Slashdot Mirror

No laughing matter:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html

For those that think prison rape is something to laugh about, read this:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html

While irreverent humor certainly has its place, I was horrified after reading this report.

Pravda.ru is online... you really should try reading it form time to time. And surely you read the BBC? they have a whole section on the FSU... it's quite fascinating. Pravda and ukrainenews even have english language versions so you don't have to use babelfish. The difference between the US and Russia (and Ukraine, and other FSU states) is that the "government" may have the "enforcement" of organized crime behind it as well. So instead of having to worry about being jailed without representation under terrorism laws, you have to worry, when criticising the government, you may simply turn up bloated and blue on a riverbank come spring. Or perhaps not at all.

And that, of course, is only if you are a man. If you are a woman or young girl (or father of one) you also get to worry about being abducted and sold to a brothel in israel or turkey.

If you think China is so free, I heartily invite you to visit that nation and openly criticise the government. If you don't end up deported or worse, perhaps you'll just be "quarrantined" by the local constabulatory for a week or two under the recently enacted SARS containment laws.

Besides, this is not talking about limitation of freedom.

It is exactly that. How on earth can you attempt the argument it is anything else?

Now, I'm just as guilty as the next guy, but what I download is mostly because it is difficult to get elsewhere. I mean, where they hell am i going to get the latest Claire's Birthday album? (CB is an Estonian band).

More elitist bullshit. It is either ethical or it is not. If you cannot figure out how to get that album without "stealing" it then perhaps it is not your "right" to enjoy it. Or perhaps you could just try applying some logical consistency to your argument and see how none of it really matters.

It is in fact the job of the government to regulate laws which were put into place, including copyright laws.

That's what courts are for. That's why we draw a line between criminal enforcement, where it is the job of the government to defend, against infringment of their civil liberties, those who cannot defend themselves and civil enforcement, where the government is not expected, nor warranted, to police.

And in either case, when the people have decided the law is no longer just (as they essentially have in the case of file sharing) then it is time for we, the people to abridge or abolish those laws as we see fit.

Yes, anyone can afford to copy a page from a book, but it is illegal.

Not in the US. Sorry for you if this is the case in Australia. Wouldn't surprise me one bit, however, given all the other nonsense that government has been trying to lock down the internet.

If you are caught copying a whole book (by your analogy the whole song/movie, rather than just one second) then you are arrested, fined etc.

Again, I'm sorry for you all if that's the way things are where you live. Maybe you really should consider emigrating to Russia or China?

Pravda.ru is online... you really should try reading it form time to time. And surely you read the BBC? they have a whole section on the FSU... it's quite fascinating. Pravda and ukrainenews even have english language versions so you don't have to use babelfish. The difference between the US and Russia (and Ukraine, and other FSU states) is that the "government" may have the "enforcement" of organized crime behind it as well. So instead of having to worry about being jailed without representation under terrorism laws, you have to worry, when criticising the government, you may simply turn up bloated and blue on a riverbank come spring. Or perhaps not at all.

And that, of course, is only if you are a man. If you are a woman or young girl (or father of one) you also get to worry about being abducted and sold to a brothel in israel or turkey.

If you think China is so free, I heartily invite you to visit that nation and openly criticise the government. If you don't end up deported or worse, perhaps you'll just be "quarrantined" by the local constabulatory for a week or two under the recently enacted SARS containment laws.

Besides, this is not talking about limitation of freedom.

It is exactly that. How on earth can you attempt the argument it is anything else?

Now, I'm just as guilty as the next guy, but what I download is mostly because it is difficult to get elsewhere. I mean, where they hell am i going to get the latest Claire's Birthday album? (CB is an Estonian band).

More elitist bullshit. It is either ethical or it is not. If you cannot figure out how to get that album without "stealing" it then perhaps it is not your "right" to enjoy it. Or perhaps you could just try applying some logical consistency to your argument and see how none of it really matters.

It is in fact the job of the government to regulate laws which were put into place, including copyright laws.

That's what courts are for. That's why we draw a line between criminal enforcement, where it is the job of the government to defend, against infringment of their civil liberties, those who cannot defend themselves and civil enforcement, where the government is not expected, nor warranted, to police.

And in either case, when the people have decided the law is no longer just (as they essentially have in the case of file sharing) then it is time for we, the people to abridge or abolish those laws as we see fit.

Yes, anyone can afford to copy a page from a book, but it is illegal.

Not in the US. Sorry for you if this is the case in Australia. Wouldn't surprise me one bit, however, given all the other nonsense that government has been trying to lock down the internet.

If you are caught copying a whole book (by your analogy the whole song/movie, rather than just one second) then you are arrested, fined etc.

Again, I'm sorry for you all if that's the way things are where you live. Maybe you really should consider emigrating to Russia or China?

Here's a link for you, too.

Uh, no. To do that you have to do one of two things: 1) Pull out of the Berne Convention

Right; musn't have that. Pulling out of the ABM treaty, ignoring parts of the Geneva convention, and gutting the verification parts of the biological weapons convention, that's all fair game. But the Berne convention and its IP guarantees, now that's sacred.

Yes. They're doing it now. But not for long.

Even slaves get food, shelter, clothing and medical care -- which is more than a lot of tech workers are getting these days.

Someone will figure out that slavery is a superior system to the current con-game and also figure out a way to use the military against their own populations to enforce it. I think its already started in privatized prisons and their prisoner-labor programs and the exploding rate of incarceration in the Unted States -- however they really do have to figure out what to do about the prisoner rape problem before they can be considered good massah's.

There are alternatives of course, but they require revolution.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

Yeah, I can't remember a day that has gone by where I didn't say to myself, man, I wish I lived in that democratic paradise of South Africa.

It must be hard for the South African border guards, keeping a vigilant watch on the western shores for the American boat people, drifting lazily across the ocean. Pity even more the American refugee, who's only seeking better life for them and their families.

Sorry for the tone, but you had it coming.

WW2 Civilian Deaths ~30 million

Korean War Civilian Deaths ~2 million

Vietnam Civilian Deaths (both sides) less than 400,000

Gulf War I 13,000.

