From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #163 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, July 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 163 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:44:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: The Long March to Long Beach / Can you spare 18 billion (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:46:32 -0700 From: Jack Perrine To: Jack@minerva.com Subject: The Long March to Long Beach / Can you spare 18 billion =20 =20 TUESDAY JULY 14, 1998=20 =20 =20 =20 The long march to Long Beach=20 =20 The high-level fix appears to be in to base the China Overseas Shipping Co., a Chinese military front, in Long Beach, Calif.=20 Last week, Judge Peter Lichtman cleared a Los Angeles County courtroom of all spectators before issuing a ruling favorable to Washington's headlong desire to hand over the strategic former naval base to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Thus, the long march to Long Beach continues.=20 The wacky idea was formulated right in the Oval Office following one of those visits by Chinese arms dealers who dumped money into President Clinton's 1996 election campaign. Long Beach city officials, oblivious to the national security concerns of the plan, saw it as a bonanza for local commerce and jobs.=20 China's interest in Long Beach is as understandable as Beijing's desire to take control of the Panama Canal. But there's even more to the story than meets the eye -- more than most of the opposition to the plan have ever imagined.=20 China also wants COSCO, which serves as an intelligence-gathering operation for the PLA, located near the multinational Sea Launch project, which will use its Long Beach base to launch dozens of satellites into space from equatorial ocean locations. The Russian company RSC-Energia is a partner in Sea Launch along with Boeing. RSC-Energia is as closely tied to Russian military intelligence as COSCO is to Chinese military intelligence.=20 The Sea Launch Commander, a ship two-thirds the length of the Queen Mary, arrived in Long Beach Harbor last weekend bringing along two Ukrainian and Russian-built rockets that will launch commercial satellites into space beginning later this year. The unprecedented launches at sea require two ships, the command vessel and a super-sophisticated launch platform -- a self-propelled converted oil-drilling rig -- expected to arrive in Long Beach next month. It is about 440 feet long, 220 feet wide, 20 stories high and rides on giant pontoons that can be submerged for stability when rockets are launched.=20 Sea Launch is a joint venture of four companies, headed by Boeing Co. The operation will be based within a stone's throw of the proposed COSCO facility. The Sea Launch rocket consists of three stages, the first two being Ukrainian-built Zenits. The upper stage, which carries the satellite, is the Russian Block DM, which now flies as the fourth stage of the Proton rocket.=20 And guess who's benefiting from this project? Some familiar names, indeed. Sea Launch has sold 13 launches to Hughes Space and Communications and five to Loral Space Systems. Both, of course, have long-standing and deep relationships with China.=20 You might think the administration would be reluctant to risk another satellite scandal -- given the ongoing investigations into Loral's transfer of sensitive technology to Beijing through launches in China. But business is business.=20 And the Sea Launch business is big business. The first launch is set for October. A site near the equator has been chosen as a launching area for satellites that will assume geostationary orbit 22,300 miles above the equator. Sea Launch will make it possible for many more commercial satellites to be launched at competitive prices -- ranging from $70 million to $100 million.=20 China does not want to be left out in the cold while such monumental technological achievements are being accomplished. Long Beach will offer Beijing a key listening post -- just in case its strategic intelligence and military partners, the Russians, don't keep the Chinese fully informed.=20 There's a lot of money at stake -- and a lot of power, too. That's why the entire military-industrial complex, paid foreign lobbyists such as Gen. Alexander Haig, and the World Bank are lining up behind the COSCO and Sea Launch projects.=20 But don't worry. Companies like Loral, Boeing and Hughes are sure to keep America's vital national security interests in mind at all times. And China doesn't mean us any harm. President Clinton has told us so.=20 Keep your eye on Long Beach. It's a staging ground for the New World Order. When Bill Clinton says he and China share a vision for one big happy planet, this is what he is talking about.=20 =20 A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/=20 =20 =A9 1998 Western Journalism Center=20 This page was last built 7/14/98; 6:15:45 AM Site scripted with UserLand Frontier=20 Direct corrections and technical inquiries to matlanta@mindspring.com=20 Tue, Jul 14, 1998=20 Brother, Can You Spare $18 Billion? The IMF Looks for More Money=20 7.16 a.m. ET (1116 GMT) July 10, 1998=20 By Jeremy Quittner =20 NEW YORK =97 The International Monetary Fund, which has assisted in 60 bailouts and committed $59 billion to beleaguered economies around the globe since 1996, said its reserve for future bailouts is imperiled.=20 The fund has requested $18 billion in additional money from the U.S. Congress, and the request has sparked fierce debates on both sides of the political fence about the necessity of granting more money.=20 The Washington-based fund said it currently has about $43 billion in reserves, and only $10 billion to $15 billion is actually available for future bailouts. It is seeking a 4= 5 percent increase in funding from all of its member countries.=20 Last year alone, the IMF loaned about $36 billion to Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea as Southeast Asian economies reeled from devalued currencies and bank collapses.=20 The IMF request for more money comes at a time when Russia is seeking about $15 billion from the fund.=20 The IMF operates on a quota system, and it is often compared to a credit union, where the money a country puts in remains that country's property. Member countries may not withdraw more than 25 percent of what they have put in without a vote from the general membership.=20 The United States is the largest contributing member to the IMF, with about 18 percent of the approximately $200 billion placed in the common fund.=20 Lawmakers and economists are divided about how much money the fund needs to survive. Conservatives maintain a laissez-faire attitude and say the IMF has more than enough money to finance future bailouts. Liberals have sounded an alarm and said the fund is critically imperiled if it does not receive more money.=20 Since January, Republican conservatives have stalled a bi= ll to increase funding to the agency. The bill was introduce= d by Congressman James A. Leach, Republican chairman of the House Banking Committee.=20 New York's John LaFalce, the lead Democrat on the committee, said increasing funding to the IMF is one of the most important issues facing Congress.=20 "I think it is imperative that we increase funding. It is the only international financial mechanism that exists," LaFalce said. "You wouldn=92t throw away all of your weaponry within the United Nations arsenal, and you wouldn=92t throw away your financial resources, and if ou= r resources are depleted within the IMF, we need to replenish those. The risk of inaction far, far transcends the risks of action."=20 The IMF and the World Bank, a separate entity, were both founded after World War II under the Bretton Woods Agreement to help speed the transition from wartime economies to economies of peace. Today, the World Bank focuses on financing internal projects, while the IMF focuses on stabilizing currencies and easing the debts of developing nations. Both entities were founded in part to provide financial incentives for countries to handle economic crises using peaceful means.=20 LaFalce said conservatives are not accurate in their assessment that the fund has enough money.=20 "Anyone who has analyzed the situation has said, 'We need additional resources', that we are right at the bord= er line right now," LaFalce said.=20 But the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., said reform of economic infrastructures in Southeast Asia is more important than larger loans.=20 "Everyone involved with our foreign policy and IMF issues has testified in opposition to additional funding to the IMF," said William W. Beach, senior fellow in economics at the foundation. "We believe the presence of the IMF in Asia has encouraged the kind of risk-taking that the most problematic of countries now find themselves paying for." "The fact that Indonesia and South Korea are in such bad financial condition today is in part due to the fact that they knew there was a system in place to save their currency and manage their crisis," he added.=20 Beach said the IMF has large reserves and can generate cash for future bailouts.=20 Brett Schaefer, an analyst for the foundation, agreed. He said that while the IMF is loaning out money, it is also taking money in as repayment for past loans. By the close of 2000, he said, the IMF expects to take in $28 billion.= In addition to the IMF=92s $43 billion reserve, Schaefer sai= d the IMF has access to another $23 billion in emergency credit under a clause called the General Arrangements to Borrow.=20 The National Association of Manufacturers said one of the chief purposes of the IMF is to push for structural refor= ms of economies of ailing countries.=20 Howard Lewis, vice president of economic policy for the association, said many countries like South Korea have seen more reforms to their financial infrastructures in t= he last six months than "we have seen in the last 20 years of negotiations," and they are making these changes "in part because the IMF has prodded them and encouraged them in that direction."=20 "What the Heritage point of view is missing is the coordination or the synergism that can take place by having a group like the IMF working on these problems," Lewis added.=20 Lewis said now is not the time to take the IMF to task.= =20 "You don=92t reform the fire department when they are putting out a major fire," Lewis said. "The IMF reserves are getting down to the bottom, and so its ability to handle further crises in Asia and anywhere else in the world is diminished."=20 Lewis said critical markets in Asia are drying up for the United States as it debates giving the IMF more money.=20 "The real impact has been that U.S. exports to Asia have gone off a cliff," Lewis said. "They can=92t get the cred= it they need to produce the products, and there is a real liquidity crisis where good banks aren=92t loaning to goo= d companies, because everyone is scared to death about what might happen."=20 Observers of all stripes agreed that the operations and lending activities of the IMF need to be more transparent= =2E They said it is an opaque organization and has to be more open about its loan programs.=20 "If you are looking for a loan from your banker, your banker can rightfully ask for your financial statements, and that is what they have asked Congress to do, to give them additional funds," Beach said. "I believe that will = be a condition that Congress will lay upon them" before it delivers the funds.=20 =A9 1998, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b= /a Fox Market Wire. All rights reserved. Fox Market Wire is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp.=20 =20 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 09:30:58 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: GUN CONTROL POLICY FAILURE (fwd) On Jul 13, R.J.K Sr. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Gun Control Policy Failure Charley Reese, a columnist for King Features Syndicate Inc., makes the points that burst anti-gunner's bubble. A little common sense goes a long way in countering emotionally charged, but illogical arguments. He says, "The gun ploy is a tactic that politicians who are not doing the job they were elected to do often use to distract voters. It seems that very few politicians actually want to do what they were elected to do, but they love to spout off about things that government can't really cure. "That's why they use the gun ploy, professing to be outraged and concerned about our alleged apathy about saving lives. The gun ploy script goes as follows: "First, exaggerate the problem. Accidental firearm deaths are dead last, even counting adults, as a cause of accidental deaths in the United States. The big killers of children are automobile accidents and drowning. "in 1993, 90,525 Americans died from accidents; 1,521 died in firearms accidents, and that includes both adults (by far the majority) and children. By contrast, 3,807people drowned, 13,141 died in falls, 8,537 died from poisoning and 41,893 died in motor vehicle accidents" Reese could have pointed out that all of the hand-wringing about protecting children from firearms accidents might have been better directed against deadly backyard swimming pools. The real statistics illustrate the genuine hypocrisy of the anti-firearm crowd. But Reese continues, "Second, trash the National Rifle Association, accusing it of not being interested in keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals. This, of course, is a big fat fib. The NRA is the premier teacher of gun safety in the United States and has been teaching gun safety and prompting stiff penalties for criminal use of firearms long before baby boomer liberals were even born." The column didn't specify the NRA's highly successful Eddie Eagle program, which has educated thousands of kids about gun safety, or the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's attack on the program, which it compared to Joe Camel. And the NRA is not alone in its demand that criminals misusing firearms be severely punished. Anti-gunners shamelessly mangle statistics. as Reese illustrates. "A common trick is to claim 19-year-olds as 'children' and lump together three separate, unrelated categories: accidents, homicides and suicides. Then propose something really stupid like mandatory trigger locks. "Now that's stupid for two reasons. First, it is unenforceable unless you plan to declare martial law and conduct a house-to-house search on a daily basis. Second, someone stupid or careless enough to leave a loaded gun within reach of children would be stupid or careless enough to remove the trigger lock." What Reese says is absolutely correct. Even the most draconian society can't force people to be smart or careful. Then Reese reminds us of the basic fallacy of "gun control." "Finally," Reese states, "by blaming an inanimate object for the pathological behavior of human beings, the liberals reveal themselves as irrational and superstitious. Yes, just put on your witch doctor suit, shake your rattles and murmur at this inanimate object-the gun--and it will suddenly, by magic, give everyone a high IQ, high morals, a sense of responsibility and a healthy mind. "Guns no more cause crimes or suicides than bricks cause buildings. A constant can never be the cause of a variable. In America. the constant is private ownership and ready access to firearms. The variable is the crime rate. As a matter of fact, firearms are less available and less accessible today than at any time in American history. "But what liberals are really trying to do with the gun ploy is avoid facing the truth. The violent and brutish society they complain about is precisely the society they created. Everything liberals wanted, they got. "They wanted sexual promiscuity; dope; disregard for the law; no censorship of pornography: no laws against sodomy or public profanity; abortion on demand; easy divorces; acceptance of homosexuality; civilian review boards to second-guess police; Miranda warnings and public defenders; a welfare system that pays women to have illegitimate children; a tax system that penalizes marriage, work, savings and investments and subsidizes nonwork and immorality. And they got every darn bit of it. "And now, liberals profess to be surprised, even shocked, at the brutish, immoral, violent and sordid society they have created. Gee, Ms. and Mr. Liberal, you guys should have been studying Pome rather than demonstrating against wars or cops. It's called reaping what you sow. "We don't have a gun problem or a drug problem. We have a people problem and culture problem. Both are irrational and immoral." The New Gun Week July 1998 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:48:22 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: IMPORTANT: Ruling against Paid Informants >X-Sender: league@mindspring.