At 8:29 AM -0700 7/21/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
>Hmmm ... I will have to totally (but respectfully) disagree.
>
>The underlings are not necessarily just delivering a friendly
>reminder in this case.
>
>Threats are generally considered not just in poor taste, but
>real criminal offenses, when it comes from someone in the
>position to cause someone else a lot of trouble. (e.g. your
>boss threatens you, the county prosecutor threatens you, the
>FBI threatens you, etc ...)
>
>In this case, John is dealing with stuff that pisses off the
>FBI. But the FBI is not allowed to make random threats just
>to get its way. It is clear that what may be harmed in this
>case is more a diplomatic and/or political in nature rather
>than some serious security issue. Therefore, the FBI is
>clearly in the wrong, unless otherwise proven.
And when ordinary people (proles, sheeple, marks) say things back to
cops, narcs, offiicials, etc., they are often told that their
comments constitute "making terroristic threats."
(Not "terroristic" as in "terrorism," a la Black September or Red
Army Faction, but "terroristic" in a sense relating to making
perceived threats.)
When the Feebs tell John Young that he'll be in "real trouble" if he
publishes their names, this is just Business as Usual.
However, were John to tell the Feebs that _they_ will be in "real
trouble" if they keep threatening him, they'll likely start muttering
warning about "making terroristic threats."
(ObFirstHandKnowledge: This has happened to me twice. I had a
Sheriff's Deputy in Santa Cruz County tell me he was thinking of
sending someone out to my place to "talk with me." I told him to be
sure to call first to let me know a car would be driving up my
driveway, just so there'd be no misunderstandings. He got all huffy,
started typing furiously on his keyboard (I could hear it), and said
something like "That's a terroristic threat and I am making note of
it now." I guess that went in my "permanent record," yuk yuk. Welcome
to the Dossier Society. The second case was when I was speaking to a
woman who works in a sheriff's office. I expressed my views,
privately to her, not in any official context, about what should be
done with cops who abuse their authority. She tensed up, as seems to
be common amongs cops and their associates, and repeated the mantra
about "making a terroristic threat." I've never heard of anyone going
to jail for something so nebulous as "making a terroristic threat,"
unless perhaps that threat was of a more substantive nature, so my
hunch is that cops and their ilk use it as a means of stopping
certain kinds of talk and putting their targets into a suitably cowed
position.)
I wish John well. He has broken no law. In an open society there are
no Official Secrets Laws. Identifying those who have threatened him
is only proper.
--Tim May
>
>John's move to ignore that threat is certainly within his
>rights, by default.
>
>And your baseline point about underlings ... It is really
>the underlings that pull the trigger. Larry Potts did not
>pull any trigger in Ruby Ridge, for instance. The extent to
>which a person on the front line should be held responsible
>should take into account the seriousness of the situation,
>and in the case of Ruby Ridge, there is at least some reason
>to ponder the question. In this case, however, John is not
>threatening the agents with shotguns. Yet the agents did
>more than just gently advise John.
>
>There is a real difference when the attitude is bad.
>
>Ern
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: T. Bankson Roach
>[<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 8:13 AM
>To: John Young; Steven Furlong
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: FBI Requests File Removal
>
>[SNIP]
>
>First, we know about Carnivore, or think we do. What earthly good is it
>to put the agent's names in the public domain? Unless you planned to do
>something cruel, evil or harmful to people "doing their job" it would
>serve no useful purpose. Contrary to the nonsense propounded at
>Nuremberg in the flush of victory at the end of WW2, I do not think it
>wise to hold underlings responsible for policy decisions made by people
>way up the food chain.
>
>[SNIP]
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
