is SANITY the PLAYGROUND of the unIMAGINATIVE ?

2004-05-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

The Bush Tax Cut Oil Scam ?
by Dahbud Mensch

Oil price hits $41 all-time high

"There's no denying that this is an oil administration, you can't talk about the career of any George Bush -- father or son -- without talking about oil." - Peter Eisner [November 19, 2001]

I have seen scams before, but this one is brilliant. First, you offer a bunch of dumb apathetics a very small government tax cut; while offering the rich a massive one, then you redirect a War on Terror into an illegal War on Iraq; making sure you upset OPEC; who in turn, slow oil production, causing high gas prices, and ask Who Is Making A Fortune on Oil & Gas?

'You are looking at the biggest oil refinery in the world,' indicates LaNell Anderson. She refers to the edifice that is the 3,000-acre Exxon Mobil plant at Baytown, near Houston, producer of 507,800 barrels a day. Here begins a story of both dynasty and destiny, for it was on this spot in 1917 that the Bush family's oil connection was forged - where the Humble Oil company, which struck black gold in the Houston suburb of that name, took root, later to be- come the Exxon behemoth. Humble's founder, William Stamps Farish, went on to become president of Standard Oil. His daughter became a friend of George Bush Sr and his grandson William Jr was taken in 'almost like family' (said Barbara Bush) while campaigning for George Sr's entrée into Washington Senatorial politics in 1964. Farish Jr claims to have been the first man to whom Bush Sr confided his ambition to be president one day, and was last year named US Ambassador to London. [article - Dark heart of the American dream]

Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. [ article - August 10, 2000 Cheney's Black Gold: Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy]

The tax cuts were a mean trick and scam for Bush Family Associates and corporate oil businessmen. Between winter fuel and today's gas prices, my tax cut has turned into a deficit and it appears government tax money was shifted into BIG OIL. [article - Small gas stations say big companies undercut them on price]

MAY 19, 2004

It has been calculated that if everyone in the United States did not purchase a drop of gasoline for one day and all at the same time, the oil companies would choke on their stockpiles.

At the same time it would hit the entire industry with a net loss of over 4.6 billion dollars, which affects the bottom lines of the oil companies.

Therefore May 19th has been formally declared “stick it to them” day and the people of this nation should not buy a single drop of gasoline that day.

The only way this can be done is if you forward this e-mail to as many people as you can and as quickly as you can to get the word out.

Waiting on this administration to step in and control the prices is not going to happen. What happened to the reduction and control in prices that the Arab nations promised two weeks ago?

Remember one thing, not only is the price of gasoline going up but at the same time airlines are forced to raise their prices, trucking companies are forced to raise their prices which effects prices on everything that is shipped. Things like food, clothing, building materials, medical supplies etc. Who pays in the end? We do!

We can make a difference. If they don’t get the message after one day, we will do it again and again.

So do your part and spread the word. Forward this to everyone you know. Mark your calendars and make May 19th a day that the citizens of the United States say “enough is enough”

2004-02-21T17:13:00.000-08:00

Steve Bell

Nobody Knows the Truth about Duckgate

by Fly_On_The_Wall

Despite conditioned corporate media perception, the concept of "Anybody But Bush" suggests "Voting For The Lesser Of Evils" and is a good example why "None of the Above" should be placed on voter ballots.

The threshold of another 'pair_of_ducks' (not to be confused with Duckgate ) looms ...remembering 2000 and how it might have been if 'wanting to make a percentage showing' had cast their support; ...perhaps saving the planet from corporate pirates? On a personal note, and a little off topic, ...an alleged "war chest" of 200 million plus dollars is greater than a dollar per vote, per voting citizen, ...and this is the 'financial line' ...which has been drawn in the 2004 election sand'.

We are faced with the probability of four more years by an administration that has no more regard for truth than it has for the lives of 'other people's children'.

Most people are starting to catch on to Bush's aggressive nation building war that serves oil barons and a few misguided Christians (appearance of 'those' very good at deception 'during the last days') with an agenda. Unfortunately, this is what the voting minority will hand to the apathetic majority.

There are problems with the legality of the 2000 Florida election, Bush's military service, Bush family associates who may have known about 9/11 in advance, Official Government Reports that do not make sense, the S.E.C. and Justice Departments cover-up of 9/11 Insider trading, and Nobody knows who ordered the Air Force to stand down during the 9/11 attack.

Folks don't like to admit it when they get 'duped', but in this case, it is 'more than necessary' to get over it...now, because it is no longer about political parties, it is about 'honesty', which should be the 'core' of any family values.

No matter how corporate media spins it, the Bush Administration lied about the war in Iraq which creates a domino effect of eroding trust.

If they lied once.... did they do it before, ....are they doing it now, and ....will they do it in the future, if it serves their questionable purpose?

Justice Antonin Scalia in Duck Season
Flash Animation by Mark Fiore

Controlling the News
RECOMMENDED READING

2004-02-21T16:40:00.000-08:00

DUCK & COVER,
BUSH IT FLYING!

by Dahbud Mensch 544

During times of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

George Orwell

"If a president is willing to lie about the most basic governmental and political facts, civic debate becomes impossible, and the public becomes incapable of informed judgment. Because of the great weight that any president's words have with the public, the president of the United States must not be a liar. One of the grounds correctly included in Richard Nixon's articles of impeachment was that he lied to the American public." - TONY BLANKLEY.

"The War President" & his Administration are in trouble and that spells potential disaster for the rest of US because it poses the possibility of something EVIL, like Operation Northwoods, happening ...and if you think this is more 'conspiracy crap', read this: HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS and this: CHEMTRAILS.

It should now be obvious sites like ours believe in GOVERNMENT HONESTY, are seeking TRUTH, and are NOT THE ENEMY, as the FANATIC Ashcroft would have you believe. In fact, most folks here are Veterans of Korea or Vietnam and appear to care more for their country than the 'sheep masses and their Bushmaster' (Nation of Sheep by William J. Lederer).

The Bush Administration lied about Iraq and could be charged with WAR CRIMES. Based on Bush family history, Republicans and the Bush (Silverado) Administration will do whatever it takes to keep out of jail, even if it means faking a terrorist attack. For the record, some corporate 'not_the_reporter' media are suggesting a terrorist attack will happen soon, it will be a "small one" (this might be a clue as to why: half way down page, under: Legions of Darkness), and Fux said it would make President Bush unbeatable in the 2004 election, if it happens.

In closing, here is something to think about. In the Archives there is mention and links to a number of corporate media and politicians who appeared to have advance knowledge of Saddam's capture (WTE has it on tape as predictions).

Recently, there was a corporate media blitz on "U.S. military sure of nabbing bin Laden in 2004". We know Military are somewhat like lawyers who know answers to questions before they ask, this would indicate a known rather than probability, and NOBODY "sure" remembers October Surprise ...[Thanks to Amestizo for the "sure" reminder].

2004-01-28T14:07:00.000-08:00

A funny thing happened on the way to the millennium. I walked up to every well known TV religious personality, extended my hand and said, "I am he that you seek" (those involved WILL remember) and do you what they did? They had me removed by their bodyguards and thrown into the street. If that wasn't bad enough, Ann Coulter called me a dirty liberal hippy and I forgave him.

I am not one to beat around the bush, because God knows bush should be smoked rather than beaten, and it is time to correct some things starting with, "the Sons of God cohabited with the daughters of man". Ever really stop to consider what that means or why it exists in all myths and religions?

This was not supposed to happen like this, but those pesky forces of darkness keep us on our toes, and now that they own the Media, there is no other platform, besides the Internet, that will allow Free & Honest reporting. What... you thought you would hear a voice booming from heaven? ...Jesus and Buddha said you were naive.

WE ARE merciful and will tell you how to fix it, but believe the MAJOR part of You are holes of the donkey, who should really wise up! For those who just thought, 'oooo language usage or variation thereof', I remind you, I worked in the streets with real people and not on pulpits, in crystal mansions, built with money from the sweat of poor people. You seem to forget my parent's house is everywhere.

Fixing It - Part One

Since the current statistic allocates 6 to 20 seconds for Internet attention span, I will 'short cut', rather than quote, which will require a brief introduction.

The earth did revolve off axis, we were bound by something similar to your science fiction "Prime Directive", and could not do anything to help; however, we were allowed to save your history and place it in an area known as Tibet. Unfortunately this book has had a habit of getting stolen, retranslated, and passed on. There are several originals and the closest location of a complete archive is Mars. It is also important to understand that in this unmodified book we are all God's children and even though the characters may be different, the story is always the same.

In order to fix 'It', you must start with the basics. There are three MAJOR incidents which must be corrected and must be done in the reverse order.

(1) The reason the story of Abraham's son Ishmael stands out in the Torah a.k.a. Old Testament, is because the guilt of the rewrite is standing out. The true birthright belongs to Ishmael and Sarah's children are his brothers and sisters. This is the first thing that needs to be fixed, because the violence today reflects that lie. ...I heard 'the oooo' again, so ask your (sic) religious leaders what the electron microscope revealed on the old scrolls.

(2) Cain must not kill Abel. Brother killed brother and this is where war originated. Don't Kill!

(3) The Apple was not an apple it was a mushroom, the same kind handed out at the "Sermon on the Mount". It and other sacred plants were described in the original book as a way to reach the Creator and have been deleted. If you make it to Mars, without destroying things again, you will see this.

...I heard those comments. Think about it...all of you... is there any proof from the living or dead; David Blaine excluded, that your beliefs are real. It's a matter of faith, isn't it? And when was the last time you really saw or heard from any of us....a few thousand years ago? Consider this possibilty:
6. If we want world peace, we must let go of our attachments and truly live like nomads. That's where I no mad at you, you no mad at me. That way, there'll surely be nomadness on the planet. And peace begins with each of us. A little peace here, a little peace there, pretty soon all the peaces will fit together to make one big peace everywhere.

THE TIME TRAVEL TALE OF JOHN TITOR

WE INTERRPUT THIS ENTERTAINMENT TO BRING YOU THE FOLLOWING NEWS

2004-01-27T18:44:00.000-08:00

The Tsk Factor

When I was a child, people would rub their left index finger in a downward motion (from knuckle to nail) with their right index finger and say, "Tsk!, Tsk!, Tsk!". It was another way of saying, "Shame On You".

Recently, 'the tank' started using a new buzz phrase, "The Tsk Factor". It refers to Corporate Media Deception and works like this (short examples provided 'for the drift'):

GOP/Republicans spend 55 million tax dollars to discover if Monica swallowed. = Headlines = Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
Bush Administration Kill Thousands of Iraqi Civilians in Illegal War. = Buried Back Page

GOP/Republicans spend 55 million tax dollars to discover if Monica swallowed. = Headlines = Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
George Bush Jr. AWOL over a year (information FOIA and military records). = Buried Back Page

GOP/Republicans spend 55 million tax dollars to discover if Monica swallowed. = Headlines = Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
Christian 'Right To Life' encourages murder of doctors/nurses/etc. and clinic bombing = Buried Back Page

Michael Jackson = Headlines = Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
Massive Anti-Bush Protests In England = Buried Back Page
Our Sons and Daughters Dying in Iraq over Oil. = Buried Back Page

Tsk Factor or Headline:

Who Ordered the Air Force to stand down on 9/11?...or did you forget a plan was established to have the Air Force airborne in five minutes after that plane tried to crash into the Clinton White House?

Why do the S.E.C. and Justice Departments avoid Insider Trading before 9/11 and go after Martha Stewart?

The Pentagon was not hit by a 757. Here is proof: The Pentagon Attack Frame-Up.

In closing, explore Osama's involvement with 9/11 (He said he had nothing to do with 9/11 and we thought that was odd.) and the doctored Osama tape. You may find 'them' more interesting now that Paul O'Neill has spoken out on 'Inside the Bush Administration'.