Yugoslavia~500

Afganistan ~3000

~2500

Clearly the number of civilian deaths is dramatically "improving". What most people don't seem to realize is that the philosophy of warefare has fundamentally changed over the course of the century. During WW2 civilians were not avoided as they were seen as an integral part of the war effort, and because there was no way to avoid them if you wanted to (due to inaccurate weapons). In modern day, we have the later, and disagree with the former. Of course, if you are one who believes that the US intentionally kills civilians, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise.

A major function of the US government is facilitating exploitation of US citizens by foreign elites-up to an including systemic abuse of prisoners.

I think I am going to move to the Netherlands soon. The only laws the US seems to be missing are laws prohibiting stupid laws!

You're aware Bush could call for an invasion any time he likes, right?

• Protocol IV to the 1980 convention
• FAS' take on the same convention
• Comment from the Human Right Watch

U.S. ground forces in Iraq are using cluster munitions with a very high failure rate, creating immediate and long-term dangers for civilians and friendly soldiers, Human Rights Watch reported today.

[ironic]
650 liberated civillians!!! just 22,500,000 to go!! Go, go, USA!!!!
[/ironic]

War is Over, if you want it.

when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored

It is the UN's authority and jurisdiction gave us this responsibility (not right) to act against Iraq this week. There are 17 unanimously passed UNSEC resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement of the resolution in the case of non-compliance. Even France voted for this 17 times. The only people who are ignoring the UN are those who refuse to enforce the 17 resolutions that require the UN to act.

you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction

Come on! Listen to yourself and this ridiculous stance you are taking. There is no dispute that Iraq had WMD -- it is a plain and simple fact. The UN resolutions required Iraq to destroy these weapons in the presence of UN Observers. Saddam waffled on this for 8 years and eventually kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and for the past 4 years (until last December) he had absolutely no supervision on his weapons program. You are insanely arguing that he secretly disposed of these weapons on his own even though he knew he had to provide proof that they were destroyed, and has been hiding the evidence even though he knew he would be attacked because of it. Give me a break!

In reality, he is harassing the UN inspectors, and has even killed his Missile chief because he didn't want the UN to pry any secret information from him. Does this sound like the actions of an innocent man who has already done everything we asked him to do?

they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago

President Bush talked about the people of Iraq in his first state of the Union address 14 months ago. Amnesty International has been talking about the people of Iraq for years, as had the Human Rights Watch. If you have not heard people talking about the people of Iraq, it's because you haven't been listening.

the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.

Ah. We get to the root of your argument. You are not anti-war, you are anti-capitalist. In fact, the entire anti-war movement appears to be motivated by political idealology rather than any kind of respect for peace or humanity. Otherwise we would have seen protests in the street when Clinton was bombing passenger trains in Kosovo and lobbing cruise missiles towards Iraq and Afghanistan. The deafening silence from the left when Clinton was in office doing the very same thing speaks volumes for your motivations today. You don't care one bit about Iraqi civilians or peace, you just don't like President Bush and see this as an opportunity to undermine his presidency.

I'm sure you have heard the oil rebuttals many times, but I'll give it another shot. Opening up the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves will only do one thing: cause oil prices to plummet. The US oil companies don't get the Iraqi oil because it has already been earmarked by the UN for the rebuilding of Iraq. The only thing the US oil companies get is a 30% reduction in revenue when oil prices drop.

Besides, if the US wanted to seize the worlds oil supply, why haven't we done anything in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Kuwait (I mean, we already have troops there, and they don't have any mustard gas or VX waiting for us)? Or why didn't we do it in Iraq 12 years ago?

Hmm, let's see, what country is chair of the UN Human Rights Commission?

Ah yes, that would be Libya, one of the worst human rights offenders in the world today.

Now why exactly should the world entrust an International Criminal Court with unlimited powers to prosecute whoever it wants to?

If it isn't hijacked and perverted by countries like Libya, it will be dominated by the US. Either way, its decisions will not be respected.

Agreed. According to Human Rights Watch the numbers of civilian dead couldn't have exceeded 2500 to 3000. Probably much lower.

The allies admits to two strikes that killed civilians. One was a technical failure on a British RAF smart bomb that hit a market instead of a nearby bridge. Since it was a technical malfunction, and the target was legitimate no blame was assigned.

The other was an intelligence failure. An air attack on the Al-Firdus command and control bunker. It was thought to be a legitimate target. A military command and control bunker. But for reasons that as far as I know are still unknown today, there were civilians in it. Several hundred of them were killed. General Chuck Horner, the Allied Air Component Commander during the gulf war (in other words he ran the entire Air War) talks about the incident in the book he coauthored with Tom Clancy Every Man A Tiger. He goes on to say that they should have asked harder questions. It had a low enough priority that it wasn't hit until the Air War was nearly 4 weeks old. He argues that if it was that low a priority, then did they really need to hit it? He makes good arguments for *why* the mistake was made, and he admits that it was a combination of factors including an allied intel failure that led to the tragedy.

Look, nobody likes war. But sometimes it's necessary to end ongoing suffering. I hardly agree with Bush on anything. I question his motives. But I do think Hussein has had this coming. He's a tyrant, and there are more parallels between him and Hitler than most people realize. The Allies in the Gulf War took more precautions to prevent civilian casualties than any other force in any other war in history. And they were largely successful. The technology of smart bombs allows us to do that. This isn't WWII or Vietnam. There's no REASON to carpet bomb and endanger civilians. And it's just plain wrong. I hope that this war ends quickly and that casualties are kept to an absolute minimum. The Iraqi people have certain human rights. And they're not getting them living under the rule of Hussein.

I don't agree with Bush's motives. But the liberation of Iraqi people is just the right thing to do! How can we be against that?

They say the U.S. "can't be the world's police force". Maybe. But I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. It's like walking by someone who's drowning in a river and saying "I can't be the river's lifeguard". Are you responsible for saving the person? No. But I think that you're morally obligated to do everything in your power to help. I see no reason that this logic shouldn't scale up to nations. If there is suffering and one nation can help to end the suffering, they *should* take action. Using military force, economic aid, disaster relief personnel, whatever. But sort of like a Hippocratic oath, it's important that whatever actions are taken not cause more suffering than they eliminate.

General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War's Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace." (thanks to Wyatt Earp (1029) for the quote). It's true. That's the only legitimate reason to go to war. And hopefully that's what we'll get with as little loss of life as possible.

I only wish that our current President hadn't botched things so badly that we have virtually *no* international support. Other Presidents would have acted differently. G.H.W. Bush understood the importance of building a coalition. Clinton certainly had his finger on the pulse of the international scene and he was a competent diplomat. Reagan liked to act unilaterally, but he wasn't a bat-shit crazy cowboy when he did so. Carter would have found a diplomatic solution, or at least he would have put so much effort into finding one that nobody would ever be able to question the legitimacy of going to war. I just think that this is embarassing. Hussein definitely needs to go, but I wish there were someone else to do it other than a G.W. Bush.

"At the same time, we are reasonably confident that the total number of civilians killed directly by allied attacks did not exceed several thousand, with an upper limit of perhaps between 2,500 and 3,000 Iraqi dead. These numbers, we note, do not include the substantially larger number of deaths that can be attributed to malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care caused by a combination of the U.N.-mandated embargo and the allies' destruction of Iraq's electrical system, with its severe secondary effects (see Chapter Four)." -- Human Rights Watch. The quote is in the intro.

Note that we bombed a country back to the stone age for 2500 to 3000 civilian casualties (and caused about 3000-3400 there).

Ok, that's the introduction, here we go:

First, let me state that the alternative to war is not to do nothing. It is to do things more constructively, build rather than destroy.

Let me also state that I'm not in the "it's the oil" crowd. I think Bush honestly believes that he is on a God-given mission as the World Leader to save the world. But I didn't elect this moron, and neither did you. Unelected leaders are dangerous, regardless of who didn't elect them... :-) Especially when they're fanatically religious...

First, a bit of history: US officials visited Saddam in 1984, to restablish diplomatic ties, as Saddam was in a war with Iran, this was a great opportunity, and these officials saw no reason why they shouldn't establish diplomatic relations. Well, of course they knew that Saddam had been a despot since he seized power in 1979, and they knew full well that he had used chemical weapons against his own population as well as in the war against Iran.

But, what the heck, this war against Iran, that had to be supported, regardless of some puny WMDs. The delegation leader's name was Donald Rumsfeld. Yep, these guys are old pals. Cool, eh?

Where were you when Amnesty reported that Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis when your current defence-head shook hands with him?

The problem with Saddam had been much easier to solve if the US had put some pressure on Saddam in 1984, rather than supporting the dictator. The US gave him the position he now has. And guess what, dictators sometimes have their own agenda. Who would have thought?

OK, so you can argue that old mistakes are no reason to stand down now.

True. But you have to realize that you have to do things differently than you did before.

Well, what happened in Kosovo, that's an example of the success of intervention? Well, I don't know about the murder rates right now, but the number of killings before and after the bombings were pretty much the same. No real improvement. Strengthen democracy? They can't even elect a president now, because everybody thinks that the whole thing stinks and nobody shows up at the elections. Yep, we'll just bomb some more in 50 years when tensions rise again. Slobo was thrown out? Sure, but at the 11th attempt. With Slobo in power, Yugoslavs tried to throw him from power over and over again. The silence from the rest of the world was overwhelming. Nobody cared, nobody listened. Half a million of the elite who were at the forefront in trying to overthrow him left the country in dispair. If they had been given just a little support, the whole catastrophy may have been avoided. As it is now, it is just a matter when the region explodes again.

If Saddam had actually had WMDs that were a threat, then urgent action may have been needed. But the evidence put forward by US administration sucks badly. It consistently falls apart on examination. Besides, it is backed by blatant lies and misinformation, that has no other purpose than scaring people. Such as "given enough high-grade uranium, Saddam can makes nukes within six months". Well, yeah, I'm a physicist, and I can do that too, but I wouldn't need six months!

At the same time, the same mistakes are committed over and over again. There are some of republics of central asia that are not democratic at all. In fact, they are highly oppressive. Even, it may be getting worse while we're watching. But, because they're now "allies", we're looking the other way, instead of supporting those working for democracy. It's the same story over again. It is the same reason why the US supported Iraq and Saddam, why they now support the oppressive regimes in particulary Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. They're only making it worse. Are you looking the other way now, because you president says that you should? Then please don't come shouting for bombs in 20 years from now!

It is time to think things over, and take a different path.

There is a huge, well-educated middle class in Iraq, and they are the key to overthrowing Saddam. Making sure that these people can start thinking about politics again rather than worrying about getting food on the table or a US bomb down their chimney is probably the best thing you can do to forward democracy in Iraq. They allready have to worry about Saddam's agents, so removing a couple of worries can only be a good thing. The problem is, Saddam knows it, and his power is now so well established, supporting those is going to be really, really difficult.

There's another path. Iran has made huge progress lately, pretty much in spite of US efforts. Most of the Iranian population is really young, and they don't want to take any more bullshit from the old moronic fundamentalists.

There is also a bunch of forward-thinking academics, who is not afraid to challenge the theocracy, and many internationally minded scientists.

Not long ago, Iran joined CERN. Yep, that's the european nuclear research organization. Those who are thinking "nuclear, iran, scary!" are missing the point, and need to RSFH (read some f* history).

Empowering these people in Iran is very likely going to light that candle of democracy in the region that Bush is talking about. Without bombs, without a war. Without USians becoming subject of hate all over the world. Without sacrificing human rights, like pretty much every US intervention has done in the past. It is going to bring about change made the people themselves, it is going to empower people in the entire region, possibly in the entire world to bring about change. It is what can make tyrants tremble.

You know, there are success stories when it comes to peaceful transitions, take Guatemala for example, Bolivia had also an extremely corrupt and violent government but popular uprising did the trick there. To some extent, the wide attention that South Africa got helped the transition there. Military action is not, and has never been the only way. But looking the other way, has never helped.

