IMHO, no company is going to "pay" for something that they can get for "free". They will if it allows them a say in what direction the development goes.
I can just here the snickering at the board of director's meeting: "Thank you Jack. Wonderful presentation. Glad to see the Tech Department is on track. I have one question about your budget. You would pay $500,000 to the FSF for software that is 'free'? That our competitor can use without paying an equal amount?". This, my friend, is about as far as that budget line item goes, and quite possibly Jack's last day being CIO.
Are you serious? Look at our baseball cards. Nothing more American than baseball cards. I just got back from a Saturn Dealership to have my oil changed and tune-up. I started reading through their sales litterature. Page after page of stats -- 4L,278Hp -- odd nausium. Pick up any consumer report or PC Week. Does PC Week still have those 2 page feature comparison spreads like they had in the 80's? When the PC industry was booming *everyone* used those charts. They were the gospel... unless you were an "IBM Drone".
In fact, I'd be supprised if anyone pays much attention to those feature charts, and if they do I doubt they put much effort into reading and understanding what the features really are.
Those who make purchase decisions for large companies pay attention to this. They even pay for the feature charts (Gartner Group) and other comparative literature. These corporate buyers are highly educated and have considerable influence in the marketplace... far more than your average consumer.
In the mid 90s... [a] word processor... attempted to challenge MS Word... It disappeared from the market in less than a year after I purchased it.
This was not in an emerging market. This market had already standardized. Nothing you can do in this case unless there is a product that is *signifcantly* different. Having a copyright expire may be the difference which would have done it. I don't know.
simply to contribute money to the FSF or similar foundation for the development of the "common good" applications
IMHO, no company is going to "pay" for something that they can get for "free". Sorry. Not unless there is a complete agreement by most of the fortune 100 companies that they will each *donate* N dollars to FSF. This would be politically... impossible?
HOWEVER, a company would *pay* double the price for software that they know expires in 3-7 years where the source code is included and becomes public domain. I'm sure many of them would pay a "premium" to gaurentee that they arn't "locked-in" to a particular vendor as long as the choice is offered in a standard way (that doesn't make the CIO an "idealist").
Right. This won't solve our problem with Microsoft, but it will help prevent the "next" Microsoft.
Imagine if Microsoft found that in '95 they had to put a 5 year copyright limit on Windows '95 and put the source code in escrow with the same copyright expiration date in order for large companies to "get on board". Now, in 2001 we would have had N competitors (IBM, Sun, HP) building from the Windows '95 code base with alternative upgrades. The user community would now have some serious options in the Marketplace. And Linux would have gotten a huge boost.
The above proposal is capitalistic and does not have any government oversight beyond a small additional task on the copyright office. In fact, one can say that it reduces the involvement of government by a shortening a government imposed monopoly. Further, the above system is voluntary and market driven; it alters the landscape of competition by offering new dimentions to the market. It does not interfere with the market. These are its virtues.
Considering that copyright holders can release their work into the public domain anytime they want, what would be the point of that?
Ease, standardization and legitimacy.
Currently a copyright application is for (I believe) 24 years, subject to extension. To limit the copyright, a separate contract is required. This is an extra burden on every copyright filer (and consumer) which can be alleviated with an extra field "expires:..." on the form. If it's on the form, it's legit. Both consumers and producers can grok it. It's a small change. It's optional. It is backwards compatible. And it certainly can't hurt.
How else would you accomplish this? Leave it up to the legal department of each software publisher to spin their own version? Like that would end up with anything that could be compared on a chart... it needs to be simple. After N years, the copyright *expires*... the material becomes public domain.
This could all be done now within the constraints of current copyright law (for example, companies could sign an agreement with a third party such as the FSF or invent some Source Code Vault Foundation.)
Yes indeed. But these organizations lack the legitimacy and level of standardization of the Copyright Office. Also, you now get to enforcement. In short, I think these "contractual" solutions are far more problematic...
Besides, what responsible-to-the-stock-holders business would voluntarily restrict their intellectual property rights?
Yes. If there are 10 products in a market, a company may bet that if they set their price to $500 and put an expiration date of 5 years that may "big" clients would buy their software over a competitor who is offering their software for $200 without an expiration date.
In short, it won't force anyone to limit their copyright; but it will allow reasonable programmers an option that they don't practically have at this time (since it is not standard) This just opens up another "dimention" in the competition spectrum. Right now, with the software I'm writing I'd do it -- in fact, I will most likely do it anyway.
Even if they somehow knew that they were going to go out of business and all their sourcecode would be lost, they probably still couldn't do it.
You're getting to the reasoning why contractual agreements won't work well.
HOWEVER, it would be nice if there was copyright law dealing specifically with legacy software, aka "abandonware". This is a big problem for both business and home customers -- I'm sure that sources exist for all sorts of old programs on disks and tapes in one of the programmer's basement, but they can't be released due to copyright considerations.
Good luck. Copyrighted software is an asset. Upon liquidation it will be treated as an asset. For example, Ashton Tate's Framework source code was sold to the highest bidder -- Selections and Functions.
I struggled with many, many heavy-handed options till this one dawned on me last year. No one can say that it is not a capitalistic approach. It just introduces a new dimention to competition that didn't exist before. No one is *forcing* anyone to use the copyright limits... but with the right publicity this could quickly become the norm.
Thus far, I've not been able to get an audience for the idea -- I've talked directly with a few representatives and two senators about the idea. I live on Capitol Hill, so once and a while I run into one of them, or their legislative assistants. Unfortunately, I don't have the time (money) to lobby for something like this full time or I'd gladly do it.
If you really think it's a good idea... I'll write up a proposal and send it off to the copyright office next month when I get some more time (i'm too busy launching my company at the moment).
While open source is laudable, the problem is that it confuses "free beer" with "freedom", i.e., "gratis" with "free". This is unfortunate. IMHO, we need to think hard about a system that provides "freedom", but does not restrict a programmer from earning a fair wage.
One possible solution, which I've encountered resistance talking to Congress people on the hill is to add an "optional" expiration date on a copyright, and allow the source code to be submitted via electronic media.. Thus, when you submit your copyright you can optionally choose to limit your copyright to N years. Further, the copyright office could "hold" the source code and make it public on the date that the copyright expires.
Americans *love* stats. What would happen if "copyright term" ended up as one of those columns? And "open source at end of copyright term" was another column? In this way we could compete not only on features and price, but also *when* our software becomes public domain. This is a simple solution, backward compatible, and can be implemented by the copyright office without legislation. It just requires the media to notice that copyright doesn't have to last forever and that making one's code open source can be part of the license agreement.
Maybe we can turn the tables on the "capitalists" by creating a new form of competition... competition for the change in software, competition for when software becomes public property.
Best Wishes! Clark
P.S. For an alternative idea, which is much larger in scale (but may not work as well), you may want to read Distributed Copyright and my letter to Judge Jackson on May 23, 2000. It may not be perfect, but it has some ideas that you and others may want to build upon.
I'm sure you don't mind running into a friend when you're out shopping. But if your friend followed you around everywhere you went, taking notes, are you saying you wouldn't mind?
This is exactly the issue. It's a far fetch, but I wonder if "stalking" laws are appropriate here?
Being pro-active... and participating; not whining
on
Slashdot in Politics?
·
· Score: 2
A big part of lobbying is pro-actively developing alternatives and amendments to proposed legislature which address (or attempt to address) the concerns to be addressed. Too often slashdot people are "anti-legislation". This doesn't endear us to congress. What's important is that we participate by helping to make the legislation more palatable and measured.
For instance, we could have definately weakened (in a good way) the DMCA if we had pushed for amendments to be put on the table. When there is an amendment congress people listen. What we do now is much like someone sitting on an open source mailing list yelling: "I don't like this." or "This would be cool." Yes, sometimes it works... but how often? When the person submits a patch... it's different. The primary coders listen. We need to get our fingers dirty (or hire people do get their fingers dirty). We need to sling legal code. It's easy to be critical if you don't dig into the code.
For one of these congressional hearings, could a knowelgable person take the crypto bible with them and a porable computer with standard components and "implement" a simple crypto while the session is going on; just to demonstrate that this is common technology. I'm sure that they have some idea that there are N products out there by N companies and that people must buy one of these products; and that these companies can get together (like Microsoft) and force the world to upgrade to the new back-door enabled version. At least, I'm sure this is what Microsoft people are telling the legislature. So... they may not be technical, but they do trust their Microsoft lobbyist; after all, they've constructed the worlds best desktop operating system and tools, of course they know what they are talking about.
I just got back from a dinner conversation from an antrhopologist from India (just came to the US three weeks ago to visit). He talked about Packistan and the dictator (Musharraf) there and about how the elected official (who was ousted?) is in Saudi Arabia. He talked about how easy it would be for this regime to topple, especially if he bends too far to the US.
Then my guest explained how this gets worse. There is real tention between India and Packistan. And the Kasmir border distpute is just one part of it. And with both India and Packistan having nukes, if one side gets twichy there could be some serious fallout. Things are already tence enough my guest underscored.
And the relevance of these links to the story at hand is...
There are many reports of even smaller robots used for various purposes. Among mine-sweeping one of the links, I forget which; and voice reconnance.
I can imagine that while it may be tempting to use a hellfire to bomb a tent from one of these prediators, I would imagine it would be more useful (in some circumstances) if these drones could drop some of these smaller robots to "bug" and track voice communication or do other tasks.
I've got enough karma.
Re:Difference between Soviet and US attacks
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
If this is indeed a protracted "war" and if this technology were very valueable; I'm sure that mass production will kick-in and the marginal cost of each unit will drop substantially. Probably the control unit is vastly more expensive than the drone itself.
Interesting Robotics Links
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Unfortunately, It's hard to be vigilant all of the time. The letter is sent. I added one more clause asking for continued condemnation of hate crimes and racial/religious intollerance.
Just like blaming Alfred Nobel for Dynamite (1866)
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 2
Technology is not good or evil. It is the use of the technology which can be evil. I think it was Karl Marx who said that root cause is usually socio-economic inequality and stratification.
Getting it from a site won't make your system start broadcasting out for other sites. That ONLY happens when an IIS box gets infected.
Really? Could you site the source for this information as it doesn't make sence. If the virus is running (as an EXE) it can open ports and attack other boxes via CodeRed method and will e-mail to people in your AddressBook if you use Outlook. The only thing it can't do is spread the virus via your website...
Sorry if this is off topic... but it's been *very* hard to program this last week. I feel like I have this enormous burden on my chest. I live in a Democracy, and I feel I must now pay for my freedom with time, energy, and concern. If you feel the same way, please comment on this draft to the President regarding his speech this evening. If you don't feel this way, please don't mark me as Troll or Flame-Bait. Instead write your own letter. Call me an idealist if you wish... but somebody's got to do it. Thank you.
...
Dear President,
Given that you have resolved to take actions against Afghanistan and that our Congress has passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, I humbly offer a few suggestions which I hope you will consider.
0. We need more compassionate talk about those innocent refugees who are ravaged by war in Afghanistan. Identify with them and the Arabic world will follow you. Give these people hope and help them rebuild their society. Only then will terrorists be unwelcome.
1. Make it clear that we are temporary guests who are visiting to restore basic freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and self-determination. Clearly point out how Muslims, Christians, and Jews peacefully practice their religions in our country due to the separation of church and state.
2. For every military dollar, spend two dollars on relief efforts in Afghanistan and other "at risk" areas where dissent is evident. To really fight terrorism, we must give hope back to the citizens of Afghanistan. Use this to rally the Arabic peoples of other nations to support us so that the terrorism does not just move to another country.
3. Declare an American media style 'war on mines'. Rally the Arabic world to help rid Afghanistan of its millions of mines. Let this be a known goal of our "invasion". Promise on our nation's flag that we will not leave mines when we go.
4. While "war against terrorism" rages, carry on a separate 'war on illiteracy' in the Refugee camps. Build schools. Teach them Math. Teach them Science. Teach them Humanities (esp. Middle-Eastern History). Teach them Business. Teach them Agriculture.
5. Help rebuild their cities by providing knowledge, food, housing, supplies, and encouragement. Help them rebuild their countryside by exploring what crops work best in their climate and how to build an agricultural system to support their peoples.
6. Help them form a democratic government. Be clear that we are not Imperialistic. Afghanistan is their country, and will remain their country.
7. Above all, make it known to the Afghan people and the whole world that we are there to remove terrorists and the government which harbors those terrorists. Make it clear we will eventually leave. And make it clear that when we do leave, their country will be in better condition than when we arrive.
I close with the recently spoken words of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:
"I pray that this inhuman act will awaken in the hearts of all the world's peoples a firm resolve to reject the ways of violence, to combat everything that sows hatred and division within the human family."
"[May God] help all to resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace."
"I pray that this inhuman act will awaken in the hearts of all the world's peoples a firm resolve to reject the ways of violence, to combat everything that sows hatred and division within the human family...resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace".
So there you have it:
Terrorist beliefs do not represent Islam.
Bush beliefs do not represent Christianity.
I am still looking for the "holy" in this "holy war."
According to this La Times story, Federal law enforcement authorities did not notify American Airlines that two men with links to terrorist Osama bin Laden were on a "watch list" before they helped hijack a flight from Dulles International Airport last week, according to individuals with direct knowledge of the matter. .
If they can't responsibly handle their current responsibilities with what information they *do* know, what makes us think that they will all of a sudden get better if we let them violate our privacy to boot?
Time limits are a joke; look at copyright limits. Every twenty years we extend them another 20 years. I got serious money that in 2020 when Mickey Mouse will again face being put into the public domain we will once again, retroactively extend copyright term. History has shown that most temporary measures become permanent. It's easier to "extend" the time of the limit (keep status quo) than have any change.
You saw the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many of the representatives and senators didn't agree with it... but they voted for it anyway beacuse they didn't want to be seen as: "Soft on terrorism". What makes you think these same congress people (or their replacement) will be "soft on terrorism" in 5-10 years from now when the limits expire? Let me give you a clue brick... they won't.
On Friday, Sept 14, 2001 Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Berkley California was the sole dissenting vote against a resolution which gives G.W. Bush power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks... or harbored such organizations or persons".
This is effectively blank-check authority to wage war anywhere in the world against what ever nations G.W. Bush so chooses without further congressional approval. This operation has started and has been named by Pentagon as "Operation Infinite Justice". This is no joke. If G.W. Bush wants to wage war against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or even the IRA it may do so without further approval.
Below is the resolution passed, followed by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Notice the similarity
and differences.
---
Resolution which past 410-1 in the House and 98-0 in Senate on September 14, 2001
H.J. Res. 64
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL. That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
---
Joint Resolution of Congress
H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
In EPIC Volume 8.17 September 17, 2001 Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. there are many relevant quotes from our leaders...
"[On September 11, 2001,] our fellow citizens, our way of
life, our very freedom, came under attack in a series of
deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America has
stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to
defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."
