__________________________________________________________________________
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 4 December 2001
Vol. 5, Number 97 (#625)
__________________________________________________________________________
Action Alert:
01) 9 Dec, Philadelphia: Free Mumia Demo
02) Brands editorial collective, "The Brand Trial: An accusation against
Brand is an accusation against us all!," 29 Nov 01
Announcement:
03) truthout needs operating funds
Fascism In the News
04) WCCO, "Man Sentenced For Hate Attack On Boy," 26 Nov 01
05) Geir Moulson (AP), "Neo-Nazis Protest War Crimes Exhibit," 1 Dec 01
06) Greta Hopkins (IPS), "Europe Moving to Criminalise Racist Internet
Postings," 26 Nov 01
07) Websense Inc., "The Web of Online Hate is Growing, Warns Websense
Inc.: To Avoid Lawsuits, Corporations Should Be Proactive in
Blocking Access to Hate," 29 Nov 01 \
More On Civil Liberties In the Current Hysteria
08) Mark D. Rasch (BusinessWeek Online), "New anti-cyberterrorism
cybercrime and punishment," 26 Nov 01
What's Worth Checking:
09) 6 stories and analysis on civil liberties, reflecting various
political currents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION ALERT:
01) Mumia Demo In Philadelphia
International Action Center
1 Dec 01
December 9th will mark the 20th anniversary of the unjust arrest and
incarceration of African American journalist and political prisoner, Mumia
Abu-Jamal.
For 20 years, Mumia's case has symbolically represented resistance against
every form of racist and political repression. And today, his case cannot
be separated from the reactionary atmosphere created by the U.S. government
that wants to use the tragic September 11th attacks to stifle progressive
political dissent.
Thousands of unknown Arab and South Asian young men, falsely accused of
being "terrorists", are being detained indefinitely and tortured by the FBI
and INS. At the same time, thousands of unknown Black and Latino prisoners
are languishing on U.S. death row, a great majority of them for the "crime"
of being poor.
As long as one person's civil liberties and civil rights are under attack,
all of our civil liberties and civil rights are under attack. This is an
important aspect of Mumia's case. Join the international concerned family
and friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal and others on Saturday, December 8 for a
mass demonstration beginning at 12 noon at Philadelphia City Hall (Broad
and Market) to demand:
� stop the legal lynching of Mumia � grant a new trial to allow all the
evidence proving Mumia's innocence to finally be heard especially the
Arnold Beverly taped confession � end racist profiling including mass
detentions, police brutality and the death penalty
Transportation will be leaving from the International Action Center office
(1247 'E' Street SE) at 8:30am and leaving from Philly at 4pm to return.
Round trip tickets are $25 and $20 (if you cannot attend, please make a
donation to help subsidize seats for those on a fixed income).
Free Mumia and all political prisoners!
- - - - -
02) The Brand Trial: An accusation against Brand is an accusation against
us all!
Brands editorial collective
29 Nov 01
On December 5th, the trail against a member of the editorial collective of
the 103 year-old Swedish anarchist magazine Brand begins in the courts of
Gothenburg. The charges against Brand are a first attempt at criminalizing
the entire extra-parliamentary left in Sweden. In this perspective, the
trial against brand is a trial against us all.
The trial is about an article that was written in the International Women's
Day, 8th of March 2000, issue of Brand. The theme of the issue was a
critical analysis -- and parody -- of the weekly "women's" magazine
Veckorevyn. In addition to Brand's regular features and articles, serious
articles addressing critiques of the magazines Frida, Veckorevyn, Slitz and
Caf� were mixed with ironic articles, such as "Make Me Over", a self-test
to find out "What kind of activist are you?" and the article that all the
commotion is about; "How to make your riot a success -- from A to Zed". The
Swedish secret police, S�PO, has brought the charges against this article
for "Incitement to Riot".
The state is becoming increasingly intolerant against those who resist the
system. Since the EU Top Meeting in Gothenburg, we've seen extreme prison
sentence after extreme prison sentence being dealt out by the courts and an
increasingly harder repression against those who would demonstrate on the
streets. But the truth of the matter is that the articles in Brand are no
more "violent" than the lyrics to the left-wing, hit songs of the 1970's.
It is not the extra-parliamentary left that has changed, but the state and
it's attitudes and towards resistance and it's possibilities to repress it.
