May I suggest Vedit? It includes syntax highlighting for many languages but it also allows the user to create custom configuration files for syntax highlighting in any language. These configuration files also permit pattern matching.
Version 6, a major upgrade, is being released in October. I've used Vedit for 20 years, back when it was the only editor available for CP/M.
In those days, of course, there was no such thing as syntax highlighting...but I digress.
So tell me why Microsoft is not facing misdemeanor (or felony) charges instead of the user...
West's defense team made this very point in a press release: From these facts it appears that Microsoft's software may have caused this unfortunate situation to occur. Mr. Sperling or the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be wise to investigate Microsoft as a possible co-defendant or party in this case.
However, West's lawyers failed pursue this line of defense. The obvious reason is that the security flaw wasn't in Microsoft's product but in the way it was deployed by the user. Microsoft provided adequate means of security here and instructions on how to implement it.
In any case, Microsoft had nothing to do with the acts to which West plead guilty.
...instead of targeting the company that is more concerned with taking your money than making sure it actually works.
Until recently Microsoft was the target of a vigorous Federal prosecution. Apparently, politics has impeded the prosecution, but the prosecutors can hardly be faulted.
Re:Hypothetical situation: possession/intent?
on
Brian West Update
·
· Score: 2
Could someone be sent to jail for doing nothing more than browsing a web-page?
Highly unlikely. The district attorney pointed out a defense in a press release in response to public concern about the case:
A suspect's intent, the amount of loss occasioned by the behavior, and the
context of the alleged offense are among many factors that are within the
scope of the investigation and weighed in such prosecutorial
decisions. Only after all these standards and issues have been considered
would the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma prosecute an individual for a criminal offense.
Federal DAs are reluctant to prosecute unless there is a high probability of conviction and a low probability of reversal on appeal.
it seems like cops are getting overzealous in prosecuting tech "crimes"
Mostly one sees complaints about the light sentences hacker receive when the putative damages are in the $billions. These sentences can hardly be an incentive for police to pursue what you call "tech crimes".
Log files of virtually any Web servers will indicate thousands of attempts at hacking. In terms of sheer quantity it must be the most common crime by far. I'd like to see a little more zealousness in pursuing these jerks.
Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid.
Not to worry. The British have had limited detention without trial to fight terrorism since 1974 and it has had no known effect upon foreigners seeking admission to Britian. The laws are disproportionately applied to Irish visitors without reducing the number Irish citizens coming to Britian to work or visit.
Terrorism is a threat to resident aliens as much as anyone else. A resident alien, like an American citizen, has to decide whether the possibilities of a terrorist attack outweigh the new restrictions and hassles.
If a resident alien is willing to stay in America despite the risk to life and limb posed by terrorism, he may find the additional risk from anti-terrorist measures a reasonable price to pay.
check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.
Never mind the art. Check out the anti-terrorism laws in other countries where terrorism has been endemic for decades. Hundreds of resident aliens were killed in the attack on September 11. They have as much reason as anyone else to be clamouring for clampdown.
I'd like to see a Senator actually have the balls to say to his constituents (sp?), "I can't do that, it would be unconstitutional."
If representatives disagree with their constituents, the time to say so is before the election, not after.
If voters can't count on their elected representatives to make their case, where can they turn? Legislators, like lawyers, may have to advocate positions they personally disagree with because that is what they are paid to do.
Obviously the majority can be wrong and demogoguery is a blight on democracy. However, I suspect that typically more harm is done when representatives substitute their own personal judgment for the will of the majority, than the other way around.
I've run out of points here. If you would like to have the last word I would be happy to read it.
they can declare a particular point was constutionally vague enough to allow mistakes to be made
Letting the judiciary rule on the state of mind of the legislature usurps the prerogative of the electorate.
COPA is a good example of the problem. The Act states that "the protection of the physical and psychological well-being of minors by shielding them from materials that are harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest." If legislators were responding to pressure from their constituents who were more concerned with the well-being of their children than with their freedom of speech, well, that's what legislators do.
The whole point of separation of powers is that different branches of government respond to different pressures. It would defeat the system if the legislature answered both to the electorate and the judiciary.
my point is that are lawmakers are continually passing laws that are obviously unconstitutional...
Continually? Obviously? Occasionally and debatably are more accurate. To maintain that elected representatives are a persistent threat to freedom contradicts the very idea and purpose of democracy.
Election day should be a big enough 2x4 and it constantly has the attention of the elected representatives.
Then again, with the body blows the Constitution has taken in recent times...
The recent history of the Supreme Court has been to extend individual rights, not restrict them. Right to speedy trial, right to counsel during interrogation, abortion rights, right to travel abroad, publishing porn, publishing hate, publishing libel, now vastly exceed what was once permitted in the United States and are generally more advanced than other democracies.
People in the U.S. today are freer than at any period in American history both from legal restrictions and from social conventions. Much of this freedom comes from the Supreme Court striking down laws that had been accepted for decades.
The terrorist threat aside, the biggest threat to individual freedom at the moment comes from reduced privacy that results from new technology. It's an area where we need more legislation, not less.
These people are supposed to know what they are doing and have no fucking excuse for voting for unconstitutional laws.
Actually, they do.
The Supreme Court is rarely unanimous on what is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has overturned laws that have previously been ruled constitutional, e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education
The Supreme Court can strike down sections of a law while legislators must vote on the whole law.
The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution in new ways, e.g. Miranda warnings.
Also, consider that the Supreme Court reviews laws many years after they have been passed when most of their original supporters have retired or been defeated.
There are already two constitutional
procedures for dealing with unconstitutional law: judicial review and presidential veto. Also, voters can remove representatives who pass laws they don't like at the next election.
I think the Founding Fathers were way ahead of you here.
Putting a specific time limit on a suspension of a right, a sort of sundown clause, addresses in part the threat that government will abuse the new power. I recall, for instance, that in World War II U.S. citizens were drafted for the duration of the war plus 6 months. The almost total loss of rights imposed by the draft was mitigated by the fact that it would be over when the war was over.
However, if the terrorist threat persists, then the reason for the suspension persists, and the suspension will persist. Since the terrorist threat is likely to persist for decades, perhaps the idea of an expiry date should be replaced by another sort of limit like "no domestic terrorist acts for 3 years."
One way to look at restricting rights is: is the risk of government abusing its power as a result of imposing restrictions greater than the risk of terrorist acts caused by not imposing restrictions? That is, is the threat of terrorism to our rights and freedom greater than the threat of government?
Another way to look it is: everyone recognizes that the restraints on soldiers' rights and freedom are necessary to fight a war. Why isn't anyone worrying about government abusing that authority?
We will have to remain focussed for quite a long time, maybe even years.
As horrible as it is to say it, in some ways this war will be good for America. Many people have worried that Americans were taking their freedom for granted, they had developed a psychology of complaint and victimization, they had stopped voting, they had become physically unfit and, in general, withdrawn from the political life of their country to watch game shows on television.
Usually the people who harped on these points had dubious motives themselves and were appealing to the same resentment and victimization that they decried.
However, surely one of the things that motivated the terrorists must have been the perception that Americans were soft and too attached to creature comforts to respond. What would they have seen during the many months they trained in the United States to disabuse them?
To defeat the terrorists we may have to become better people, at least in the sense of being willing to put aside our comforts for liberty.
War is absolutely the worst way to have your greatness tested. It brings out the worst in a nation as well as the best. However, no one doubts that America emerged from World War II stronger than ever, with a devotion to its institutions and a realistic appreciation of its international responsibilities that only sacrifice can bring.
If this war is a new kind that is fought not only by soldiers in uniform but by every citizen, then so much the better.
The one morbid effect our democracy might have on Bin Laden would be to lead him to conclude that all Americans are ultimately responsible for what our government does, since it's power ultimately rests in us.
