the indictments have been sealed. Is all this political? Before the election it would cause an unprecedented situation. Bill Clinton might feel compelled to resign, but at the same time release his impounded medical records, showing, supposedly, some medical crisis -- such as, his nose might fall off from having snorted cocaine over a period of many years. Release of indictments against Hillary after the election could also be considered political. If the Independent Counsel knew before the election, why would he time the release for after? Of course, remember the Nixon situation: Prior to the 1972 landslide re-election, the press fakers played down Watergate. By the Spring of 1973, however, Watergate was the buzzword most every day. And what is Hillary facing? In New York, charges of defrauding the state while a consultant; in Little Rock, causing the misappropriation of federally insured funds of a savings & loan; in the District of Columbia, perjury and obstruction of justice regarding both Travelgate and Filegate; that is, causing the frame-up of White House Travel Office carry-over employees and using FBI records to blackmail various persons, primarily those of the Bush administration. A good question: *When* are they going to indict Hillary and Bill for the $50 million embezzlement and massive tax fraud that is the subject of *our* civil damage suit against her and others? So far, Hillary Clinton's defense is primarily to convince the federal judges in Chicago that we are, supposedly, "bad people" and no judge should listen to us! Of course, the federal judges here already hate us for our campaign of exposing bribery of the federal courts in Chicago. Now whether before or after the election, the expected indictments may cause a crisis. Even prior to the indictments the stock market was already reaching new, all-time highs, and headed for a crash. (Of course, cynics contend that the market would rally! That is, happy to be rid of the Clinton White House gang.) Now just consider the possibilities. The mass media liars and whores might finally have to admit that White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was murdered. And that Bill and Hillary, supposedly his friends, covered it up. Vince Foster was implicated in various types of espionage, such as selling nuclear missile secrets to a foreign power; such as heading a project to spy on foreign banks, both friend and foe; such as money-laundering dope and gun-running funds, with Hillary, for a Little Rock bond broker: some 18 Arkansas-based firms would be scandalized for reportedly using dope loot to finance their business -- including Tyson Chickens, J.B. Hunt truck line, Wal-Mart, and Beverly Enterprises, the nursing home chain. The whole mess involves both political parties: both Bill Clinton and George Bush are criminally implicated in the CIA dope through the airport at Mena, Arkansas. And the dope loot was reportedly washed through the Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago, owned by de-frocked congressman Dan Rostenkowski and Hillary's brother, and then through the Chicago markets. The bottom line? Maybe all of this is to pave the way for Jay Rockefeller to become the President without an actual election. Such as by an emergency, provided for under the 25th Amendment. Will the press fakers surprise us with all of this someday? *Or*, just dribble it out to get us used to a disaster? Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:12:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >Date: 30 Sep 96 21:02:19 EDT >From: "Barbara j. Beier" <73622.1250@CompuServe.COM> >To: BlindCopyReceiver:;@CompuServe.COM >Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP > >Hi: > >"...you just call, out my name, and you know, wherever I am, I'll coming >running, >running, running, don't you know, you got a friend..." James Taylor > >Unless you're a gun owner trying to get somebody's ear in Congress, that is. > >I have just one question: we made such a big difference in 1994 that even Mr. >Clinton acknowledged it. We gave the Republicans Congress. Why then, have they >abandoned us in 1996? > >I think it's because we ordinary folks rocked a boat we weren't supposed to. >Power...it's all the same, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat; when >you're in the halls of power, it boils down to "us" (inside the Beltway, or >Albany, etc.) against "them" (the rest of America). If it wasn't for the >Libertarians, I truly think I'd sit this election out, even if it meant not >using a sorely needed civil right. > >Folks, I believe we are in for a hellacious time over the next few months and >years as all the chickens sown of our cynical power plays during the Cold War >come home to roost. Compromise every belief you hold dear, or else fasten yer >seatbelts for a rough ride! > > >=:-o >Barb Beier > ***************************** > >AP 30-Sep-1996 15:29 EDT REF5521 > >Copyright 1996. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. > >The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, >rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The >Associated Press. > >By DAVID PACE > >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun ownership or >possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of a misdemeanor >involving domest >ic violence. > "This legislation will save the lives of thousands of battered women and >abused children," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who proposed a similar ban >that was endorsed by the Senate 97-2 earlier this month. > Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a former U.S. attorney, proposed an alternative last >week that would have extended the gun ban to people convicted of domestic abuse >misdemeanors only if physical force was involved, and only if the person was >notified of t >he gun ban when arrested, given the right to counsel and a trial by jury. > Last week, congressional Republicans initially agreed to substitute Barr's >alternative for the Lautenberg amendment. That brought protests from Senate >Democrats and the White House, since President Clinton initially proposed the >gun ban during h >is train trip to the Democratic Convention in August. > Barr contended Lautenberg's original bill was unconstitutional. States do not >uniformly define misdemeanor crimes, he said, so Lautenberg's bill would have >violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. > He also complained that Lautenberg proposal ignored the general law exemption >that would have kept the gun ban from applying to police officers and military >personnel. The final agreement included Barr's language removing that exemption. > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af >ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. The final agreement simply requires that persons charged >with domestic >abuse, who are entitled to a jury trial, must be given one or must waive that >right before they would come under the gun ban if convicted. > > > -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:13:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >From: Washington Weekly >Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment > > > > FOLLOW THE MONEY AND LOOK AT THE NOSE > Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) > House of Representatives - September 26, 1996 > >[Rep. Bob Dornan held a total of three one-hour special orders >last week focusing on the President and his talk of pardons to >convicted Whitewater associates. In the present speech he >describes his papers of impeachment and reads from Roger Morris >and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard] > >[...] > >Now, something else happened to me today. Besides meeting a young >man who told me he was corrupted here as a page on the elevator >in one of the Rayburn buildings, said it cost him 2 years of >school and finally he is getting out of the university late. I >also saw Clinton come to the Longworth Office Building, so I >thought I would stand in the hall, ask him about tampering with a >grand jury system by telegraphing pardon messages through the >media, specifically through PBS on Jim Lehrer's show. Got the >transcript here from the Wall Street Journal. It is unbelievable. >Outrageous is what it is. It is just what the Wall Street Journal >calls it. > >So I am standing there and out comes that battered wife, George >Stephanopoulos. That is what Bob Woodward of Watergate Woodward >and Bernstein fame, naval officer, Robert Woodward wrote: George >Stephanopoulos is like a battered wife. The volcanic eruptions >come out of the man's head with lava flowing all over George, and >he is treated like a battered wife. I did not see whose head; the >man. > >So here comes the battered wife, and he comes up and said what >are you doing. You going to talk through the man? > >I will insert `the man' a lot tonight. > >And I said, `Oh, just wanted to find out about jury tampering, >telegraphing messages through media interviews and tampering with >witnesses that are at this moment going before the grand jury in >Little Rock.' > >He says OK. > >He runs back into the Ways and Means room, a whole operation is >organized. I saw the secret service smiling. I saw the Capitol >police laughing. We saw the advance men talking in their little >hand mikes, and I cost hundreds of people, I guess, 10 or 15 >minutes as they had to run an operation kind of like the Bowery >boys, you know playing 24 A, the diversion, to fake me out, and >it worked. Got to give it to him. > >But they had to announce to the entire press corps, the AP camera >man, the Washington Post: Look, here comes the President, >everybody--actual word out of advancement: all the press look >this way. > >So of course I looked that way, too, and we are all looking, and >behind me comes Al Gore, Vice President, and the man, and up to >the microphone. I turn around, I said, `Well done, guys.' > >But he will get his day in court. I was going to remind him that >Paula Corbin Jones had her day in court and he will have his day >in court because I am filing impeachment papers. I have got >lawyers working on them and have been for about 5 or 6 months, >and this may be the crowning issue, this may be the straw on the >camel's back, telegraphing pardon messages to people. It is >unbelievable. > >So I stood there, and I looked, and the first thing that came in >my mind was baby boomers