Slashdot Mirror

Congress has passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (local) against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and others. A military deployment has begun. Russians think we will have a Sea of Bloodshed and others have said this will be worse than Vietnam. Frankly, I'm scared. This may be highly tacky; but I would like to know what kind of military devices we may have that would be both effective against terrorists and yet accurate (not like the gulf war) enough to avoid innocent casualties. And what about those ten million mines?

According to the Washington Post, last Friday Barbra Lee (Democrat from California) said on the house floor: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." More details are below, copied from here.

...

The Solitary Vote Of Barbara Lee
Congresswoman Against Use of Force
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page C01

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."

She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.

"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "

Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.

"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."

She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.

"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.

She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."

War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."

This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."

Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "

"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."

Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."

"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."

Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."

Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.

On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."

Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.

Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."

But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.

"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."

Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."

On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.

"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."

Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.

"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."

She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."

Oh and I wouldn't put too much stock in outside governments not changing their laws to match. Most of them would love to and the current mood is that there are only two sides available in the fight against terrorism.

The Washington Post has a very nice article about the only member of the house who voted against the grain last week.

...

Congresswoman Against Use of Force
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page C01

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."

She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.

"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "

Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.

"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."

She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.

"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.

She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."

War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."

This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."

Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "

"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."

Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."

"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."

Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."

Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.

On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."

Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.

Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."

But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.

"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."

Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."

On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.

"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."

Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.

"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."

She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."

The Washington Post has a very nice article about the only member of the house who voted against the grain last week.

...

Congresswoman Against Use of Force
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page C01

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."

She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.

"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "

Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.

"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."

She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.

"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.

She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."

War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."

This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."

Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "

"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."

Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."

"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."

Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."

Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.

On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."

Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.

Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."

But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.

"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."

Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."

On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.

"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."

Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.

"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."

She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."

Sorry didn't put the url
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/crime/A33994-2 001Sep14.html

At least according to The Washington Post's Frank Ahren. The Radio Listener says: Despite yesterday's Internet rumors, Clear Channel has no official list of songs that must be pulled off the air.

Not true. 1.58 million votes were never recounted even once. You're just repeating one of the many, many lies the Bush campaign told that month.

There were also a lot of people who lost their right to vote because they were wrongly labelled as felons by a private company Kathryn Harris hired to scrub the voters lists.

And then there were all those illegal absentee ballots, some postdated as much as a week after the election, that did get counted. The only way Bush could have won is if all these scams were pulled off successfully. Amazingly, they were.

Maybe you can explain further how ignoring the subversion of our democracy equates to "growing up"? I just can't see the connection.

Sadly, no. Approximately 1.58 million votes were never recounted even once . Not even through the legally mandated automatic recount.

The Bushies did every manoevre they could to prevent the counting of votes. I think we all know why.

I'm not making a suggestion just an observation. Calling this a war means a lot of things. I would rather live my life free and in danger rather then captive and safe. Its a fantasy to believe that we can fight a war against a faceless and formless enemy, win that war (by proving a negative), and all the while uphold the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. During every war fought by the US, various rights were suspended.

To fight this war, America needs to suspend Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment , and suspend the "peacefully assemble" portion of the First Amendment.

There really is no solution that will maintain the ideals that The United States has stood for. The Vice President has already discussed getting down and dirty with the terrorists, playing at their level and I agree that this is the only way that we can fight them. There is no going back. We are plunging into a new world, unstoppably. The USA, as we have known it for the past 225 years is slipping away. There's little we can do about it. What we can do is be sure that our new world that arises from these ashes is a world that we would want to bring new children into. So long as the First Amendment stays in tact, at least free speech and press, the only thing we can do is point out what is going on and maintain our vigilance or start looking for our telescreens and find a place to hang a wall sized picture of George Bush.

I fully expect to be lambasted for this, but even as one who has said "you can have my PGP when you pry it from my cold dead fingers", and as one who understands how quickly the minions of ObL can switch communication methods, I think the "fight the man" attitude is selfish, ignorant, and in the long run, a position which will fail in the marketplace of ideas.

I condemn those who would outlaw strong encryption products. These people (including elected officials) are ignorant and they would throw out the baby with the bath water, as many have pointed out.

I also condemn the comments made by those who say "aw shucks, 5000 deaths isn't so bad... X people die from Y each year." Those who make such comments are both insensitive and ignorant. They are insensitive to the pain felt by tens of thousands directly affected as well as those who, like me, take these attacks very personally in spite of not knowing a soul who perished. If for no other reason, the fact that I lived in Manhattan for 9 years makes my blood boil at comments like these.

Those who dismiss the importance of this event have failed to grasp one essential fact about the various individuals and groups who have allied
themselves against the U.S. That is, they will stop at nothing. If you think 5000 is acceptable, then next time it will be 5000000, if these SOBs get their hands on a nuke. Would that be OK with you? These people will only stop when we kill them. I refer you to the Washington Post, which has plenty of interesting and compelling information and commentary by people who are in a position to know. For starters, I suggest the transcript of a chat with Vernon Loeb: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01 /nation/attack_loeb.htm . These comments underscore my personal belief that there is nothing the U.S. can do to appease these terrorists, because what they desire is the extinguishment of the "light on the hill" represented by the U.S.

Another in-depth viewpoint is offered by Robert D. Kaplan, who has spent considerable time visiting the trouble spots of the world, including the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.h tm

Now, to my main point. There is a wealth of technical and creative talent here at Slashdot. In my naivete, I somehow thought that even the radical
uber-Libertarian chic here would be blunted by the enormity of last week's events. I figured that maybe, just maybe, these events would unleash a fury which would turn towards fighting the bastards who did this, rather than childishly clinging to yesterday's anti-government paranoia. I somehow hoped that people here would be as outraged as I am, and that they would sign up to use their skills (in their own idiom) to find these SOBs and to protect the U.S. from future attacks, just as countless citizens did after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hah! What an idiot I was to believe that.

Look, I'm not real comfortable with the govt reading my electronic transmissions either. I strongly believe in the 4th amendment. I am well aware that the FBI (aka "Famous But Incompetent") has been a poor custodian of its already considerable powers, and has been quite spotty in its investigatory competence, as the Wen Ho Lee investigation showed.

But, my belief is that if you want to preserve *any* of your rights to electronic privacy, you should moderate your viewpoint. Only children maintain the fantasy that no negotiation and no compromise is necessary. I challenge the /. community to devise an effective response to the events of 11 September. This response should not simply be "no compromise in the defense of our privacy rights" which incidentally did not have any effective means of enforcement until PGP 1.0. Rather, it should include technical assistance to help protect U.S. safety AND ALSO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Thank you!

P.S. -- I wrote a letter to my Representative proposing that all DEA agents be re-assigned to keep track of those on "watch lists", such as two of the hijackers who somehow eluded the FBI.

I condemn those who would outlaw strong encryption products. These people (including elected officials) are ignorant and they would throw out the baby with the bath water, as many have pointed out.

I also condemn the comments made by those who say "aw shucks, 5000 deaths isn't so bad... X people die from Y each year." Those who make such comments are both insensitive and ignorant. They are insensitive to the pain felt by tens of thousands directly affected as well as those who, like me, take these attacks very personally in spite of not knowing a soul who perished. If for no other reason, the fact that I lived in Manhattan for 9 years makes my blood boil at comments like these.

Those who dismiss the importance of this event have failed to grasp one essential fact about the various individuals and groups who have allied themselves against the U.S. That is, they will stop at nothing. If you think 5000 is acceptable, then next time it will be 5000000, if these SOBs get their hands on a nuke. Would that be OK with you? These people will only stop when we kill them. I refer you to the Washington Post, which has plenty of interesting and compelling information and commentary by people who are in a position to know. For starters, I suggest the transcript of a chat with Vernon Loeb: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01 /nation/attack_loeb.htm . These comments underscore my personal belief that there is nothing the U.S. can do to appease these terrorists, because what they desire is the extinguishment of the "light on the hill" represented by the U.S.