Strategically, the neat separation of combatants and non-combatants ended with the industrial revolution. The strength of an army is based on the capacity of the country to keep it supplied with materiel. The result is that to hit an army's supply lines, you ultimately have to hit civilian targets. This theory is the basis of strategic bombing and nuclear deterence.
Morally, if citizens decide to put their soldiers at risk, why should they be any less at risk than the officers who command the soldiers?
Although, there's no longer any moral difference between combatants and noncombatants in democracies, you can still make the case that there is a distinction in dictatorships like Afghanistan and Iraq where the population has no control over its leaders.
Air power has made the notion of a neat front line and a remote battle field obsolete anyway. International terrorism is a natural evolution of that sensibility.
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
what credentials do you have for war?
"War is too important to be left to the generals," is the classic reply made by France's premier in World War I, Georges Clemenceau
In any case, the new kind of war that the pundits are talking about is not going to be fought in the mountains. The military has selected bin Laden's hideout because it can be attacked with old-kind-of-war weapons. Some people might argue that as long as the terrorists are up in the mountains, leave them there. They're only dangerous when they come down into the lowlands.
By "new kind of war", the pundits are referring to a new kind of war for the United States. It has been fought in Israel and Britian for sometime. America's first mistake will be to repeat all the errors those countries made until they reach the same position those countries have arrived at: lots of security personnel, large, secret intelligence agencies, detention without trial within specified limits, and a list of banned organizations, among other measures.
At the moment the new kind of war is shapping up to be an old fashion seige and war of attrition. The terrorist have laid seige to the U.S. The U.S. will begin using its world-wide alliances and allies to put relentless pressure on the terrorist networks. These tactics are used when one side realizes that none of it's weapons and tactics will lead directly to victory.
In the meantime, new weapons and tactics will be invented. In World War I, the tank broke the static defenses of the Germans. But tanks arrived when the war of attrition had so weakened the German's ability to fight that it only hastened the inevitable.
So I would expect the new kind of war to look like a seige in the short-term while the U.S. wears down the terrorists as best it can. The U.S. happens to be particularly good at wars of attrition. Every one of America's enemies from Robert E. Lee to Yamamoto expected the U.S. to tire quickly and look for a negotiated way out. They were always surprised at America's resilience and at the ferocity of it's counterattack.
It would have been helpful if Stallman had said what measures he would tolerate. It is a given than in wartime some restrictions are necessary.
He might have also addressed the question of duration. Some restrictions might be acceptable temporarily.
He might also have addressed under what condition he would accept more stringent restrictions. If the attacks continued or reoccur, more restrictions might be necessary than they are now.
He might also have addressed the issue whether it is better to err on the side of too few or too many restrictions. It's unlikely the legislators are going to get it exactly right.
Stallman might also have made a distinction between rights, which are defined by the U.S. Constitution, and privileges, which can be removed at the whim of the legislature. Clearly, we would be willing to give up more privileges than rights and for longer.
One question to ask is what restrictions on traditional rights might have prevented the attack on September 11. The next question to ask is what restrictions would prevent terrorists from using poison gas and biological weapons in the future.
Whatever the answers to those questions are, they are the ones we will have to live with.
In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth. The article linked to above by Caleb Carr draws a comparison between the War of 1812 and the terrorist attack on American symbols:
In short, the British gratuitously destroyed important structures in Washington (and killed many innocent people) because those buildings were obnoxious symbols of American values whose spread and propagation the London government feared would spell the disempowerment of their own.
I hesitate to disagree with so imminent an historian, but he cites none of the usual evidence for this assertion, like orders, documents, speeches. In their absence, one does not need to know much history of the period to
doubt his thesis.
England was itself a democracy and the model for America's institutions. England's parliament was at the time as potent a symbol as any they might destroy 3,000 miles across the ocean.
The causes of the war had nothing to with such concerns. They involved England's control of the seas during its war with France and impressment of sailors on American ships.
America invaded Canada during the war with some of the same ravages as Carr describes in the British counterattack. In that context, the British actions can be seen more as conventional reprisals.