2004-01-27T18:33:00.000-08:00

Legions of Darkness

NBC (General Electric) & CBS (Westinghouse) are evil and the LARGEST EXPORTERS OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ON THE PLANET.

They PROFIT from MURDER, DEATH & DESTRUCTION using the oldest tool on the planet, "Divide and Conquer". Here is a brief description:

1) Keep the Majority (of the population) Stupid. Give them cute labels like 'Soccer Moms' and 'NASCAR Dads' when you need their support.

2) If the Majority show any signs of intelligence, create 'Have' and 'Have Not's', by giving Have something and Have Not Nothing. Then get them to fight one another for failure to share.

3) Sell both sides tools of destruction to fight/destroy and then sell them the tools to rebuild.

Owning Major media makes it easier to implement divide and conquer, which produces massive profit, has nothing to do with humanity, and would indicate talking heads are tools of the Legions of Darkness. It makes one wonder if purchases of their sponsor's products support EVIL and this ?

2003-12-11T09:49:00.000-08:00

Personal Note to h~b~80 = Thank You (grin) !

GOD said, "thou shall not kill" and Jesus extended this concept when he said, "Christians are to no longer execute sinners, so they should not wage carnal war, but spiritual warfare (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 6:11-14; 2 Timothy 2:3-5; 4:6-8).

Christians must be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9, Romans 14:19), forgiving those who do them harm (Ephesians 4:29-32; Colossians 3:12-14; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26), treating their enemies with love (Luke 6:27-36) and not seeking revenge (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 3:8-12).

Hatred which is the same as murder (1 John 3:15), is unforgiving, vengeful and hostile towards one's enemies"; which begs the question,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ?

2003-11-27T06:09:00.000-08:00

Origin of "The Plan"

by Dahbud Mensch 322

When President Ronald Reagan was shot and laying on the operating table, General Alexander Haig said, "I am in control here.", giving the impression a military coup of the United.States had occured.

Since then, I have been trying to figure out what really happened and here is what I came up with, so far. It started with General Douglas MacArthur and this quote gives the background:

There is a tradition in American government that the military is subordinate to the civilian leaders. Generals do not make statements about policy without first clearing them with their superiors. But MacArthur, used to ruling in Japan, ignored the chain of command, and began writing letters about what the United States should do in Korea. He sent a letter to the Veterans of Foreign Wars saying that Formosa would be a fine place to launch an aggressive campaign against China. After the Chinese entered the war -- something MacArthur had assured Truman would never happen -- MacArthur wrote to Speaker of the House Joe Martin saying the United States could only win by an all-out war, and this meant bombing the Manchurian bases. So Harry Truman fired him, and evoked a firestorm of criticism from conservatives who believed Truman to be soft on communism. But there is no question that Truman was absolutely correct. Whether his overall policy was right or wrong, the American Constitution commits control of foreign policy to the president and not to the military. As Truman explained, avoidance of World War III while containing aggression was a difficult line to walk, but that was the policy the United States had decided upon. No soldier, not even a five-star general, could unilaterally challenge that policy without disturbing an essential element of democratic government.

Every 'Brass' has their staff and MacArthur's 'pretty boy' was 2nd Lieutenant Alexander M. Haig.

Upon graduating from the U.S. Military Academy in 1947, Alexander M. Haig was commission a second lieutenant in the Army, serving in Japan with the 1st Cavalry Division and on the staff of General Douglas MacArthur, in the Korean War.

General MacArthur hated Truman, was a Republican, and had many Republican friends in 'high places'.

As the crisis intensified and public backing for the war eroded, MacArthur stepped up his private and public criticisms of the administration. Predicting catastrophe unless dramatic action was taken, MacArthur recommended full-scale military action against the People's Republic of China, including a coastal blockade of the Chinese mainland, intensive bombing of industrial centers in Manchuria and northern China, and the unleashing of at least 50,000 of Chiang's Nationalist troops on the Korean peninsula. He also suggested using atomic weapons against China, although he put forth no precise plan for deployment. By the spring of 1951 he advocated a second major offensive north of the thirty-eighth parallel to unify the two Koreas. His pronouncements found an especially receptive audience among conservative Republicans--including House Minority leader Joe Martin of Massachusetts, California Representative Richard M. Nixon, and Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy--who had vigorously attacked Truman for overcommitting U.S. power to Europe and giving short shrift to Asia. MacArthur had established a political power base with these Republicans and had never hid his own presidential ambitions.

The scariest, besides (I AM NOT A CROOK) Richard M. Nixon, was Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The hunt for subversives started during the war itself, and was furthered by congressional committees that often abused their powers of investigation to harass people with whom they differed politically. Then in February 1950, an undistinguished, first-term Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, burst into national prominence when, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. McCarthy never produced documentation for a single one of his charges, but for the next four years he exploited an issue that he realized had touched a nerve in the American public.

Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.

Enter Ike

During World War I, Eisenhower (nicknamed "Ike" as a boy) served at several military training camps, establishing himself as a first-rate organizer and trainer of men. He spent two years as executive officer to Gen. Fox Conner, military commander at Camp Gaillard in the Panama Canal Zone. With Conner's help, Eisenhower was admitted to the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In 1926, he graduated first in his class of 275, going on to attend the Army War College in Washington, D.C. He advanced in his career, holding various posts, including aide to General Douglas MacArthur, then Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Going with MacArthur when the General was named military adviser to the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, Eisenhower helped establish the Philippine Air Force and the Philippine Military Academy. He obtained a pilot's license at age 47.

IKE'S TOP 5 MOST DISLIKED CONTEMPORARIES

1. Senator Joseph McCarthy,
2. Harry S. Truman,
3. Field Marshal Bernard Mongomery,
4. John F. Kennedy,
5. General Douglas MacArthur, and special mention Lyndon B. Johnson.

Enter Nixon

Nixon blamed the country's economic and other problems on Democratic President Truman's administration and argued that things were much improved under the outgoing Republican administration of Eisenhower.

Then there was the "Bay of Pigs" and the "Cold War"

There are some who believe the "Bay of Pigs" was the beginning of a Coup of the United States Government and part of the reason for President John Kennedy's assassination.

Quick review:

Democratic President Truman totally angers General Douglas MacArthur, a Republican.

It is easy to imagine MacArthur and his Republican buddies, Martin, McCarthy, and Nixon vowing vengeance, no matter how long it takes.

Republican Eisenhower becomes President and warns of "The Military Industrial Complex".

Kennedy becomes President, defeating Nixon and totally angers the 'Intelligence Community'. ((btw) Most 'Intelligence personnel' have a military background and some of them belong to organizations/orders/societies they entered as students.)

At this point, you have to ask yourself what made a difference during these times and the answer is, 'Military controlled' atomic bomb; which annihilated the "Right to Bear Arms" and made things historically 'one sided'; in that, the wealthy 1% of the population that controlled the remaining 99% lost control to their 'Royal Guard'.

The "Cold War" link above is an outline.

Enter Reagan

I put the UFO link on Reagan's name, because this is about the time one stopped seeing him in public and on the media.

The 'thing' that is interesting during these times is, one hardly saw Vice President Bush, except for Vice Presidential functions, during the entire Reagan era. What was he doing?

Enter Bush

The powerful men of Skull & Bones genuinely believe that they have a strategic and moral "right" to control world affairs. Consequently, they take upon themselves the authority to crush any rivalrous threat to U.S. imperial leadership, whether by current allies, such as Japan, Germany or Great Britain, or by Cold War adversaries, like the Soviet Union. The members of the Order, due to their narrow WASP upbringing, view with particular suspicion the maneuverings of Zionist Israel and its affluent, influential lobby in the United States.

Bush, his fellow Bonesmen and their like-thinking elitist allies in the American Establishment see themselves as New World Order warriors, an American samurai caste of sorts, whose mission is restoring American greatness. They intend to utilize the institutional networks of the U.S. government and key private agencies, such as the New York Council on Foreign Relations, to advance their purpose.

The Skull & Bones members believe in the idea of "constructive chaos." By keeping their true policy intentions secret, by constantly sending out mixed signals on all critical policy issues, they consciously seek to sow confusion among both their nominal "friends" and "enemies" alike.

The fulcrum for the policy of constructive chaos is, at present, the Middle East situation. Although U.S. military action in the region has for the time being subsided, America's military power will remain a critical determinant in the future of that vital zone of conflict. American military power is aimed at securing undisputed control over the vast reservoir of oil -- not at necessarily fostering any permanent alignment of local states or combinations of regional interests.

Jumping Ahead

The Project for the New American Century

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy
toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the
Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold
War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity
to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge
you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would
secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the
world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s
regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult
but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily
eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated,
we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue
to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN
inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing
weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even
if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor
Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period
during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities
has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s
secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to
determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or
does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have
a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly
needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver
weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue
along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region,
of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states,
and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all
be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the
security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be
determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the
current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein,
is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that
eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a
willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.
In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from
power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and
to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement
of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully
aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe
the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the
necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled
by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you
act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the
U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national
security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness
and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

This letter indicates "The Plan" was/is still alive.

The Plan

Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

Morning After Plan For Iraq In Works

One plan being considered by the White House is based on the occupation of Japan following World War II and includes installing a U.S. commander to administer Iraq, perhaps U.S. Central Command head Gen. Tommy Franks in the role taken by Gen. Douglas MacArthur after Tokyo surrendered in 1945, The New York Times said in its Friday editions.

Liberated Iraq could be ruled by US general

An American general could be appointed to rule a liberated Iraq as part of a White House plan modelled on Gen Douglas MacArthur's rule over Japan after the Second World War.

2003-11-18T04:23:00.000-08:00

2003-10-27T05:39:00.000-08:00

Favorite Flash

GRAND THEFT AMERICA

LIES, LIES, LIES

Understanding 4.5 Billion Year Half-Life of Depleted Uranium
[Extremely Graphic]
Life is like photography. You use the negative to develop.(1)

RIDE
THE FENCE

Please Take the Time to View.

2003-10-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Divide and Conquer or Judas of Geeks ?

I am about at the end of my internet rope (read: hangman's noose).

From my point of view, the internet stands at the doorstep of 'truckin CB movies with the hate and discontent included'. If you don't understand this scenario, allow me....

I have been interested in and participating with amateur radio since the early 1950s.

When I was in private school, I owned a CB radio with four channels and had a lot of fun, because in those days a lot of
people who owned and flew small planes used CB radios too, and they would talk to me. This was an asset, because I ended up earning a cross county license for an Areonca at age 16.

On or about the time we were trying to figure out how to get ARPA to bridge to 'the rest of the world' ('70s) CB radio had started to become popular and the typical CB oriented movies were produced and offered to the public; giving everyone the impression they needed a CB radio too ...and this is when the "Channel Masters" and the H&D (hate and discontent) started to surface. In fact, one incident led to a shootout in San Francisco, where one person died.

This raises the question, is the internet heading the same way or...

This morning, I read some 'stuff' that got me thinking about what kind of world we have turned into and with a loud sigh, I present a different view.

Starting with this article, Zen and the Art of Being Happy with Microsoft , by Rob Enderle, says, "Much of the news surrounding Microsoft seems to focus on mistakes the company has made in the past. There are reporters with broad followings whose agenda appears to be to bring Microsoft down. This problem is exacerbated by the massive increase in blogs written by people who support other platforms -- largely Linux and Mac -- who do an excellent job of reinforcing these negative messages."

I can handle that comment, but in this article Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux , Rob Enderle states, "I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement."

is this the first phase of corporate America trying to steal what was set up to be FREE?

Let's take a closer look at Rob Enderle. According to www.technewsworld.com, "Rob Enderle, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is the Principal Analyst for the Enderle Group, a company founded on the concept of providing a unique perspective on personal technology products and trends"; and their stated goal is, "to bring diverse and challenging views into technology advisory services and consulting.

Calling Open Source folks or "Linux Zealots" terrorists is not a diverse or challenging view and reeks of "If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.â€� by a publicly known liar.

