From: jan.m.clairmont at citigroup.com (Clairmont, Jan M)
Subject: Presidential Candidates' Websites Vulnerable

A little about Congressional procedures, once out of committee
a bill only needs a voice vote and the president to sign it to
become law if no one objects.  The President has 90 days to veto
or sign it or not to become law.  The President doesn't even have to sign it.  So this trigger is there to be pulled at anytime.

Now if you think that who is in the White House and Congress 
doesn't matter as to how the rest of this War on terror is 
conducted you are very naive, McGovern versus Nixon, Carter versus Reagan, Bush versus Clinton, Kerry versus Bush.  Our whole next generation and our lives will be affected to the point of insanity.  Sit back and be drafted or actively participate.  
Perpetual War or a limited selective strike against the terrorist.  I frankly am not at war with the Muslim World.
And I do not want to send my sons there and have them return in
body bags or any of you out there is Warland.

So I am asking again how can we make the Election fair,  one person one vote rather than one vote in the bit bucket.  I really don't want the Supreme court and Florida to determine who's president next time.  But that probably won't happen.

We are voting for either drafting everybody 49 or under and fight the Muslim World or I feel limit this fight to terror elements and make it more a criminal justice effort.  With a war we
are all under edict and the whims of those who would use torture
as a normal procedure.  Great, no courts, no writ, no lawyers,
just torture at will.  If they will do it to Iraqi's they will do
it to John Q and Jane Q AverageAmerican.

If you want to vote this ok, but let's make it a fair count.
Is this what the majority of americans want?   I don't think so.

I don't care how you feel about the war  on terror I just want to know that election will be a fair and partial count of votes. 
 
Jan Clairmont
Firewall Administrator/Consultant


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com]On Behalf Of Harlan
Carvey
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 1:09 PM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Cc: Clairmont, Jan M
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Presidential Candidates' Websites
Vulnerable


Jan,

Thanks for the response...

> http://www.rense.com/general52/fgult.htm

I read the site, and it linked to a CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/

Notice that the date on the CNN piece is 30 Dec '02.
 
> A link to the article about the passed but yet
> unsigned draft bill.

I followed another link from the site to Congress.org:
http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108

According to that site, a more complete summary of the
bill is found at:
http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108&size=full

According to *that* page, the status of the bill as of
7 Jan '03 was that it was "Read twice and referred to
the Committee on Armed Services."

So my question to you now is...where did you get the
information that stated that this draft bill had been
"passed"?  Were you trying to say that it has been
"passed" or agreed to by any legislative body?  If so,
which one?  Or do you mean, "passed" in the sense of
passing the sports section to the guy in the stall
next to you?  I'm just being facetious, and I really
am genuinely interested to know where you're getting
your information that this proposed legislation has
been voted on and passed by legislative body.

> Problems with electronic voting; FYI

I'm familiar with some of the issues regarding
electronic voting...what I'm not seeing is the
connection between that and this draft issue you
raised.

Thanks,

Harlan

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists