Since September 11, we have seen our freedoms and civil rights melt away at
an alarming pace. It is happening so fast that there is no time to object
or even gather your thoughts. It has gone all the way to police state
disappearances just like they had in Argentina and Germany. How so, you
ask? Did I forget to put on my foil hat today?

No, it really is happening. W. and his worthy sidekick Ashcroft have just
decided, without bothering Congress for any new laws, that they can decide
that someone is an evil dude and declare him an "enemy
combatant". Thereafter, he can be kept in a military prison for an
indefinite time without trial, without being able to consult a lawyer or
anyone else for that matter and with no eligibility for a Habeas Corpus
petition.

Now, I don't know anything about Mr. Padilla or whether he is truly evil or
just foolish or maybe totally innocent. I do know that he was born in
Brooklyn, NY where I was born so we both can claim US citizenship by birth.
If the executive branch succeeds in doing this, then what a precedent we
have set. There is nothing stopping the DOJ from picking up any citizen and
holding him forever without any charge. As for his family, he will have
just disappeared. They will have no contact and will learn his status only
if John Ashcroft wants to tell them.

Now I have made this argument to my conservative friends and they shrug
their shoulders. They trust W. and Ashcroft and see nothing wrong with
this. After all, we have to protect the nation from terrorists, don't we!
The best argument that I have found to make them rethink this is the
specter of such a precedent being in place and a future President Hillary
using it to suit her purposes. This really scares them.

For the record, to make this procedure even appear to be legal, Congress
would have to pass a law that defines what you have to do to become an
enemy combatant or whatever they want to call it. Then you are entitled to
a trial with a jury to see if the facts support the designation under this
law. Also it would apply only to actions after the law was passed (remember
that inconvenient ex poste facto provision).

Mike Kerner
Lenexa, KS
Mike4Freedom{at}everestkc.net

* * * * * * * * * * *

Sir,

Steven Cousineau complains about the problem of spam. There is, I believe a
simple solution, albeit one that will only become practicable once we have
a workable micropayment system. Let each email carry a piece of e-cash
(around ten pence, say) as payment to the addressee for accepting it. Any
emails sent without the embedded cash will simply be bounced. The email
should preferably be encrypted with the addressee's public key to prevent
the e-cash being stripped out (stolen) along the way.

Ordinary correspondance would not be adversely affected, since the same fee
would usually just be batted back and forth. Newsletters and the like might
have to make a small subscription charge. Alternatively, recipients could
waive the acceptance fee for messages from known sources. And although we
might most conveniently start off with a fixed standard payment, protocols
could subsequently be developed to enable individual recipients to specify
their own acceptance fees. Similar techniques could be used to control junk
snail mail and telephone calls.

Paul Birch
paul{at}paulbirch.net
http://www.paulbirch.net

* * * * * * * * * * *

<< A special double fudge chocolate chip kudo to TLE contributor Carl
Bussjaeger (who busts a cap on the Supremes in this issue). Carl's
 Net Assets has been picked as Free-Market.net's
"Freedom Book of the Month"!
http://www.free-market.net/features/bookofthemonth/netassets.html> >>

Thank you for publishing that plug. I followed that link, then the
"buy me" link to
http://members.surfbest.net/samizdat%40surfbest.net/netassets/>,
where I checked the "Short Stories" page. The instant I saw that
Carl was the author of Postage-Due I went back and
bought Net Assets. I just finished reading it; my
one-word summary is "WOW".
 
The netassets page is worth a look just for the Russmo cartoon, by the way.

Anyone who liked Victor Koman's Kings of the High
Frontier will like Net Assets (and
vice-versa). I hope that NA will follow the trail blazed by
Kings and and be published in dead-tree format. (Can I
reserve a copy now?)

Scott R. Keszler [keszler{at}srkconsulting.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

Dear John,

The text of the proposed California constitutional amendment to
"guarantee" the right of armed self defense is as follows:

http://www.caproprkba.org/>
---
The Proposition:

The inalienable right to defend life and liberty as set forth in Article I,
Section 1 of the California Constitution includes the fundamental right of
each person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family and home.
This right shall not be infringed.

1. All State government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons
to acquire and possess arms for the defense of self, family and home, shall
be subject to strict scrutiny, in the same respect as the freedoms of
speech and of the press. All county, city and local government action on
this subject is preempted by state law and this Amendment.

2. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition
and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and
any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent
conduct.
---

Two years ago when radio personality and commentator Geoff Metcaff first
started pushing this idea, I objected to the second clause. It's redundant,
since Federal law already covers every variation on prohibited persons.
It's dangerous, because it gives prohibitionists even more leverage that
"a well regulated militia" has already given for the language to
be twisted to evil purposes.

Further, if the unconstitutional blanket prohibition of "felons"
(and children!) is ever overturned, we would then have to re-ammend the
California constitution to remove what we would have fought so hard to put
in place.

The reason for clause 2, as stated then and in response to my objection to
an email promoting it just today, is that without it the prohibitionists
will lie and say that "Blood will run in the streets as violent felons
and children go out and buy guns".

So here's a question to the Libertarian Enterprise audience: What do you
think? Is appeasement something to try in this case? Might it work this
time?

Thinking of the Nolan chart, the Libertarians will support this without the
second clause. The conservatives will support it with the clause, and
neither the authoritarians or liberals will support it either way.

In 2000, with clause 2, it didn't get enough signatures to get on the
ballot. My opinion that it is better to stand on firm ground and lose,
rather than get all compromised and still loose, doesn't carry much weight
with the supporters of this proposition who do think it can win.

Curt Howland [Howland{at}Priss.com]

---