--President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/ 20 010911-16.html
"[A]s we respond here at home to what we learn from these
attacks, is that this is a country that understands that
people have fundamental God-given rights and liberties and
our government is constituted to protect those rights. We
cannot -- in our efforts to bring justice -- diminish those
liberties. Clearly this is not a simple, normal criminal
case. This is an act of war, and those rules of warfare may
apply. But here at home and domestically, we need to make
sure that we're not tempted to abrogate any civil rights
such as habeas corpus, protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the freedom of expression and
peaceable assembly, or freedom of religion. And just
because somebody may come from an ethnic background, that
means nothing in the exercise of their rights as citizens.
They are American citizens. And so let's make sure that in
our anger and in our efforts to bring justice, we remember
our basic foundational civil liberties and not abrogate
them."
--Senator George Allen (R-VA)
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/FloorStateme nt OnTerroristAttacks.htm
"Some have said yesterday and today that all has changed,
all has changed for America. I know what they mean by that,
and I respect their view, but I pray that is not true. I
pray that is not true. I pray my junior colleague from
Virginia is correct when he says the one thing we cannot
allow to change is the values upon which this country is
built, for if that were to occur, then they would be able to
declare victory, genuine victory."
--Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE)
http://biden.senate.gov/%7Ebiden/press/release/0 1/ 09/2001912907.html
"Attacking this country is not enough to defeat it. It
never has been. That's something our enemies have
discovered again and again. America's history is the story
of a nation, of a people, that has repeatedly overcome what
seemed like insurmountable challenges -- fueled by our
individual liberty, our respect for the rule of law, and our
belief in the value of every human life. America began as a
nation by overcoming tyranny. We will continue by
overcoming terrorism. And we will do it without sacrificing
who we are as Americans. We will do it by upholding the
principles of 'liberty and justice for all.'"
--Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) http://cantwell.senate.gov/
"A time of crisis is one of the greatest tests of a
democracy. Our nation is rooted in the fundamental
principles of freedom and justice. It is during these times
of conflict, and fear, that we need to protect those
principles the most. These principles must guide our
actions in the days, weeks, and months to come. . . . We
must never allow terrorists to gain any victory over us by
diminishing our country's respect for individual liberty and
freedom. . . . Let us remember that the Constitution was
written in 1789 by men who had won the Revolutionary War.
They did not live in comfortable and easy times of
hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution to protect
individual liberties in times of war as well as in times of
peace."
--Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI)
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/01 /0 9/2001912C11.html
"Our values, our resolve, our commitment, our sense of
community will serve us well. I am confident that, as a
nation, we will seek and serve justice. Our Nation, my
neighbors and friends in Vermont demand no less, but we must
not let the terrorists win. If we abandon our democracy to
battle them, they win. If we forget our role as the world's
leader to defeat them, they win. And we will win. We will
maintain our democracy, and with justice, we will use our
strength. We will not lose our commitment to the rule of
law, no matter how much the provocation, because that rule
of law has protected us throughout the centuries. It has
created our democracy. It has made us what we are in
history."
--Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200109/091201 .h tml
"In truth, the people of this country are big in heart and
strong in character. We will maintain our open society and
fight terrorism around the globe with freedom loving peoples
everywhere. And we will prevail."
--Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME)
http://tomallen.house.gov/showart.asp?contentID= 42 5
"There will be... inconvenience. But we will not violate
people's basic rights as we make this nation more secure.
We can do that in democracies. It can't be done in
tyrannies, because tyrannies do not enjoy the general good
will and support of the people who are willing to suffer
inconvenience and good nature with a confidence that the
nation will protect their rights."
--Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) http://www.freedom.org/
"What we must avoid, however, is the knee-jerk reaction to
pass more laws restricting the civil liberties of American
citizens. The tragedies of this attack will only be
compounded by giving the government more power at the
expense of our civil liberties. If we cannot stop this sort
of attack with all of the power our government agencies
already have, then we are in very serious trouble."
--Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) http://www.house.gov/barr/
"In responding to this heinous attack, we must reaffirm our
commitment to uphold our Constitution, including the rights
guaranteed to every American in the Bill of Rights. These
precious rights have been secured by the blood and
sacrifices of Americans for more than 225 years. I am
confident in the ability of today's generation of Americans
to honor those sacrifices and the memories of those killed
in the attacks on September 11, 2001. We have an obligation
to overcome this latest challenge to freedom while honoring
our Constitution and preserving the rights it guarantees for
ourselves, our children, and our children's children."
"The challenge ahead will require strengthening U.S.
defenses and intelligence at home in ways consistent with
American values. Embassies and military bases must be
better defended along with domestic airports and other
civilian targets. But this does not mean that we can allow
terrorists to alter the fundamental openness of U.S. society
or the government's respect for civil liberties. If we do
so, they will have won."
--Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/maxstatements.html
"[I]n the coming days, there may be some calls to assess
blame and to limit the individual liberties and freedoms we
enjoy as Americans. I urge my colleagues to resist these
efforts, no matter how well intended. The founding
principle of our nation is the right to pursue life, liberty
and happiness, and we must recognize the risks that we
assume with our freedom. The lives of each American [were]
changed forever by the awful acts carried out yesterday.
But we must not sacrifice our freedoms, and our way of life
in the name of fear to those who seek a weakened,
disconnected America. To use fear as a means to limit our
freedom will only serve the goals of those who undertook
these heinous attacks against America. Today is the day to
recognize the abiding strength of our nation and tell the
world, in particular those who seek to cause our nation
harm, that the Americans who perished on September 11, 2001
did not do so in vain.
--Congressman Ken Bentsen (D-TX)
http://www.house.gov/bentsen/prterror2.htm
"As the dust settles, we find ourselves confronting an enemy
that is both evil and elusive. But the world must know
that, today, America stands stronger than ever -- a nation
sworn to defend freedom, tolerance, diversity and democracy.
Those terrorists who attempt to extinguish our spirit must
know that these are ideals we Americans will never
surrender. I come from Michigan, home to hundreds of
thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims. Already,
leaders in the community there -- patriotic Americans who
every day give so much to this country, who have condemned
these attacks, and who are as sickened by the carnage as
everyone else -- have been getting death threats. Such
hateful prejudice offends us all. Even as we struggle to
clear away the rubble and charred wreckage, heal our wounds,
mourn our dead and seek ultimate justice, Americans must
also stand together against this bigotry."
--Congressman David Bonior (D-MI)
http://davidbonior.house.gov/Speeches/091201_ter ro rist_attack.htm
"We are a nation of law, and while our response must be
decisive, it also must be focused. The civil liberties of
all within our borders are paramount, regardless of who is
responsible for these acts of terror. If we undermine
individual rights in reaction to today's events, we may win
a battle, but hand a victory to the enemies of freedom
everywhere."
--Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT)
http://www.house.gov/cannon/press2001/sept11.htm
"We must take the necessary precautions to safeguard our
lives and American interests, but we must not relinquish our
cherished freedoms."
--Congresswoman Eva Clayton (D-NC)
http://www.house.gov/clayton/
"Just as this horrendous act can destroy us from without, it
can also destroy us from within. Pearl Harbor led to
internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and today there is a
very real danger that this tragedy could result in
prejudice, discrimination, and crimes of hate against
Arab-Americans and others. The lesson Oklahoma City taught
us was the perpetrators of these acts of terror can be evil
men of every race, nationality and religion as are the
victims. We must ensure that these acts of terror do not
slowly and subversively destroy the foundation of our
democracy: a commitment to equal rights and equal
protection."
--Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/conyers/pr091201.htm
"Frisking everyone on the planet to find the one person with
the weapon is a high-cost, low-yield way to go. That's a
fair analogy to searching through everyone's e-mail. Not
only do such schemes threaten civil liberties, they are such
scattershot approaches that they're bound to fail.... The
notion that we can reorganize every aspect of civil society
to protect against terrorism is fool's gold."
--Congressman Christopher Cox (R-CA)
http://www.house.gov/cox/
"In striking at us, the terrorists sought to exploit the
openness of our society, and to shake the foundations of the
civilized order which America sustains. They will fail.
Our challenge now -- and the test of our democracy -- is to
harness our own raw anger and passion. To respond in a
manner that is firm, clear and just; that befits a great
nation; and that honors our own ideals."
--Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA)
http://www.house.gov/delahunt/terroristattack.ht m
"We must not direct our anger against innocent citizens of
Middle Eastern or South Asian heritage. Our nation is a
beacon of justice in the world and the freedom of our
peoples must not be degraded by any heinous acts of
violence. As a nation of a free and proud people, we must
not allow any terrorist attacks to justify violence or
persecution of our fellow citizens, whatever their heritage
may be."
--Congressman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)
http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?N=2001091315094 8
"We must be bipartisan, balanced, and calm. Panic and
partisanship are our enemies. And as one colleague said
this morning, the Constitution of the United States must not
be our next casualty. We must... respect the civil
liberties and intelligence of Americans. We are a generous,
courageous and resilient Nation. Given information,
resources and leadership, the American people will rise to
any challenge and fight down any assault to take from us our
way of life."
--Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA)
http://www.house.gov/harman/
Even at this painful time, we must remember that
international terrorism cannot be combated by turning our
free society into an armed fortress.
"As we move forward in the days to come, we must carefully
use words such as 'safety' and 'order,' and we must be
cautious when calling for actions that 'need to be taken for
the good of the people.' I encourage my colleagues to be
wary of any suggested government action that would infringe
on our freedoms. Any encroachment of our civil liberties is
a victory for the perpetrators of yesterday's heinous
crimes. We must continually bear in mind the words of
Benjamin Franklin when he had stated that 'those who would
sacrifice their essential liberty to seek a small portion of
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
Freedom is not our greatest liability, it is our greatest
asset."
--Congressman Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
http://www.house.gov/johnson/
"We take enormous pride in the freedoms we enjoy. Societies
without freedom find it easier to ward off attacks.
Yesterday we paid a great price for our freedom. We can and
will act to reduce the chances of these attacks in the
future, but we will never give up our freedoms."
--Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny29_lafalc e/ pr010913terrorattack.html
"We will show our resolve to our enemies. America and its
citizens will not abdicate the values and freedoms that have
made this nation great. We unequivocally declare that today
America remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that
terrorism will not dim the beacon of liberty and freedom."
--Congressman John Linder (R-GA)
http://www.house.gov/linder/editorial_terrorism. ht m
"The terrorist forces against us would see us brought to our
knees and see us shaking in terror. They would have us back
away from the freedoms we hold dear. But they must be made
to understand that those freedoms are the result of 200
years of struggle. Nothing within the terrorists' power can
daunt this great democracy and its resolve."
--Congressman Ken Lucas (D-KY)
http://www.house.gov/kenlucas/PressRelease.2.htm
"The leaders of our country will now focus on ensuring that
justice is served. We should be rational about our
strategy, we will focus on protecting our future and promise
to uphold your freedom and your every liberty."
--Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)
http://matheson.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=733&ty pe =News
"We must not act in haste -- rush to act out our vengeance
against fellow Americans -- because America is the world's
greatest melting pot, and in today's society, we simply
cannot guess at an individual's country of natural origin by
their appearance. We have to make sure that we make war on
terrorism -- not on Arabs! We must make a further
distinction between the war on terrorism and the war on
Americans of Near or South Asian descent. There have been
many references to a second Pearl Harbor, and while the
shock and anger certainly are similar and warranted, that
anger should not be directed towards our neighbors in ethnic
communities across the country. We do not need the
attitudes that will lead to a second wave of internment
camps."
--Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA)
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/Terrorist-FS.htm
"America must also stand firm, though, in its commitment to
civil liberties for all of our people. In the coming months
and years, all of us will have to make accommodations to
heightened security at our airports, Federal buildings, and
other large landmarks. We can and must make those
accommodations and in a manner that is wholly consistent
with the U.S. Constitution."
--Congressman James Moran (D-VA)
http://www.house.gov/moran/20010912b.htm
"[A]ll New Yorkers understand and feel empathy for those who
lost loved ones on hijacked flights. New Yorkers, and
indeed all Americans, will remember those victims at the
Pentagon, for putting their lives at risk and paying the
ultimate price, so that we can live our lives in freedom.
In the end, that is what this comes down to -- our freedom.
To the majority of the world, our nation stands as a beacon
of hope. To those who want to crush freedom, to have people
live in fear, our nation stands as a rebuke as well as a
threat. However, what those enemies of freedom fail to
understand is that no amount of physical damage can kill the
ideals for which this nation stands. Just as Pearl Harbor
roused the sleeping giant to crush those who attacked it,
this nation must crush those who have declared war on us
now. [...] Today, we stand united, to mourn our losses, but
determined to show the resolve upon which nation has always
prided itself, as we rebuild. We will show the strength
that can only be found in a free people. In the words of
Lincoln, today, "we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish
from the earth."
"Demanding domestic security in times of war invites
carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of
privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for
their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of
authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and
secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we
willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while
defending ourselves from their threat."
--Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr0912 01.htm
"[W]e must not let these attacks on our country weaken our
resolve to maintain a free and open society that all
countries can emulate. We must now show the world that our
country will continue to stand strong in the face of
tragedy. We must show the cowards responsible that they
will not win."
--Congressman David Phelps (D-IL)
http://www.house.gov/phelps/
"It has been said that America will never be the same again
-- that we have crossed a threshold of innocence. That may
be so, but in our zeal to provide a new level of security,
we must guard against going so far that we trade away the
rights and privileges of a free society. In reacting to
this incident, we must not allow the hate of our attackers
to destroy our own decency and commitment to justice."
--Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel /w tcpr.html
"Additionally, as we consider legislation to address this
crisis, each proposal must be passed before the great lens
of the Constitution, the cornerstone of our Republic and our
freedoms."
-Congresswoman Lynn Rivers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/rivers/news_terroriststatem en t.shtml
"As we console the families of the victims, as we remind
ourselves about the core American values of freedom and
democracy, and as we make plans to deal with the terrorists,
we must remember who we are as a people. We are the
participants of a great democratic undertaking, a national
project which stands as an example for the rest of the
world. We have a duty to perfect and protect our Nation,
and we must never be swayed from the road towards freedom
and democracy for ourselves and as a beacon for the planet."
--Congressman Ron Underwood (D-Guam)
http://www.house.gov/underwood/
"Finally, in the process of combating international
terrorism, we must neither abandon American civil liberties
nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking
out against those with different names, skin color or
religion."
-Congressman David Wu (D-OR) http://www.house.gov/wu/
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, no company is going to "pay" for something that they can get for "free".
They will if it allows them a say in what direction the development goes.
I can just here the snickering at the board of director's meeting: "Thank you Jack. Wonderful presentation. Glad to see the Tech Department is on track. I have one question about your budget. You would pay $500,000 to the FSF for software that is 'free'? That our competitor can use without paying an equal amount?". This, my friend, is about as far as that budget line item goes, and quite possibly Jack's last day being CIO.
Americans *love* stats. We do? Since when??
... attempted to challenge MS Word ... It disappeared from the market in less than a year after I purchased it.
Are you serious? Look at our baseball cards. Nothing more American than baseball cards. I just got back from a Saturn Dealership to have my oil changed and tune-up. I started reading through their sales litterature. Page after page of stats -- 4L,278Hp -- odd nausium. Pick up any consumer report or PC Week. Does PC Week still have those 2 page feature comparison spreads like they had in the 80's? When the PC industry was booming *everyone* used those charts. They were the gospel... unless you were an "IBM Drone".
In fact, I'd be supprised if anyone pays much attention to those feature charts, and if they do I doubt they put much effort into reading and understanding what the features really are.
Those who make purchase decisions for large companies pay attention to this. They even pay for the feature charts (Gartner Group) and other comparative literature. These corporate buyers are highly educated and have considerable influence in the marketplace... far more than your average consumer.
In the mid 90s... [a] word processor
This was not in an emerging market. This market had already standardized. Nothing you can do in this case unless there is a product that is *signifcantly* different. Having a copyright expire may be the difference which would have done it. I don't know.
simply to contribute money to the FSF or similar foundation for the development of the "common good" applications
IMHO, no company is going to "pay" for something that they can get for "free". Sorry. Not unless there is a complete agreement by most of the fortune 100 companies that they will each *donate* N dollars to FSF. This would be politically... impossible?
HOWEVER, a company would *pay* double the price for software that they know expires in 3-7 years where the source code is included and becomes public domain. I'm sure many of them would pay a "premium" to gaurentee that they arn't "locked-in" to a particular vendor as long as the choice is offered in a standard way (that doesn't make the CIO an "idealist").
Naw, that won't solve M$'s monopoly.
Right. This won't solve our problem with Microsoft, but it will help prevent the "next" Microsoft.
Imagine if Microsoft found that in '95 they had to put a 5 year copyright limit on Windows '95 and put the source code in escrow with the same copyright expiration date in order for large companies to "get on board". Now, in 2001 we would have had N competitors (IBM, Sun, HP) building from the Windows '95 code base with alternative upgrades. The user community would now have some serious options in the Marketplace. And Linux would have gotten a huge boost.
The above proposal is capitalistic and does not have any government oversight beyond a small additional task on the copyright office. In fact, one can say that it reduces the involvement of government by a shortening a government imposed monopoly. Further, the above system is voluntary and market driven; it alters the landscape of competition by offering new dimentions to the market. It does not interfere with the market. These are its virtues.
add an "optional" expiration date on a copyright
..." on the form. If it's on the form, it's legit. Both consumers and producers can grok it. It's a small change. It's optional. It is backwards compatible. And it certainly can't hurt.
... the material becomes public domain.
Considering that copyright holders can release their work into the public domain anytime they want, what would be the point of that?
Ease, standardization and legitimacy.
Currently a copyright application is for (I believe) 24 years, subject to extension. To limit the copyright, a separate contract is required. This is an extra burden on every copyright filer (and consumer) which can be alleviated with an extra field "expires:
How else would you accomplish this? Leave it up to the legal department of each software publisher to spin their own version? Like that would end up with anything that could be compared on a chart... it needs to be simple. After N years, the copyright *expires*
This could all be done now within the constraints of current copyright law (for example, companies could sign an agreement with a third party such as the FSF or invent some Source Code Vault Foundation.)
Yes indeed. But these organizations lack the legitimacy and level of standardization of the Copyright Office. Also, you now get to enforcement. In short, I think these "contractual" solutions are far more problematic...
Besides, what responsible-to-the-stock-holders business would voluntarily restrict their intellectual property rights?
Yes. If there are 10 products in a market, a company may bet that if they set their price to $500 and put an expiration date of 5 years that may "big" clients would buy their software over a competitor who is offering their software for $200 without an expiration date.
In short, it won't force anyone to limit their copyright; but it will allow reasonable programmers an option that they don't practically have at this time (since it is not standard) This just opens up another "dimention" in the competition spectrum. Right now, with the software I'm writing I'd do it -- in fact, I will most likely do it anyway.
Even if they somehow knew that they were going to go out of business and all their sourcecode would be lost, they probably still couldn't do it.
You're getting to the reasoning why contractual agreements won't work well.
HOWEVER, it would be nice if there was copyright law dealing specifically with legacy software, aka "abandonware". This is a big problem for both business and home customers -- I'm sure that sources exist for all sorts of old programs on disks and tapes in one of the programmer's basement, but they can't be released due to copyright considerations.
Good luck. Copyrighted software is an asset. Upon liquidation it will be treated as an asset. For example, Ashton Tate's Framework source code was sold to the highest bidder -- Selections and Functions.
I struggled with many, many heavy-handed options till this one dawned on me last year. No one can say that it is not a capitalistic approach. It just introduces a new dimention to competition that didn't exist before. No one is *forcing* anyone to use the copyright limits... but with the right publicity this could quickly become the norm.
Thus far, I've not been able to get an audience for the idea -- I've talked directly with a few representatives and two senators about the idea. I live on Capitol Hill, so once and a while I run into one of them, or their legislative assistants. Unfortunately, I don't have the time (money) to lobby for something like this full time or I'd gladly do it.
If you really think it's a good idea... I'll write up a proposal and send it off to the copyright office next month when I get some more time (i'm too busy launching my company at the moment).
While open source is laudable, the problem is that it confuses "free beer" with "freedom", i.e., "gratis" with "free". This is unfortunate. IMHO, we need to think hard about a system that provides "freedom", but does not restrict a programmer from earning a fair wage.
One possible solution, which I've encountered resistance talking to Congress people on the hill is to add an "optional" expiration date on a copyright, and allow the source code to be submitted via electronic media.. Thus, when you submit your copyright you can optionally choose to limit your copyright to N years. Further, the copyright office could "hold" the source code and make it public on the date that the copyright expires.
Americans *love* stats. What would happen if "copyright term" ended up as one of those columns? And "open source at end of copyright term" was another column? In this way we could compete not only on features and price, but also *when* our software becomes public domain. This is a simple solution, backward compatible, and can be implemented by the copyright office without legislation. It just requires the media to notice that copyright doesn't have to last forever and that making one's code open source can be part of the license agreement.
Maybe we can turn the tables on the "capitalists" by creating a new form of competition... competition for the change in software, competition for when software becomes public property.
Best Wishes! Clark
P.S. For an alternative idea, which is much larger in scale (but may not work as well), you may want to read Distributed Copyright and my letter to Judge Jackson on May 23, 2000. It may not be perfect, but it has some ideas that you and others may want to build upon.
I'm sure you don't mind running into a friend when you're out shopping. But if your friend followed you around everywhere you went, taking notes, are you saying you wouldn't mind?
This is exactly the issue. It's a far fetch, but I wonder if "stalking" laws are appropriate here?
A big part of lobbying is pro-actively developing alternatives and amendments to proposed legislature which address (or attempt to address) the concerns to be addressed. Too often slashdot people are "anti-legislation". This doesn't endear us to congress. What's important is that we participate by helping to make the legislation more palatable and measured.
For instance, we could have definately weakened (in a good way) the DMCA if we had pushed for amendments to be put on the table. When there is an amendment congress people listen. What we do now is much like someone sitting on an open source mailing list yelling: "I don't like this." or "This would be cool." Yes, sometimes it works... but how often? When the person submits a patch... it's different. The primary coders listen. We need to get our fingers dirty (or hire people do get their fingers dirty). We need to sling legal code. It's easy to be critical if you don't dig into the code.