Another in-depth viewpoint is offered by Robert D. Kaplan, who has spent considerable time visiting the trouble spots of the world, including the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.h tm

Now, to my main point. There is a wealth of technical and creative talent here at Slashdot. In my naivete, I somehow thought that even the radical uber-Libertarian chic here would be blunted by the enormity of last week's events. I figured that maybe, just maybe, these events would unleash a fury which would turn towards fighting the bastards who did this, rather than childishly clinging to yesterday's anti-government paranoia. I somehow hoped that people here would be as outraged as I am, and that they would sign up to use their skills (in their own idiom) to find these SOBs and to protect the U.S. from future attacks, just as countless citizens did after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hah! What an idiot I was to believe that.

Look, I'm not real comfortable with the govt reading my electronic transmissions either. I strongly believe in the 4th amendment. I am well aware that the FBI (aka "Famous But Incompetent") has been a poor custodian of its already considerable powers, and has been quite spotty in its investigatory competence, as the Wen Ho Lee investigation showed.

But, my belief is that if you want to preserve *any* of your rights to electronic privacy, you should moderate your viewpoint. Only children maintain the fantasy that no negotiation and no compromise is necessary. I challenge the /. community to devise an effective response to the events of 11 September. This response should not simply be "no compromise in the defense of our privacy rights" which incidentally did not have any effective means of enforcement until PGP 1.0. Rather, it should include technical assistance to help protect U.S. safety AND ALSO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Thank you!

Yes, enlistment inquiries SOARED the day after the attack (Wedensday Sept. 12), to something like four times the normal level. This is true across the country, not (just?) in New York. Here's a link to an AP Story which was linked Wednesday on the Drudge Report, which has had very good links to breaking stories throughout this whole ugly affair.

I truly wish there were a hell for these fuckers to rot in. Call me flamebait, I don't really care.

• On September 11, someone allegedly threatened the president with codes indicating inside knowledge of the president's whereabouts. If this story true, it means there is a traitor somewhere at a high level in the administration. If it's false, it means that the government is deliberately leaking false information, in an attempt not to make the president look bad.
• There is some evidence that there were warnings of the attack:
  Security heightened at WTC, Bin Laden warnings, State Dept. advisory
  Echelon warnings
  Israeli intelligence
  San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown
  A crazed Iranian in Germany
  A US army base in New Jersey
• Circumstantial evidence of the US training terrorists.

So why is it unreasonable to speculate about the US government?

There's an interesting article in the Washington Post about how to attack a decentralized network of terrorists and how most of the tactics aren't really all that new. Check it out here.

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this.

The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

How can the ./ editors sit there and bitch about privacy and civil liberties (which pretty much don't exist in this country anyway) when five thousand people are dead

Because more people die from other means, and we don't talk about suspending civil liberties for those.

How many people died from AIDS in 1999? The answer is
10,000. Ten Thousand, which is again nothing, because 2,400,000 people have died of AIDS since 1982.

I have felt the pain of losing someone from Spet 11th (I used to work for one of the companies that was in the WTC), and I've also lost a friend who got aids from being raped. In my opinion both of which were horrible ways to go.

I think this thing causes so many to be horrified because the deaths happened all at once. Think about your mundane airplane crashes and how people react to those. More people than on a typical plane die every year in auto-accidents, but no one makes a big stink about additional regulation of cars.

religion can just sometimes serve as a suitable excuse.

Skyshadow's implication here is spot-on. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous... the arrogance that comes from believing that your way of life is so much superior than mine that it gives you the right to impose it on me often turns deadly. I don't suggest for a moment that we should launch a pre-emptive strike on those two gentlemen's persons.... but bombing the bejeezus out of their credibility is something every sane American should do every chance they get.

Let'em talk... but make sure they're the poster children for the Fool of the Month Club.

A recent Washington Post article talks about government's efforts and issues with telecomuting.

I like the idea of telecommuting, and as a sysadmin do a fair amount of work from home; however, there are security concerns with extending trust out to Joe Average's machine at home that need to be dealt with before rolling out telecommuting for everyone.

I think akamai could have handled the load without any problem what so ever. My primary mainstream media source all day Tuesday was The Washington Post becuase it was the only page that would load reliably. It was very obvious as soon as you clicked into any of the links that this site was akamaized.

Speaking of religious fanatics, we have our own here in the US:

God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming the events on liberals, feminists, etc. etc. etc.