The question is, what's next in line to be forbidden if they succeed in
sentencing Brand? This is why it's important that we act, act now and act
in unison.
We will continue to protest against injustice and continue our struggle for
a better society -- no matter what repressive methods the state employs
against us.
We encourage all groups and politically active individuals to prioritise
manifestations and demonstrations in support of Brand. A list of Swedish
embassies and consulates can be found online at:
http://www.utrikes.regeringen.se/inenglish/missions/index.htm
In Gothenburg there will be a country-wide mobilisation to a manifestation
outside of the courts on December the 5th between the hours of 09:30 and
13:00. The theme of the manifestation is: "For the right to resist"
-- Brands editorial collective
www.motkraft.net/brand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Earlier articles can be found at:
http://www.ainfos.ca/01/nov/ainfos00107.html
http://www.free.de/asti/anarchistnews/brand.htm
http://www.ainfos.ca/00/sep/ainfos00051.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
03) Truthout Needs Operating Funds
Funding is vital to keeping this project growing. The site is completely
non-commercial we work for our readers. Help support the project if you
can.
If your funds are limited, hold off until you are more stable -- and please
continue reading.
Our Donation page is fast, simple and secure. Just use this link -
http://www.truthout.com/donations/
(t r u t h o u t, is a non-profit independent new source. Your
contributions are completely Tax Deductible.)
Or if you prefer to donate by check made payable to:
truthout
767 South San Pedro St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
ph. (213) 489-1971
fx. (213) 489-2378
Thank you!
-- Marc Ash,
Editor/Publisher - t r u t h o u t
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FASCISM IN THE NEWS:
04) Man Sentenced For Hate Attack On Boy
WCCO
26 Nov 01
A 19-year-old St. Paul man who admitted to a hate-motivated action against
a 4-year-old Inver Grove Heights boy hours after the man attended an August
white supremacy rally in St. Paul was sentenced Monday.
Michael Pigg pleaded guilty to bias-motivated harassment last week. A
tougher bias-motivated assault charge was dropped against Pigg, and he
agreed to testify against Jarod Sparks, 25, of Inver Grove Heights, who
prosecutors contend was also involved in the incident.
The Dakota County judge handing out the sentence said Pigg's actions were
inexcusable and sentenced Pigg to 90 days of home monitoring, WCCO 4 News
reported.
Pigg's attorney told the judge his client is remorseful, has agreed to have
his Nazi tattoos removed, will meet with a human rights counselor and has
agreed to view the movie "To Kill A Mockingbird."
Police say the afternoon after the morning rally in St. Paul, Pigg and
Sparks shouted racial slurs at the boy riding his bike on the sidewalk in
front of his house, shoved him off of his bicycle and that he was also hit
in the head.
- - - - -
05) Neo-Nazis Protest War Crimes Exhibit
Geir Moulson (AP)
1 Dec 01
BERLIN -- Thousands of neo-Nazis marched through central Berlin Saturday to
protest an exhibition on Nazi-era crimes by the German army, staging one of
the largest far-right rallies in the city since World War II.
Police kept them well away from the capital's former Jewish quarter after
the proposed route drew outraged objections from the German government and
Jewish groups at home and abroad.
Police estimated 3,300 people participated in the protest, with 4,000
officers in place to prevent violence. Before the march began, police used
water cannons and tear gas to break up a counter-demonstration of about
1,500 people organized by leftist groups.
Some 30 people were detained and eight officers slightly injured in the
earlier demonstration, which police said turned violent when some of those
opposed to the neo-Nazi march began throwing stones and trying to force
their way through police lines.
The neo-Nazis chanted slogans such as ``German soldiers - heroic deeds''
and ``Glory and honor to German soldiers'' as they marched from
Friedrichstrasse station. Among their banners was one that proclaimed: ``My
grandfather was no criminal.''
Police with riot shields and armored cars blocked streets leading to the
former Jewish quarter, where the gallery showing the army exhibition is
located - a block from Berlin's restored synagogue.
The prospect of a march through that area on the Sabbath outraged Jewish
groups. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in a statement issued in Los Angeles,
called it ``intolerable.''
``Far-right extremists marching past monuments or in centers of Jewish life
is a provocation of outrageous proportions,'' Germany's main Jewish leader,
Paul Spiegel, wrote in the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper. The German
government condemned the plan and urged that protesters remain peaceful.
The march was organized by the National Democratic Party, which the
government has asked the country's highest court to ban for allegedly
encouraging hate crimes.
City authorities insisted they couldn't ban the march outright. While
demonstrations can be banned over fears of potential violence, the National
Democratic Party has kept protests orderly, with skinheads avoiding pro-
Nazi epithets that are banned in Germany. Saturday's march ended without
incident.
Mayor Klaus Wowereit pointedly visited the army exhibition during the
march, and organizers said several thousand people followed suit.
``It's outrageous for neo-Nazis to demonstrate here,'' Wowereit said. But,
he stressed, ``we must make our point peacefully.''
``They should have a look at the exhibit,'' said the gallery's director,
Klaus Biesenbach. ``I don't think any of them have been here. They don't
even know what it's about.''
The exhibition shows how regular German troops, not just the Nazi SS or
special commandos, were involved in wartime atrocities against Jews, other
civilians and prisoners of war. It reopened after a two-year pause during
which it is was extensively overhauled because historians complained the
orginal show was inaccurate and superficial.
- - - - -
06) Europe Moving to Criminalise Racist Internet Postings
Greta Hopkins (IPS)
26 Nov 01
BRUSSELS -- The European Commission is expected to adopt and announce rules
in the next few weeks that would bind the 15 European Union (EU) members to
outlaw racism and xenophobia on the Internet and offline.
A draft 'Framework Decision' lays out what it terms "effective,
proportionate and dissuasive" criminal penalties for racist offences and
provides a common definition of racism but grants member states leeway in
ensuring compliance.
The draft defines racism and xenophobia as "the belief in race, colour,
descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor
determining aversions to individuals or groups." It lists six race-related
offences, which must be made punishable as a criminal offence throughout
the EU.
Vera Egenberger, director of the non-governmental European Network Against
Racism, says the Commission's proposal "definitely goes in the right
direction" and adds that European judicial authorities have only just begun
to consider racial hatred as a possible motivation for murder and physical
harm.
Europe needs a common basis for dealing with racist crimes, especially in
view of the rise in extreme rightwing movements, says Egenberger.
"At the moment, EU legal provisions on racist crime are very different,
especially concerning people who put racist propaganda on the Internet",
she says. "A common EU approach would force the member states to take this
problem seriously."
The Commission's proposal starts from the premise that what is illegal in
the real world should be illegal online. The document, a copy of which was
obtained by IPS, notes it is very difficult to prosecute those who
disseminate racist material on the Internet because racist sites often are
located in non-EU countries, particularly the United States, where the
offence is protected as free speech.
Egenberger wants international action against racism on the Internet. "It
is important that the EU adopts common sanctions, but it still has its
boundaries. The United States is very against interfering with the
Internet, because it sees it as a limit on the freedom of expression and
speech. As a result, people who want to set up racist web sites make sure
they do it in the U.S.," she says.
The Commission's draft proposal would seek to ensure that member states'
anti-racism legislation covers people who design racist web pages for
European consumption, even if they are not on EU territory when they do it.
The proposal also would make it a criminal offence to set up a racist web
site while on EU territory, even if the material is not hosted in Europe.
To be adopted, the proposal will have to be agreed by the 15 EU justice and
home affairs ministers once the European Parliament has weighed in with its
opinion.
Spain, which takes up the rotating EU presidency in January, had asked the
Commission to come forward with a proposal to harmonise penal law. As such,
Madrid is likely to give high priority to this dossier. According to
Egenberger, most countries welcome a common approach to the problem. She
predicts the proposal will move quickly through the legislative process.
The Commission proposes making serious public insults or threats, and
distribution of racist material, punishable by custodial sentences, in turn
giving rise to the prospect of extradition or surrender.
A minimum prison term of two years would be handed down to people convicted
of the most serious types of offences. These include "public incitement to
violence or hatred for a racist or xenophobic purpose" and "directing,
supporting or participating in the activities of a racist or xenophobic
group, with the intention of contributing to the organisation's criminal
activities."
Phil Pavey, policy officer with Britain's Commission for Racial Equality,
welcomes the European Commission's proposal but says legislation cannot be
effective unless the police and courts are taught to use it and encouraged
to do so.
Britain is known as having one of the EU's most comprehensive bodies of
anti-racist legislation, he says, yet "racial harassment is still at a
horrendous level. Compared to where we should be, there is still enormous
room for improvement."
- - - - -
07) The Web of Online Hate is Growing, Warns Websense Inc.: To Avoid
Lawsuits, Corporations Should Be Proactive in Blocking Access to
Hate
Websense Inc.
29 Nov 01
SAN DIEGO -- Online hate grew 70 percent during the last year, according to
Websense Inc. (Nasdaq:WBSN - news), the world's leading employee Internet
management (EIM) company.
The number of Web pages on the Net related to hate is now more than
373,000.
This rapid growth of online hate could create huge problems for
corporations, reports Websense, which creates EIM software allowing
companies to manage employee use of the Internet. In fact, businesses who
provide access to hate with an Internet connection at the office may be
subject to hostile workplace lawsuits if these sites are viewed at work.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, cases related to
racism or harassment at work soared to more than 50,000 in the late 1990s.
In addition, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has recorded
more than 400 hate-related attacks and threats since Sept. 11, including
more than 30 cases of workplace discrimination.
``Regardless of the identity of the targeted group, viewing hate Web sites
in the workplace is clearly inappropriate,'' said Jennifer Kearns, a labor
and employment partner at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP., a global law
firm with offices in the United States, London, Oxford and Munich. ``A
company's first line of defense in avoidance of hostile workplace suits is
a well-publicized and implemented policy that prohibits viewing of such
materials in the workplace and informs employees that their Internet usage
may be monitored. An important strategic tool is the use of EIM software,
to ensure compliance with the policy. And, of course, a final step is a
prompt and consistent response to any violations of the policy.''
Hate groups use the Web's global reach to transmit sound, photos and
images, simultaneously and often anonymously to a network of followers.
According to Websense, these sites float ``under the radar'' and are not
normally categorized by major search engines or portals.
``Hate sites are not only a major concern for our customers, but they also
are a concern to us at Websense,'' said Harold Kester, chief technology
officer for Websense. ``That's because of the difficulty of finding and
classifying these sites, which go through great pains to not be found by
traditional means, but rather by someone with a specific agenda.''
Websense is able to capture and classify hate sites on the Internet through
the company's use of proprietary search and classification techniques.
These tools -- such as the Websense Fingerprint, Websense Webmap and
Websense Change Tracker -- help Websense keep up with the growing number of
hate sites on a daily basis. Once the sites are found and classified,
Websense customers around the world -- including 255 of the Fortune 500 --
download the Websense Master Database daily with the most up-to-date list
of hate sites on the Net.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
08) New anti-cyberterrorism cybercrime and punishment
Mark D. Rasch (BusinessWeek Online)
26 Nov 01
Much has been written about the new anti-terrorism legislation passed by
Congress and signed by President Bush, particularly as it respects the
ability of the government to conduct surveillance on email, voice-mail, and
other electronic communications. However, too little attention has been
paid to other provisions of the legislation, particularly a
significant change to the definition of the types of computers protected
under federal law.
An amendment to the definition of a "protected computer" for the first time
explicitly enables U.S. law enforcement to prosecute computer hackers
outside the United States in cases where neither the hackers nor their
victims are in the U.S., provided only that packets related to that
activity traveled through U.S. computers or routers.
This remarkable amendment is to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which
Congress enacted in 1984 to prohibit conduct that damages a "Federal
interest computer," defined at the time as "a computer owned or used by the
United States Government or a financial institution," or, "one of two or
more computers used in committing the offense, not all of which are located
in the same State."
THE 'PROTECTED COMPUTER'. Under that initial definition, if a hacker in
the U.S. broke into a computer in a foreign country (or vice versa),
because the computers were not all located in the same state, a federal
offense would have been committed. If, however, the victim computer and the
hacker's computer were both located in the same state, this would be a
purely "intrastate" offense, punishable by the state or local government.
(A purely intrastate offense could also be prosecuted federally if the
victim computer was used by the federal government or a federally insured
institution, or if any computer involved in the offense was located in
another state.) This limitation represented a conscious effort by the U.S.
Congress to limit the scope of federal crimes to those with a truly
interstate reach.
In 1994, Congress replaced the term "Federal interest computer" with the
phrase "computer used in interstate commerce or communication." In 1996,
Congress amended the law once again, defining a new term, "protected
computer," and concomitantly expanding the number of computers that the
statute "protected." The 1996 amendments defined a protected computer as
one that is "exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for
such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States
Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or
for the financial institution or the Government; or which is used in
interstate or foreign commerce or communication."
In the new anti-terrorism legislation, Congress once again expanded the
scope of federal jurisdiction over computer crimes. Section 814 of the
PATRIOT bill added to the definition of a protected computer an explicit
provision stating that federal law precludes activities involving "a
computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that
affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United
States."
Congress did not require that the effect on interstate or foreign commerce
or communication be substantial, or even, for that matter, measurable.
Almost immediately after the legislation was signed, the Department of
Justice issued a guidance paper to instruct thousands of federal
prosecutors how to use the new statute. The guidance noted that:
Because of the interdependency and availability of global computer
networks, hackers from within the United States are increasingly targeting
systems located entirely outside of this country. The [previous] statute
did not explicitly allow for prosecution of such hackers. In addition,
individuals in foreign countries frequently route communications through
the United States, even as they hack from one foreign country to another.
In such cases, their hope may be that the lack of any U.S. victim would
either prevent or discourage U.S. law enforcement agencies from assisting
in any foreign investigation or prosecution.
... Section 814 of the Act amends the definition of "protected computer" to
make clear that this term includes computers outside of the United States
so long as they affect "interstate or foreign commerce or
communication of the United States." 18 U.S.C. ' 1030(e)(2)(B). By
clarifying the fact that a domestic offense exists, the United States can
now use speedier domestic procedures to join in international hacker
investigations. As these crimes often involve investigators and victims in
more than one country, fostering international law enforcement cooperation
is essential.
In addition, the amendment creates the option, where appropriate, of
prosecuting such criminals in the United States. Since the U.S.
is urging other countries to ensure that they can vindicate the interests
of U.S. victims for computer crimes that originate in their nations, this
provision will allow the U.S. to provide reciprocal coverage.
The Department of Justice therefore views the amendment as more than a mere
clarification of existing law, but as an expansion of U.S.
jurisdiction to permit, for the first time, the United States to prosecute
cases where both the attacker and the victim are located outside the United
States, and to apply U.S. substantive and procedural law to such
international activity.
INTERNATIONAL LAW. Computer crime in general, and computer hacking in
particular, has always been recognized as a uniquely trans-national
offense. Hackers from anywhere in the world can engage in activities that
will affect computers outside of the country from which they originate.
Moreover, computer viruses, worms and other malicious code do not respect
international boundaries, and can damage information or computers located
in countries far remote from those where the hacker is located.
Interestingly, when a hacker in Singapore released the "I Love You" virus
affecting computers all over the world, only the U.S. FBI traveled to
Singapore to investigate. When the "Melissa" virus swept across the
planet, no foreign law enforcement officials descended on New Jersey to
prosecute David Smith, the author of the virus, nor were any such
officials publicly invited to participate.
Nevertheless, these cases demonstrate an important principle of
international law -- the so-called "protective principle." Every nation has
the right to extend the scope of its law beyond its borders to protect the
rights and property of its own nationals. An attack on a U.S. citizen
abroad may violate U.S. law. A gunshot from Canada that kills a person in
the United States may properly be prosecuted in the United States. A hacker
who attacks a computer in the United States from a foreign country violates
U.S. law, and it is entirely appropriate that the United States should have
the authority to protect itself from such attacks. Whether the U.S. will
take the lead in such investigations or not will depend not so much on law,
but on international politics.
The recent Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty encourages countries to make
computer crime an offense within their own borders, and to cooperate on
international investigations of computer crime.
In its interpretation of the need for the unprecedented expansion of U.S.
sovereignty, the Department of Justice asserts that U.S. law enforcement
agencies would not investigate cases of computer crime where the victim and
targets are located outside the United States, not because of the lack of
any authority to do so, but because, of a lack of will. In fact, there is
much truth to this assertion. Many law enforcement agencies see no reason
to assist foreign governments' investigations where there is no likelihood
that they will obtain a conviction within the country.
However, the appropriate response to this reluctance is to encourage
domestic law enforcement agencies to assist their foreign brethren
voluntarily, not to expand the scope of domestic law to permit prosecution
within the United States of what is essentially a foreign offense.