You are entitled to your beliefs and I will defend your right to speak your mind, but as you know, "opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one"; except in your case, it appears you forgot to wipe. It is also obvious whose toilet you have been feeding from. Just so the public knows, here are a list of stories produced by Rob Enderle and the Enderle Croup:

Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux

Transmeta's Efficeon: Good Technology, Too Late?

The IBM ThinkPad: No. 1 Product, No. 3 Vendor

Zen and the Art of Being Happy with Microsoft

In Defense of the Microsoft Monoculture

The USB Dongle That May Change the World

Apple, Linux and BSD: The 'Other' Platforms

The Death of the Handheld Computer

Indemnification and Linux Insanity

Linux, Microsoft and the 64-Bit Decade

Microsoft vs. Linux: The Battle for Belief

Japan Strikes Against Microsoft with Open Source

Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood

SCO vs. IBM the Other Reality

On Decision Justification

Open Source: Not for me

and they can be found here. Anyone with common sense can see where you are at; if not, then these 2,180 references will help. (btw) Here is one of my favorites:

Microsoft Apologist Apologizes for Microsoft
michael Octr 10 2003
from the calling-it-like-it-is dept.

hillbilly1980 writes "Internet Week has published a counter article in response to the number of anti-monoculture security papers recently published. Unfortunately the author starts out by writing off the other papers as simply anti-Microsoft, unfortunate because his paper never gets past being more then just pro-Microsoft

One of his suggestions to secure your enterprise... turn off port 80." Probably the best thing to do to prevent disinformation from entering your company is to block articles by Rob Enderle.

Update: 10/11 00:54 GMT by M: Note for the record that the original version of the article referred to blocking port 80; the article has now been edited to refer to port 135.

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/10/230255.shtml?tid=109&tid=187

Finally, when you say, "The Linux Zealots generally hide behind phony names on the Internet -- often, in fact, names of male body parts. The Zealots are rude and crude, and the sentence "two beers short of a six-pack" defines them well.", we know who the "bunghole" is and who signs as CmdrTaco.

So there you have it Rob and we've seen it before. It is called Divide & Conquer, where those in control keep the people stupid and the moment any intelligence shows, create the haves and have nots, so they will fight one another while the corporations you support, regain control and add to their profits.

Are you the Judas of Geeks?

2003-10-03T20:18:00.000-07:00

The New Yorker, January 29, 1996, pp. 32-37.

Brave New World Dept.: Hackwork

While a Times scribe helps create an on-line hero, the
fugitive answers back. But who's dealing with the real
dangers of cyberspace?

[Montage] Does not compute: Jonathan Littman (left)
accuses John Markoff of aiding Big Brother.

By Robert Wright

The Times has been very good to Tsutomu Shimomura.
Shimomura is the computer-security expert who gained renown
last year by helping the F.B.I. capture the notorious
computer criminal Kevin Mitnick. And no one did more to
create the renown than the Times's Silicon Valley
correspondent, John Markoff. Weeks before the arrest,
Markoff was building interest in the drama, well ahead of
the journalistic pack. As the arrest approached, his
descriptions of Shimomura gained in intensity. Shimomura
went from being "a well-known computer security expert" to
being "one of the country's most skilled computer security
experts" and then to being (on the day of the arrest) a
"brilliant cybersleuth." And that was just the beginning.
Four days later, in a piece on the front page of the Sunday
"Week in Review" section, Shimomura became a "master at
manipulating computers," a man of such intellectual range
as to be "almost impossible to classify," a man with "an
uncanny ability to solve complex technical problems in the
manner of Star Trek's Vulcan Mr. Spock." Shimomura also had
"a deeply felt sense of right and wrong" -- in contrast to
his nemesis, Kevin Mitnick, a "chameleon-like grifter," a
"darkside" hacker. Given the moral polarity between the two
men, "when their worlds collided" in cyberspace "it was
obvious which one of them had to win."

Meanwhile, back in the physical world, Markoff's literary
agent was a busy man. Four days after this story appeared,
he struck a deal for a book that Markoff would ghostwrite
for Shimomura, tentatively entitled "Catching Kevin." The
book is reported to have fetched a seven-hundred-
and-fifty-thousand-dollar advance, and, with foreign
rights, movie rights, and interactive-game rights, the
total came to well over a million dollars. Markoff and
Shimomura, both ski buffs, retreated to a cabin near Lake
Tahoe to churn out the book, which Hyperion has just
published under the title "Takedown." Nice work if you can
get it.

Markoff has taken a lot of grief for this conflict of
interest: his ample financial incentive to inflate
Shimomura's reputation in the pages of the Times, and to
paint the whole contest with Mitnick in Manichaean tones.
Much of the criticism has come from on-line discussion
groups, and some of it evinces little familiarity with
workaday journalism. To be sure, writing soberly is hard if
melodrama will raise your income. But then writing soberly
is hard anyway, given the joy that comes from seeing your
byline on the front page. The average big-name journalist's
sheer ambition provides enough fuel for hype so that a
hundred thousand dollars here or there is a drop in the
bucket. Add to this heartfelt incentive the image-polishing
that newspaper reporters routinely do for valued sources
(such as Shimomura), and you have -- well, you have phrases
like "in the manner of Star Trek's Vulcan Mr. Spock."

Still, there is an issue here. Whatever Markoff's reasons
were for playing the story as he did, his articles had
consequence. Many TV producers and magazine editors trust
the news judgment of the Times more than their own. When
the Times put the Mitnick arrest at the top of page 1, with
the phrase "a most-wanted cyberthief" in the headline, an
orgy of coverage was insured.

The Times may have shaped the coverage in other ways, too.
Complementing Markoff's sketch of Mitnick as the hacker
from Hell was an article he wrote on the on-line world's
vulnerability to eavesdroppers, thieves, and assorted
wreakers of havoc. This helped give the story a
high-anxiety spin. Might there be a Kevin Mitnick looking
over your shoulder when you log onto America Online,
CompuServe, or some Internet service provider? How would
you feel if your E-mail got publicly posted? How many
computers are your credit-card numbers in? And, finally, if
things are as bad as Markoff said, shouldn't the government
step in and do something -- even if that something were to
include, say, expanded wiretapping powers? This line of
questioning has earned Markoff the wrath of some
cyberspace-privacy activists: hyping the Mitnick story
could give aid and comfort to Big Brother.