Here are some such people.

From the Washington Post article George Bush Sr says:

But I went to CIA at a time when CIA had been criticized properly for some things, but unfairly attacked for many things that it shouldn't have been attacked for. And what happened out of that period was that many of our human intelligence sources dried up. If they see there is some muckraker going out to CIA and considering everybody out there as doing something bad or naughty, and if they see the names of our intelligence sources released, those sources dry up.

And so, human intelligence is kind of a dirty business. And in it, you have to deal with unsavory people. People tried to make a lot out of the fact that at one point the intelligence community dealt with Manuel Noriega. Well, they did, but it isn't a nice, clean business. And if you're going to infiltrate some cell somewhere or a terrorist cell, you have to deal with people that are willing to betray their country, people that are willing to betray their friends, people that want money or other things. And it's not pleasant.
But if we're going to provide the president with the best possible intelligence, we have to free up the intelligence system from some of its constraints. You have got to always respect the privacy and right of an American citizen. But I think they ought to take a hard look now at whether we've gone too far in denying the people that run the intelligence community access to human intelligence.

You know, you can tell a lot from science. When I was president, during the Gulf War, they could tell me exactly how many troops were where on the front lines. They could say which direction they were moving. I remember getting a thing from Saddam Hussein via Gorbechev saying, ``Well they're pulling out.'' Yes, they were pulling out of where they were, but they were going south toward Saudi Arabia. We could tell that from intelligence.

But what we couldn't tell is the intent. And the only way you can measure intent in intelligence is if you have human intelligence, if you have people that are really willing to risk their lives for a cause--and sometimes they'll risk it for noble reasons, you believe in democracy and freedom--and sometimes they risk it for more selfish reasons like money or women, you name it.

And it's not pleasant, but I think we're going to find that we have to do more in the way of human intelligence and that means we're going to have to take a broad look at exactly what constraints the intelligence community, not just CIA, but the community itself, is operating under.

And I think it's important to recognize that all this new Internet technology that you guys know so much about has to be reviewed, in a sense, to see whether we're constraining our intelligence communities from getting after the culprits that may be American citizens. It's not pleasant.

I remembered this masacre of Palestinian refugees by Phalangist Militia and the controversy about the complicity of the Israeli military at the time.

I decided to refresh my memory about this episode before responding and found a recent story about this from the Washington Post:

JERUSALEM, June 24 -- Nearly two decades after an official Israeli investigation found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian refugees in Beirut, new calls are being issued to try him for war crimes.

Sharon's Actions In 1982 Massacre Stir New Debate

I had originally intended to respond saying that those accusations had never been proven. They still haven't but I think the thrust of my intended reply would have been incorrect:

No one has ever been indicted, tried or convicted for the September 1982 killings in Beirut. At least 700 Palestinian refugees were slaughtered at the camps; some estimates run to more than 2,000. Among the dead were women, children and the elderly, some of whom were tortured, disfigured or raped before they were mowed down with machine-gun fire.

The killings were carried out by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied with, and in some cases trained by, Israel. The militiamen, known as Phalangists, had been at war with the Palestinians in Lebanon for years, and detested them. Their passion had been stoked by the assassination of their leader, Bashir Jemayel, the newly elected Christian president of Lebanon.

Soon after the Israeli army took control of West Beirut, Sharon, who had overall command of forces in Beirut, authorized the Phalangists to enter the camps in search of Palestinian guerrillas. The militiamen found few guerrillas, but in a rampage that lasted nearly three days, they killed civilians by the hundreds.

Sharon maintained that he "never imagined" the Phalangists would go on such a killing spree. But the official Israeli commission of inquiry said that knowing the Phalangists' violent history and the tensions brought about by Jemayel's assassination, Sharon should have realized the probability of a massacre if the militiamen entered the camps. The commission also said Sharon and other Israeli military figures failed to react quickly and decisively to halt the massacre after the first reports of killings.

...and I agree with your point that neither 'side' is blameless

From the recent poll on the Washington Post:

11. Would you support or oppose new laws that would make it easier for the FBI and other authorities to investigate people they suspect of involvement in terrorism?