WHEN REACH EXCEEDS GRASP. Congress' authority to criminalize conduct
generally is derived from Article I of the Constitution, which, among other
things allows the legislature to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
The statute is broad and allows the protection of the
instrumentalities and channels of interstate or foreign commerce. In 1995
the Supreme Court noted that Congress' power was limited though to
regulate those activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce
and not merely those where the affect is tangential.
The distinction is crucial. Clearly if a U.S. computer or computer network
is shut down, attacked, penetrated, or prevented from properly functioning
as a result of foreign hacking activity, the protective principle of
international law should properly permit a U.S.
PROSECUTION.
Where the affect on U.S. computer networks is slight -- to the point of
non-existence -- the U.S. should not impose its law on the activity.
The new statute requires no threshold of damage or even effect on U.S.
computers to trigger U.S. sovereignty. The vast majority of Internet
traffic travels through the United States, with more than half of the
traffic traveling through Northern Virginia alone. The mere fact that
packets relating to the criminal activity travel through the United States
should not be enough to trigger U.S. jurisdiction, even though such
traffic would "affect" international commerce, albeit infinitesimally.
The expanded statute, and the DOJ policy guidance, would permit the U.S. to
impose its law on the Internet generally, without the need to show damage
or trespass to a U.S. computer, merely on the basis of packets being
inadvertently routed through U.S. computers. This represents and
unwarranted and dangerous expansion of sovereignty, and will invariably
result in more turf battles with foreign law enforcement agencies, rather
than fewer.
Under the Department of Justice's interpretation of this legislation, a
computer hacker in Frankfurt Germany who hacks into a computer in Cologne
Germany could be prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia in
Alexandria if the packet related to the attack traveled through America
Online's computers. Moreover, the United States would reserve the right to
demand that the extradition of the hacker even if the conduct would not
have violated German law, or to, as it has in other kinds of cases, simply
remove the offender forcibly for trial.
What is perhaps the most troubling about this legislation, in addition to
the lack of any debate or focus on it, is the fact that the Department of
Justice manual simply says that this unprecedented power will be used in
"appropriate cases." The Department of Justice provides no guidance to
prosecutors or citizens of the world what kinds of cases it will deem to be
"appropriate" for the expanded jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice has no procedures in place to mandate high-level
DOJ review before such power can be used. A prosecutor in Boise may
therefore decide to go after a Norwegian hacker for hacking a computer in
Oslo, if the packets "affected" interstate commerce, and the prosecutor
thinks it "appropriate."
Every country has the right to protect its own citizens, property and
interests. No country has the right to impose its will, its values, its
mores or laws on conduct that occurs outside its borders even if they may
have a tangential effect on that country. The new legislation permits the
U.S. government to do just that, and is unwise and unwarranted.
* * * * *
Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is the Vice President for Cyberlaw at Predictive
Systems Inc. in Reston, Virginia, a computer security and network design
consulting firm. Prior to joining Predictive Systems, Mr. Rasch was the
head of the U.S. Department of Justice Computer Crime Unit and prosecuted a
series of high profile computer crime cases from 1984 to 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S WORTH CHECKING
stories via <http://www.anti-fascism.org/story/story-h1/story-h1.html>
2386: John Podhoretz (New York Post), "Absurd Assault on Ashcroft," 30 Nov
01, "Some Democrats, liberals and civil libertarians are going to pieces.
You can sense a kind of deranged relief in their factually challenged,
emotionally overwrought and politically suicidal assault on the
administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism. Two months of common
cause with President Bush and the rest of the country were as much as they
could take. They could only stomach two months' worth of believing that the
United States had more to fear from the terrorists outside the country than
the Republicans inside the country. The assault being waged on Attorney
General John Ashcroft for supposedly shredding the Constitution would be
comic were it not such a sad revelation of the hunger for division among
the elites in a nation that has found genuine solace in unity. And
everything they're carrying on about - everything - is nonsense."
2387: David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr. (New York Times), "Ashcroft
Seeking to Free F.B.I. to Spy on Groups," 30 Nov 01. "Attorney General John
Ashcroft is considering a plan to relax restrictions on the F.B.I.'s spying
on religious and political organizations in the United States, senior
government officials said today. The proposal would loosen one of the most
fundamental restrictions on the conduct of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and would be another step by the Bush administration to
modify civil-liberties protections as a means of defending the country
against terrorists, the senior officials said. The attorney general's
surveillance guidelines were imposed on the F.B.I. in the 1970's after the
death of J. Edgar Hoover and the disclosures that the F.B.I. had run a
widespread domestic surveillance program, called Cointelpro, to monitor
antiwar militants, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers and the Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., among others, while Mr. Hoover was director."