As the information age continues to heighten and complicate
the traditional tension between liberty and security, Kevin
Mitnick becomes an icon. How dangerous was he, and how
representative of cyberdangers in general? What should be
done about the likes of him?

As "Takedown" makes clear, Tsutomu Shimomura is a man who
shares Markoff's high opinion of him. He describes himself
as having been "essentially precocious," and proceeds to
show how many people in the world -- F.B.I. agents,
criminals, on-line service executives -- are less
technically proficient than he. But don't get the idea that
he is just some nerd. He skis, he skates, he drives a car
down a mountain at eighty miles an hour in snow chains, he
gets naked with a lady. Indeed, the beginning of the great
cyberchase can be conveniently dated from the moment on
Christmas Eve, 1994, when he took off his clothes and
climbed into a hot tub with Julia Menapace, a "tall,
graceful woman" who programs computers, teaches yoga, and
treks in the Himalayas, from which she had just returned.

It sounds like an idyllic Christmas, but in fact
complications abound. To begin with, the hot tub is
situated in the San Francisco residence of Julia's
boyfriend, John, who is a friend -- or former friend -- of
Shimomura's. "John was arriving home," Shimomura recalls,
"and there were clearly matters that he and Julia needed to
talk about." Clearly. A second problem: within hours of the
hottub scene, a computer right there in John's house will
be used by some distant hacker as a base from which to
launch an attack on Shimomura's computers, down in Southern
California. (To this day, Shimomura doesn't know what to
make of this apparent coincidence.) The intruder takes
copies of files ranging from private E-mail to sensitive
software that could help someone eavesdrop on
cellular-phone calls.

These two problems are soluble. Shimomura will track down
the usual suspect (Mitnick), and in the process his stature
will rise so high that Julia, having wavered for chapter
after chapter between him and John, will be locked into his
orbit. But no easy solution can be found for a third
problem, which from the reader's standpoint is the gravest
of all: Shimomura really is kind of like "Star Trek's
Vulcan Mr. Spock." His voice, even when it's channelled
through a professional writer, can drain the passion right
out of a hot tub:

We soaked for a while, both of us lost in thought.
Finally I changed the subject.

"I want to tell vou something I've been thinking about,"
I said. "I've thought about a lot of things while you
were away. I'd really like to try having a committed
relationship with you, if you're willing to."

Julia smiled. She didn't say anything, but she reached
over and held me closely. It seemed like we would now be
able to share a lot of time together.

Umm, O.K. But could you please not share any more of it
with the rest of us? Of course, if this is indeed what
happened in the hot tub Shimomura is entitled to describe
it. Still, readers are entitled to expect a bit more
vibrance from a detective story.

Fortunately, there is another just published account of the
Kevin Mitnick saga -- "The Fugitive Game" (Little, Brown),
by the journalist Jonathan Littman. Littman seems more
comfortable than Shimomura with the detective genre and its
tenor. Of a cybercriminal known as Eric Heinz, whom the
F.B.I. used in a vain attempt to trap Mitnick, Littman
writes, "Agent Steal's his handle, the information
superhighway his gravy train."

So it isn't quite Raymond Chandler. Still, Littman does
adopt Chandler's moral slant, painting a seamy yet in some
ways sympathetic picture of the underworld. These
cybercriminals are just ordinary human beings, victims of
ordinary human weaknesses. ("That's why Eric had to wiretap
her, because he loved her.") Besides, the guys wearing the
white hats aren't saints, either. Whereas Shimomura's book
adopts the moral framework of Jack Webb's "Dragnet" --
Shimomura good, Mitnick bad -- Littman's Chandleresque
thesis is more like: Mitnick not so bad, Shimomura not so
good.

Markoff not so good, either. Littman is among those who
believe that Markoff hyped the Mitnick story in the Times.
He cites the description of Mitnick in an ad for the
Shimomura/Markoff book -- "He Could Have Crippled the
World" -- and tries to set the record straight: Mitnick may
be a punk, but he's not a monster.

Helping Littman make that case is the fugitive Mitnick
himself. Months before the arrest, he started phoning
Littman, perhaps trying to cultivate a sympathetic
journalist, and certainly wondering aloud why there seemed
to be so many unsympathetic ones. He admits to Littman that
he has made mistakes -- hence four previous convictions --
but maintains that his crimes have been exaggerated in the
press. He denies reports that as a teen-ager, in the early
nineteen-eighties, he broke into the North American
Aerospace Defense Command by computer, thus inspiring
Matthew Broderick's role in "WarGames." And he gripes about
melodramatic judges who have withheld phone privileges
because a dial tone supposedly renders him a menace to
society with or without a laptop computer. "This guy can
start World War Three," he says, in parody. "He could
whistle the launch codes."

Littman is plainly won over by Mitnick. He might have been
less so had Shimomura's book been available to him as he
wrote his own book. Shimomura shows Mitnick to be a man of
petty but intense malice, nursing deep grudges against
those who would frustrate his ambitions. In one Internet
chat session with a criminal colleague, he refers to
Shimomura as "japboy." Unbeknownst to him, Shimomura is
monitoring the conversation on the screen. Oops.

Still, give Mitnick credit for selfawareness. He may be a
creep, but he has a theory explaining why. His parents
divorced when he was three, and, by his account, he never
got on track socially. "If I could go back in a time
machine, I'd be the kid in school who did good in sports,
had a good social life, played baseball, football, and
didn't know anything about computers," he says. "I was
fat." Perhaps his earliest criminal pastime was riding
buses alone all day, all over town: he had figured out how
to punch out discarded transfers so he could ride free. A
friendly bus driver turned him on to ham radio, and the
next stop was computers, to which he became addicted.
Officially addicted: one judge sentenced him to a
twelve-step rehabilitation program and prohibited him from
using a computer after his release.