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) >Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:59:49 -0700 >To: citizen@mindspring.com >From: "J.J. Johnson" >Subject: IMPORTANT: Ruling against Paid Informants > >The 10th Federal Circuit has made a decision that, if left standing, could >free at least half of the federal inmate population. > >It's a ruling that every constitutionalist should find interesting. - J.J. & >Nancy. >_____________________________________________________________________ >Circuit Court Tells Prosecutors: Tempting Witnesses Akin to Bribery > > >Washington, DC, July 7, 1998 -- In the wake of last week's momentous federal >appeals court decision turning aside the common practice by which the U.S. >Department of Justice buys testimony against accused citizens, the National >Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is urging Congress and the Justice >Department to change that practice across the board. NACDL is also alerting >judges and defense attorneys around the nation that the Justice Department's >practice of promising leniency to jailhouse informants in exchange for their >testimony must now be deemed precisely what the 10th Circuit Court of >Appeals declared it is: ***a violation of the federal bribery statute***. > >Find the whole story here: > >http://www.criminaljustice.org/MEDIA/pr000125.htm > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:35:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Letter to RNC (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:41:01 -0700 From: stevens@iglobal.net Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: walt@jove.acs.unt.edu, 10chris@gte.net, cleo_butcher@hotmail.com, dana_diane@earthlink.net, wb5nzv@juno.com, Damien69@thepentagon.com, 72712.2036@compuserve.com, wikedolu@juno.com, kpp69@aol.com, marclev@mail.utexas.edu, M_Whitlock@hotmail.com, mjansha@nnci1.attmail.com, szantoid@swbell.net, aargw@juno.com, cburress@worldnet.att.net, s.l.ryan@worldnet.att.net, Terry Basom , texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: Letter to RNC Posted to texas-gun-owners by stevens@iglobal.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's my letter to the RNC following the Nicholson b.s.: RE: the following: > NICHOLSON CALLS ON CLINTON NOT TO BACK AWAY FROM FAST TRACK > "The President has to persuade members of his own party to go along with > him" > > WASHINGTON (July 8) - Republican National Committee Chairman Jim > Nicholson today called on President Clinton not to back away from his > commitment to fast track trade negotiating authority. > > "By now, Clinton should have learned what Republicans have long known: > that America's prosperity rests on the twin pillars of cutting taxes and > encouraging free trade." Nicholson said. > > "The president should not give up this fight, a fight to which he once > was committed. A majority of Republicans will vote to give the President > the authority to negotiate free trade agreements that are in the interest > of American workers and consumers. > > "All Clinton needs to do is invest some of his political capital into > persuading members of his own party to do the same. > > "Mr. President," Nicholson added, "yesterday you said Republicans could > choose "partisanship or progress." Now it's up to you. We can have > progress on freer trade. But you'll have to take some time away from > fundraising and other interests to do the work that needs to be done > among members of your own party." > > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has pledged to bring the fast track authority > to the floor of the House for a vote this year. > You socialist bastards! Cannot you understand that there is a damn good reason for NOT having "fast track" authorization? The only difference in the Republicans and the Democrats is that Repubs just want to go to Hell a little slower. " socialist - (n.) One who favors government control of production, property and the general population." "bastard - (n.) An illegitimate child." You obviously want to enslave us peons, as evidenced by the legislative record of the "Republican revolution", and your actions certainly are not legitimate. If the Republican Party cannot take a step back and examine their policies regarding the assault on Constitutional liberties, then it as a party will lose the support of its traditional constituency and will be no better than a middle-of-the-road Democratic faction. Your actions speak so much louder than your words: > Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America > today. As you read, consider what all these have in common. > > 1. A national database of employed people. > > 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is > (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients. > > 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign > citizenship. > > 4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an > unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove > people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor. > > 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks > may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal > criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles. > > 6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, > an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude. > > 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups > "Terrorists" - without stating any reason and without the possibility > of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and > membership > lists must be turned over to the government. > > 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain > classes of people. > > 9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses > carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as > magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, > 2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration > or the Passport Office or any other Federal