He should write the ditor about this. Given their mis-representation they owe him at least that.
For one of these congressional hearings, could a knowelgable person take the crypto bible with them and a porable computer with standard components and "implement" a simple crypto while the session is going on; just to demonstrate that this is common technology. I'm sure that they have some idea that there are N products out there by N companies and that people must buy one of these products; and that these companies can get together (like Microsoft) and force the world to upgrade to the new back-door enabled version. At least, I'm sure this is what Microsoft people are telling the legislature. So... they may not be technical, but they do trust their Microsoft lobbyist; after all, they've constructed the worlds best desktop operating system and tools, of course they know what they are talking about.
I just got back from a dinner conversation from an antrhopologist from India (just came to the US three weeks ago to visit). He talked about Packistan and the dictator (Musharraf) there and about how the elected official (who was ousted?) is in Saudi Arabia. He talked about how easy it would be for this regime to topple, especially if he bends too far to the US.
Then my guest explained how this gets worse. There is real tention between India and Packistan. And the Kasmir border distpute is just one part of it. And with both India and Packistan having nukes, if one side gets twichy there could be some serious fallout. Things are already tence enough my guest underscored.
And the relevance of these links to the story at hand is...
There are many reports of even smaller robots used for various purposes. Among mine-sweeping one of the links, I forget which; and voice reconnance.
I can imagine that while it may be tempting to use a hellfire to bomb a tent from one of these prediators, I would imagine it would be more useful (in some circumstances) if these drones could drop some of these smaller robots to "bug" and track voice communication or do other tasks.
I've got enough karma.
If this is indeed a protracted "war" and if this technology were very valueable; I'm sure that mass production will kick-in and the marginal cost of each unit will drop substantially. Probably the control unit is vastly more expensive than the drone itself.
http://ai.about.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htmt s/
w 2/
1 112000/1112411.stm
m l
a cy/robot.html
m l
m l
m
http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/13/0213robot.html
http://www1.cnn.com/TECH/9612/11/interactive.robo
http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/1999/12/07/news/ne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~haddrill/robots.ht
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97leg
http://www.it.umn.edu/inventing/98fall/cover/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/21/1934206.sht
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/robots.ht
http://ai.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072099.ht
All that you suggest is good, but I think the President is way ahead of you on this.
Good. An extra letter doesn't hurt.
Unfortunately, It's hard to be vigilant all of the time. The letter is sent. I added one more clause asking for continued condemnation of hate crimes and racial/religious intollerance.
Technology is not good or evil. It is the use of the technology which can be evil. I think it was Karl Marx who said that root cause is usually socio-economic inequality and stratification.
Getting it from a site won't make your system start broadcasting out for other sites. That ONLY happens when an IIS box gets infected.
Really? Could you site the source for this information as it doesn't make sence. If the virus is running (as an EXE) it can open ports and attack other boxes via CodeRed method and will e-mail to people in your AddressBook if you use Outlook. The only thing it can't do is spread the virus via your website...
Sorry if this is off topic... but it's been *very* hard to program this last week. I feel like I have this enormous burden on my chest. I live in a Democracy, and I feel I must now pay for my freedom with time, energy, and concern. If you feel the same way, please comment on this draft to the President regarding his speech this evening. If you don't feel this way, please don't mark me as Troll or Flame-Bait. Instead write your own letter. Call me an idealist if you wish... but somebody's got to do it. Thank you.
...
Dear President,
Given that you have resolved to take actions against Afghanistan and that our Congress has passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, I humbly offer a few suggestions which I hope you will consider.
0. We need more compassionate talk about those innocent refugees who are ravaged by war in Afghanistan. Identify with them and the Arabic world will follow you. Give these people hope and help them rebuild their society. Only then will terrorists be unwelcome.
1. Make it clear that we are temporary guests who are visiting to restore basic freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and self-determination. Clearly point out how Muslims, Christians, and Jews peacefully practice their religions in our country due to the separation of church and state.
2. For every military dollar, spend two dollars on relief efforts in Afghanistan and other "at risk" areas where dissent is evident. To really fight terrorism, we must give hope back to the citizens of Afghanistan. Use this to rally the Arabic peoples of other nations to support us so that the terrorism does not just move to another country.
3. Declare an American media style 'war on mines'. Rally the Arabic world to help rid Afghanistan of its millions of mines. Let this be a known goal of our "invasion". Promise on our nation's flag that we will not leave mines when we go.
4. While "war against terrorism" rages, carry on a separate 'war on illiteracy' in the Refugee camps. Build schools. Teach them Math. Teach them Science. Teach them Humanities (esp. Middle-Eastern History). Teach them Business. Teach them Agriculture.
5. Help rebuild their cities by providing knowledge, food, housing, supplies, and encouragement. Help them rebuild their countryside by exploring what crops work best in their climate and how to build an agricultural system to support their peoples.
6. Help them form a democratic government. Be clear that we are not Imperialistic. Afghanistan is their country, and will remain their country.
7. Above all, make it known to the Afghan people and the whole world that we are there to remove terrorists and the government which harbors those terrorists. Make it clear we will eventually leave. And make it clear that when we do leave, their country will be in better condition than when we arrive.
I close with the recently spoken words of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:
"I pray that this inhuman act will awaken in the hearts of all the world's peoples a firm resolve to reject the ways of violence, to combat everything that sows hatred and division within the human family."
"[May God] help all to resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace."
Sincerely Yours,
Clark C. Evans
"I pray that this inhuman act will awaken in the hearts of all the world's peoples a firm resolve to reject the ways of violence, to combat everything that sows hatred and division within the human family...resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace".
So there you have it:
Terrorist beliefs do not represent Islam.
Bush beliefs do not represent Christianity.
I am still looking for the "holy" in this "holy war."
*falls down laughing*
According to this La Times story, Federal law enforcement authorities did not notify American Airlines that two men with links to terrorist Osama bin Laden were on a "watch list" before they helped hijack a flight from Dulles International Airport last week, according to individuals with direct knowledge of the matter. .
If they can't responsibly handle their current responsibilities with what information they *do* know, what makes us think that they will all of a sudden get better if we let them violate our privacy to boot?
Time limits are a joke; look at copyright limits. Every twenty years we extend them another 20 years. I got serious money that in 2020 when Mickey Mouse will again face being put into the public domain we will once again, retroactively extend copyright term. History has shown that most temporary measures become permanent. It's easier to "extend" the time of the limit (keep status quo) than have any change.
You saw the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many of the representatives and senators didn't agree with it... but they voted for it anyway beacuse they didn't want to be seen as: "Soft on terrorism". What makes you think these same congress people (or their replacement) will be "soft on terrorism" in 5-10 years from now when the limits expire? Let me give you a clue brick... they won't.
On Friday, Sept 14, 2001 Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Berkley California was the sole dissenting vote against a resolution which gives G.W. Bush power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks... or harbored such organizations or persons".
This is effectively blank-check authority to wage war anywhere in the world against what ever nations G.W. Bush so chooses without further congressional approval. This operation has started and has been named by Pentagon as "Operation Infinite Justice". This is no joke. If G.W. Bush wants to wage war against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or even the IRA it may do so without further approval.
Below is the resolution passed, followed by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Notice the similarity
and differences.
---
Resolution which past 410-1 in the House and 98-0 in Senate on September 14, 2001
H.J. Res. 64
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL. That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
---
Joint Resolution of Congress
H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
In EPIC Volume 8.17 September 17, 2001 Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. there are many relevant quotes from our leaders...