After the war, American relations with England were fairly cozy, including England's failure to support the South in the Civil War despite some strong economic reasons to do so.
One would hate to think that Carr was deliberately distorting history to bolster America's policies today, but if he did, he wouldn't be the first.
I think there are only two sides here: the one that abhors the taking of noncombatant lives, and the one that doesn't.
If that statement is true, it's going to be hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in any war.
All sides claim to oppose taking civilian lives and all sides do it anyway.
Possibly you could distinguish one side from the other by how much effort it makes to avoid civilian casualties. However, in the skewed moral calculus of war, if the enemy benefits from your efforts to spare his civilians, he is able to inflict more damage on your soldiers and civilians. What you are really asking is how many extra casualties is one side willing to sustain to protect the civilians of the other side.
The only conclusion I can think of is that each side in the war is responsible for protecting its own civilians. Each side should locate its bases away from civilian areas. It should divert as many resources as it can from its war effort to to protect its civilians and treat them when they are injured. The question then is how many extra combat casualties will one side sustain to protect its own noncombatants.
Given that a nation can sustain higher civilian casualties than it can combat casualties and still fight, the answer here is pretty grim as well. The ultimate question is how many casualties are the civilians themselves willing to sustain to fight and win the war.
Once you go to war you've already decided that there is so little humanity in the enemy that you can only deal with him through violence. With that attitude, it is unrealistic expect much restraint on the part of your enemy. The longer the war lasts, the less restraint you can expect. As time goes on, it will be harder and harder to distinguish one side from the other based on its conduct of the war.
Both articles describe a scenario involving cruise missles and air strikes followed by special forces brought in by helicopter. One article says the assault could begin within a week.
From James Joyce's The Dead: Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age.
I'm not religious either but at times I've felt the impulse to be part of something larger than myself, to make some sacrifice that would distinguish an ordinary life. People without that particular impulse may find it hard to understand people that have it.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's an impulse that is generally best resisted. It means that people will die heroically for a bad cause as easily as a good one. People will commit atrocities for a good cause as easily as a bad one.
In normal times it makes one suspicious of all creeds and causes. After the events of September 11, however, one realizes that one must choose a side with all its faults or be justly labeled a traitor and a coward. Like it or not, one is part of something larger than oneself.
Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them
Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;
Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood
I have no such tendancies and thus I don't need to look into my heart.
I detect some hostility in you post. Does that not suggest there is some hostility in your heart? Perhaps it's not Columbine-level hostility but enough to suggest you should take a look.
Your major faults are the fact that you A) stereotype people
The point of my post, as well as the New York Times stories, was that the terrorists were not stereotypes of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics.
BTW, because you disagree with me, don't presume you know what my major faults are.
But that doesn't change the fact that it makes a HUGE difference in success rate once you know that something is possible. Just knowing it gives you the clarity and confidence to succeed.
Knowing that someone ran the 4 minute mile is not going to make it easier to run it unless you're in superb physical shape. How many terrorist organizations can field 20 members bent on suicide? That is, knowing that you can't even run a 5 minute mile, how likely are you to attempt the 4 minute one? Still, it is hard to know what inspires suicide attacks. Generally, they are signs of weakness and desperation. A defeat can inspire them more easily than a victory.
We have two choices: fighting or not.
Not the issue. If one looks at countries where terrorism is endemic, like Britain or Israel, one sees that despite decades of fighting terrorism by a combination of methods, the number of terrorists appears to be about the same as ever. Both Britain and Israel hope to end terrorism by some form of negotiation and concessions.
You cannot negotiate with someone who has no demands save your death.
Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?
If you would like the last word here I would be happy to read it.
Do we? Let us see if outrage such as yours turns into long lines of young people volunteering to join the armed forces. Let us see if there is clamour for higher taxes to pay for the war. Let us see if the U.S. commits ground troups.