You're going to spend something like $50 billion on war, very likely. Imagine what you can do with those money, if you instead make an investment in empowering the people who wants to see change?

That wasn't cool man. Thanks to your comment, he's been declared an "enemy combatant" and has already been returned to solitary confinement. Of course, I would hope that a Slashdot comment wouldn't be enough evidence to hold you without access to a lawyer... BRB, gotta get the door...


Human Rights News

maybe animats wants to use a truck as a cruise missile.Remote controlled car bombs have been tried before

Why not spend more money on *preventing* war, in stead of *fighting* war?

I don't mean to shave my beard, throw out my peace sign and stop puffing on my bong, but just because the U.S. stops "killing", doesn't mean that people we care to protect will stop "dying". Just look at this crap: Human Rights.

Since these guys are hiding behind a wall of "government", then it requires war to stop crime. Yeah, announce all of your U.S. conspiricies in reply to this message, but that doesn't boil down to reality. The reality is that some people irresponsibly wield a destructive weapon and have gathered so much hatred for others that they are so willing to use it at anytime. This needs to be stopped, whether the country has oil or not. BTW, did Serbia have oil?

Anyway, I'm probably gonna get shot down on this one, especially with /. and all. So, if anyone has the same opinions as I do, help me out with more links.

Interestingly, the case has some relevance to current news. Mudd's supporters complain that, as a citizen, he should not have been tried in a military tribunal in the first place. Bush is claiming the right to hold people like Abdullah Al-Mujahir as "enemy combatants". There was a recent ruling upholding the Bush position, but I can't find it on Google, sorry...

Caste violence, Gujrat, etc:

Here

VJP, the current prime minister has been trying to force his parties Hindu fundamentalist agenda and it is working. They have successfully led to the genocide of thousands of peasants of non-Hindu religious decent.

Caste violence, Gujrat, etc:

Here

VJP, the current prime minister has been trying to force his parties Hindu fundamentalist agenda and it is working. They have successfully led to the genocide of thousands of peasants of non-Hindu religious decent.

China is the new America.

Really?

http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html
http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/nasia/china/
http://www.hrw.org/asia/china.php

Or you could listen to the Chinese government propaganda...
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/zhuanti/Zhuanti_ 29.html

Yes, of course China could claim jurisdiction. We've already tangled with a list of countries on free speech issues.

If so I hope China doesn't go after a US citizen for running a pro-democracy journal.

I hope they do. That would be a case worth fighting. The Communists versus the Americans -- it would be like a Rocky movie or something. The US itself is supposed to be a pro-democracy journal.

To be serious, the brutal Chinese gov't treatment of Tibet, the Falun Gong, internet surfers (a few are believed to have did in police custody), Tienamen Square, even tax evaders (death penalty!) collectively are overwhelming, yet out trade and other entanglements with them discourage our official protest. Details and details.

To give you an idea of the trade issue, I'm trying nearly in vain to find sneakers not made in China (there are a few).

No, I'm not trolling.
Where do you take those things? 97 percent on west bank under PA control? Gimme a break. There are areas A, B and C and only area A is under full PA control.
For some reason Kofi Annan thinks different, btw. he's UN chief (maybe you need some citation or proof?)

As for 3 million people living in west bank and 1,2 million living in Gaza strip, they are NOT citizens of Israel and they have basically no rights.

This crime of being jewish on PA lands is some new kind of blood libel? Are you aware that such knowing lies can be punishable crimes? What about Ha'aretz reporter Amira Haas, who lives in occupied West bank?
Here you find last childs killed by israelis, you can search for more yourself.

The ratio of israeli vs palestinian children killed is similiar - about 1:3. For totals check Btselem.

The problem with this discussion is that one of us is underinformed or maybe just hostile. The facts I have brought are widely available and easily confirmed, but you just don't care. So if you think ignorance is strength then there's no point in discussion.

It is virtually impossible to parade infront of you the Chilean family living next door to my apartment. What I know about Chile under Pinochet is from their experience...a Chilean nationals experience, not a westerner living in Chile during that period.

But your comment of the righteous Pinochet who is revered by Chileans is laughable to say the least.

Why dont you just google on Pinochet and look at the results?

Also please dont assume that corruption is the root cause for the ills of many developing nations. Look at Saudi Arabia...though it is not one of the developing countries, it is largely immune from corruption due to its barbaric justice system. The examples you give supporting dictatorial regimes and lack of corruption are best comparable to the present environment of Saudi Arabia.

I also hope you are not one of those oil company executives who lived in Saudi Arabia who knows the "ground reality" and is not an armchair analyst.

Actually most of the stoners, get busted for pot, loose thier right to vote forever. (most states)

Nothing like haveing millions of people in the USA who cant vote. Hell in my state alone, 24% of the Black population cant vote due to Felony Disenfranchisement Laws. And it wont change with all the Republicans in office.

human rights watch has more info.

You probably mean "...countries that have not done anything, except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants that warrent[sic] an attack."

Well, damn. I'm glad to see that only Iraq ever does those things.

Hail to whoever has the bigger guns.

But ofcourse, one must judge yourself before [2] one can judge others.

Usage of these weapons is actually restricted by international treaty. The reason is that high intensity light systems could be used to permanently blind the foot soldiers, and that is considered unsportsman like warfare. Sorta like the way nukes are considered unsportsman like too! But lasers, like any other bright light, does't just kill people. They can blind them, and permanently too. That is considered to be off limites. Now melting the armor on a vehicle is fair game, and if you happen to be looking in the laser and manage to not get your skin instantly burned (not likely), but you go blind; your fair game cuz you were sitting on an legitimate target (the armor vehicle). But swooping down on populated areas, and then sweaping the crowded areas with bright lights is bad.

The treaty was a bit unclear, and unfourtunatly I don't have the deatials, but as I recall it might be offlimites to use the laser to blind enemy pilots too. As in shining the beam inot he cockpit of the enemy jet! I guess it depends ont he situation, and the combat senarios.... but we are realyl treading new ground here!

