Slashdot Mirror

What Jackson actually said was, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Please note that name. Marshall was the first jurist to argue that the Supreme Court could review the actions of other branches of government. In 1830 this concept was still controversial. Now it's universally accepted. Recent presidents ignore the Court at their peril. Eisenhower enforced court orders he empahtically disagreed with. Nixon was forced to obey an order that cost him the Presidency. FDR, probably the most popular President in history, couldn't even get away with adding friendly judges to the court.

This is great, man some of the passages seem like they are straight out of the mouth of Ashcroft's critics. Anyways, here is the link to the original article, in case you need some better sourcing than just the usenet url.

This story in the Globe and Mail smacks of an earlier and very similar one I saw months ago on the Discovery Channel about a "sunken city" found off the coast of Japan, with "geometric structures, pyramids, and symmetries". Can't find the link to it now, but here's another link about the same site, with pics (he's gone overboard with some illustration & speculation, but you get the picture). The point is, a geologist visited the site and concluded that they were just naturally-formed blocks and structures. Being in geology myself, I can say with some certainty that structures with sharp edges, pyramids, or other seeminly man-made geometries can form on earth and on other planets. This may quite possibly be the case with this discovery in Cuba.

But the important thing is not to jump to too many conclusions of "Atlantis", "6000 years old" or "Rise, Cthulu, RISE!! "; I noticed that my compatriots investigating the site are being cautious in their wording, which is excellent. I wish them luck (and funding); interesting that this is one opportunity that US groups have lost out on because of the typical US government stance towards Cuba.

Netaid, part of the UN Development Programme doesn't offer work abroad, but uses the Net so you can work locally to help those abroad. A lot of the assignments are more oreinted toward research/advocacy/education, but there are tech needs associated with those things too: sysadmins, DBAs, Web developers, etc. This is part of the UNDP's Information and Communications Technology division.

Global Technology Corps is run by the US Department of State and sends people abroad to build LANs and such.

Trust For The Americas sends folks abroad to teach tech, and also to setup the infrastructure -- building networks, etc.

Read and weep. Better luck next time.

Al-barakatt is the Somali version of Western Union - they take money and 'wire' it over to Somalia for delivery. Unfortunatly, the terrorists are taking a cut of all transfers:

US Government View

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01110 71 1.htm

Al-barakatt is an ISP, kind of like how the mafia is a security firm.

I imagine the "Blame America First" crowd it running around gleeful: Look America is crushing open communication in Somalia.

What a shock, who'd have thought that China would have bad Human Rights Practices.

So would it be illegal to report on racist speech (for instance, this U.S. State Department site about bin Laden and his anti-Jewish, anti-American, anti-Israeli, etc. remarks)? Where do you draw the line between reporting and supporting?

The $43 million was not given to the Taliban.
$43 million in aid (cash, wheat, medicine) was allocated and provided to the people of Afghanistan through NGOs and UN related agencies.

Here's my support :

Colin Powell's press briefing [May 17 2001]

Subsequent, detailed press briefing [May 17 2001]

CNN report [May 17 2001]

Salon Correction

The $43 million was not given to the Taliban.
$43 million in aid (cash, wheat, medicine) was allocated and provided to the people of Afghanistan through NGOs and UN related agencies.

Here's my support :

Colin Powell's press briefing [May 17 2001]

Subsequent, detailed press briefing [May 17 2001]

CNN report [May 17 2001]

Salon Correction

Actually, it's miraculous that it's taken this long for the US to be able to coerce everyone into ratifying it. They were having trouble getting the number of countries they needed, so they started forcing lots of developing countries to ratify it by using bilateral investment treaties. As a result, it looks like the treaty will be activated soon...

Example 2

There is no publically available and conclusive evidence that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for Sept 11.

Clearly, you haven't been reading the papers: Tony Blair recently released some pretty damning evidence, evidence that was strong enough to convince Pakistan's ruler that binLaden was guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." (In fact, after being brifed on this info by Sec'y Powell, he said that it should be made public. Blair released it the next day.

Bin Laden is guilty as hell, and there is NO doubt of that. Regardless, the US is under NO obligation whatsoever to subject clear any efforts to bring bin Laden to justice with the Taliban. We can and should go after him directly. WIth international cooperation, if possible, without it , if not. It's time for terrorism to go the way of piracy on the high seas, and there's no other way to do that than to destroy the terrorists continually over a period of decades, until they die out. Unfortunately, the innate violence and hatred of the Islamic faith may make this a long and difficult battle. (Don't be deceived by the current reporting: we have 1400 years of history to prove that Islam is anything but "a religion of peace".)