Reports say that Bush is planning on calling up 50,000 reservists. That's not war. War is reinstating the draft. Let's see what people say when they're yanked out of their careers to do pushups and 50 mile hikes with a full pack.
There are a hundred groups planning attacks on US citizens after a success like this.
Evidence for this figure? I've seen nothing published.
After the first person ran the mile in under 3 minutes...
Once they knew it could be done it was easy to reach the goal
You think running a mile in 4 minutes is easy? Try running one in 5 minutes sometime.
How many more will die in attacks before its acceptable for us to say, "shit, we'd better hit back"?
Zero people! You hearby have permission to say "we'd better hit back." Actually hitting back, of course, takes a lot more thought and preparation. Hit back if you must but drop the sanctimony. It's going to be a miserable business.
Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.
The same suggestion was made when Clinton ordered attacks in retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, 1998.
Clinton responded that neither the Secretary of Defense, who was a Republican, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would put American servicemen's lives at risk for a political reasons. The same reasoning would apply today.
The real question is: what alternatives does the U.S. have to air strikes? Clinton's air strikes, which were aimed at bin Laden, obviously failed to deter the WTC terrorists just as repeated bombings in Iraq have failed to stifle Saddam Husein. Bush may still order air strikes anyway because they put the fewest U.S. servicemen's lives at risk, not because they are the most effective strategy.
Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off.
People who want to understand how terrorists could target civilians need read no further than this comment and similar ones on slashdot.
If the profile of the WTC terrorists could be based on the people who make these sort of comments here, it would a person of above average intelligence, technically inclined, a bit of an idealist, hardworking, thoughtful and disciplined.
Also, the person will have no direct experience of the evil he seeks to avenge.
This New York Times story is headlined: A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.
That profile is: They were adults with education and skill, not hopeless young zealots. At least one left behind a wife and young children. They mingled in secular society, even drinking forbidden alcohol, hardly typical of Islamic militants.
And this story, also from the New York Times, is headlined: An Unobtrusive Man's Odyssey: Polite Student to Suicide Hijacker.
The story described suspected terrorist Mohammed Atta as: He was diligent. He was polite. He had, until quite recently, a taste for black jeans and a liking for a hangout here called Sharky's Billiard Bar, which calls itself "The Bar With Mega-Possibilities." But Mohammed Atta, 33, was not what he long appeared to his teachers at the Technical University...: an unobtrusive man leading an unobtrusive life.
How close are these descriptions to everyone you know? If you want to understand these monsters we have only to look into our own hearts.
This slashdot post says: Folks, this war is going to take a long time. This isn't gonna be over in days or weeks or months, and the resolution is not gonna be on tomorrow's news. He is speaking for the terrorists as well as America.
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps you should consider alternatives...
May I suggest Vedit? It includes syntax highlighting for many languages but it also allows the user to create custom configuration files for syntax highlighting in any language. These configuration files also permit pattern matching.
Version 6, a major upgrade, is being released in October. I've used Vedit for 20 years, back when it was the only editor available for CP/M.
In those days, of course, there was no such thing as syntax highlighting...but I digress.
So tell me why Microsoft is not facing misdemeanor (or felony) charges instead of the user...
West's defense team made this very point in a press release:
From these facts it appears that Microsoft's software may have caused this unfortunate situation to occur. Mr. Sperling or the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be wise to investigate Microsoft as a possible co-defendant or party in this case.
However, West's lawyers failed pursue this line of defense. The obvious reason is that the security flaw wasn't in Microsoft's product but in the way it was deployed by the user. Microsoft provided adequate means of security here and instructions on how to implement it.
In any case, Microsoft had nothing to do with the acts to which West plead guilty.
Until recently Microsoft was the target of a vigorous Federal prosecution. Apparently, politics has impeded the prosecution, but the prosecutors can hardly be faulted.
Could someone be sent to jail for doing nothing more than browsing a web-page?