Guilty of hypocrisy over Iraq? Little known fact is that despite all the bitching from Washington about the lack of inspectors in Iraq etc, they don't allow UN inspectors into some American sites either - and we KNOW that America has weapons of mass destruction, so shouldn't they be monitored too?

Since Bush came to power, America has ripped up more international treaties and conventions, and ignored more UN conventions than the rest of the world combined in the last 20 years. Examples: kyoto is the biggie of course, but america also attempted to dismember many other international bodies

America is steadily isolating every single ally it has. Even the British government is seriously split on the issue. It apparently refuses to listen to anybody except big business, and has firsthand told the world that it will not do anything for the environment if that might mean harm comes to the American economy. They acknowledge the science and even agree with most of it (the rest of the world long ago agreed with all of it, but hey) - yet they still refuse to take action.

Bush preaches free trade as the means of saving the world. Yet he has imposed massive trade barriers to protect inefficient American industries.

The administration is prepared to invade another country pretty much without evidence, and without any political backing from anybody else at all. If the US can invade Iraq because Bush doesn't like Hussein, why is Iraq invading Kuwait bad?

You obviously know little of Islamic history. Today, perhaps you have a point, though I disagree still (look at Algeria, Morocco for example - hardly democracies but not the bastions of torture and genocide that Turkey has been over the years. And while these places were hardly free, open, and democratic, Egypt, Iraq, Iran were all more progressive regimes than present-day Turkey before the US got involved mucking around with their internal affairs. The fact is the US doesn't want democracy in these countries, because democratic regimes might allow the people to decide how much to sell oil for, and, more importantly, whether to develop different ways of modernizing their societies. The fact is that tyrannical Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia are good for US economic interests. If we really wanted a "regime change" in Iraq we would have supported the Iraqi democratic opposition - which existed and was quite strong and credible - back in 1990 after we got pissed off about Kuwait. But we don't want a regime change; we just want a different dictator to deal with (in one state dept official's words of the time, we want "an iron fisted junta without Saddam Hussein."

OK if we start with the really big fish (Iraq and Iran, for example), though?

Actually, Iran is modernizing and democratizing, or at least it was before we put them in the "axis of evil." And Iraq is small potatoes. They had zero to do with 911, and they're in no position to do anything but sell us cheap oil and bitch about their sovereignty being violated by no-fly zones. It's a terrible regime, and Hussein is a miserable thug, but I could say the same of our ally Musharraf. The really big fish is Saudi Arabia, and we won't stop kissing their asses until America wakes up and begins to see past all this clash of civilizations bullshit. It's not a clash of civilizations; it's a clash between rich powerful men who cynically manipulate the populations they rule.

Many reporters have highlighted Wan's work in raising awareness about HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, - and also Gay & Lesbian rights in China. CPJ also highlight Wan's role as a webmaster - and as a leading critic of Beijing's neo-fascist Information enviroment, and cult-like Pledge of Self-Discipline Yahoo!

CPJ concerned about safety of Web publisher

Wan Yanhai is a courageous man - our thoughts are with him, Su Zhaosheng - his wife, and his family.

Read: The Great Firewall of China, by Xiao Qiang, Executive Director, HRIC - and CPJ's Asia Research Associate Sophie Beach, from the L.A. Times of August 25, 2002....

http://www.aizhi.org/ [aizhi.org]

Starting testing...

Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.

Testing complete for http://www.aizhi.org/.
Result:

Reported as accessible in China

Tested at request of Greg Walton,
China's Golden Shield, Corporate complicity in the development of surveillance technology in China Le bouclier d'or de la Chine

Open Source Intelligence

Http://go.openflows.org [openflows.org]

Related stories:

Where is Wan Yanhai?
China's most prominent AIDS activist has been "disappeared" - believed to have been detained by the police, relatives and human rights groups said yesterday.

China Net Spies

...there was recent evidence that state censors had removed the blocks on some banned Web sites to see who tried to access them. "The reverse-trace route monitoring we do on a regular basis shows a surprising number of interesting sites that were once blocked are now going through, but with anomalous traffic signatures, suggesting some systematic surveillance of sensitive sites. Perhaps the PSB [Public Security Bureau] is trying to learn more about surfing habits," he said.

The "Great Firewall" is failing
Beyond the Great Firewall - from censorship to surveillance
Gartner: China's Internet Strategy: Struggling to Maintain the "Great Firewall"
China, Nortel, and the Net

or Ethan Gutmann's Who Lost China's Internet?

if you're still interested.....Chapter Two of the private RAND study published Tuesday, "You've got dissent"offers an authoritative analysis of the evolving, multi-layered counter-netwar strategies deployed in the PRC -> increasingly redistributing the focus of the so-called "Great Firewall" from the International Gateways, through the ISPs and out to the cybercafes [;-)cracked versions of these filters available], the possibility of .cn ISPs setting policy on individuals' firewalls in offices and homes

Endnotes: Zi Xiang Mao Dun

P2P geektivists could note a parallel decentralisation of resources in the Future Trends section, in Chapter One for more on innovation at the Edge of the network:

"Dissidents, Falungong practitioners, and other activists in the PRC and abroad may increasingly turn to emerging peer-to-peer technology to exchange information."

All this augurs a mighty struggle deep indside China's networks in the coming years, but with China sending dissidents to mental hospitals a culture of self-censorship is probably the gravest challenge to free experssion.

Note to CowBoyNeal,language barrier: this installation has problems with Chinese charcters - there'd probably be people out there who have modified SLASHcode to handle Chinese UNICODE, and perhaps publish automatically to USENET, Freenet etc.

they'd probably also find time to translate this thread.

i'd like to go on, but some government employed s'kripty in Yunan's is busy thinking he can backdoor my network - its not an ethical thing - its the aesthetics i've got a problem with...so crude, juvenile. I'll leave you with a final link

Choise Linux - a billion Chinese can't be wrong

I wonder, given China's record on Human Rights, whether the Linux community will find itself in a similar situation to IBM?

What you been smokin, boy?

This is only one example of US rights trampling.