Elison is offering to put something in place that already exists.

A national ID card program was signed into law by Clinton in 1996. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act included provisions for a National ID card. The card would include biometric info (section 656) and is already on the books. The cards are supposed to be developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation.

Also, check out this great article which draws some Orwellian examines connections between recent technologies and privacy.

Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved than Feared

Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.
...
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred...
--Niccolo Machiavelli

In the case of Hama, Syria, an astoundingly brutal response to fanatical activites was reasonably effective. I found this on the US State Department's web site:

"Syria has been under a state of emergency since 1963. Syrian Governments have justified martial law by the state of war which continues to exist with Israel and by continuing threats posed by terrorist groups (radicals, Iraqi, and Lebanese). The current government has suppressed all challenges to its authority. Commercial and urban elements, whose power and status have been eroded by the Ba'ath Party and its policies, constitute part of the opposition. The most significant opposition, however, has come from fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, who reject the basic values of the secular Ba'ath program and object to rule by the Alawis, whom they consider heretical. From the late 1970s until its suppression in 1982, the arch-conservative Muslim Brotherhood posed an ongoing armed challenge to the regime. In response to an attempted uprising by the brotherhood in February 1982, the government crushed the fundamentalist opposition centered in the city of Hama, leveling parts of the city with artillery fire and causing many thousands of dead and wounded. Since then, public manifestations of anti-regime activity have been very limited."

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy; the citizens have absolutely no means whatsoever to change any aspect of their government. The ruling Saud family practices the same form of austere Islam (Wahhabism) that is promoted by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Is this the model of government that the US is so fond of promoting throughout the world?

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy; the citizens have absolutely no means whatsoever to change any aspect of their government. The ruling Saud family practices the same form of austere Islam (Wahhabism) that is promoted by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Is this the model of government that the US is so fond of promoting throughout the world?

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant(1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Using this definition, cracking is not terrorism, though cracking can be a part of terrorism, just as stealing someone's shirt isn't terrorism, but if you steal a pilot's uniform so that you can hijack a plane to kill the passengers for some political motive, then the theft is one part of the bigger terrorist act.

You claimed that "Malicious cracking is more of a petty terrorism in which lives aren't lost". But that is nonsense. According to any reasonable definition of terrorism, if there is no violence, there is no terrorism. In some very specific rare cases, malicious cracking can be violent (somehow cracking air-traffic controller or hospital computers and purposely endanging lives), but I don't know that I've ever heard of such a thing actually happening.

It might seem like a minor quibble, but if you remove the requirement of violence for an act to be terrorism, and instead say that terrorism is when you break the law to make some political point, you are venturing into very dangerous territory. Because by changing the definition, you are now saying that any political action that is illegal is terrorism, and obviously terrorism is a menace that must be stopped. Remember, the vast majority of socio-political improvements in any country have come about by people who broke laws - in some cases specifically unjust laws, and in other cases, ordinary laws were used as a pretense to try to stop a social movement.

Just remember, just because something is bad doesn't mean it's terrorism, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

Well, at least you researched, but you didn't look closely enough. It's not like the US has been giving cash to the Taliban. The $43 million in May consisted almost entirely of wheat and was distributed by the UN and NGOs, not the Taliban.

Afghan-info.com

usinfo.state.gov

CNN

Personally I don't think that feeding starving people is a bad foreign policy.

I assume you're talking about the Taliban here. After skimming the Dept. of State reports that were listed other places in this long thread (Afganistan, Feb 2001 and Feb 2000) I find myself swinging back toward supporting military action. But I think that it should necessarily be a military-minded campaign. I think a militarily-back, international humanitarian mission would be more appropriate (or maybe I've just watched too much Star Trek). I hope that Bush (or other world leaders who can get his ear) have sense enough to see this too. We can't just go in there and bomb the hell out of the place (the suggestion that we neutron-bomb the place would work, but that would be kind of pointless from a humanitarian POV, and it would really piss off the terrorits and probably start WWIII)

But we can't just bomb the hell out of them, because we don't know exactly who "they" are, and even if we got bin Laden, there's still Hezbolla (sp?) and whatever other terror networks are out there. It might "show them we mean business" and scare them, but I wouldn't count on it. And it would accomplish nothing from a humanitarian POV for the Afgani people. On the other hand, if we took out the Taliban, if that's even possible, it's not clear that the Northern alliance would be able to form a stable government.

