Re: [dvd-discuss] Hackers = terrorists, an analysis

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

"When a man gets too drunk on saturday night and prays too loud sunday 
morning, lock your smoke house" Harry Truman.




John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/12/01 11:51 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Hackers = terrorists, an analysis


Sorry to lob a blob of fishoil to this but government officials
always slather the constitutional rights salve no matter what 
they are up to, and corrupt officials drool it more than the 
incorrupt, and coup promoters saliva it most fervently 
while plotting to wax anybody who truth-tells their toxic 
palaver, first of all stalwart spritzers like Declan for hawking 
oysters at the officially-authorized gun-waving justicers.

John Zulauf wrote:

>Even more encouraging were Ashcrofts comments to Ted Coppel yesterday. 
>When asked by Coppel if he was saying that constitutional rights were
>going to need to be limited for the duration of the "war on terror"
>Ashcroft stated that he absolutely opposes the idea of a restriction of
>our constitutional right "if I could decide to do that, this would be a
>dangerous gov't, and I would be not be a part of it..." He further
>stated 
>
>(a) the gov't will be seeking to exercise its "full constitutional
>powers" but not beyond
>
>(b) that gov't understands that preemptive actions to stop terror
>actions before they happen "may mean that we cannot prosecute the case
>criminally" -- indicating that while the FBI et. al. has seemed a bit
>sloppy about the "admissibility" restrictions on evidence gathering in
>the post 9/11 aftermath they are doing this with full understanding of
>the trade off of prevent terror acts v. prosecutability...
>

>.002
>