Support: 92%
Oppose: 6%
No Opin: 2%

12. What if that meant giving up some of Americans' personal liberties and privacy---in that case would you support it or not?

Support: 71% (less liberty for more security)
Oppose: 24%
No Opin: 5%

Ben Franklin said something like... those who trade liberty for security will loose both.

As reported in today's WashPost Style Section, The Coup has changed the artwork.

washington post

The Post has extensive coverage of the Pentagon operations.

Thanks for the story, now it's clear why the Pittsburg plane crashed...and some more info on the actual occurences...

and here's a nontracked and clickable link

The Washington Post has two webpages showing a listing of all the businesses in the World Trade Center, sorted by name, but also showing which floor each business was on, both Tower 1 and Tower 2. Interesting to see the non-US companies listed there, but more grimly relevant for gauging survival probabilities of friends/acquaintances/loved ones.

--LP

The Washington Post has two webpages showing a listing of all the businesses in the World Trade Center, sorted by name, but also showing which floor each business was on, both Tower 1 and Tower 2. Interesting to see the non-US companies listed there, but more grimly relevant for gauging survival probabilities of friends/acquaintances/loved ones.

--LP

Would you be willing to give up some of the liberties we have in this country in order for the government to crack down on terrorism, or not?

The results may surprise you. Remember the (FDR?)quote -- "Those who give up a liberty for convenience deserve neither"? (not accurate, but too tired to look it up)

• Every single traditional news outlet basically failed yesterday, and if it weren't for mirrors of such sites' data, we wouldn't understand the events of 9-11 as clearly.

Man, I don't think Slashdot can claim responsibility for most of online America and a good bit of the rest of the online world simultaneously hitting every news site.

The washington post is still responding and has updated their front page with a picture of the collapsed tower. I think they're hosted on Akamai.

I got the NYT login page for the article, but I didn't log in. Globe and Mail and Canoe are two Canadian news site still reachable from where I am.

CNN seems to have a stripped-down front page that's now struggling to stay up.

The LA Times is now reachable again from where I am, and has a different angle pic before the tower collapse.

My university is a long way from NYC (I'm in Canada) but some of my friends are leaving to go home and watch the news. I know that in the context of pain and suffering world-wide, this is a small event, but it is still a horrible tragedy and a sad, sad day for those whose loved ones are victims.

Christopher

This post is a little stale by now, since Slashdot's database seemed to take a hit too for a while, and I went home to watch the tv coverage myself, but I'm posting anyway just for posterity.

CNN, MSNBC, and Washington Post have all trimmed their UI's to make the sites load faster...

FYI: Good luck

CNN

MSNBC

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/webcam s/eyeondc.htm - just got the idea to search for webcams and I found this one aimed at the Pentagon. You could probably find many more out there from http://www.webcam-index.com/USA/ or something like this site.

• New York Times
• Washington Post
• Washington Times
• CNN and CNN Goggle Cache
• The Times of London
• Wall Street Journal

My review of news sources: CNN's site seems to have the latest info, if you can reach it. NYT has more info on WTC (duh), and WP has more news on the Pentagon (duh again). Times of London has an excellent synopsis.

Can you belive this ?!?!?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/2001 0911/aponline114906_000.htm

> - Thousands of Palestinians celebrated Tuesday's terror attacks in the United States, chanting "God is Great" and distributing candy to passers-by, even as their leader, Yasser Arafat, said he was horrified.

A third plane has appearantly crashed into Pentagon. The story is on washington post, and here a video of pentagon burning.

D

the washington post has a photo

equality

economic sustainability

true, community-based & participatory democracy

environmental preservation

Blind Justice

Economic 'fairness', modern riches should be shared by all in a reasonable manner. True economic equality is an unmanageable burden (simple administrative problems) but no person should be able to steal $5-10-200 million while people starve all over the world, people toil in dangerous jobs, people don't have access to basic medial treatments. Its disgusting and inhuman.

Insert other social-justice issues here that arent being addressed by the worlds governments, instead they race to the bottom in their service to their undemocratic corporate masters.