The only real conclusion I can come to is that I'm rally glad I'm not in Bush's shoes right now.. But I do think that a humanitarian "solution" of some kind has to be part of this. After we go in, after the war-frenzy fades a bit, what will be left is a world community that will be more aware than before of the sufferening and oppression of the Afgan people.

I assume you're talking about the Taliban here. After skimming the Dept. of State reports that were listed other places in this long thread (Afganistan, Feb 2001 and Feb 2000) I find myself swinging back toward supporting military action. But I think that it should necessarily be a military-minded campaign. I think a militarily-back, international humanitarian mission would be more appropriate (or maybe I've just watched too much Star Trek). I hope that Bush (or other world leaders who can get his ear) have sense enough to see this too. We can't just go in there and bomb the hell out of the place (the suggestion that we neutron-bomb the place would work, but that would be kind of pointless from a humanitarian POV, and it would really piss off the terrorits and probably start WWIII)

But we can't just bomb the hell out of them, because we don't know exactly who "they" are, and even if we got bin Laden, there's still Hezbolla (sp?) and whatever other terror networks are out there. It might "show them we mean business" and scare them, but I wouldn't count on it. And it would accomplish nothing from a humanitarian POV for the Afgani people. On the other hand, if we took out the Taliban, if that's even possible, it's not clear that the Northern alliance would be able to form a stable government.

The only real conclusion I can come to is that I'm rally glad I'm not in Bush's shoes right now.. But I do think that a humanitarian "solution" of some kind has to be part of this. After we go in, after the war-frenzy fades a bit, what will be left is a world community that will be more aware than before of the sufferening and oppression of the Afgan people.

uh, hmm, whuh... I don't think you've done much study on the affairs of Israel. The bottom line is that the U.N. (read U.S. and U.K.) created the State of Israel and to this day they receive more aid from the U.S. than any other country by far. To quote the State Department's website:

Commitment to Israel's security and well-being has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948, in which the United States played a key supporting role. Israel and the United States are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. Continuing U.S. economic and security assistance to Israel acknowledges these ties and signals U.S. commitment.

Mmmhmm. Real good idea, asking an intelligence agency for an informed opinion on the judicial branch. The CIA is not what I would consider an authority on what the United States legal system is.

Why, yes, of course. How silly of me -- everyone knows that intelligence agencies pull their facts out of thin air.

The Federal judge I had dinner with two nights ago, on the other hand, is an authority.

Similarity does not mean ``based on''.

So your argument is, what? That the Americans developed their legal system, which is remarkably similar on a high level to the British system of common law, completely independently?

Linux is similar to SysV and BSD. Does that mean it's ``based on'' either?

travel.state.gov visa instructions

I got this link from
Everything2

Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted (THANK YOU CMDR failed-information-theory-class TACO )

...Dubbya has his finger on the button, and in his other hand is a pen with which can sign into law all sorts of restrictions on civil liberties.

We had damned sure ask, and keep asking, what moral and legal right he has to order death and destruction to be rained down upon the people of other nations; to send American soldiers off to die in the ruins of Afghanistan; and to issue executive orders, and sign into law bills, restricting the freedoms of American citizens.

First of all, as the head of the executive branch of the government, part of the President's job is to lead the military. You ask what legal right he has to order send soldiers off to war? How about the blessing of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 2, sect. 2)? Granted, Congress supposedly has sole right to declare war according to the Constitution (Art. 1, sect. 8, clause 11) , but as of yesterday or the day before, Congress has already empowered the President to act as required. From all indications it would seem that Bush is being smarter and more sober about how and when to use his power than I would expect the likes of Clinton or his would-be Democratic successor to do (Clinton proved himself to be ineffective in this regard). The smartest thing Bush did was to appoint a very intelligent and field-proven staff for his cabinet (who would you trust in a military situation? A four-star general or one of Clinton's lawyers?). People like Powell and Rumsfeld are clearly up to the task of handling the terrorist situation and subsequent ferreting out of terrorists, and I feel fairly certain that Bush is not going to do something stupidly in opposition to advisors who probably know more about how to handle these situations than he does.