Not to mention getting raped by Bubba. American prisons turn a blind eye to this, and there have even been American TV commercials, paid for by government, pointing out that if you break law X, you'll get raped in prison. These incidents are not prosecuted at all, and by some reports are actually encouraged.

Aside from that whole hyperpollution issue and vicious totalitarian Communist corruptocracy and miserable population health and the wholesale violation of basic human rights, freedoms, and dignity, CHINA ROCKS!! WOO! GO eCOMMERCE AND TELEPHONE TECHNOLOGY!

(sidenote: Funny how the two most vicious sadistic empires on Earth are on the exact opposite sides of the planet.)

A little light reading material, for those who like their moral outrage straight-up: http://hrw.org/asia/china.php

and another perspective on China in case the phrase "human rights" sounds a little too pinko faggot for your finely-tuned intellectual sensibilities... http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8289 .htm ...

May whatever runs this stupid universe have mercy on the poor people in that godforsaken nation.

In the same manner, news regarding Colombia also has to be taken with a grain of salt. Just like the corporate sponsors of the ITAA have an agenda to push lies onto the front page of dice.com etc. for the IT employers who pay them, in the same manner there are corporations who have an interest of portraying a certain image of Colombia in the media, as well as lobbying Congress - which has sent over $2 billion in military funding to Colombia in the past two years. That's a lot of firepower. My point is, if you are not pretty familiar with Colombia, you can bet that the news your hearing was pushed there by someone with an agenda, and the perspective you hear is one-sided. Anyone who gets to know more about Colombia will realize this is the case, that things are not what they seem.

As far as America going into Colombia with military force...this is just insane. The US has given over $2 billion in military aid to Colombia in the past two years. And they burned right through it and just got more. Who are we giving it to? What are they trying to preserve? Is sending the US army going to help? The US army sent a drug czar to Colombia, James Hiett. Guess what happened? He got busted for drug smuggling You want to send the US military into Colombia because American consumers purchase narcotics from there? That's like China sending it's army into North Carolina because the farmers there are growing a deadly narcotic (tobacco) and shipping it to China. The US and Britain used to ship opium (heroin) to China - China decided to ban the import, so Britain, aided by the US, went to war with China during the opium wars in order to bypass the Chinese government and continue selling opium (heroin) to Chinese citizens. Thailand actually wanted to not import America's deadly tobacco drug recently, but the US had GATT force Thailand to import it (or face economic sanctions) - shades of the opium war! We're pressuring countries to import our deadly drugs, but you want to invade a country where drug imports are already cracked down on due to their illegality?

And why the focus on Colombia? The US gets drug shipments from many different countries, some in Asia, why so much news about COlombia recently? Why are supposedly top secret reports from the American intelligence community being leaked to 2nd rate magazines like Business 2.0? These leaks are no accident, there are people in the US with an interest - a financial interest to see that this tap of taxpayer money flows to Colombia, which has been averaging about $1 billion a year, keeps flowing, and maybe even have taxpayers subsidize the US army going down there if their current puppets can't maintain control. The US has a long history of fucking the Colombians, going back to the beginning of the "Panama" Canal days. Panama was part of Colombia until 1903. The US was negotiating with Colombia for the canal land but didn't like the price so the US decided it would be cheaper to take the land than pay for it. They set up and backed a violent secession movement which immediately afterward signed a deal giving the US canal land rights forever, and 11 years later the canal was open for business.

The reality is the US getting militarily involved in Colombia because of drug trafficking is ridiculous. The reality is Colombia is oil rich and the nowadays the owners of the US oil companies are anxious to have oil reserves in areas "under control" outside of the Middle East, for one thing. 201 trade union organizers or leaders were killed (or "disappeared") in Colombia in the last year alone. That's a massive, massive repression, being done by the far right-wing paramilities, primarily the AUC, which has strong ties to the government and business community.

The situation is complex down there, but one thing is for sure - the US is NOT going in there primarily to stop drug trafficking. FARC is said to be a terrorist group, but they are so large, control so much land and have been around so long, that they're more like an army than a small terrorist group. The reality is that Colombia has been engaged in a civil war for many years. FARC actually had a ban on drugs and forbid people in areas it controlled to grow drugs for a long time - all of the drug traffickers were allied with the far right. At some point, I forget when, FARC, the far left group lifted the ban and started "taxing" drugs in the areas it controlled. The reality is that the far right and AUC, with their friends in government and the military, have had a grip on the drug business for decades, and FARC is fairly new to the scene in terms of drug involvement. And of course, it is primarily the FARC-associated drug trade being attacked, not the long-standing AUC drug trade with close ties to the government and military

So I ask myself - why is $1 billion of my tax money going to Colombia to buy arms every year, sent to a government and military heavily involved in drug trafficking and with close ties to terrorist groups like AUC? Why are the oil executives and hawks pushing for even more military involvement in Colombia? Do I want to see young guys called up or drafted to go down and die in Colombia? It's ridiculous. I'm pissed off that they are sending so much military aid down there, but the people who want it have a small majority in Congress. Especially since the side we are supporting is heavily involved in drug trafficking itself, along with murder, torture and atrocities. Human Rights Watch documents the close ties the government and military have to the AUC, who the US State department classifies as terrorists involved in drug trafficking, and you can find more information about this on the web. You can't really understand how brutal these places are, and how bad US corporations and the Pentagon can be, until you visit these places. I'm perturbed that my tax money is going $1 billion a year to help fund this continued bloodshed, if the US does start going in more heavily, I will become even more active in trying to prevent this from happening. Maybe your dream will come true and the US will invade and then some Colombians will fly airplanes into the Sears tower or bring some of the fun going on down there up here. Thanks a lot, you people are very good at wasting my tax money, and sending working class American kids off to die in foreign land for no real reason that will benefit me, the country or the majority of people down there or up here.

