Slashdot Mirror

... 'Fears about the military's role in domestic affairs are unfounded,' Cohen soothingly wrote. 'There need be no fear or foreboding by the American people of the preparations of their government. On the contrary, the greater threat to our civil liberties stems from the chaos and carnage that might result from an attack for which we had failed to prepare and the demands for action that would follow.'

The approach recommended by Cohen, ironically, complements very well the classic strategy pursued by terrorists. Marxist militant Carlos Marighella, whose tactical blueprint has been followed by terrorists worldwide, explained that terrorists attack innocent people in order to provoke governments "to intensify repression. The police roundups, house searches, arrests of innocent people, make life unbearable.... Rejecting the 'so-called political solution,' the urban guerrilla must become more aggressive and violent, resorting without letup to sabotage, terrorism, expropriations, assaults, kidnappings, and executions, heightening the disastrous situation in which the government must act." Marighella went on to explain how this cycle continues until the existing political order is completely subverted, and a revolutionary regime takes power.

The gravest danger presented by today's terrorist attacks is that the effort to find and punish perpetrators will become a war upon the liberties of the American people. Yes, those responsible for the attacks must be found and punished with pitiless severity. But at the same time Americans must demand an immediate end to our interventionist foreign policy, which exacted such a tragic price in American blood on this terrible day.

The problem is not a lack of "proof". The problem is that the British legal system favors plaintiffs in libel suits. Under the American system, the onus is not on the defendant to prove that a statement is true; the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is false. Since the government is refusing to investigate the incident in Tanzania, it would be very difficult for Barrick to prove libel.

Even if Palast and the Observer had "proof", truth is not an absolute defence under British law. This is why holocaust deniers are able to sue for libel when people call them "holocaust deniers". (The holocaust-denying plaintiff lost the lawsuit, but only because the judge ruled his "reputation had not been damaged"; not because of the truth of the defendant's statements.)

You can't accuse corporations run by powerful and *well* connected individuals of murder without proof.

During the Clinton presidency, did people refrain from accusing Clinton of complicity in the death of Vincent Foster, for fear of libel lawsuits? No, because in the US, courts tend to heavily favor the defendant in libel suits, and hence these suits are rarely successful. This is why a plaintiff will attempt to move a libel lawsuit to another country on the slightest pretext.

that'll scare em for sure. china needs most favored nation status so that they can export all their goods to the US.

That's definitely a good idea, and something that should be done sooner rather than later (for many other reasons than just for GPL enforcement). Problem is that American companies are soooooo hell-bent on getting *their* products into the biggest market on earth, they're doing everything they can to keep China's status the way it is.

that'll scare em for sure. china needs most favored nation status so that they can export all their goods to the US.

That's definitely a good idea, and something that should be done sooner rather than later (for many other reasons than just for GPL enforcement). Problem is that American companies are soooooo hell-bent on getting *their* products into the biggest market on earth, they're doing everything they can to keep China's status the way it is.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

Attempting to break up Microsoft only because of what it did with IE is analogous to impeaching Bill Clinton because of his purgery in the Lewinsky affair, but not pursuing more gravely serious matters such as "Chinagate". (And I don't mean this as a troll. My point is that Microsoft has gotten away with much more than what government lawyers have chosen to prosecute about.)