On the other issue, I've had this notion that the legislative branches of the government crafted laws with the President balancing that power by signing or vetoing legislation. The exception to this is most notably presidential executive orders, which obviously is a misbalance of power that I and many others feel should not be allowed constitutionally. Nevertheless, they are and have been used by presidents in growing frequency. Most questionable (by some at least) is the way that Clinton used them (more here). The jury is still out on how Bush will ultimately use or abuse them.

Finally, I'd like to say that even though we may have to fight political encroachments on our civil liberties (of which I am as concerned as anyone), the price to enjoy those liberties was paid for by blood. Those who decry invasions of countries hostile to our peaceful and free way of life in order to defend it have no right to those liberties. And their statements of opposition demonstrate a severe lack of understading of the cost of freedom.

We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.

We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.

We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.

Here is the correct link:
State Department Press Release

...if one adopts the rhetorical conceit that this crime is somehow an "act of war"...

They attacked the Pentagon, a military target. If that's not an act of war, what is? Also, Bin Laden's previous targets, such as embassies, are also governmental/military -- fair game in war.

Same stuff we hit when we go to war.

goose.sauce=gander.sauce

U.S. Government charges against Bin Laden

"You've Got War"

Or just do a search for "Ladenese Epistle". This thing usually shows up in three parts. What appears to be the primary site for this document, msanews.mynet.net is not responding as I write.

Try the BBC - they seem to have more info about Afghanistan than just the Taliban - which is all CNN has (they're coverage acts as if the Taliban represent the Afghani people)

e.g. this article - definately worth reading

or for something completely different, see http://www.afghanradio.com/azadi.html e.g. this article written in August this year

For info on the Taliban, see this.

It's not "funding" so much as relief, you make it sound like we're actually paying the Taliban's bills.

For the love of God, please get your facts straight ;

Fact Sheet: U.S. Increases Aid to Relieve Afghan Crisis ($43 million to include wheat, food, health care, shelter) http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/ fact/17may01.htm

And BTW, most of the items you listed have been covered greatly on the news, specially the prejudice against Arab Americans. They've been talking about that all day on ABC, CNN, and even MTV.

I love these kind of posts. Here's some reference material for you:

http://kosovo.info.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/970220.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/ fact/07dec00.htm
http://www.interaction.org/
http://usembassy.state.gov/pretoria/wwwham4f.html

Yeah, our politics overseas is a real killer. Maybe it is you who should be examining your government and media for propoganda. You obviously haven't gotten the full story. Painting all Americans with the same broad brush is the kind of thinking that causes these maniacs to pilot aircraft into large populated areas.

I love these kind of posts. Here's some reference material for you:

http://kosovo.info.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/970220.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/ fact/07dec00.htm
http://www.interaction.org/
http://usembassy.state.gov/pretoria/wwwham4f.html

Yeah, our politics overseas is a real killer. Maybe it is you who should be examining your government and media for propoganda. You obviously haven't gotten the full story. Painting all Americans with the same broad brush is the kind of thinking that causes these maniacs to pilot aircraft into large populated areas.

I find it interesting that this past Friday, (September 7th) the U.S. Department of State issued the following "Worldwide Caution" travel bulletin for the benefit of US travelers:

"Over the last several months, the U.S. Government has learned that U.S. citizens and interests abroad may be at increased risk of a terrorist action from extremist groups. In addition, we have received unconfirmed information that terrorist actions may be taken against U.S. military facilities and/or establishments frequented by U.S. military personnel in Korea and Japan. We are also concerned about information we received in May 2001 that American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization. In the past, such individuals have not distinguished between official and civilian targets. As always, we take this information seriously. U.S. Government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert."

[From: http://travel.state.gov/wwc1.html]

The U.S. Department of State apparently knew that something was up, just not exactly what.

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

Stratfor provides interesting and more complete analysis.

Lax Security One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the World Trade Center towers burning.

If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies think that those who did it would just stop trying?

From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks."

Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S. responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their minds after they consider the following issues:

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives.

Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world. People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses violence, not the people.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.

The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.

The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues. To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.

Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation. It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money, but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily, the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.

On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com], for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.

The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.

When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project [gwu.edu]

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there" [pbs.org]

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile [state.gov]

Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day. I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.

There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.

Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?

The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S. agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security for the money they spent on secret activities.

The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably, spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were killed.

There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.

Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing? No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either. You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities, because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other appropriations.

Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures. Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia. They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example, are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially prisoners of their own country.

Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied with the secret actions of the U.S. government.

As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S. government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of the danger of being discovered.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the answer.

There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods. One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them are far, far cheaper than violence.

The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful. Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing disapproval.

There are many people who support violence because they want to act out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.

Violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com

This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission. Copyright 2001.

Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.

I find it interesting that just this past Friday, (September 7th) the U.S. Department of State issued the following "Worldwide Caution" travel bulletin for the benefit of US travelers:

"Over the last several months, the U.S. Government has learned that U.S. citizens and interests abroad may be at increased risk of a terrorist action from extremist groups. In addition, we have received unconfirmed information that terrorist actions may be taken against U.S. military facilities and/or establishments frequented by U.S. military personnel in Korea and Japan. We are also concerned about information we received in May 2001 that American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization. In the past, such individuals have not distinguished between official and civilian targets. As always, we take this information seriously. U.S. Government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert."

[From: http://travel.state.gov/wwc1.html ]

Okay, carter started the trend and no one went back on it due to the political sitaution. It is a long debate, I am on the phone right now or I would defend myself. I just think that he did indeed start the trend of reducing our intelligence. Call it off-wing but I bet you hear it a lot soon.

On another note check this link out. State department warned about "U.S. citizens and interests abroad may be at increased risk of a terrorist action from extremist groups" and ". We are also concerned about information we received in May 2001 that American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization."

I don't know there are so many factors in something like this it is wrong to blame any one person or group I guess. Anyhow heres a link....

State Department Public Announcement

Jeremy

Not only this but the state department issued warnings about terrorist attacks more than a week ago. Bin Laden was making threats as well, but I put no stock in the Bin Laden thing. The Media is taking Bin Laden and running with him as a thing for most people to focus their anger on (At this point) IMO. He may have done it. You and I cant know yet. Check out this leek. Dated Sep 7th from the state department talking about terrorist activities from extremist groups almost a WEEK ago. Terrorist Warning It even has his name (Osama Bin Laden) in it :(

Jeremy

Q. Could this happen again? Now that nearly every airline passenger in the world knows that hijackers could well be on a suicide mission, mightn't a large proportion be non-cooperative while a few terrorists hijack the plane?

Perhaps this happened on the plane that was crashed into the uninhabited PA strip mine, and which may have been headed toward Camp David. Passengers and crew may have heard of the earlier crashes, and concluded they were headed to slaughter, so they might as well resist. A report that someone called from one of the planes to alert authorities that hijackers had taken over and stabbed flight attendents indicates the hijackers method may have been to take over the plane by disabling those in charge with hand weapons such as knives, and threatening to kill hostages, so they would have been vulnerable to a mob.

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment on the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired this Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there"

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile

Israel is not a girl scout. It has admitted to a policy of assassination (in a CNN article this morning the IDF said they were specifically try to kill a particular person). In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Their settlement policy of seizing Palestinian owned land and then creating settlements on it is not the work of a girl scout. Also, none of Israel's neighbors are listed as countries of state sponsored terrorism

This is not precisely true. A good quick intro is here:

http://www.immigrationlawusa.com/visa.php3

which is not complete, but gives you an idea. You can also see the

US State Department Visa page

which, of course, does not have an easy chart to help sort things out.

And here is the complete list:

Temporary Non-Immigrant Categories

A-1 Diplomatic or consular officers, close relatives *
A-2 Other foreign government officials or employees, close relatives*
A-3 Attendants, servants and personal employees, close relatives*
B-1 Temporary Visitor for Business
B-2 Temporary Visitor for Pleasure
C-1 In Transit*
C-2 In Transit to UN Headquarters *
C-3 In Transit -Foreign government official, family and employees*
D-1 Crewman Visa, shore privileges only while vessel is in port*
D-2 Crewman Visa intending to depart on another vessel*
E-1 Treaty Trader, spouse and children
E-2 Treaty Investor, spouse and children
F-1 Student Visas*
G-1 Principal recognized foreign government representative to an international organization, staff, spouse and children*
G-2 Other recognized foreign government representative to an international organization, staff, close relatives*
G-3 Nonrecognized foreign government representative to an international organization, close relatives*
G-4 International organization officers or employees, close relatives*
G-5 Attendants, servants, or personal employees of G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4, close relatives*
H-1B Specialty Occupations (professionals)
H-1C Nurses in health professional shortage areas
H-2A Temporary Agricultural worker
H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural worker
H-3 Trainees *
I Representative of Foreign Information Media *
J-1 Exchange Visitor
K-1 Fiancee & Fiance of U.S. Citizen *
K-3 Spouse of U.S. Citizen*
L-1 Intracompany Transferee
M-1 Non-Academic Students *
NATO-1 Principal Permanent Representative to NATO and staff, spouses and children*
NATO-2 Other representative to NATO and staff, spouses and children*
NATO-3 Official clerical staff accompanying NATO representatives, spouses and children*
NATO-4 "Officials" of NATO, spouses and children*
NATO-5 NATO Experts, spouses and children*
NATO-6 NATO Civilians, spouses and children*
NATO-7 Servants of NATO-1 through NATO-6 and their spouses and children*
O-1 Temporary Worker of Extraordinary Ability
O-2 Accompanying O-1
P-1 Athletes and entertainment groups*
P-2 Artists and Entertainers under reciprocal exchange program*
P-3 Culturally Unique Artists and Entertainers *
Q-1 Cultural Exchange visitors* (spouses and children can use the B-2)
Q-2 Irish Peace Process Program Participant*
R-1 Religious Workers*
S-5 Suppliers of information regarding crimes*
S-6 Suppliers of information regarding terrorism*
SK1 Certain retired International Organization or NATO employees
TN Free Trade Professionals
V-1 Spouse of Permanent Resident,With 2nd A Permanent Immigrant Family Category Filed Before December 22, 2000*

Temporary Non-Immigrant Dependent Categories

C-3 Spouse and children of foreign government official in transit*
F-2 Spouse and children of student *
H-4 Spouse and children of alien classified as H-1, H-2, or H-3
J-2 Spouse and children of Exchange Visitor
K-2 Children of Fiancee & Fiance of U.S. Citizen*
K-4 Unmarried Child of Spouse of U.S. Citizen*
L-2 Spouse and children of Intracompany Transferee
M-2 Spouse and children of Non-Academic Students*
N-8 Parent of child classified SK-3 ("SK-3" includes certain special immigrant officers and employees of international organizations.)*
N-9 Child of parent classified N-8 or SK-1, SK-2, or SK-4. ("SK-" categories are certain special immigrant officers and employees of international organizations.)*
O-3 Spouse and children of O-1 or O-2 aliens
P-4 Spouse and children of P-1, P-2 or P-3
Q-3 Spouse and child of Q-2*
R-2 Spouse and child of Religious Workers*
S-7 Family member of S-5 or S-6*
SK2 Spouse of SK1 retired international organization or NATO employees
SK3 Certain unmarried sons or daughters of an international organization or NATO employee
SK4 Certain surviving spouses of deceased international organization or NATO employees
TD Spouse and child of Free Trade Professionals
V-2 Unmarried Child of a V-1 Applicant*

Permanent Immigrant Categories-Employment Categories

EB 1st Employment based- 1st Preference Priority Workers: People of Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding
Professors and Researchers, and Multi-national Managers and Executives
EB 2nd Employment based - 2nd Preference Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons ofExceptional Ability (Includes National Interest Waiver)
EB 3rd Employment based - 3rd Preference Skilled workers, Professionals and Other Workers
EB 4th Employment Based-4th Preference Certain Special Immigrants *
EB5th Employment Based -5th Preference Employment Creation Investors
IR Spouses, and Children unmarried and under the age of 21, of U.S. Citizens; Parents of U.S. Citizens, said Citizens age 21 or older
1st Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
2nd A Spouses, and children unmarried and under the age of 21, of Permanent Residents
2nd B Unmarried Sons and Daughters, age 21 or older , of Permanent Residents
3rd Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
4th Brothers and Sisters of U.S. Citizens, said Citizens age 21 or older
LB Spouses and Children of Legalization Beneficiaries*

That about covers it.

- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -

One option would be for Australia to start from scratch with the .as domain name, and relinquish the .au domain to Austria, as drafted in this proposal.

> International law and patents are important yes, but human lives are infinitely more important. Does anyone here get that?