This is anarchy - Anarchy does *NOT* mean chaos. Anarchists assert that governments, of all manner, are oppressors. Some people have an issue with being oppressed - thankfully some of us (myself) do feel it reasonable to accept the reasonable bounds of community in exchange for security (vs. mad-max lawless-ness)
or at least immaturity at its best. - Thats pretty cynical isnt it? Never mind having goals, accept and exploit the present condition for yourself, you cannot change the system. Everybody sing: I fought the law and the law won... Does this make you comfortable? It sickens me to no end. I will not end the struggle until the world is as i wish - I may be wrong in some respects, but I am principled. I will not die an lonely, empty shell of self-serving greed.

Why would I join people like that?

odds are our *goals* are the same, the methods to achieve these goals are what is at debate. It is easily provable that the present 'free-market Capitalist system is failing to deliver the goals of the majority, it should be adjusted significantly to afford everyone the ability to meet these goals. There is no reason to let 99% of your country to suffer while a few become increasingly powerful and wealthy.

These sorts of regulations and increased intrusion of the government into our lives will be our downfall

This is a very unique American perspective - you do realize, that your government, if it wasn't so corrupt, and your neighbours (as yourself) weren't so complacent to this corruption that it would truly be a democratic and responsive body. ONLY BECAUSE YOU fear and loathe it does it become as it is now. When your democratically elected officials have widdled away the 'bounds' that it can operate, when it has sold enough of itself so thoroughly, when Private, Moneyed Interests declare the rules - and you have no legal recourse - will you understand that your government is a collection of your neighbours, meaning to exercise their will (and yours) and that a 'Corporate Government' is none at all. Americans will, if they havent been completely zombie-ized by television and the Consumer-ism Religion's lies - start another revolution. Be certain that the status quo will be as one voice opposing these heretics... the question is will the fathers of the next revolution be able to break through the apathy and fear of the public (of this future) and be able to engage these people with 'other-than-self-serving and grand' ideals... the same ones that started The First American Revolution.

No, it is you who is delusional.

Every looked at this whole "mess" from that angle ?

are you suggesting that I am manufacturing this myself? well, maybe... but dismissing it offhand, as you attempt to, by suggesting I am paranoid is a little flippant, no? My point (in this case) was that your rulers are not 'open' and 'accountable' as a democratic body should be... why do you accept that they keep secrets? Who are they keeping them from? for instance,have you been paying attention? This is an EXACT example of the problem that I was addressing.... Am I making this UP?

A Washington Post article about this stated that a new and seperate company would be spun off. It also noted that AT&T already has a 25% stake in AOL Time Warner.

This merger with AOL may be a step in the right direction, by creating a company that is again focused on a single product line and that is backed by companies with significant resources. Could this step be the the one that puts cable broadband service back in the right direction?

Having been a Cable customer since 1997 I have seen my cable service provider aquired three times already. Back then I subscribed with Highway 1 when there were undoubtedly less than one thousand subscribers. While the market was growing, service continued to improve. Now broadband seems to have become a commodity and service has deteriorated.

One can only hope that by creating a more focused company, and one that is back by deep coffers, that this might just be what the industry needs.

Here's a three page article which appeared in the Washington Post Magazine about a month ago. More in-depth then the 60 mins one and goes into the some details about the problems facing The Agency in the coming years... Washington Post NSA article

This story sure makes this article much more understandable.

read the story here

they had about 5 police cruisers carrying these camera/radar guns, and one stationary one at a street corner.

just like red light cameras that have been in use for a couple years or so.

Salon
Cnet
The Economist
Washington Post
National Post (Includes trial timeline)
NY Times
Globe and Mail
and heh.. MSNBC

According to this Washington Post article, Cheney's son-in-law is now running the MS case.

• "Eller was in ACT, the advanced consumer technology group, which [Nathan] Myhrvold had recently set up. Gates had decided to make Microsoft the first software company with an internal division fully dedicated to advanced research. It would serve two purposes: to develop add-on products for Windows, and, as analysts have often speculated,
• to absorb some of the company's outrageously high profits, and thereby, ideally, lower the potential for further government scrutiny. Since 1988, prosecutors had kept Microsoft staked out as if they were the Gambino family, a trend that would only intensify as time went on." (rest of chapter one here)