Highly unlikely. The district attorney pointed out a defense in a press release in response to public concern about the case:
A suspect's intent, the amount of loss occasioned by the behavior, and the context of the alleged offense are among many factors that are within the scope of the investigation and weighed in such prosecutorial decisions. Only after all these standards and issues have been considered would the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma prosecute an individual for a criminal offense.
Federal DAs are reluctant to prosecute unless there is a high probability of conviction and a low probability of reversal on appeal.
it seems like cops are getting overzealous in prosecuting tech "crimes"
Mostly one sees complaints about the light sentences hacker receive when the putative damages are in the $billions. These sentences can hardly be an incentive for police to pursue what you call "tech crimes".
Log files of virtually any Web servers will indicate thousands of attempts at hacking. In terms of sheer quantity it must be the most common crime by far. I'd like to see a little more zealousness in pursuing these jerks.
Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid.
Not to worry. The British have had limited detention without trial to fight terrorism since 1974 and it has had no known effect upon foreigners seeking admission to Britian. The laws are disproportionately applied to Irish visitors without reducing the number Irish citizens coming to Britian to work or visit.
Terrorism is a threat to resident aliens as much as anyone else. A resident alien, like an American citizen, has to decide whether the possibilities of a terrorist attack outweigh the new restrictions and hassles.
If a resident alien is willing to stay in America despite the risk to life and limb posed by terrorism, he may find the additional risk from anti-terrorist measures a reasonable price to pay.
check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.
Never mind the art. Check out the anti-terrorism laws in other countries where terrorism has been endemic for decades. Hundreds of resident aliens were killed in the attack on September 11. They have as much reason as anyone else to be clamouring for clampdown.
I'd like to see a Senator actually have the balls to say to his constituents (sp?), "I can't do that, it would be unconstitutional."
If representatives disagree with their constituents, the time to say so is before the election, not after.
If voters can't count on their elected representatives to make their case, where can they turn? Legislators, like lawyers, may have to advocate positions they personally disagree with because that is what they are paid to do.
Obviously the majority can be wrong and demogoguery is a blight on democracy. However, I suspect that typically more harm is done when representatives substitute their own personal judgment for the will of the majority, than the other way around.
I've run out of points here. If you would like to have the last word I would be happy to read it.
they can declare a particular point was constutionally vague enough to allow mistakes to be made
Letting the judiciary rule on the state of mind of the legislature usurps the prerogative of the electorate.
COPA is a good example of the problem. The Act states that "the protection of the physical and psychological well-being of minors by shielding them from materials that are harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest." If legislators were responding to pressure from their constituents who were more concerned with the well-being of their children than with their freedom of speech, well, that's what legislators do.
The whole point of separation of powers is that different branches of government respond to different pressures. It would defeat the system if the legislature answered both to the electorate and the judiciary.
my point is that are lawmakers are continually passing laws that are obviously unconstitutional...
Continually? Obviously? Occasionally and debatably are more accurate. To maintain that elected representatives are a persistent threat to freedom contradicts the very idea and purpose of democracy.
Election day should be a big enough 2x4 and it constantly has the attention of the elected representatives.
Then again, with the body blows the Constitution has taken in recent times...
The recent history of the Supreme Court has been to extend individual rights, not restrict them. Right to speedy trial, right to counsel during interrogation, abortion rights, right to travel abroad, publishing porn, publishing hate, publishing libel, now vastly exceed what was once permitted in the United States and are generally more advanced than other democracies.
People in the U.S. today are freer than at any period in American history both from legal restrictions and from social conventions. Much of this freedom comes from the Supreme Court striking down laws that had been accepted for decades.
The terrorist threat aside, the biggest threat to individual freedom at the moment comes from reduced privacy that results from new technology. It's an area where we need more legislation, not less.
These people are supposed to know what they are doing and have no fucking excuse for voting for unconstitutional laws.
Actually, they do.
The Supreme Court is rarely unanimous on what is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has overturned laws that have previously been ruled constitutional, e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education
The Supreme Court can strike down sections of a law while legislators must vote on the whole law.
The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution in new ways, e.g. Miranda warnings.