"Which is all very well, except that Christians and Jews aren't flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants."
here's the deal, now repeat after me.... PEOPLE kill people. seriously. just because our current crop of killers happen to be muslim doesn't mean anything about it compared to other religions. througout history, christians have massacred people in *FAR* greater numbers than Muslims have ever done. no muslim ever said "kill them all and let God sort them out." (pope urban vi, on what the crusaders should do when they took constantinople). and the holocaust? all the christians not only the ones in germany slaughtering the jews, but the rest of the world quietly saying "see no evil hear no evil," including the catholic church.
and the bombers in israel? why don't you find something out about them before you spout your mouth off, because the majority of them are motiviated by a desire for freedom in their homeland, not religion. how about the 18 year old not particularly religious honor student who blew herself up?

"I have to say that I've also been a little disappointed by the failure of the Islamic community here in the US to condemn such actions..."

yeah, well i'm a little disappointed by the US government not giving a shit about the innocent civilians slaughtered in jenin, so we'll call it even.

and before anyone goes off on a "The Qur'an says fight them all etc etc" rant, allow me to point out that all fighting sanctioned in the qur'an is of a purely defensive nature, with well defined limits. 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah, those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." If you want I could find the links for the limits (not harming civilians etc.) but i don't think it is necessary
(for the record, IAAM (I am a Muslim))

As someone who left Islam, I know from experience that I am not dead

If you were in Afghanistan then you *would* be dead for converting away from Islam. Last time I checked the United States didn't have Sharia law, it has weak beauracratic Christian law imposed by heavy-handed oppressive cops (why the heck were tanks used against WTO protestors I mean *tanks* if Tianneman square happens in the United States it's OK but not in China, hypocrites). The US is far from perfect, but still it's far closer than a *lot* of countries, like China massacring Tibetan monks, jailing Falun Gong Tai Chi practitioners (WTF??) and Brazil torturing and killing poor people for being well, poor, and you thought medicaid was bad. Do you believe the women on rawa who get shot for walking without their husband beside them => were whores could have said, "But I'm not muslim" as a defense. The countries that implement Osama binLaden-type Islam and need to be nuked: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE. Read this

People converting from Islam were warned they will face the death penalty in an edict issued by the Mullah in January.

Non-Muslims have no right to worship in open areas, and can only do so in places assigned to them, AFP quoted Wali as saying.

An order to Hindus to wear yellow colors was introduced a few years ago in Kandahar, the center of the Taliban's main power base in the south of the country, though it was only partially implemented, Wali said.

The dress code is aimed at non-Muslims, particularly Hindus and Sikhs, being spared when religious police squads order shops to close and herd people to mosques at prayer times, AFP cited local press reports as saying

Which reminds me my neighbour from across teh street lived in Egypt 30 years ago. There was a crisis involving the Americans, I couldn't make out what it was because she broke down crying. All Americans and British were warned to leave the country, but the warning came too late. After Friday prayers, after a furious speech by the Imam, hundreds of muslims poured out of the mosque looking real pissed, a British man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, several muslims grabbed his right arm and leg, several more his left arm and leg. They pulled and tore him apart, severing his limbs. He died. She broke down crying again so it was difficult to make out, but it was something like because the mobs started looking for all the Brits and Americans so they broke into her flat with machettees looking for non-muslims to kill, but fortunately she had anticipated this and had sought refuge in her neighbour's flat. The next day she and her British husband left and claimed asylum in the UK.

More recently my friend whom I've known since I was 5 was supposed to go to India and Pakistan with his good good friend who was so nice to him called "Sheikh Omar" - yes that one, I know 2 people that went to the same school as Sheikh Omar. In India they were supposed to meet with my friend's Uncle, a Brigadier in the Indian army. There was a last minute cancellation and my friend couldn't make the flight. If he made that flight he'd be dead, and would be on the Daniel Pearl decapitation video (available for download on Kazaa). He's already informed the FBI and given a full report so this is on the up and up.

So the next time you suggest that I'm "just quoting from Google" you might want to think again. After all you have to know what you're looking for to find what you're looking for unless you try the "Are you feeling lucky?" button.

Many people on /. know people that died in WTC, well I indirectly know the people that actually did it. Small world, eh? I think think this makes me qualified enough to comment on the evils of Islam's most popular implementation.

As for who created these problems and the history of the Taliban, Mujihadeen, native American Indians, British, French and Spanish(wipe out the entire Mayan race WTF???) colonisation, yes it's an unfortunate truth that every colonial nation has committed heinous crimes against many others, except for Tibet, Hinduism and Buddhism, the three most dissed religions. Immigration has worked because the immigrants' religions were malleable, Hindus would go screw it and eat American beef steaks, Scottish immirants would forget haggis and eat Pizza Hut, multiculturalism was working so well... until Islam came along. In my office canteen a woman wearing a bhurka was sitting there saying I shouldn't eat pork, one of our managers replied, "If you don't like pork, the airport is that way". I'm glad to see the native culture is adapting to resist Islam in this way, the same way Picard treats a Klingon completely different than anyone else. Before the British divide and conquor techniques were used these types of militant muslims didn't exist. Ultimately Britain is to blame for WTC by segregating Hindus and Muslims in India by creating a feedback loop especially in the muslims by telling them they were "outnumbered and repressed". But then without Britain's colonistaion would America exist at all?

You speak about corporate rule, and yet the SEC knows that if it doesn't regulate them these corporates will destroy themselves, just look at Enron. Better the devil you know.

In WW2 Winston Churchill knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl harbour, but they didn't tell the US because they knew that the average US citizen doesn't know or care about anything unless NY gets nuked or something, so that's exactly what you got. This is why bad stuff keeps happening to the US, maybe you should have a complaints box at the white house which actually makes a difference, but then that's not possible because it'll never get more ratings than WWF. Don't believe me? Well OK where's the USS Nimitz right now? Where's the USS Kennedy? Where's the S. S. Essess? Which one's the odd one out? Heck I don't even know, the only time I'd notice a big international event is when somebody gets nuked or the world trade centre falls down, even now. This is why I'm pretty sure a lot more peope knew about WTC before it happened than are owning up now.