There are lives at stake, and that is of great importance. But it's inaccurate frame Brazil's choice as between saving lives or letting people die. It was an issue of budget prioritization. They were spending close to $82 million annually on AIDS drugs, and felt that was too much. By comparison, they spend $12.3 billion (7.9% of their operating budget) annually on their military. So they could have rearranged their budget and still paid for the drugs. Of course many of their other budget items (and military expenses) involve live-and-death tradeoffs as well...they're in a tough position. But I believe you've oversimplified a very complex issue.

Well, in the last century, the nations have reached some common accepted principles.

Among others, in the civil sector we have agreed upon that children must not work.

Concerning the military sector, we have at least the geneva convention.

Those rules are (more or less) adhered to.

I thought, there were also the NPT, ABM, but some people seem to be more equal than othersOf course, there is research and were several tests on both sides, as comment #191, but both sides have not installed a space-based weapon-system.

Chemical weaponry knocks you dead to, nonetheless the use is prohibited. Even the Nazis obeyed at least this rule as they did not use them in war (Hitler ordered the use of them, but the order was disobeyed)

Laws are often against human nature (instinct), history (slavery/feudal ages/...) and reality. Pray, tell me which law is not.
Thats civilisation.

BTW, here is the Outer Space Treaty.

Now let me guess, which of those other treaties are soon obsolete. I'll bet 1 Karma on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Well, in the last century, the nations have reached some common accepted principles.

Among others, in the civil sector we have agreed upon that children must not work.

Concerning the military sector, we have at least the geneva convention.

Those rules are (more or less) adhered to.

I thought, there were also the NPT, ABM, but some people seem to be more equal than othersOf course, there is research and were several tests on both sides, as comment #191, but both sides have not installed a space-based weapon-system.

Chemical weaponry knocks you dead to, nonetheless the use is prohibited. Even the Nazis obeyed at least this rule as they did not use them in war (Hitler ordered the use of them, but the order was disobeyed)

Laws are often against human nature (instinct), history (slavery/feudal ages/...) and reality. Pray, tell me which law is not.
Thats civilisation.

BTW, here is the Outer Space Treaty.

Now let me guess, which of those other treaties are soon obsolete. I'll bet 1 Karma on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Well, in the last century, the nations have reached some common accepted principles.

Among others, in the civil sector we have agreed upon that children must not work.

Concerning the military sector, we have at least the geneva convention.

Those rules are (more or less) adhered to.

I thought, there were also the NPT, ABM, but some people seem to be more equal than othersOf course, there is research and were several tests on both sides, as comment #191, but both sides have not installed a space-based weapon-system.

Chemical weaponry knocks you dead to, nonetheless the use is prohibited. Even the Nazis obeyed at least this rule as they did not use them in war (Hitler ordered the use of them, but the order was disobeyed)

Laws are often against human nature (instinct), history (slavery/feudal ages/...) and reality. Pray, tell me which law is not.
Thats civilisation.

BTW, here is the Outer Space Treaty.

Now let me guess, which of those other treaties are soon obsolete. I'll bet 1 Karma on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Well, in the last century, the nations have reached some common accepted principles.

Among others, in the civil sector we have agreed upon that children must not work.

Concerning the military sector, we have at least the geneva convention.

Those rules are (more or less) adhered to.

I thought, there were also the NPT, ABM, but some people seem to be more equal than othersOf course, there is research and were several tests on both sides, as comment #191, but both sides have not installed a space-based weapon-system.

Chemical weaponry knocks you dead to, nonetheless the use is prohibited. Even the Nazis obeyed at least this rule as they did not use them in war (Hitler ordered the use of them, but the order was disobeyed)

Laws are often against human nature (instinct), history (slavery/feudal ages/...) and reality. Pray, tell me which law is not.
Thats civilisation.

BTW, here is the Outer Space Treaty.

Now let me guess, which of those other treaties are soon obsolete. I'll bet 1 Karma on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Yeah, I'll probably loose karma for quoting Ecclesiastes 1:9, but it is Sunday, and we are talking about China ... and it's no like we haven't talked about this subject before, even on our beloved /.

Still, for those who thought human rights weren't an olympic issue, just think of how much fun it's not going to be to go the Olympics and attempt to transmit stories and images of the results from behind the Great Firewall. So much for thinking that bringing commerce and communications would have the same effect as the barbarians did to Rome.

Hopefully, some clever hacks out there will figure ways of circumventing, if the price isn't too high. Sometimes I just wonder if we just shouldn't have listened to Patton and MacArthur and been done with the problem 50 years ago ?!