in power, and the second thing came to >my mind were the words of Maureen Dowd about the scenes on sacred >Omaha Beach, that hallowed territory, that hallowed sand where so >many Americans died, a thousand in few hours there in Utah Beach >on the gorgeous coast of Normandy, France. And I thought of >Maureen Dowd, New York Times reporter, her words: The >prepubescent yuppies running around serving the man. > >Well, listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Seven pounds of heroin were >found in the nose cone of an Air Force One aircraft taking the >President to the U.N. in New York from Bogota, Colombia. The >President in this case is Ernesto Samper, the man whose >Presidency is collapsing in Bogota, Colombia, a nation which drug >users in this country have helped to destroy, particularly >cocaine users. They have helped to destroy it. > >When you see somebody with a big red bulbous nose and doctors >tell me it is not allergies; that makes your eyes water. The nose >only swells from alcohol or from tearing up your nasal passages >with cocaine. When you see that, you will know that that is a >person who has caused--Nancy Reagan had it right, just say no-- >who has caused a thousand young police officers to be killed in >Colombia in the last year, calendar year 1995. This year we are >running ahead of a thousand young men. > > >[...] > > >Partners in Power. This is tough, so I am going to leave out the >man and only talk about people who are not protected by rule 18. > >First of all, story: London, Sunday. Imagine the respect factor >in Europe. Here is the Sunday Telegraph, London, by Ambrose >Evans Pritchard. Some day I am going to get to meet this great >journalist. > >`The longer he resists pressure to release his medical records, >the stronger the suspicions become that he is hiding something >important, perhaps even something that could affect the outcome >of some elections.' > >`Some press secretary,' I am leaving out names here, `was >distinctly ambiguous when reporters asked in public whether >someone was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. It >seemed almost as if the press secretary wished to encourage this >sexual line of inquiry, because the calculation apparently is >that nobody cares much about encounters long ago of a sexual >nature. The impact, in post-Puritan America, would be nil.' > >Imagine the British people reading this in the tube, on the >subway. > >`But not everybody has fallen for this diversionary tactic. In a >biting editorial last week,' that I missed, so I will have to put >it in the Record in January, `the Wall Street Journal asked >whether' someone was covering up a history of drug use. `Drugs >are a much more serious matter. If the American people were ever >led to believe that somebody was a heavy user of cocaine while >head of a certain subgovernment entity in a certain state, the >scandal would be thermonuclear.' > >Stories about past drug use by some are a staple of the talk show >programs around America, but no major paper in the U.S. has had >the guts yet to publish an investigative expose. The Washington >Times almost did this week. They came that close. They sent out >sheets to people around the country saying, `Here it comes >tomorrow.' Then they backed off, and I got a headline story out >of it, interesting, with my subcommittee on a Czech general >saying that Americans were used as guinea pigs from the Korean >and maybe the Vietnam War, because it left the whole area above >the full front-page story empty. > >So he goes on to say, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, to his London >audience, in the biggest circulation paper in Great Britain, he >says: This is not because drug use is too much of a tabloid >issue. Far from it. The mainstream media were quick to print >uncorroborated allegations of a stupid convicted felon in the >slammer who claimed to have sold marijuana years ago to a young >Dan Quayle. Remember how that moved on the network news, the >headlines, of establishment paper after liberal paper? > >In the case of someone, a number of people have come forward with >direct knowledge of drug use, but the press always finds a reason >to impugn the source's credibility; hence, a fascinating meeting >with 20 of us telling Gary Aldrich, `We will protect you,' giving >him a round of applause, and then came his two little children. >Dan Burton and I said, `We were applauding for your honorable >dad, Gary Aldrich, author of `Unlimited Access.' > >Back to the London paper. This is not a tabloid, this is like the >New York Times in London, or like the New York Post or Daily >News. > >He says, in the case of these people that have come forward, >nothing short of documentary proof, though, will induce the >newspapers to examine the claims. > > >Hence, the intense speculation in Washington about the medical >records. But there are other records. A freelance journalist, >Scott Wheeler, has obtained copies of the Arkansas State police >surveillance audio tapes from the 1984 investigation of a Roger, >whose last name is Clinton, the younger brother of somebody. He >was eventually convicted for dealing in cocaine and sent to >prison. > >The tapes revealed that Roger Clinton was a drug trafficker, not >just an addict who crossed the line. He can be heard describing >how he used to smuggle large amounts of cocaine right through the >airports hidden under his clothes. And I have a tape somebody is >going to play for me tomorrow where he says, I'm not worried >about the cops surveilling me, I've got other cops watching those >cops, because I've got a friend in a high place. > >And it says, the most interesting comment he makes about the >Governor is, got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like >a vacuum cleaner. Then there is the case of Charlene Wilson, >currently serving a prison term in Arkansas for drug offenses. >She told the Sunday Telegraph in London 2 years ago that she had >supplied somebody with cocaine during his first term. He was so >messed up that night he slid down the wall into a garbage can. > >The story has credibility because she told it under oath to a >Federal grand jury in Little Rock in December of 1990. At the >time she was an informant for the 7th Judicial District drug task >force in Arkansas. Gene Duffy, the prosecutor in charge of the >task force, talked to this Wilson lady days after her grand jury >appearance. She was terrified, the drug task force person, the >prosecutor, says, prosecutor Gene Duffy, she was terrified. She >said her house was being watched and she made a big mistake, she >shouldn't have talked. > > >That was when she told me she testified about seeing someone get >so high on cocaine he fell into a garbage can. I have no doubt >she was telling the truth. What happens to her, Duffy? She's now >in hiding in a secret place somewhere in Texas. > >What about Charlene Wilson. Charged with drug violations. In 1992 >she was sentenced to 31 years for selling a half ounce of >marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine to an informant. She >protested she was set up to eliminate her as a political >liability and she appealed on the grounds of entrapment. With the >help of a brilliant Arkansas lawyer, John Wesley Hall, her case >went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--across the street, >Mr. Speaker. Finding a violation of her constitutional rights, >the court ordered the State of Arkansas to give Ms. Wilson a >fresh trial or set her free. She's being set free as of >November--probably after the election. > >And what about those grand jury transcripts? They are secret, of >course, sealed in perpetuity, but every witness has the right to >the transcripts of their own testimony if they make a formal >request. > >So she will probably formally request them and we will get to see >them and it may be too late because America has a morality test, >all day long until the polls close, a morality test on November >5. And then at the same time it has an IQ test to see what we are >going to tell the children in this country. > >In this book, `Partners In Power,' page 325: > >On one of the 1983-84 videotapes--I better give the publisher, >Henry Holt. Get this book, folks, Pop for the $27.50, for pete's >sake. Henry Hold, `Partners In Power.' > >A fabulous biographer, Roger Morris, writes: > >Yeah, there was a mansion in the guest house, Roger answered, oh, >they love it. Even sketchy State trooper entry and exit logs at >the Governor's mansion would bear him out showing him coming and >going at the family quarters accompanies by females, girl, a >friend, at least 36 times after February 7, 1983, the height of >drug trafficking, and guards recorded visits within days of the >women that he was bringing. Roger in with 2 females to change for >party. Roger and girl going to the mansion, 2 hours. Girl, in, >out. And on one of the 1983-84 videotapes filmed by the local >narcotics officers, Roger Clinton was said to tell a supplier >jauntily: Got to get some for my brother, he's got a nose like a >vacuum. > >So there it is, folks. You want the line. Get the book. > >ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE > >The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MICA). The Chair must ask the >gentleman from California to suspend for a moment at this point. > >The Chair would remind all Members that it is not in order to >engage in personalities toward the President. Although remarks in >debate may include criticism of the President's official actions >or policy, it is a breach of order to question the personal >conduct of the President whether by actual accusation or by mere >insinuation. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his question. > >Mr. DORNAN. If a Member has read--and, of course, I was talking >about this Member--over 10 books, traveled Arkansas, spoken to >people, and believes that a high public official was and may >still be a cocaine addict, do I not have a right to state that >publicly on the floor of this House? > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond not on the floor >of this House. And also in response to a question concerning the >proper bounds, the requirements of decorum in debate prohibit any >personal abuse of the President spanning the full range of >affronts from the attribution of unworthy motives to name- >calling. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, then let me deviate in the remaining few >moments to point out the headline--these are public issues--the >headline of yesterday's Washington Times: `In Jail, McDougal >Plays Media Queen,' is cocky. In Dayroom 212 of Pod B of the >Faulker County Jail, she is the queen, she thinks she is going to >get pardoned. `Clinton's Words Fuel Pardon Talk. Will Whitewater >Figures Go Free?' Imagine if a Republican tried this. Today's >headline: `Whitewater Log On Files Has 6-Month Gap.' > >These people are being charged with looting banks, and the >taxpayers having to make up the difference, pirating money from >banks, and if one person is immune from discussion, then let us >talk about all the others. A person is known by the company he >keeps. > >I want to close discussing this rule XVII because people watching >this House may be confused about the separation of powers. To >keep order in this place, there is comity between Members and the >Members in the other body, and it can be stretched when one >Member criticizes on the Senate floor this Member for being a >hobbyist on a gut-ripping issue like POW issues and Missing In >Action, but we have to have some comity here. > >But only in this Congress, the 104th Congress, was the office of >the President and the office of the Vice President put under the >rules, thereby damaging the separation of powers. I can assure >you after I file charges of impeachment, articles of impeachment, >and I can do it from zero to 1,000, after that, I will move when >we reassemble, God willing I am back and you are back, I will >demand in our rules from our leadership to finally show the guts >to go back to the way this existed for over 200 years, and have >this separation of powers so that the offices of the President >and the Vice President are no longer included in our rule XVIII >that demands civility between ourselves. > >Let me read one line about President Samper of Colombia: A >scathing assessment of the Bogota scene with its dozens of >censored stories, crippling folly and indolence, intellectual >shallowness, and social and mercenary corruption by the political >world it is supposed to monitor, resulting in a `day of the >locusts' talk-show demagoguery by liberals. > >Mr. Speaker, when you read this, the reaction to a young person >would be holy schnikes, how did our great country come to all >this corruption and scandals? > > > > > > > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Date: 01 Oct 1996 10:07:54 -0400 >>>We have citizens who say, `Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on >>>a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to >>>stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that >>>our government could have known, could have been involved with >>>this, could have been a part of a plot.' > >I'm flabbergasted. I've never agreed with Waters ever before, but _this_ I >agree with; anything the government has done along these lines deserves to >be investigated and the culprits horsewhipped and hanged. Ms. Waters and the Black Caucus could be on to something here. When various random conservatives were complaining about Mena, it was just a right-wing conspiracy. When a whole bunch of prominent black people stand up and demand an investigation, its going to be harder to dismiss. (N.B. This is how the media perceives it, not my personal opinion.) Just on the face of it, it is pretty damn awful. The Feds are pushing for harsher drug penalties, using the military to fight drup producers overseas, *locking up close to 1% of the population, the highest incarceration rate of all the industrialized nations*, and at the same time they are smuggling, selling, and profiting from cocaine. I don't care what turns up, or what it takes. I don't care if this sullies Bush, Reagan and half their staffs. Clinton is guilty as sin, and the whole thing makes Watergate look like a third rate burglary. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Vance wrote: > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. > > Think of it as evolution in action. Bill - you'll never make it in this politics business. You got to learn that you get votes talking about MORality, not REality. Ask Newt if you don't believe me. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (Fwd) Re: =U.S. National Guard moved drugs for (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 15:43:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Witness claims U.S. National Guard moved drugs for cartel > > >Copyright c 1996 Nando.net >Copyright c 1996 Reuter Information Service > >HOUSTON (Sep 30, 1996 5:48 p.m. EDT) - A former insider of the Gulf >drug cartel testified on Monday in the >trial of alleged drug kingping Juan Garcia Abrego that members of the >U.S. National Guard shipped marijuana >and cocaine in military trucks for the illicit organisation. > >Carlos Rodriguez, now serving up to 60 years in federal prison on >drug charges, said one of the cartel >members had "a special deal" with a group in the National Guard to >transport drugs from south Texas to >Houston. > >National Guard members "carried the drugs in an army trailer or >something, a military truck," he said. >Rodriguez did not say when the shipments were made, but they would >have occurred before his arrest in April >1993. > >It was not the first time in a trial that was expected to produce >revelations about public corruption in Mexico that >testimony has shown U.S. officials were not immune to the lure of >drug money. > >Earlier, cartel insiders said the organisation bribed guards at a >federal highway checkpoint in south Texas so >that their drug shipments could pass through without problems. > >One cartel member also testified that the drug ring paid U.S. >Immigration and Naturalisation Service workers in >south Texas to stash cocaine in INS buses that were used to carry >illegal immigrants to Houston. > >Agents at highway checkpoints routinely waved the buses through >without searching for drugs because they >were assumed to be clean, the witness said. Once in Houston, both the >drugs and immigrants were dropped >off. > >Garcia Abrego, once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, faces up to >life in prison if convicted on 22 drug-related >counts. He was captured in January in Monterrey, Mexico, and flown to >Houston for trial. > >Prosecutors say the former cookie factory worker from Texas led the >Gulf cartel, which shipped up to one-third >of the cocaine used in the United States from its base in northern >Mexico. Defence attorneys said the >government has the wrong man. > >Rodriguez testified on Monday that he believed Garcia Abrego was the >head of the cartel. He described a >meeting in the border city of Matamoros in which a top lieutenant in >the drug ring introduced to him to the >defendant. > >"He introduced him as the Patron, El Jefe (the boss)," he said. > >Rodriguez said the Gulf cartel got its cocaine from the Cali cartel >in Colombia and would fly it to isolated >airstrips in northeastern Mexico for delivery to the United States. >Corrupt officials on the Mexican side of the >Rio Grande, which forms the Texas-Mexico border, would look the other >way so the drugs could get through. > >He estimated that more than 50 tons of cocaine were shipped to New >York City via south Texas and Houston >during his several years with the drug ring. > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** >** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** >** PGP Encouraged. >================================================== ** > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** ** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** ** PGP Encouraged. ================================================== ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Last time I checked, the following two things were true: 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes were anyway? bd On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Black Unicorn > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > WARNING > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > Chief of Police > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. bd >AP 30-Sep-1996 > >Under pressure from the White House and Senate >Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of >a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. [...] > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. [...] > > > *********************************************************************** >On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to limit >our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. > >In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for >the majority of the Court said: > >"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of >the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its scope >does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term in >excess of six months for petty offenses." > [...] >Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, and it >cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for the >minority of the Court) [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:56:43 -0500 (CDT) Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal activity? The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and juveniles? I think not. The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution protects. You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for anarchia liberteria. I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > > 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. > > 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > > So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, > they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them > alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > > When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes > were anyway? > > bd > > On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > > > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > > > Larry Ball > > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: Black Unicorn > > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > > > WARNING > > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > > Chief of Police > > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:48:16 -0700 While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of redundant paperwork! This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and the new one becomes redundant. Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who are just! Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. Jerry Wootan Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting in November! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 21:29:44 -0500 (CDT) I agree with the idea that we allready have enough law, all we need to do is enforce them. I am not sure that we have the ability to "roust and arrest." Our Judges and criminal advocates in the criminal justice system have pretty well demonized this idea. If new law gives fresh direction to the system, then we need new law. Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way taking away our right to keep and bear arms. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these > gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to > enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the > street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact > that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand > before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of > redundant paperwork! > > This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is > already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and > the new one becomes redundant. > > Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are > overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our > Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead > of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who > are just! > > Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are > right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, > who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the > Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. > > Jerry Wootan > > Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant > as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but > I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working > on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting > in November! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 20:48:26 -0600 Larr Ball said: >Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties >we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian >bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and >others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have >their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way >taking away our right to keep and bear arms. "civil libertarian" and "bleeding heart liberal" put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Just because the news media cannot get it straight doesn't mean that it is the same. And I don't think that anyone including liberals think that grannys and other law abiding folks should die so that scuzz bait can have their liberty. The "conservative" idea that THEIR laws are OK to pass and infringe on people's liberties "for the greater good" fail for the same reason that "bleeding heart liberals" laws passed in the name of "the greater good." That reason is: it is wrong to pass a law for its intended effect and at the same time to ignore the means. The END does NOT justify the means. Whether liberal OR conservative. What was it that Franklin said about trading liberty for a little security and deserving neither? It applies the same to conservative do-gooders as to liberal do-gooders. best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 22:10:34 -0500 At 05:56 PM 10/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as >natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid >observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot >the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal >activity? No Larry, the police cannot be assumned to be psycic. They can move to a state of heightned watchfullness, so as not to miss any likely illegal activity. Until an illegal act is committed. Do do otherwise would amount to the power to arrest anyone for any reason, "I thought he was going to commit crime, judge" > >The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed >to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and >juveniles? I think not. You couldn't be more wrong. They are people too, juveniles may be a specail case, they don't have complete rights, although mostly that is with respect to their parents and in some cases teachers. If the gangbangers have *already* committed illegal acts they shouldn't be out on the streets, if nothing else associating with known criminals (each other) has got to be a violation of the terms of their parole. However just belonging to a gang is not a crime. It would be hard to define a gang in such away as to *not* include such organizations as the boy scouts, or for that matter the young republicans or young democrats. > >The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear >that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls >crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is >not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution >protects. For some such activity is "political", just not in the partison Politics sense. > >You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" >pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for >anarchia liberteria. > >I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and >hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. If they are legally adults, then it's no ones business how late they are out on the streets. Provided of course they are not disturbing the peace (a vague enough crime) or hassling others who also choose to be out and about. Again juveniles may be a different case. Plenty of reasons to bust the people in question, lets just not sweep up the innocent revelars along with the criminals. Now I *know* they don't roll up the streets that early in Lincoln. As someone has said, freedom means letting other people do things you don't approve of. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT Sign, sign, everywhere a sing. Do this don't do that... So they put up another stupid sign. Is any one going to pay attention? Gary On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) >From: Black Unicorn >Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > >Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > >These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > >WARNING >THIS AREA HAS BEEN >DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four sides of the white house. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > >1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >assemble. > >2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > >So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > >"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > >When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >purposes >were anyway? > >bd > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > >> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >punks. >> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >the >> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >> >> Larry Ball >> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT "Don't worry, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. > > >bd > > > >>AP 30-Sep-1996 >> >>Under pressure from the White House and Senate >>Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >>violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. >> The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of >the huge >>spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >>ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone >convicted of >>a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. >[...] >> >> In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional >Republicans >>dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the >time of >>arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban >only to >>persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury >trial. >> Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers >from the >>ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to >guarantee the >>right to a jury trial. > >[...] >> >> >> > > >*********************************************************************** > >>On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to >limit >>our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. >> >>In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, >writing for >>the majority of the Court said: >> >>"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >>prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's >guarantee of >>the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its >scope >>does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison >term in >>excess of six months for petty offenses." >> > >[...] > >>Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >>serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, >and it >>cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for >the >>minority of the Court) > >[...] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 01:29:31 PST Make 'em "Bill" board size! :-) On Oct 02, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four >sides of the white house. > >GHB > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan >writes: >>Last time I checked, the following two things were true: >> >>1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >>assemble. >> >>2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. >> (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) >> >>So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >>they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >>alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering >> >>"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. >> >>When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >>purposes >>were anyway? >> >>bd >> >>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: >> >>> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >>punks. >>> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >>the >>> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >>> >>> Larry Ball >>> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) Date: 02 Oct 1996 07:16:51 -0400 >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:38:38 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) > >Juror on Trial >Update on 1st day of trial >10-1-96 > > The trial of ex-juror Laura Kriho for contempt of court ended its first >day on Tuesday. The trial will continue tomorrow and will probably >conclude by the late afternoon. > Five other jurors were called by the prosecution to testify >against Laura. The jurors testified to the judge about their >recollections of their deliberation process. They told five very >dis-similar stories about their deliberations. > About 75 people attended the trial. Court TV sent a camera >team, but were denied access to the courtroom by Judge Nieto. > This historic trial will probably conclude on Wed. Please, come >if you can! > >Wed - Oct 2 - 9am >Gilpin County Justice Center >Hwy. 46 (Golden Gate Canyon State Park Road) >One mile east of Hwy. 119 >From Boulder, take 119 through Nederland to Colo. 46. >From Denver, Hwy. 72, Hwy. 46, Hwy. 6, or I-70 all connect to Hwy. 119 > >Call the Gilpin County Clerk Court to confirm that the trial has not been >re-scheduled. (303) 582-5522. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Are we under Martial Law? (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 08:39:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below is a document that has very specific meaning to those who can spot exactly what is going on in government, BATF, FBI, "Police organizations", etc... Albeit true to form, the concept has been corrupted to conform to commercial enforcement in this day and age, but the foundations after the overthrow remain. Some still cling to the belief that the de jure Constitution is still in effect, and sometimes I even get caught up in the ravel rousing and flag waiving. However, it only takes remembering a few sentences of that below which makes one realize just where We The People Stand in this country. It can not be disputed, upon reading this document enacted into law in 1868 under executive order no. 100, what the very foundations of our civilizations are today, and how it is absolutely certain that the government can "get away with murder", while we real in agony and disbelief. We are under Martial Law, or at least a form of it called Martial Rule, and the Government has a license to kill, when necesary. Remember, peace was never declared after the civil war. This document is long, you might consider reading it offline. Alan ******************************************************************* INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863. The text below is reprinted from the edition of the United States Government Printing Office of 1898; and reprinted in Schindler & Toman, eds., The Laws of Armed Conflicts. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office. TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Section I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation. 1-30 Section II. Public and private property of the enemy - Pro- tection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. 31-47 Section III. Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battlefield. 48-80 Section IV. Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts- Armed prowlers - War-rebels. 81-85 Section V. Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors - Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce. 86-104 Section VI. Exchange of prisoners - Flags of truce - Flags of protection 105-118 Section VII. The Parole 119-134 Section VIII. Armistice - Capitulation 135-147 Section IX. Assassination 148 Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion 149-157 * * * SECTION I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law. Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same. Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority. Art. 4. Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed. Art. 5. Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed - even in the commander's own country - when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion. To save the country is paramount to all other considerations. Art. 6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government - legislative executive, or administrative - whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader. Art. 7. Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government. Art. 8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint. Art. 9. The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic agents accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself. Art. 10. Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations. Art. 11. The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers. It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers. Art. 12. Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander. Art. 13. Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country. In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions. Art. 14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war. Art. 15. Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God. Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. Art. 17. War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. Art. 18. When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender. Art. 19. Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity. Art. 20. Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. Art. 21. The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war. Art. 22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. Art. 23. Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. Art. 24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception. Art. 25. In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions. Art. 26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives. Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution. Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages. Art. 29. Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse. Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace. The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief. Art. 30. Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor. SECTION II Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. Art. 31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. Art. 32. A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another. The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change. Art. 33. It is no longer considered lawful - on the contrary, it is held to be a serious breach of the law of war - to force the subjects of the enemy into the service of the victorious government, except the latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the hostile country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country, district, or place permanently as its own and make it a portion of its own country. Art. 34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it. Art. 35. Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded. Art. 36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured. Art. 37. The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. Art. 39. The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city or communal governments - are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped. Art. 40. There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land. Art. 41. All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of the countries to which they belong, is silent and of no effect between armies in the field. Art. 42. Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions. Art. 43. Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service. Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense. A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior. Art. 45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law. Art. 46. Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense. Art. 47. Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred. SECTION III Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battle-field. Art. 48. Deserters from the American Army, having entered the service of the enemy, suffer death if they fall again into the hands of the United States, whether by capture, or being delivered up to the American Army; and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken service in the Army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, and punished by them with death or otherwise, it is not a breach against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation. Art. 49. A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. Art. 50. Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be made prisoners of war, and be detained as such. The monarch and members of the hostile reigning family, male or female, the chief, and chief officers of the hostile government, its diplomatic agents, and all persons who are of particular and singular use and benefit to the hostile army or its government, are, if captured on belligerent ground, and if unprovided with a safe conduct granted by the captor's government, prisoners of war. Art. 51. If the people of that portion of an invaded country which is not yet occupied by the enemy, or of the whole country, at the approach of a hostile army, rise, under a duly authorized levy en masse to resist the invader, they are now treated as public enemies, and, if captured, are prisoners of war. Art. 52. No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection. Art. 53. The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hospital nurses and servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander has reasons to retain them. In this latter case; or if, at their own desire, they are allowed to remain with their captured companions, they are treated as prisoners of war, and may be exchanged if the commander sees fit. Art. 54. A hostage is a person accepted as a pledge for the fulfillment of an agreement concluded between belligerents during the war, or in consequence of a war. Hostages are rare in the present age. Art. 55. If a hostage is accepted, he is treated like a prisoner of war, according to rank and condition, as circumstances may admit. Art. 56. A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. Art. 57. So soon as a man is armed by a sovereign government and takes the soldier's oath of fidelity, he is a belligerent; his killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses. No belligerent has a right to declare that enemies of a certain class, color, or condition, when properly organized as soldiers, will not be treated by him as public enemies. Art. 58. The law of nations knows of no distinction of color, and if an enemy of the United States should enslave and sell any captured persons of their army, it would be a case for the severest retaliation, if not redressed upon complaint. The United States cannot retaliate by enslavement; therefore death must be the retaliation for this crime against the law of nations. Art. 59. A prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's army or people, committed before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures. Art. 60. It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners. Art. 61. Troops that give no quarter have no right to kill enemies already disabled on the ground, or prisoners captured by other troops. Art. 62. All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in general, or to any portion of the army, receive none. Art. 63. Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter. Art. 64. If American troops capture a train containing uniforms of the enemy, and the commander considers it advisable to distribute them for use among his men, some striking mark or sign must be adopted to distinguish the American soldier from the enemy. Art. 65. The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem of nationality, for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is an act of perfidy by which they lose all claim to the protection of the laws of war. Art. 66. Quarter having been given to an enemy by American troops, under a misapprehension of his true character, he may, nevertheless, be ordered to suffer death if, within three days after the battle, it be discovered that he belongs to a corps which gives no quarter. Art. 67. The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant. Art. 68. Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy in modern war, and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war. Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful. Art. 69. Outposts, sentinels, or pickets are not to be fired upon, except to drive them in, or when a positive order, special or general, has been issued to that effect. Art. 70. The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war. Art.71. Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed. Art. 72. Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner, such as watches or jewelry, as well as extra clothing, are regarded by the American Army as the private property of the prisoner, and the appropriation of such valuables or money is considered dishonorable, and is prohibited. Nevertheless, if large sums are found upon the persons of prisoners, or in their possession, they shall be taken from them, and the surplus, after providing for their own support, appropriated for the use of the army, under the direction of the commander, unless otherwise ordered by the government. Nor can prisoners claim, as private property, large sums found and captured in their train, although they have been placed in the private luggage of the prisoners. Art. 73. All officers, when captured, must surrender their side arms to the captor. They may be restored to the prisoner in marked cases, by the commander, to signalize admiration of his distinguished bravery or approbation of his humane treatment of prisoners before his capture. The captured officer to whom they may be restored can not wear them during captivity. Art. 74. A prisoner of war, being a public enemy, is the prisoner of the government, and not of the captor. No ransom can be paid by a prisoner of war to his individual captor or to any officer in command. The government alone releases captives, according to rules prescribed by itself. Art. 75. Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment such as may be deemed necessary on account of safety, but they are to be subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity. The confinement and mode of treating a prisoner may be varied during his captivity according to the demands of safety. Art. 76. Prisoners of war shall be fed upon plain and wholesome food, whenever practicable, and treated with humanity. They may be required to work for the benefit of the captor's government, according to their rank and condition. Art. 77. A prisoner of war who escapes may be shot or otherwise killed in his flight; but neither death nor any other punishment shall be inflicted unsuccessful attempt at escape.  When responding to me directly, set the priority button to "Highest" and be sure to type "Comments to you" in the subject line! This will asssure that your message is read first. LEARN ABOUT THE WAR EMERGENCY POWERS ACTS ON MY WEBPAGE: http://www.jetlink.net/~mystery/ In HIS service, Alan Russell, suae potestate esse, an Private Christian Acting Chairman, Ojai Jural Society c/o General Delivery, Oakview Post Office Oakview, California Republic - "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison - 1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and the doctrines of devils. - The Christian way of life, and the Christian philosophy is the best religion I have ever seen! Its a pity that the only ones who don't believe in it are the Christians! -- Gandi - "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" --Adolf Hitler - How ironic, that we must become slaves to the vigilance of protecting freedom in order to be free. -- Me - "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." -- $enator Jay Rockefeller, 1994 - "Ross Perot should be excluded from this fall's debates between President Clinton and Bob Dole because he does not have a realistic chance of winning the election, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates decided Tuesday." -- WASHINGTON (AP) A note to those who are still UNITED STATES federal citizens: ((((( Buchannan is out of it, Klinton is evil, Dole is his flunky, ))))) ((((( Harry Browne (libertarian or not) is the only step in the ))))) ((((( right direction left!.... Put him in first, restore the ))))) ((((( Constitution, then deal with the other issues afterward...))))) Kill the Federal "Injustice" system, then the States "Municipal Courts", Disarm the FBI/Highway Patrol, RE-ARM the Lawfull Citizens, Put the Sherrif's back in control under Constitutional Laws, Restore Common Law Jury's (Per Article 7, Bill of Rights (American Constitution)) and the True magistrates (Justices of the peace, Article III, de jure American Constitution), constables (Not "Police State" officers), Institute THE SPOTLIGHT, MEDIA BYPASS, and THE AMERICAN'S BULLETIN as the National Newpapers, Investigate the Bad Apples in the CIA and prosecute them for Treason! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constitution Party Subject: VICTIM OF GOV'E ABUSE TO SPEAK Date: 02 Oct 1996 15:58:25 -0400 Fellow Americans: If you are in the Philadelphia area Thursday evening, October 3, 1996 at 7:00pm, come on down to Denny's on City Line Avenue (& I-76 (Schkuyll Expressway) near the Adams Mark Hotel. Attendence is free but if you eat, of course you pay your own meals. Steven Ames, latest victim of government abuse will be telling his story. Basically, Ames' children were taken from him for "reading the Bible without proper supervision and teaching his children that the Constitution is still relevant!" Steven has his court documents that state that the State can take your children for political and religeous reasons. Ha also has a tape recording of a government official that will surprise you. Steven Ames is looking into homeschooling but this aura of fear set up by government has him temporarily stymied, at least until he gets his children back. Steven has sought every avenue of assistance in fighting these charges, including a visit to US Senator Arlen Sp[ecter's office where he was told by an aid that "whatever the big money guys want, they get" and that if he did not stop publicizing his story, he would "spend the rest of his life in jail." If you are concerned about an ever-encroaching government, a home-schooling advocate, one who is concerned at the direction this country is taking, then come down and hear Steven Ames. Now is the time to wake up. Sponsored by: The Constitution Party Philadelphia Libertarian Party Delaware County Libertarian Party The Pennsylvania Research Guild Mike Innerarity -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 4.0 Business Edition mQCNAjGsl20AAAEEALoYUvqtbkPkCY/SD8LqBy5k7tUwd3+tljGs/wx2bh/aRtmD 2VvQRhpbgC2vemGYmgtDTInFk55/Z88ITzhlOAPtowtM7xc19Lm3ENjsDDqXmxK5 yuW21g3LhXDJXh1BYW9Eb3XRF3XL8f83MKcsIQuocbYe9ZUrBSXAj+gItmUBAAUR tCRNaWtlIElubmVyYXJpdHkgPHBhdHJpb3RAbmV0YXhzLmNvbT4= =+sS/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Strange request - coffee mugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:10:54 -0400 Gentlefolk, Do any of you have a pointer to anyone selling Militia coffee mugs? I have a handful of interested buyers who desire coffee mugs from a militia group, any militia group. The Michigan Militia, or some other high-profile group would be great. Thanks, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Gee, I hate to spread rumors, but.... (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:16:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times October 1, 1996 >From the "Inside the Beltway" section by John McCaslin Perot-Clinton deal? George Carpozi Jr., longtime New York newspaper journalist and controversial author who's spent the past four years sifting through Bill Clinton's past, now claims Mr. Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991 that initiated the billionaire's candidacy as a third-party spoiler. "In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health-care system with massive changes," Mr. Carpozi writes in a four-page paper being distributed on Capitol Hill. "Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle," Mr. Carpozi claims. "Even more significantly -- if not alarmingly -- not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's 'working papers' to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry," he writes. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** "As a rule, it is the poor and the weak and the friendless who furnish the victims of the law." -- Clarence Darrow in a debate with Judge Alfred J. Talley, Oct. 27, 1924 **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: kiss_1.html (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 17:10:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Republicans Challenge Truthfulness on Bosnia Next Story: Ailing Yeltsin Plans Regular Radio Addresses _________________________________________________________________ Wednesday October 2 5:05 PM EDT Suspension Lifted for Kissing 7-Year-Old NEW YORK (Reuter) - Just 10 days after a 6-year-old North Carolina boy was suspended from school for kissing a girl on the cheek, a 7-year-old New York boy suffered a similar fate but had his suspension lifted Wednesday. Education officials said De'Andre Dearinge, who was suspended for five days this week on a charge of sexual harassment after he kissed a classmate and pulled a button off her skirt at a public school, would be able to return to school Thursday. "The principal made the decision based on the facts that she had at the moment and possibly the use with a 7-year-old of the term 'sexual harassment' was inappropriate but certainly the behavior dictated a closer look at what the child did," the school's deputy superintendant Kenneth Grover told reporters. The New York Daily News reported that the boy admitted to his mother he had kissed the girl "because I like her" and had taken the button because his favorite book is "Corduroy" about a bear with a button missing from his coveralls. The school district follows board guidelines that define sexual harassment as sexually suggestive comments, innuendos or propositions or inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature, such as touching, patting or pinching. In Lexington, N.C., 6-year-old Jonathan Prevette was suspended for a day from school last month after he kissed a girl on the cheek. The child subsequently appeared on several television and radio talk shows. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 21:06:37 -0400 >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. -snip- With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 23:28:39 +0000 > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. But that's what the Libertarians keep asking for. After all, we don't want dead druggies cluttering up the streets, do we? They are much better robbing and burglarizing the public, aren't they? Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (Fwd) Drug trial turns glare of wrongdoing on U.S. border agents (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 02:02:59 -0400 (EDT) One of many things wrong about the War On Drugs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AP HARLINGEN, Texas (Oct 2, 1996 7:18 p.m. EDT) -- In portraying Juan Garcia Abrego as a powerful drug lord, the government's own witnesses at Abrego's trial have also turned the spotlight on possible wrongdoing by U.S. law enforcement authorities. A prosecution witness has claimed that Border Patrol agents at one South Texas checkpoint took bribes to keep drugs flowing, prompting a Justice Department investigation. And other witnesses have renewed allegations that U.S. immigration agents and National Guardsmen took part in the drug trade. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: America's New Internal Secuity Forces - SOF 10-96 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:15:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reprinted from SOLDIER OF FORTUNE OCTOBER 96; Subscriptions: $28/yr, PO Box 693, Mt. Morris, IL 61054; 1-800-877-5207 We Have Met The Enemy -- And He Is Us America's New Internal Security Forces by James L. Pate Drowsy residents are rattled by the rata-tat-tat and BOOM! BOOM! as 50 Army commandos fast-rope down into four separate parts of Pittsburgh from nine unlit, unmarked Black Hawk helicopters. The sudden raid "turned parts of the city into war zones, complete with the sounds of explosions and gunfire that frightened residents and sent one pregnant women into labor..." Frantic radio talk show callers swear to seeing the dreaded black helicopter. No, it isn't a script synopsis for the opening scene of a new John Milius film. It's a real-life story, one that began at 2200 hours Monday, 3 June, and continued into the early morning of Tuesday. The quotes are from a front-page story in The Washington Times on 6 June 1996. Local lawmen claimed not to know much about the decidedly military exer- cise. Small comfort to the more than 100 frightened citizens who phoned the Pittsburgh Police Department during the first 30 minutes. The eventual explanation came from far away, from Lieutenant Colonel Ken McGraw of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Green Beret units must "be able to deploy in any place in the world at a moment's notice," McGraw said. "The only way you can train for urban deployment is to train in that environment.... We canceled Tuesday's operation to... not cause further disruption." McGraw said similar training had been conducted in other cities, rattling off Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami and Detroit. No mishaps have occurred, he assured curious reporters. The official explanation was intriguing enough: Green Beret commandos routinely simulating attacks on civilian property in America's streets. The real explanation is even more mysterious. Citing their concern for the military's expanding role with civilian law enforcement, several military and civilian sources with intelligence and security backgrounds, including a member of the United States Special Operations Command, dispute the official version of the Pittsburgh incident. Public safety also prompted them to step briefly from the shadows. Two of the sources contacted Soldier Of Fortune directly in response to a recent article about the close, routine and expanding relationship between the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) and the U.S. Army's highly classified Delta regiment (see "Black Suits, Badges and Bradleys," SOF, August '96). The Pittsburgh incident, two similar ones in separate Chicago suburbs on two consecutive nights in June 1995, and other nocturnal operations in other U.S. cities are not urban warfare training exercises for generic Green Beret units, said these sources, who all demanded anonymity. These incidents, which are growing in number, are actually internal security training missions staged by the Army's Delta Force. And the operations routinely include some members of local law enforcement Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. "They do a city each quarter," one Army source said. "The Pittsburgh operation was 'A' Squadron, the current CT [counterterrorism] squadron." Citing public safety concerns, he disputed McGraw's assertion that participants in these exercises only use blank ammunition, and that there had been "no mishaps." "The deal with helicopters flying in and playing soundtracks of gunfire?" the Army source posed. "That was to cover the real gunfire." In downtown Miami, in an assault on an abandoned building at about 0200 hours "one day" last year, a sniper bullet penetrated a window, hit the bullet trap, ricocheted and penetrated an interior wall. On the other side, customers in an all night business were startled as the bullet whizzed harmlessly through and exited through another window. No one was hurt. This was confirmed by a civilian law enforcement source familiar with the incident who also requested anonymity. The same source described a similar mishap involving Delta and an excessively large explosive charge in an industrial area near New Orleans. After a takedown exercise at an abandoned petroleum cracking plant near New Orleans, Delta had to pay the facility's corporate owner an additional $95,000 to repair a three-front section of wall damaged in an explosion. Extra-Legal Law Enforcement? More troubling is that these internal security exercises by Delta, which double as liaison and training missions to local law enforcement, are not bound by restrictions against involvement in civilian law enforcement that apply to most military units. As reported in the referenced article in the August issue of SOF, Delta is exempted from the Posse Comitatus Act by a classified portion of Presidential Decision Directive No. 25 (PDD-25) signed by President Clinton early in his administration. Most disturbing, though, is the allegation that Delta, the Navy's SEAL Team Six and the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR 160) have been used occasionally to augment--in one alleged incident even replace--civilian lawmen involved in federal-prison barricade situations. These claims were made by four separate sources, three in two branches of the military, and the fourth in civilian law enforcement. Among other allegations, they say PDD-25's classified exemption for the Comitatus Act covers not just Delta, but its higher command, the Joint Special Operations Command. JSOC is headquartered at Fort Bragg and accountable only to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president. McGraw denied that the Pittsburgh operation was anything except what was reported, and routinely declined to speak about Delta. Secreted behind berms and two rows of 10-foot security fences ringing its six-mile perimeter, Delta's $75 million headquarters building is located on the old Range 19 complex at Fort Bragg. "The Pentagon still refuses to publicly acknowledge that Delta Force even exists," veteran Pentagon journalist Douglas C. Waller wrote in his book, The Commandos: The Inside Story of America 's Secret Soldiers. "It's a somewhat silly subterfuge," Waller wrote. "A visitor can walk into offices at the U.S. Special Operations Command at Tampa and find coffee mugs sporting the secret Delta Force logo: a kelly green triangle inlaid with a white dagger and another gold triangle." The anonymous assertions that the Pittsburgh incident, and others, were Delta training missions are lent further credence by Waller's chapter on the unit, in which he recounts "one exercise [in which] Delta commandos... use[d] an abandoned Los Angeles jail...." Abandoned hospitals and office buildings have also been used, said SOF's sources. "Ken McGraw's response to the incident in Pittsburgh was a total cover," said the USSOC source. "Nothing was canceled. They routinely use the Green Beret ruse to mask Delta. But it's not Army Special Forces. A lot of the guys in Delta now have never been in Special Forces." Waller describes in his book how, "twice a