agency or any State or local > government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a State > driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one > issued with a verified Social Security number and 'security features']." > > 10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being > constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes > place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your > prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also > includes - by law - any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid > may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about > ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your > mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with > your knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count > 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your > government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a > few years. > > All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What > else do they have in common? > > Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, > "They're all unconstitutional." True. > > My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, > "They all SUUUCK!" Also true. > > But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product > of the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon > you by the Congress of the Republican-Revolution -- the Congress that > pledged to "get government off your back." > And don't make excuses! The Republicans control the Congress and could have stopped ALL of that legislation. Period. End of discussion. PTUI! No wonder the voter turnout projections for this November is one of the lowest ever. What a choice we are given: the Devil or the deep blue sea. Fred Stevens Sanger, Texas - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:55:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Excellent Commentary (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:24:42 -0500 From: Ralph Mertesdorf Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas gun owners Subject: Excellent Commentary Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Ralph Mertesdorf" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please read this excellent column by Elizabeth Farah. She covers a lot of ground and does it very well. - -- Ralph Mertesdorf http://www.worldnetdaily.com/efarah/980714.efarah.open.letter.html - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:12:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: AWNA - --- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:02:17 -0400 From: sam115@juno.com Subject: AWNA Sender: sam115@juno.com Message-ID: <19980714.003748.3398.4.sam115@juno.com> AWNA Act signed by President WASHINGTON, DC--On Tuesday, Congress approved the Americans With No Abilities Act, sweeping new legislation that provides benefits and protection for more than 135 million talentless Americans. The act, signed into law by President Clinton shortly after its passage, is being hailed as a major victory for the millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who lack any real skills or uses. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans--through no fault of their own--do not possess the talent necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Clinton, a longtime AWNA supporter. "Their lives are futile hamster-wheel existences of unrewarding, dead-end busywork: xeroxing documents written by others, fulfilling mail-in rebates for Black & Decker toaster ovens, and processing bureaucratic forms that nobody will ever see. Sadly, for these millions of nonabled Americans, the American dream of working hard and moving up through the ranks is simply not a reality." Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million important-sounding "middle man" positions will be created in the white-collar sector for nonabled persons, providing them with an illusory sense of purpose and ability. Mandatory, non-performance-based raises and promotions will also be offered to create a sense of upward mobility for even the most unremarkable, utterly replaceable employees. The legislation also provides corporations with incentives to hire nonabled workers, including tax breaks for those who hire one non-germane worker for every two talented hirees. Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act also contains tough new measures to prevent discrimination against the nonabled by banning prospective employers from asking such job-interview questions as, "What can you bring to this organization?" and "Do you have any special skills that would make you an asset to this company?" "As a nonabled person, I frequently find myself unable to keep up with co-workers who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as an unessential filing clerk at a Minneapolis tile wholesaler last month because of her lack of notable skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of the Americans With No Abilities Act, Gertz and millions of other untalented, inessential citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Clinton: "It is our duty, both as lawmakers and as human beings,to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her lack of value to society, some sort of space to take up in this great nation." - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:36:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: July Privacy and Security 2001 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:33:35 -0400 From: "James A. Ross" To: jross@rosseng.com Subject: July Privacy and Security 2001 Friend, You may be receiving this newsletter by email because someone recommended you and gave us your email address. If you have no interest in how an engineer looks at the broad picture of privacy and security in our country, just drop me a little note asking us to take you off the list. If you do have an interest, we think this issue will have much you'll like. Privacy and Security 2001SM Everyman's guide to coping in the modern, high-tech world Volume XIV, Number 7 Yogo 14.07 July 1998 Reminder: Your ultimate loss of privacy and security occurs when they kill you. CALENDAR The Ross Engineering Hands-on TSCM Training Course September 14 - 18, 1998 Minneapolis, MN October 19 - 23, 1998 Pittsburgh, PA November 9 - 13, 1998 Minneapolis, MN January 18 - 22, 1999 Pittsburgh, PA Note 1. Until our new facility is completed near Washington, DC, Jim Ross will be assisting our licensees as they present the course listed above. Note 2. For more information you can reach Jim Ross on 800-US-DEBUG; Bob Kresson on 412-921-2354; Kevin Reierson on 612-905-0757. Note 3. N.B. On the dates above we're offering either week one or week two of our two-week training course because it is a two-week course given one week at a time. The Ross Engineering Pittsburgh Seminar: Covert Video in Investigations October 5 - 6, 1998 Pittsburgh, PA Note. Information: Bob Kresson at 412-291-2354 Surveillance Expo '98 November 16 - 18, 1998 Hynes Center, Boston, MA This, the tenth presentation of Surveillance Expo, will take place in conjunction with Northeastern University's second Criminal Justice Conference and Exposition in Boston. In its first year this show brought in over 3,500 participants, and we're looking for 5,000 this year! Information: Lynne or Jim Ross at 800-US-DEBUG. IN THIS ISSUE Page 1 printed edition Calendar Pages 1&2 printed edition Linda Tripp's Tape Recordings Page 2 printed edition Careful Choice of Words Page 3 printed edition States' Rights & Individual Freedoms Page 4 printed edition News from the 'Net LINDA TRIPP'S TAPE RECORDINGS, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL? Summation. Linda Tripp's recordings of those calls from Monica Lewinsky were legally made. Read on. The Newspeople's Findings. Every news report I have read said that taping telephone calls in Maryland is legal only if all parties consent, and, therefore, Linda Tripp broke the law when she recorded her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Hmm. The comments by TV and radio news reporters have all said Linda broke the law when she recorded her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Hmm. On Sunday afternoon (7-12-98) on C Span Radio 90 I listened to NBC's Meet the Press. (That's what they called it; honest.) (It must have been a rebroadcast because talkers referred to "this morning"). On that show the man questioning one of the ladies' lawyers referred to "Linda's illegal tape recordings". Hmm. I wonder who does legal analyses for all those people. Wouldn't you think that, with the odor of the bogus sarin story still with us, they would be careful of the information they put out as "news"??? The Position of the State of Maryland. Denying any political pressure or motive, and saying nothing about why the announcement was timed to coincide with Linda Tripp's appearance before the grand jury, James I. Cabezas (chief investigator for the State Prosecutor) announced that Maryland would "...collect evidence to present to the (state) grand jury..." State Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli is quoted as saying he'll proceed with the investigation, and he appears to have no concern over what trouble his delayed (strategically scheduled?) actions might cause our country. So let's look at the laws intelligently, and analyze the situation. Jim Ross's Analysis. Despite the commentary in the press to the contrary, it was perfectly legal for Linda Tripp to record her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky without Monica Lewinsky's knowledge or consent. Yes, Linda Tripp was recording calls while in her Maryland home; and, yes, Maryland law requires all-party consent. However, the calls were not made within the state of Maryland. They were interstate calls made between DC and Maryland, and therefore the federal law applies, not state law. And federal law allows taping when one party consents. I SAY AGAIN: INTERSTATE CALLS ARE COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW AND FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS RECORDING WITH ONE PARTY CONSENT. This is not the recitation of some abstract theory by some unconnected academician. I am an electrical engineer with a lifetime of working in communication, and I have been called in state and federal courts as an expert witness in civil and criminal cases involving the laws in question. Further, I have regularly acted upon my convictions. While I lived and worked in Maryland, I recorded many interstate calls without the knowledge or consent of the other party. Conditioning. I recognize that the conclusion stated above flies in the face of everything you have been presented in the newspapers and TV "news" reports. In an effort to condition you to accept something other than what they have fed you, I ask that you recognize that: 1. most (not all, but most) people who call themselves journalists have had a very liberal education, have no other significant work experience, have never met a payroll, have had no time in the uniform of the armed services of their country, etc.; and they are, therefore, very liberal in their thinking and makeup, and 2. these people who have been bringing you "news" are not qualified by education, training or experience to make judgments on such matters as the interpretation of the law, and they don't demand that their employers have such experts