/ 20 010911-16.html
e nt OnTerroristAttacks.htm
0 1/ 09/2001912907.html
1 /0 9/2001912C11.html
1 .h tml
= 42 5
... inconvenience. But we will not violate
l
r ro rist_attack.htm
m
... The
t m
4 8
... respect the civil
c e/ pr010913terrorattack.html
. ht m
m
y pe =News
2 01 .htm
l /w tcpr.html
m en t.shtml
"[On September 11, 2001,] our fellow citizens, our way of
life, our very freedom, came under attack in a series of
deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America has
stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to
defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."
--President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09
"[A]s we respond here at home to what we learn from these
attacks, is that this is a country that understands that
people have fundamental God-given rights and liberties and
our government is constituted to protect those rights. We
cannot -- in our efforts to bring justice -- diminish those
liberties. Clearly this is not a simple, normal criminal
case. This is an act of war, and those rules of warfare may
apply. But here at home and domestically, we need to make
sure that we're not tempted to abrogate any civil rights
such as habeas corpus, protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the freedom of expression and
peaceable assembly, or freedom of religion. And just
because somebody may come from an ethnic background, that
means nothing in the exercise of their rights as citizens.
They are American citizens. And so let's make sure that in
our anger and in our efforts to bring justice, we remember
our basic foundational civil liberties and not abrogate
them."
--Senator George Allen (R-VA)
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/FloorStatem
"Some have said yesterday and today that all has changed,
all has changed for America. I know what they mean by that,
and I respect their view, but I pray that is not true. I
pray that is not true. I pray my junior colleague from
Virginia is correct when he says the one thing we cannot
allow to change is the values upon which this country is
built, for if that were to occur, then they would be able to
declare victory, genuine victory."
--Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE)
http://biden.senate.gov/%7Ebiden/press/release/
"Attacking this country is not enough to defeat it. It
never has been. That's something our enemies have
discovered again and again. America's history is the story
of a nation, of a people, that has repeatedly overcome what
seemed like insurmountable challenges -- fueled by our
individual liberty, our respect for the rule of law, and our
belief in the value of every human life. America began as a
nation by overcoming tyranny. We will continue by
overcoming terrorism. And we will do it without sacrificing
who we are as Americans. We will do it by upholding the
principles of 'liberty and justice for all.'"
--Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) http://cantwell.senate.gov/
"A time of crisis is one of the greatest tests of a
democracy. Our nation is rooted in the fundamental
principles of freedom and justice. It is during these times
of conflict, and fear, that we need to protect those
principles the most. These principles must guide our
actions in the days, weeks, and months to come. . . . We
must never allow terrorists to gain any victory over us by
diminishing our country's respect for individual liberty and
freedom. . . . Let us remember that the Constitution was
written in 1789 by men who had won the Revolutionary War.
They did not live in comfortable and easy times of
hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution to protect
individual liberties in times of war as well as in times of
peace."
--Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI)
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/0
"Our values, our resolve, our commitment, our sense of
community will serve us well. I am confident that, as a
nation, we will seek and serve justice. Our Nation, my
neighbors and friends in Vermont demand no less, but we must
not let the terrorists win. If we abandon our democracy to
battle them, they win. If we forget our role as the world's
leader to defeat them, they win. And we will win. We will
maintain our democracy, and with justice, we will use our
strength. We will not lose our commitment to the rule of
law, no matter how much the provocation, because that rule
of law has protected us throughout the centuries. It has
created our democracy. It has made us what we are in
history."
--Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200109/09120
"In truth, the people of this country are big in heart and
strong in character. We will maintain our open society and
fight terrorism around the globe with freedom loving peoples
everywhere. And we will prevail."
--Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME)
http://tomallen.house.gov/showart.asp?contentID
"There will be
people's basic rights as we make this nation more secure.
We can do that in democracies. It can't be done in
tyrannies, because tyrannies do not enjoy the general good
will and support of the people who are willing to suffer
inconvenience and good nature with a confidence that the
nation will protect their rights."
--Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) http://www.freedom.org/
"What we must avoid, however, is the knee-jerk reaction to
pass more laws restricting the civil liberties of American
citizens. The tragedies of this attack will only be
compounded by giving the government more power at the
expense of our civil liberties. If we cannot stop this sort
of attack with all of the power our government agencies
already have, then we are in very serious trouble."
--Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) http://www.house.gov/barr/
"In responding to this heinous attack, we must reaffirm our
commitment to uphold our Constitution, including the rights
guaranteed to every American in the Bill of Rights. These
precious rights have been secured by the blood and
sacrifices of Americans for more than 225 years. I am
confident in the ability of today's generation of Americans
to honor those sacrifices and the memories of those killed
in the attacks on September 11, 2001. We have an obligation
to overcome this latest challenge to freedom while honoring
our Constitution and preserving the rights it guarantees for
ourselves, our children, and our children's children."
--Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
http://www.house.gov/bartlett/pr010912.htm
"The challenge ahead will require strengthening U.S.
defenses and intelligence at home in ways consistent with
American values. Embassies and military bases must be
better defended along with domestic airports and other
civilian targets. But this does not mean that we can allow
terrorists to alter the fundamental openness of U.S. society
or the government's respect for civil liberties. If we do
so, they will have won."
--Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/maxstatements.htm
"[I]n the coming days, there may be some calls to assess
blame and to limit the individual liberties and freedoms we
enjoy as Americans. I urge my colleagues to resist these
efforts, no matter how well intended. The founding
principle of our nation is the right to pursue life, liberty
and happiness, and we must recognize the risks that we
assume with our freedom. The lives of each American [were]
changed forever by the awful acts carried out yesterday.
But we must not sacrifice our freedoms, and our way of life
in the name of fear to those who seek a weakened,
disconnected America. To use fear as a means to limit our
freedom will only serve the goals of those who undertook
these heinous attacks against America. Today is the day to
recognize the abiding strength of our nation and tell the
world, in particular those who seek to cause our nation
harm, that the Americans who perished on September 11, 2001
did not do so in vain.
--Congressman Ken Bentsen (D-TX)
http://www.house.gov/bentsen/prterror2.htm
"As the dust settles, we find ourselves confronting an enemy
that is both evil and elusive. But the world must know
that, today, America stands stronger than ever -- a nation
sworn to defend freedom, tolerance, diversity and democracy.
Those terrorists who attempt to extinguish our spirit must
know that these are ideals we Americans will never
surrender. I come from Michigan, home to hundreds of
thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims. Already,
leaders in the community there -- patriotic Americans who
every day give so much to this country, who have condemned
these attacks, and who are as sickened by the carnage as
everyone else -- have been getting death threats. Such
hateful prejudice offends us all. Even as we struggle to
clear away the rubble and charred wreckage, heal our wounds,
mourn our dead and seek ultimate justice, Americans must
also stand together against this bigotry."
--Congressman David Bonior (D-MI)
http://davidbonior.house.gov/Speeches/091201_te
"We are a nation of law, and while our response must be
decisive, it also must be focused. The civil liberties of
all within our borders are paramount, regardless of who is
responsible for these acts of terror. If we undermine
individual rights in reaction to today's events, we may win
a battle, but hand a victory to the enemies of freedom
everywhere."
--Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT)
http://www.house.gov/cannon/press2001/sept11.ht
"We must take the necessary precautions to safeguard our
lives and American interests, but we must not relinquish our
cherished freedoms."