year, Delta's administrative staff makes a secret visit to St. Louis, Missouri, to pour over military records at the Army's main personnel center." While Delta recruiters closely evaluate Green Berets and Rangers, they also, "depending on what special skills are needed...at the moment... review the files of soldiers from other branches...." The urban training missions take a lot of time. And a lot of money. "They send an ADVON (advance team) down about a month before," one source said. "The ADVON gets with the local SWAT teams. It's very close-hold until it starts to go down, and then they issue a discreet heads-up." In the Pittsburgh case, McGraw told The Washington Times, the Army notified the police and civilians in the "immediate vicinity," but didn't "put out any broad, sweeping statement that covers everybody. We don't want to unnecessarily alarm people.... And we don't want ... a lot of people wanting to observe the training...." The sources said site selection and timing are crucial. Ryder Trucks Full Of Explosives "The ADVON will link with the SWAT team, drive around the city and conduct site selection for abandoned buildings whose owners agree to rent them out as temporary training facilities," one said. "Typically, it's an abandoned or sparsely populated industrial area." Once a site selection is made, Delta sends up rental trucks packed with ordnance, weapons and other gear, all driven by teams of Delta operatives. Once they arrive, the building is set up for whatever training scenario has been selected, preparation that includes bullet traps in windows, hallways and behind doors. "They try to pick a time when it'll be quiet," he said. "Early in the week is good. The other Delta guys will infiltrate by private vehicle, commercial air. They're filtered in. Stay at hotels, in safe-houses, whatever the ADVON has set up. And they link up with the local SWAT guys... This is where you get some of the black helicopter tales... They only do it once. There is no rehearsal on the actual target site.... They're doing live-fire exercises." There have been "some foul-ups," he said, citing the Miami incident. "One of the key elements deployed with the ADVON and the assault team is the counterintelligence (CI) unit. They have badges and plenty of cash for contingency problems." "If anything untoward happens, they flip the badges and suggest that it would be helpful to God and country to keep your mouth shut. They'll blanket a small area. And, if necessary, they might bribe or threaten someone to keep them quiet. There's accountability for the money, pre- sumably, but it's very secret internal accountability, and no outside oversight." Counter-intelligence? In the Miami incident, "the CI people were there almost immediately" after the errant bullet plunged through the wall of the all-night business and pinged through a street-front window. "They flipped their badges, pleaded national security, made some vague threats and passed around some loot. It's the old force-and-fraud thing. Shut up, and here's some cash for your trouble." Then there are the allegations of JSOC assets, such as Delta, SEAL Team 6 and SOAR 160, being "loaned" to the Department of Justice in isolated incidents to defuse hostage-barricade situations in federal prison. A military source at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, described in some detail a federal prison riot in Talledega, Alabama, in 1988. He said SOAR 160, then known as Task Force 160, provided the tactical insertion for the takedown team. That team, he said, was a Navy SEAL team, probably SEAL Team 6. "HRT was standing aside. There was controversy about Posse Comitatus within the unit, especially among our pilots," the Army aviation source said. "There was a lot of question about whether they should do that or not." That's not the only time military intervention has been considered to quell a disturbance at the federal prison in Talledega, said another military source, this one at Quantico, Virginia, familiar with the close knit relationship between the FBI's HRT and elite military commando teams. Although very good at what they do, and mission-oriented, some within the new internal security establishment have misgivings about their mission since the federal fiascoes at Waco et al. These impromptu leaflets were dropped over Florida by a SOAR 160 pilot, but went unnoticed. The other Talledega incident occurred while the HRT was tied down in the 51 day Waco siege. Use of a SEAL team instead of HRT for a takedown operation "was discussed," said the Quantico source. As it turned out, HRT resolved it peacefully, without military assistance. In a separate, but not as recent, incident at the federal prison in Atlanta, Delta was called in to take down a prisoner-barricade situation, said the USSOC source. Like the second Talledega takedown in 1993, the crisis was resolved without violence. In Atlanta, "there was no resistance. I believe they [inmates] knew these were more than federal agents coming in. Delta did the take-down. HRT took the credit." Debate continues in the ranks, the sources agree. "At first, no one really questioned it," said the Kentucky source. "We were thinking about Islamic terrorists. We'd always thought of the civilian agents as the good guys. After Waco ... it took on a more sin- ister light." So much so that a disgruntled SOAR 160 pilot printed up propaganda leaflets condemning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for thuggish conduct. He dropped thousands over Florida, but was disappointed that there was no public notice. Now, the public is noticing. But officials, civilian and military, say very little. When hundreds of sleeping residents in Des Plaines, Illinois, near Chicago, were awakened by gunfire, explosions and swooping helicopters in June 1995, local police "said they never heard of it," the Chicago Sun-Times reported. An Illinois State Police spokesman finally admitted it was "some sort of SWAT thing; multijurisdictional. We can't talk about it." Call Department of Defense, he said. "Routine exercise," said Mike Sienda, a Pentagon spokesman. "Military police." Next night, in another Chicago suburb, Lemont, an abandoned seminary was "invaded." One neighbor thought a nearby refinery had exploded. "Routine training," Sienda repeated the next day. This time it was "a navigational exercise." Navigational training? With gunfire and explosions? "There was some of that, too," Sienda told reporter Zay N. Smith. No one was notified in advance because "we didn't want to attract attention." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:30:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message: > >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:53:23 -0400 (EDT) >From: Brad Dolan >To: snetnews@alterzone.com >Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) >Sender: snetnews-approval@alterzone.com >Reply-To: snetnews@alterzone.com > > >-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >INTELLIGENCE ISSN 1245-2122 >N. 44 New Series, 23 September 1996 >Publishing since 1980 > >FRONT PAGE: > >U.S.A. >FRENCH INTELLIGENCE EXPLANATION FOR TWA 800 > >The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FBI, >which usually comes up quickly with coherent explanations for >aircraft accidents or terrorist attacks against aviation, still >do not have a single credible explanation for the inflight 17 >July explosion that destroyed the TWA Flight 800 Boeing 747 off >Long Island, New York. This lack of explanation has left the >door open to an increasingly wide variety of theories that will >continue to grow, according to one specialist, "until the U.S. >presidential elections are over". Other specialists are >waiting for the "first serious intelligence leak" that may help >eliminate some theories and concentrate attention on one of the >three "major" explanations: a terrorist bomb on board Flight >800; a "missile hit"; a catastrophic malfunction of the >Boeing 747. Currently, the least credible of the three is the >last, but, as we mentioned in our previous issue: "U.S. >authorities continue to downplay suggestions that mechanical >failure might have caused the plane to drop rapidly from 4,800 >meters to 3,000 meters before exploding and falling into the >sea off Long Island, despite the fact that a similar incident >occurred in May 1976 when an Iranian Air Force 747 -- the same >model as TWA Flight 800 -- exploded in mid-air near Madrid >airport, killing 17 crew members. After widespread speculation >that a bomb on board had caused the crash, an inquiry later >concluded that a fuel leak in one of the wings was responsible" >(see "Firing Missiles at Civilian Airliners"; INT, N. 43/9). >The possibility of a terrorist bomb destroying Flight 800 seems >to be the "most reasonable" theory and has been thoroughly >covered by the major media, but it still lacks the "official >seal" of the FBI and the NTSB which, as we mentioned, are >usually quite capable technically of asserting this on rather >short notice. > >Let's turn our attention to the "unacceptable" explanation that >the TWA Boeing was hit by a missile. The strange sighting on >29 August, by an American Airlines pilot, of "a missile off the >right wing" of his aircraft, mentioned in our previous issue, >was confirmed on 11 September by U.S. NASA to have been a >secret rocket-launched experiment by the Pentagon. Although >the five-meter rocket fired from Wallops Island, Virginia, >passed only five kilometers off the wing of American Airlines >Flight 1170, NASA spokesman, Keith Koehler, publicly maintained >that proper safety procedures had been followed and the rocket >posed no threat to the airliner. Nonetheless, his declaration >had the effect of silencing all those who said a "missile hit" >against TWA 800 was "unthinkable". > >One established fact is that a heat-seeking missile did not hit >Flight 800. A 747's four, large engines -- the infrared "hot >spots" that such missiles "chase", often going right up the >exhaust nozzle -- showed no damage from a nearby explosion. >This would tend to exclude theories based on the firing of a >shoulder-launched, head-seeking Stinger missile by terrorists >in a boat off Long Island. But, as a press report stated, >quoting French Defense Ministry sources, larger missiles would >involve heavy infrastructure and therefore directly implicate >U.S. armed forces, which alone have such