available to help them, and 3. the major news media demonstrate, continuously, that they have no tolerance for conservative ideas, and some even have such an abiding hate of our military people that they go to the extreme opposite of professionalism by creating stories such as the recent false report that our troops used sarin gas to deliberately kill innocent women and children during the Viet Nam war. Clarification. Here's a parallel situation to help understand the difference between federal and state law applicability. Years ago, when the telephone companies began to offer calling number ID (often called "caller ID") service, the state of Pennsylvania passed a law forbidding the delivery of the calling number to the called party. However, what the lawmakers overlooked was the fact that businesses that offer toll free numbers ("800" numbers) regularly receive the calling number automatically. So Pennsylvania had the situation that its law was violated daily and continuously in a wholesale manner, and to my knowledge there never was any legal action taken against any "offender" within the state. Obviously, there couldn't have been any action taken against any offender outside of the state because the state's authority ends at the state boundary, and I think they just decided to ignore the law they could not enforce. Conclusion. In the Pennsylvania situation the state could take no action against companies shipping calling numbers into the state because it has no authority over interstate communications. In the Linda Tripp situation Maryland can do nothing legally because it has no authority over interstate communications. Post Script. Also, Tripp's use of a "body wire" (tape recorder hidden on her person) is perfectly legal where single-party consent is the rule such as in the District of Columbia and Virginia. If she was a party to a multi-party conversation in the district or in Virginia, she broke no laws in recording those conversations without the consent of the other parties. TWO EXAMPLES OF VERY CAREFUL CHOICE OF WORDS Example #1. In the third paragraph under "Jim Ross's Analysis" I used the word "called" rather than "testified" in describing my experience as an expert witness. I had to do that because, although I have testified in federal and state cases, in three state criminal cases I never had to testify because the cases were dismissed as soon as the state's attorney learned that an expert would kill his case. (He later advised the top brass in Maryland to bring no more harassing calls cases.) Example #2. In "Post Script" I said that Maryland can do nothing "legally". I used that word because I firmly believe that Maryland will discover that it cannot do anything to control or manage interstate telephone calls. That does not mean that I think Linda Tripp will not be indicted. If there is sufficient political pressure applied, the state might waste taxpayers money with an indictment in an effort to harass her, or to interfere with Ken Starr's efforts. GOODBY TO STATES' RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS? Foreword. I have frequently said that I would have more respect for a man who shoved a gun into my gut and demanded my money than I do for tricky deals cooked up by politicians who are, to use a current ploy, "trying to save the children". I may be completely wrong in my assessment (and I hope I am - for all of our sakes), but what follows describes sneaky actions that may spell the end to states' rights and individual freedoms. (Ed. Note. This is a message I sent out to those on my email list. If you received that, I apologize for the duplication, but see the addendum for the specific, dangerous content of EO 13083.) "Fellow Free American, "I am concerned that we are being bamboozled into losing states' rights and personal freedoms, not by constitutional amendment, but by trickery. Please consider these recent events. "Just last week the Supreme Court ruling that killed the line item veto included these words: "If this act were valid, it would authorize the president to create a law whose text was never voted on by either House or presented to the president for signature." Thereby, appropriately, the Supreme Court recognized the division of powers created by our Constitution; and killed this Republican-created threat to our republic. "Oops! While that landmark decision was being made, I began to smell something fishy elsewhere, and I fear it is a well-planned and organized White House attack on states' rights and personal freedoms. Consider these facts. "Our president signed Executive Order 13083 on May 14, 1998 while in the UK. That wordy document might put you to sleep while you try to read it. If you do try to read it, chances are you'll miss two key - I think - elements. First, well buried is a section that explains how the federal government will just have to take control if certain state activities seem to be out of hand in the sole judgment of some federal government agency. (See details in addendum that follows.) "The other key part - I think - is the statement that this order will become effective in 90 days. I say that is a key part because I believe it was put into the order to lull everyone to sleep, thinking we have plenty of time to worry about the details because it won't become effective until August. "Some folks on the internet have stated that, by law, the Executive Orders of the president become effective in 30 days, despite the wording in the EO. That's cute, isn't it? Do you suppose someone was trying to lull us to sleep while the EO became effective on June 14? "That's an interesting idea, isn't it? It's especially interesting when you look at the "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" that