Do you know how many innocent afghani citizens were killed while "radicals" were purged? I'll bet you can give me exact figures for the number of Americans who were killed

Well Islam is strong and that's why people don't want to hurt it. Loads of Hindus die, who cares? CNN is blaming the Indian government for the dead people in Gujurat. How did this start? 2000 muslims surrounded a train and burnt everybody alive. How dare the international media tries to blame the hindus? That's like the (RI|MP)AA making computers illegal and then being surprised when there's a civil war. Oh yeah geeks are sissies like hindus so if computers are made illegal geeks'll just rant on /. and that'll be the end of it. If (RI|MP)AA kills RMS in an "accident" EFF will collapse, he's irreplacable, his moral viewpoint is unique. Only stupid people attack Klingons

Just leave Google alone and actually go talk to people, and maybe you will learn that Google doesn't have all the answers. Live a little, and you might discover that even you are not capable of being perfect, even though everyone tries (Americans, Canadians, and Muslims included).

So, why is it libel for the Hartford Courant to report that a public official has had a lawsuit filed against him? Especially a public official that is running such a contreverial system?

This libel suit is just one part of an ongoing battle, one between the police/prison industry, and the general public.

If you are interested in Virginia's prison problem, including the so-called "supermax" prisions, and the insane shit that goes down at one of them, check out the following sites.

Committee to end the lockdown at Marion (old)

Drugsense

Human Rights Watch

November.org

In Virginia, prison is a big business, we import criminals to fill our prisons, and it's used as a source of revenue. On-duty cops are paid state funds to lobby the state legislature for harsher laws. Police, as a organized group, should not have a political voice, they are supposed to enforce the laws, not create them.

I'm no liberal, I believe in strict enforcement of sane laws. But when you have police writing the laws, to protect and expand their own industry, it does not serve the public's best interest.

1. "IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
2. 
   WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
   DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
   POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE..."

Well, here's a commentary on that, and here's another. Another look at a Chinese project suggests that political problems can surmount any level of technical ability.

A counterpoint, no more to the very 'over-simplified' statements above:

• Bush thwarting FBI investigation of Bin Laden family could have *contributed* to 9/11- BBC greg palast
• Terrorism in Iraq definitely should be in the news - BBC - HRW
• As for the Israeli attacks in the west bank, it's a sad situation, but to say that Israel is dealing with terrorism is like saying the holocaust was Germany's way of dealing with Jews not leaving the country when asked - ie an OTT reaction that flippantly disregards the history of the region - so you're happy invading Iraq over ignoring UN resolutions, but also happy to ignore Israel when they do the same?
• Ah the Saudi Regime - our favourite dictators! But that's OK, because they let US troops stay there. Dictators are only a problem if they can't be used to US advantage - I forgot. Good dictator, bad dictator.

Life is so much easier when everything is either Black or White, but I prefer a world of many colors - even if it is a bit harder to focus.

sigh

.02

cLive ;-)

> So let me get this straight - you think I have been brainwashed by watching TV but you know the truth.
> May I ask where you learned this truth? Was it from TV? Was it from a newspaper? Do you honestly think
> the press in your country is fair and impartial but the press in mine isn't? It sounds like you have been brainwashed.


> May I ask where you learned this truth?

Sure! I read around. I went to a library, I read some history books. I spoke to people living in countries
like Israel over the net. I had the fortune to speak to a holidaying Isralie in person on New Year's.
He didn't have a good thing to say about the US. He was happy the towers fell like a cheap tent.
For the record he didn't like Palestinians, or the war between the two Races.
And yes, he'd served time in the military.

> It sounds like you have been brainwashed.

Yet I'm the one who's got something to say apart from "Kill terrorists, the US rocks, if you disagree you're obviously
wrong!"


> Where exactly are you talking about? Saudi Arabia?
> Do you think we erected any bases without permission?

I'll concede here. I couldn' find out much about US military bases in the 20 mins I spent looking.
My personal opinion, however, is that your military presence in many countries is unwelcome and resented by the common
populace.



>No, I don't we are innocent. But I do think that we try to be good.
> What separates me from you is that I actually vote for people who I think
> will make the right decisions in my name regarding our relations with other countries.

LOL. I'm 20 and I've voted in about 6 elections all up, 1 of them a federal election another 1 a by-election.
I feel I voted for the most responsible candidate, that's what elections are (technically) about.
Contrary to popular belief, the US isn't the only country on the planet to have democratic elections.
Hell, isn't it true that 25% of your citizens vote in elections ? Over here, (Australia) it's compulsary.

What seperates you and I is blind Nationalism.


> I know it doesn't always work but what else can I do?
> The point is I try to do the right thing.

Agreed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you, yourself do a thing, apart from vote every now and then.
You could give blood, you could give money, or join the Red Cross or some other charity organisation.
Odds are you've got a job and a life though, which rules these out. In that case you could educate yourself
and your friends on *why this all happened in the first place*.

> The terrorists on 911 did the opposite - the tried to kill innocent people.
> Doesn't that make any sense to you?

Does it make sense to me ? Yes it does. Those people were not innocent of electing governments.
Governments who,by their actions brought this upon themselves and their citizens. Why was the US attacked
and not (not so great) Britan, Iraq, Canada or some other country. Consider that.

They may be extremists and Terrorists, but the world works on cause and effect.
That they use brutal, 'underhand' tactics is part of terror warfare, they don't have large organised armies to
mount an assault with.

> What would you suggest we do in response???

Hold an international summit on US foreign policy ? Oh that's right, you're above peer review.
Rooting out and destroying the Taliban was logical. Now there are wars in the Israel area which you support.
Making an effort to solve these problems beyond 'killing all threats to US citizens' might help too.
Stop screwing over so many countries, weather this be through trade sanctions, supplying arms or whatever else.


>I definitely think you are the one who is brainwashed.
Keep telling yourself that mate :o) In the meantime, get an education.

General Links
Why is America Hated in the Middle East?
ATTACK ON AMERICA: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (Professor Ali Khan,Washburn University School of Law)
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers


-- Human Rights Links --
U.S Foreign Policy and Human Rights
Organization of American States human rights panel opposes Bush policy on POWs
Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights and the Drug war.
Afghan prisoners arrive in Cuba
Amnesty International USA