2388: Greg Goldin (LA Weekly), "Assault on America II - Of secret military
tribunals and other mischief to civil liberties," 30 Nov 01. "It took
exactly eight days for the war on terrorism to come home. September 11
exposed the nation�s multi-billion dollar spy apparatus as bureaucratic,
sluggish, and quarrelsome, with a weakness for high-tech goodies and Cold
War paradigms as anachronistic as a Russian-English dictionary. No matter.
Immediately blame fell on our open society, in the form of the USA-PATRIOT
Act of 2001. Faster than you could say bin Laden, freedom became a synonym
for a straightjacket on police authority. Too much surveillance was not
nearly enough. The Bush administration, with the pitiful acquiescence of
both parties, rapidly expanded the powers of government to snoop on
ordinary citizens, to employ preventive detentions and 'disappearances' (a
method pioneered by the fascist generals in Argentina), and conduct
unwarranted searches and seizures -- all under the aegis of the PATRIOT
Act, the 'anti-terrorism' bill that could have been dreamed up by Tom
Clancy, which won approval last month on a vote of 357 to 66 in the House,
99-1 in the Senate."
2389: Don Thompson (AP), "Terror Threat Renews Rights Debate," 29 Nov 01,
"For years, FBI agents probing possible terrorist activity have worked
under restrictions meant to protect the free-expression rights of political
and religious groups that might come under investigation. The result, some
law enforcement experts say, has been a slow, overly cautious approach to
investigating and arresting potential terrorists. In the wake of the Sept.
11 attacks those limits have come under new criticism and scrutiny, despite
the arguments of civil liberties groups who say the limits are still needed
to prevent abuses. Rules meant to protect freedom of expression 'require
the FBI to have their eyes closed and their ears plugged up and look the
other way' unless they can demonstrate a crime has been or is about to be
committed, said Oliver 'Buck' Revell, former associate deputy FBI director
for investigations. 'When you're dealing with terrorism, that's too late,'
said Revell, who headed the FBI's counterterrorism division for 11 years."
2390: Ann Coulter, "The Hun Is At the Gate," 28 Nov 01, "This week's winner
for best comedy line about the war is New York Democratic Sen. Charles
Schumer. Referring to -- well, it doesn't really matter what he was
referring to, but it was military tribunals -- Schumer said: 'To come up
with the best way to do this, Congress ought to be involved.' Congress came
up with the Internal Revenue code, right? And the whole United States code?
That's just what we need -- Congress involved in emergency national
security measures! Under the self-aggrandizing delusion that their input is
necessary during wartime, various congressmen are trying to haul Attorney
General Ashcroft before them to answer questions about the detentions and
military tribunals for suspected terrorists. Democrats are channeling their
frustration with America's imminent military victory in Afghanistan into
hysterical opposition to reasonable national security measures at home."
2391: John W. Dean (San Francisco Gate), "Critics of military tribunals are
too hasty," 30 Nov 01, "Critics' reactions to President Bush's proposed use
of military tribunals to bring accused terrorists to justice have been a
bit unfair, not to mention premature. While their concern for civil
liberties is admirable (and I share it), it is also misplaced. Opponents
suggest that the constitutional standards of our criminal justice system
should be applied in a military proceeding for war criminals -- but that
makes little sense. Many of those complaining earlier called for a military
response to terrorism. Now they want to demilitarize it. In effect, what
the critics of military tribunals would have the president do is turn enemy
belligerents over to civilian law enforcement authorities for prosecution.
To do so, however, would not only be unprecedented, but would set a
horrifically bad precedent. Wars are fought under well-understood rules.
They don't include providing Miranda warnings when capturing an enemy, nor
employing the legal niceties of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
when punishing them. We are engaged in the legal equivalent of a formally
declared war."
* * * * *
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
__________________________________________________________________________
FASCISM:
We have no ethical right to forgive, no historical right to forget.
(No permission required for noncommercial reproduction)
- - - - -
back issues archived via:
<ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/tinaf/>