the Department of Transportation published, guess what, on June 17, 1998. Three days after the EO, apparently, became effective DOT takes advantage of it. Efficient, no? "In short, unless killed before October 14, 1998, the rules proposed by that DOT (Dept of Transportation, of all things!) document will become effective October 1, 2000. They'll make the use of a picture ID card with your social security number on it mandatory for many ordinary activities and for ALL interactions with the federal government agencies. ALL states MUST prepare ID documents that meet the specific criteria set down by DOT. You won't even be allowed to get a job without presenting your federally-approved picture ID card! "Well planned trickery? Exceptionally well planned, in my opinion. Here's the capper. Have you noticed what's in the news the past few days? Sure, it's the NINE-DAY trip of the first family to China. Not only does that activity hog the news; but, if any politicians should believe there is something that needs to be fixed in the national ID card scheme, our president is out of the fray, attending to more important business. "Comments will be appreciated. Am I on the mark, or am I just dreaming that there's a plan to be sure that we must all carry national ID to walk down the street? (I can still remember the chill I felt [when I was a member of the US Constabulary after the war in Germany] every time I saw a policeman step in front of a person on the street and say "KenKarte bitte!".) I don't think I will be too much bothered by the changes, but we think our kids and grand kids should be able to live in a FREE country, a country like the one we grew up in." Addendum. The following is the exact wording of EO 13083 that causes concern among patriots. It is buried deep in text that is innocuous and boring, and we're all lucky that some smart patriots pointed it out to some of us on the 'net. I especially call your attention to (3) on which, apparently, the DOT hung its hat in its proposed rule making. "Section 3, (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the cost of government, imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order." NEWS FROM THE 'NET Foreword. One of the sources for information that follows is our friend Chris Ruddy, and he cautions all to be wary of unsubstantiated "news" received over the internet. We agree wholeheartedly; in fact, we caution everyone to be wary of the news in your daily newspaper and on network news and on talk shows, etc. Technology Transfers to China and Russia. In a recent posting Chris Ruddy advised interested parties to visit for information "backed up by a wealth of government records". He mentions a recent article about how "an IBM supercomputer" allowed the Russians to build its most advanced missile, the SS-27. Everyman's Access to Spy Satellite Pictures. Mark Cavallaro passed along information about how all of us will be able to "browse and click satellite pictures" of those areas of the earth's surface that may be of interest to us. From the information provided it appears that some sources provide pictures at no charge, and others charge $13.60 to $38.00 depending on specifications. Mark referred us to: and . Happy hunting! Pager Question. A subscriber has asked if we can steer him to an off-the-shelf pager with a numeric decoder and logic to close a relay upon receipt of a specific numeric message. Can YOU help him? Analog Tapes as Evidence. In our June newsletter we stated that analog tapes of conversations could be blocked from being heard in court unless the offeror could provide an absolute chain of custody. I made that point because there are digital techniques that can alter an analog tape, and there are no technical means to differentiate a created "original" from a real original. Robert Hanssen corrected me after we exchanged a few emails. He pointed out that, in a civil case, the tapes would be presented as evidence, and then could be challenged by the other side. There's no doubt he knows more about the law than I, so I have to eat my words because the question asked of me related to a civil suit, not a criminal trial. However, I have to contradict a part of his information. Specifically, he said that to create a forge "original" one would need an extensive lab and would probably lose out to an FBI examination checking things like head alignment, etc. Nope. Not so. The equipment to alter an analog tape is commercially available, and the phony original will have characteristics of the original analog tape because, when an analog tape is changed by the digital process, it does not lose any of the original tape's characteristics. It's merely a process of moving words around or making words disappear. (Of course, in the old days, I'm told, sometimes the tapes were so bad that the court had to depend on the transcript and sometimes words - such as "not" - did not show up on the transcript.) Anyway, Robert, thank you for setting me straight. It's always encouraging to know that professionals read my offerings and take the trouble to correct me. ********************************************************** Privacy and Security 2001, James A. Ross, Editor comes to you via email at no charge. If you do not wish to receive it, please let us know at jross@rosseng.com. If you know of someone else who you think would be interested, please send along his email address. If you would be interested in receiving the smail version, just send us $35 for North American addresses, $55 elsewhere to: Ross Group, LLC, 7008 Tech Cir, Manassas, VA 20109 USA ********************************************************** - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #163 *************************