A central element in Mitnick's self-defense is that, though
he broke some laws, he did it for fun, not profit. As a
kid, he'd go on-line, enter the phone company's computers,
and arrange for people he disliked, upon picking up their
home phones, to hear things like "You must first deposit
twenty-five cents." Or, instead, he might inflate their
phone bills by thirty thousand dollars. Not nice, maybe,
but clearly distinguishable from, say, the famed hacker
Kevin Poulsen, who is now doing time for, among other
things, winning thousands of dollars and two Porsches from
radio stations by electronically insuring that he'd be
Lucky Caller No. 9, or 19, or whatever.

After being convicted of illegally downloading
phone-company technical manuals, Mitnick moved on to harder
stuff. Still, by his account, he retained his amateur
standing. If he stole time from cellular-phone accounts, it
wasn't so he could resell it but because a hacker using
lots of different cellular-phone accounts is hard to catch.
If he stole software that would give him wiretapping
powers, it was because eavesdropping was a hobby --
especially eavesdropping on the F.B.I. agents who were
trying to find him. (They were not amused.)

There's no evidence that Mitnick ever planned to sell any
software he took, and he raises questions about the way the
dollar value of such "thefts" is often equated -- in court
and in Shimomura's book -- with the cost of developing the
software. He asks Littman, "If I went into Ralph's
Supermarket and took a forty-nine-cent Bic pen, would they
say I stole something they spent four million to develop
and three million to market, and therefore the penalty will
be seven million?"

Similarly, when Mitnick enters computers at the Digital
Equipment Corporation, and D.E.C., thus alerted, spends
some two hundred thousand dollars fixing a preexisting
security hole, can we really call this two hundred thousand
dollars' worth of "damage," as D.E.C. did? And, as for the
twenty thousand stolen credit-card numbers that figured
prominently in Markoff's Times coverage -- well, even
Markoff noted, lower in the story, that Mitnick never tried
to use the numbers or to sell them.

The most important revisionist claim in "The Fugitive Game"
is that Mitnick may well not be the one who broke into
Shimomura's computer and right after the break-in left
taunting messages on Shimomura's answering machine. A
likelier culprit, Littman suggests, is an Israeli friend of
Mitnick's who sometimes swapped illicit data with him. And
it's true, come to think of it, that in "Takedown"
Shimomura never ties Mitnick directly to the break-in --
only to the subsequent possession of stolen files.

In an epilogue to "Takedown" Shimomura notes that
twenty-two of the twenty-three counts Mitnick faced in
North Carolina, where he was arrested, were dropped in a
plea bargain. He faces other, meatier charges in
California, but so far he's looking at a mere eight months
in jail. Shimomura offers no explanation for the lightness
of the sentence, and the silence is a bit awkward, since
we'd assumed all along that we were chasing a world-class
criminal. But, of course, to highlight the possibility that
the man Shimomura captured isn't the man who was snooping
around his computer hours after the hot-tub scene would
rather weaken the cinematic story line.

O.K., so Mitnick isn't quite the monster he's made out to
be. He may not even be guilty of the crime that attracted
a huge advance for a book about him. And, O.K., neither
Markoff nor Shimomura is without sin. (Littman argues
plausibly that Shimomura may have broken the law by
developing software that facilitates eavesdropping on
cellularphone calls -- an endeavor that Shimomura's book
describes as "exploring cellular telephone technology.")
Still, one thing these two accounts have in common is that
they aren't conducive to feelings of security. If you use
E-mail, if you've got credit-card numbers in computers on
the Internet -- for that matter, if you even talk on the
phone -- the story of Kevin Mitnick is creepy.

For example, Littman has an E-mail account on the WELL, a
small Northern California on-line service. Right after
Playboy E-mails him asking him to write a piece about
Mitnick, he gets a call from Mitnick -- who, having read
the E-mail, wants to discuss the piece. Mitnick, it seems,
has "gotten root" on the WELL, which means that,
unbeknownst to the people who run the WELL, he can do
roughly anything they can do. He can search anyone's E-mail
file for any sequence of letters, including the name
Mitnick. He can snatch or vaporize various bodies of data.

Mitnick had also gotten root on Netcom, a larger
Internet-access provider. (It was twenty thousand Netcom
customers whose credit-card numbers were stolen.) But what
about CompuServe and America Online, Littman asks Mitnick.
Aren't the really big on-line services secure? No, Mitnick
says. This answer is especially alarming in the light of
Shimomura's insistence that Mitnick shows no extraordinary
technical competence.

Fortunately, Mitnick never took advantage of the
opportunity to inflict large-scale damage on the on-line
services he infiltrated. Littman successfully deflates
Markoff's report in the Times that "hours before his
arrest" Mitnick "delivered a last electronic blow that
nearly destroyed the Well and the electronic community it
served." Still, the alarming tone of Markoff's article on
Internet security was not off key. Mitnick, explaining why
the Feds are "scared of me," says it's "not because of what
I've done, but because I have the capability to wreak
havoc."

The very structure of the Internet turns out to be
alarming. All computers plugged directly into it -- an
estimated seven million "nodes" -- are conduits for its
traffic. As the traffic passes by, they are supposed to
snatch only the data addressed to them and forward the
rest. But the operator of any of these computers can engage
in "packet sniffing" -- read passing messages without
leaving signs of intrusion. For that matter, a hacker who
penetrates any of these computers can do the same. As even
the avowedly antihype Littman observes, "the Internet is
swiss cheese."

What to do? There are at least three options.

(1) Police. Pass new wiretapping laws and other measures
that make it easier for officials to monitor cyberspace.
Unfortunately, this approach tends to replace one source of
paranoia with another. Whether you'd worry more about
having your E-mail read by some indiscreet hacker or by the
Feds depends on your taste and your E-mail. But there is
certainly some similarity in the kinds of anxiety the two
prospects induce. Note the difference between this and
traditional civil-liberties dilemmas. Typically, wiretaps
have been a way to catch mobsters, drug dealers, and spies.
Thus the trade-off inherent in wiretapping laws was between
your privacy and your physical security. But when Kevin
Mitnicks are the criminals the "privacy-security" trade-off
is essentially between one kind of threat to privacy and
another kind. The solution in some ways defeats its
purpose.

(2) Privatize. Let the on-line services, banks, and other
computerized institutions get shamed by Mitnick and his ilk
into doing a better job of policing their own turf. This
solution won't necessarily escape the trade-off between one
threat to privacy and another threat. Though the on-line
services can do a lot of ship-tightening just by plugging
technical holes and building better "fire walls," some may
choose to monitor cybertraffic more closely -- for example,
by keeping better records of where you travel on-line and
when. At least, though, these measures won't be imposed on
you. You can choose your preferred degree of oversight by
choosing your on-line service. Already, America Online
seems to be seeking a high-security profile in its
unabashed cooperation with federal child-porn
investigations and the like. In contrast, the management of
the WELL, mindful of its sizable libertarian constituency,
was ambivalent about cooperating with the Shimomura
investigation.

(3) Encrypt. When E-mail and creditcard numbers are in
secret code, snatching them doesn't do Kevin Mitnicks any
good. The beauty of this solution is that it escapes the
trade-off between one kind of paranoia and another, by
making it hard for anyone to read your E-mail -- Mitnick,
the Feds, or the people who run your on-line service.

As it happens, strong sentiments about the relative merits
of these three options have lately been coursing through
the computer near the hot tub -- the same Internet node
that on Christmas in 1994 was, like the hot tub itself,
softly humming with illicit activity. For Julia's then
boyfriend John is John Gilmore, a wellknown
cyberspace-privacy activist. He is a leading member of the
"cypherpunks," an amorphous group that gets its name from
its militant devotion to the widespread use of encryption.
Gilmore's computer is the home of the Internet cypherpunk
discussion group.

Since "Takedown" was published, various denunciations of
Shimomura and of the book he wrote with Markoff have
bubbled up from that discussion group. And the reason is
not, as you might imagine, that Gilmore harbors rampant
hostility toward Shimomura (though in a recent denunciation
of Shimomura -- for allegedly developing an "evil" software
tool, intrinsically prone to destructive use Gilmore did
affix to his signature this apparently jokey tip: "Don't
introduce that Tsutomu to your girlfriend"). Rather, the
cypherpunks have a long history of disliking
sensationalized accounts of cybercrime. After all, one
source of their devotion to encryption is an intense
aversion to Big Brother and any snooping he might do. And,
while they believe "encrypt" to be the logical answer to
the Kevin Mitnick problem, "police" is the answer they
fear. When monsters are said to be loose, people have a way
of mindlessly turning to the government for help. So the
cypherpunks would like to keep this Mitnick thing in
perspective.

They find the "police" prescription especially disturbing
because of a natural tension between it and the "encrypt"
prescription. Advances in encryption technology have given
ordinary citizens the option of encoding their E-mails and
phone calls in ways that make decoding practically
impossible. So if the government wants to expand its power
to eavesdrop on Kevin Mitnicks -- or even wants to preserve
its traditional power to do any eavesdropping the courts
authorize -- it will need to constrain that technology
somehow.

God knows it's trying. Hence the Clinton Administration's
controversial Clipper Chip proposal. It would establish a
standard encryption system; "keys" to the code would be
held securely in escrow, and when the Feds were authorized
by a judge to eavesdrop they could use them. And then
there's the government's restriction on exporting
sophisticated encryption systems, which are classified as
"munitions." This restriction, cypherpunks note, weakens
the incentive for American companies to create strong and
user-friendly encryption software.

On the whole, these government efforts to contain
encryption aren't faring well. The original Clipper Chip
proposal failed ignominiously, and a revised version
(Clipper II) shows only faint signs of life. The trouble
with the whole Clipper concept is that even if you solved
Problem No. 1 -- persuading the great bulk of the
cybercitizenry to use a code that can be broken with keys
kept in dark rooms somewhere, rather than use freely
available unbreakable codes -- you would face Problem No.
2: persuading criminals to do the same.

The restriction on exporting encryption software is
starting to look similarly hopeless. Consider Phil
Zimmermann, who developed the P.G.P. encryption system --
Pretty Good Privacy -- and then announced that anyone could
have it for nothing. Someone posted the software on the
Internet, which means foreigners can download it. Does this
make Zimmermann an illegal exporter of munitions? The
absurdity of this idea seems to have sunk in; earlier this
month the government finally abandoned its investigation of
him.

Parts of the Kevin Mitnick story could be appropriated by
either side of the encryption debate. The F.B.I. might note
that Mitnick did have a partner in crime abroad, and, when
swapping computercracking tools over the Internet, they did
use encryption -- P.G.P., in fact. Cypherpunks might note
that these tools wouldn't have done Mitnick much good if we
lived in their dream world, a world of widespread and
strong encryption. The software he took, the E-mail he
read, the phone conversations he listened to -- all would
have been gibberish. He would have had to find another
hobby.

Of course, one can imagine crimes larger than Mitnick's,
less easily frustrated by encryption, or more dependent on
covert communication over the Internet. There's the
prospect of cyberterrorism, or cyberwarfare, on a massive
scale: using computers to black out power grids along the
Eastern Seaboard, say, or to trigger a Wall Street
meltdown. And cyberspace can be used to orchestrate epic
crimes in physical space. A far-flung group of terrorists
could use encrypted E-mail or encrypted phone conversations
to plot and execute a biological-weapons attack.

Given that federal officials who would constrain encryption
seem to be swimming against the nearly inexorable tide of
technological history, these are the kinds of monster
scenarios they have to conjure up to justify their efforts.
And these scenarios aren't entirely implausible. As
cyberspace expands, we may see reasons to try to give the
government the sort of power it seeks there. But those
reasons won't look much like Kevin Mitnick.

2003-09-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

is SANITY the PLAYGROUND of the unIMAGINATIVE?

Dahbud's page is located here.