--Congresswoman Eva Clayton (D-NC)
http://www.house.gov/clayton/
"Just as this horrendous act can destroy us from without, it
can also destroy us from within. Pearl Harbor led to
internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and today there is a
very real danger that this tragedy could result in
prejudice, discrimination, and crimes of hate against
Arab-Americans and others. The lesson Oklahoma City taught
us was the perpetrators of these acts of terror can be evil
men of every race, nationality and religion as are the
victims. We must ensure that these acts of terror do not
slowly and subversively destroy the foundation of our
democracy: a commitment to equal rights and equal
protection."
--Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/conyers/pr091201.htm
"Frisking everyone on the planet to find the one person with
the weapon is a high-cost, low-yield way to go. That's a
fair analogy to searching through everyone's e-mail. Not
only do such schemes threaten civil liberties, they are such
scattershot approaches that they're bound to fail.
notion that we can reorganize every aspect of civil society
to protect against terrorism is fool's gold."
--Congressman Christopher Cox (R-CA)
http://www.house.gov/cox/
"In striking at us, the terrorists sought to exploit the
openness of our society, and to shake the foundations of the
civilized order which America sustains. They will fail.
Our challenge now -- and the test of our democracy -- is to
harness our own raw anger and passion. To respond in a
manner that is firm, clear and just; that befits a great
nation; and that honors our own ideals."
--Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA)
http://www.house.gov/delahunt/terroristattack.h
"We must not direct our anger against innocent citizens of
Middle Eastern or South Asian heritage. Our nation is a
beacon of justice in the world and the freedom of our
peoples must not be degraded by any heinous acts of
violence. As a nation of a free and proud people, we must
not allow any terrorist attacks to justify violence or
persecution of our fellow citizens, whatever their heritage
may be."
--Congressman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)
http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?N=200109131509
"We must be bipartisan, balanced, and calm. Panic and
partisanship are our enemies. And as one colleague said
this morning, the Constitution of the United States must not
be our next casualty. We must
liberties and intelligence of Americans. We are a generous,
courageous and resilient Nation. Given information,
resources and leadership, the American people will rise to
any challenge and fight down any assault to take from us our
way of life."
--Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA)
http://www.house.gov/harman/
Even at this painful time, we must remember that
international terrorism cannot be combated by turning our
free society into an armed fortress.
--Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) http://www.house.gov/rholt/
"As we move forward in the days to come, we must carefully
use words such as 'safety' and 'order,' and we must be
cautious when calling for actions that 'need to be taken for
the good of the people.' I encourage my colleagues to be
wary of any suggested government action that would infringe
on our freedoms. Any encroachment of our civil liberties is
a victory for the perpetrators of yesterday's heinous
crimes. We must continually bear in mind the words of
Benjamin Franklin when he had stated that 'those who would
sacrifice their essential liberty to seek a small portion of
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
Freedom is not our greatest liability, it is our greatest
asset."
--Congressman Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
http://www.house.gov/johnson/
"We take enormous pride in the freedoms we enjoy. Societies
without freedom find it easier to ward off attacks.
Yesterday we paid a great price for our freedom. We can and
will act to reduce the chances of these attacks in the
future, but we will never give up our freedoms."
--Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny29_lafal
"We will show our resolve to our enemies. America and its
citizens will not abdicate the values and freedoms that have
made this nation great. We unequivocally declare that today
America remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that
terrorism will not dim the beacon of liberty and freedom."
--Congressman John Linder (R-GA)
http://www.house.gov/linder/editorial_terrorism
"The terrorist forces against us would see us brought to our
knees and see us shaking in terror. They would have us back
away from the freedoms we hold dear. But they must be made
to understand that those freedoms are the result of 200
years of struggle. Nothing within the terrorists' power can
daunt this great democracy and its resolve."
--Congressman Ken Lucas (D-KY)
http://www.house.gov/kenlucas/PressRelease.2.ht
"The leaders of our country will now focus on ensuring that
justice is served. We should be rational about our
strategy, we will focus on protecting our future and promise
to uphold your freedom and your every liberty."
--Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)
http://matheson.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=733&t
"We must not act in haste -- rush to act out our vengeance
against fellow Americans -- because America is the world's
greatest melting pot, and in today's society, we simply
cannot guess at an individual's country of natural origin by
their appearance. We have to make sure that we make war on
terrorism -- not on Arabs! We must make a further
distinction between the war on terrorism and the war on
Americans of Near or South Asian descent. There have been
many references to a second Pearl Harbor, and while the
shock and anger certainly are similar and warranted, that
anger should not be directed towards our neighbors in ethnic
communities across the country. We do not need the
attitudes that will lead to a second wave of internment
camps."
--Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA)
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/Terrorist-FS.htm
"America must also stand firm, though, in its commitment to
civil liberties for all of our people. In the coming months
and years, all of us will have to make accommodations to
heightened security at our airports, Federal buildings, and
other large landmarks. We can and must make those
accommodations and in a manner that is wholly consistent
with the U.S. Constitution."
--Congressman James Moran (D-VA)
http://www.house.gov/moran/20010912b.htm
"[A]ll New Yorkers understand and feel empathy for those who
lost loved ones on hijacked flights. New Yorkers, and
indeed all Americans, will remember those victims at the
Pentagon, for putting their lives at risk and paying the
ultimate price, so that we can live our lives in freedom.
In the end, that is what this comes down to -- our freedom.
To the majority of the world, our nation stands as a beacon
of hope. To those who want to crush freedom, to have people
live in fear, our nation stands as a rebuke as well as a
threat. However, what those enemies of freedom fail to
understand is that no amount of physical damage can kill the
ideals for which this nation stands. Just as Pearl Harbor
roused the sleeping giant to crush those who attacked it,
this nation must crush those who have declared war on us
now. [...] Today, we stand united, to mourn our losses, but
determined to show the resolve upon which nation has always
prided itself, as we rebuild. We will show the strength
that can only be found in a free people. In the words of
Lincoln, today, "we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish
from the earth."
--Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/nadler/hijackrelease.htm
"Demanding domestic security in times of war invites
carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of
privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for
their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of
authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and
secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we
willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while
defending ourselves from their threat."
--Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr091
"[W]e must not let these attacks on our country weaken our
resolve to maintain a free and open society that all
countries can emulate. We must now show the world that our
country will continue to stand strong in the face of
tragedy. We must show the cowards responsible that they
will not win."
--Congressman David Phelps (D-IL)
http://www.house.gov/phelps/
"It has been said that America will never be the same again
-- that we have crossed a threshold of innocence. That may
be so, but in our zeal to provide a new level of security,
we must guard against going so far that we trade away the
rights and privileges of a free society. In reacting to
this incident, we must not allow the hate of our attackers
to destroy our own decency and commitment to justice."
--Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_range
"Additionally, as we consider legislation to address this
crisis, each proposal must be passed before the great lens
of the Constitution, the cornerstone of our Republic and our
freedoms."
-Congresswoman Lynn Rivers (D-MI)
http://www.house.gov/rivers/news_terroriststate
"As we console the families of the victims, as we remind
ourselves about the core American values of freedom and
democracy, and as we make plans to deal with the terrorists,
we must remember who we are as a people. We are the
participants of a great democratic undertaking, a national
project which stands as an example for the rest of the
world. We have a duty to perfect and protect our Nation,
and we must never be swayed from the road towards freedom
and democracy for ourselves and as a beacon for the planet."
--Congressman Ron Underwood (D-Guam)
http://www.house.gov/underwood/
"Finally, in the process of combating international
terrorism, we must neither abandon American civil liberties
nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking
out against those with different names, skin color or
religion."
-Congressman David Wu (D-OR) http://www.house.gov/wu/