Also, consider that the Supreme Court reviews laws many years after they have been passed when most of their original supporters have retired or been defeated.
There are already two constitutional procedures for dealing with unconstitutional law: judicial review and presidential veto. Also, voters can remove representatives who pass laws they don't like at the next election.
I think the Founding Fathers were way ahead of you here.
Putting a specific time limit on a suspension of a right, a sort of sundown clause, addresses in part the threat that government will abuse the new power. I recall, for instance, that in World War II U.S. citizens were drafted for the duration of the war plus 6 months. The almost total loss of rights imposed by the draft was mitigated by the fact that it would be over when the war was over.
However, if the terrorist threat persists, then the reason for the suspension persists, and the suspension will persist. Since the terrorist threat is likely to persist for decades, perhaps the idea of an expiry date should be replaced by another sort of limit like "no domestic terrorist acts for 3 years."
One way to look at restricting rights is: is the risk of government abusing its power as a result of imposing restrictions greater than the risk of terrorist acts caused by not imposing restrictions? That is, is the threat of terrorism to our rights and freedom greater than the threat of government?
Another way to look it is: everyone recognizes that the restraints on soldiers' rights and freedom are necessary to fight a war. Why isn't anyone worrying about government abusing that authority?
We will have to remain focussed for quite a long time, maybe even years.
As horrible as it is to say it, in some ways this war will be good for America. Many people have worried that Americans were taking their freedom for granted, they had developed a psychology of complaint and victimization, they had stopped voting, they had become physically unfit and, in general, withdrawn from the political life of their country to watch game shows on television.
Usually the people who harped on these points had dubious motives themselves and were appealing to the same resentment and victimization that they decried.
However, surely one of the things that motivated the terrorists must have been the perception that Americans were soft and too attached to creature comforts to respond. What would they have seen during the many months they trained in the United States to disabuse them?
To defeat the terrorists we may have to become better people, at least in the sense of being willing to put aside our comforts for liberty.
War is absolutely the worst way to have your greatness tested. It brings out the worst in a nation as well as the best. However, no one doubts that America emerged from World War II stronger than ever, with a devotion to its institutions and a realistic appreciation of its international responsibilities that only sacrifice can bring.
If this war is a new kind that is fought not only by soldiers in uniform but by every citizen, then so much the better.
The one morbid effect our democracy might have on Bin Laden would be to lead him to conclude that all Americans are ultimately responsible for what our government does, since it's power ultimately rests in us.
Strategically, the neat separation of combatants and non-combatants ended with the industrial revolution. The strength of an army is based on the capacity of the country to keep it supplied with materiel. The result is that to hit an army's supply lines, you ultimately have to hit civilian targets. This theory is the basis of strategic bombing and nuclear deterence.
Morally, if citizens decide to put their soldiers at risk, why should they be any less at risk than the officers who command the soldiers?
Although, there's no longer any moral difference between combatants and noncombatants in democracies, you can still make the case that there is a distinction in dictatorships like Afghanistan and Iraq where the population has no control over its leaders.
Air power has made the notion of a neat front line and a remote battle field obsolete anyway. International terrorism is a natural evolution of that sensibility.
what credentials do you have for war?
"War is too important to be left to the generals," is the classic reply made by France's premier in World War I, Georges Clemenceau
In any case, the new kind of war that the pundits are talking about is not going to be fought in the mountains. The military has selected bin Laden's hideout because it can be attacked with old-kind-of-war weapons. Some people might argue that as long as the terrorists are up in the mountains, leave them there. They're only dangerous when they come down into the lowlands.
By "new kind of war", the pundits are referring to a new kind of war for the United States. It has been fought in Israel and Britian for sometime. America's first mistake will be to repeat all the errors those countries made until they reach the same position those countries have arrived at: lots of security personnel, large, secret intelligence agencies, detention without trial within specified limits, and a list of banned organizations, among other measures.
At the moment the new kind of war is shapping up to be an old fashion seige and war of attrition. The terrorist have laid seige to the U.S. The U.S. will begin using its world-wide alliances and allies to put relentless pressure on the terrorist networks. These tactics are used when one side realizes that none of it's weapons and tactics will lead directly to victory.
In the meantime, new weapons and tactics will be invented. In World War I, the tank broke the static defenses of the Germans. But tanks arrived when the war of attrition had so weakened the German's ability to fight that it only hastened the inevitable.
So I would expect the new kind of war to look like a seige in the short-term while the U.S. wears down the terrorists as best it can. The U.S. happens to be particularly good at wars of attrition. Every one of America's enemies from Robert E. Lee to Yamamoto expected the U.S. to tire quickly and look for a negotiated way out. They were always surprised at America's resilience and at the ferocity of it's counterattack.
It would have been helpful if Stallman had said what measures he would tolerate. It is a given than in wartime some restrictions are necessary.
He might have also addressed the question of duration. Some restrictions might be acceptable temporarily.
He might also have addressed under what condition he would accept more stringent restrictions. If the attacks continued or reoccur, more restrictions might be necessary than they are now.
He might also have addressed the issue whether it is better to err on the side of too few or too many restrictions. It's unlikely the legislators are going to get it exactly right.
Stallman might also have made a distinction between rights, which are defined by the U.S. Constitution, and privileges, which can be removed at the whim of the legislature. Clearly, we would be willing to give up more privileges than rights and for longer.
One question to ask is what restrictions on traditional rights might have prevented the attack on September 11. The next question to ask is what restrictions would prevent terrorists from using poison gas and biological weapons in the future.
Whatever the answers to those questions are, they are the ones we will have to live with.
In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth. The article linked to above by Caleb Carr draws a comparison between the War of 1812 and the terrorist attack on American symbols:
In short, the British gratuitously destroyed important structures in Washington (and killed many innocent people) because those buildings were obnoxious symbols of American values whose spread and propagation the London government feared would spell the disempowerment of their own.
I hesitate to disagree with so imminent an historian, but he cites none of the usual evidence for this assertion, like orders, documents, speeches. In their absence, one does not need to know much history of the period to doubt his thesis.
England was itself a democracy and the model for America's institutions. England's parliament was at the time as potent a symbol as any they might destroy 3,000 miles across the ocean.
The causes of the war had nothing to with such concerns. They involved England's control of the seas during its war with France and impressment of sailors on American ships.
America invaded Canada during the war with some of the same ravages as Carr describes in the British counterattack. In that context, the British actions can be seen more as conventional reprisals.
After the war, American relations with England were fairly cozy, including England's failure to support the South in the Civil War despite some strong economic reasons to do so.
One would hate to think that Carr was deliberately distorting history to bolster America's policies today, but if he did, he wouldn't be the first.
I think there are only two sides here: the one that abhors the taking of noncombatant lives, and the one that doesn't.
If that statement is true, it's going to be hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in any war.
All sides claim to oppose taking civilian lives and all sides do it anyway.
Possibly you could distinguish one side from the other by how much effort it makes to avoid civilian casualties. However, in the skewed moral calculus of war, if the enemy benefits from your efforts to spare his civilians, he is able to inflict more damage on your soldiers and civilians. What you are really asking is how many extra casualties is one side willing to sustain to protect the civilians of the other side.
The only conclusion I can think of is that each side in the war is responsible for protecting its own civilians. Each side should locate its bases away from civilian areas. It should divert as many resources as it can from its war effort to to protect its civilians and treat them when they are injured. The question then is how many extra combat casualties will one side sustain to protect its own noncombatants.
Given that a nation can sustain higher civilian casualties than it can combat casualties and still fight, the answer here is pretty grim as well. The ultimate question is how many casualties are the civilians themselves willing to sustain to fight and win the war.
Once you go to war you've already decided that there is so little humanity in the enemy that you can only deal with him through violence. With that attitude, it is unrealistic expect much restraint on the part of your enemy. The longer the war lasts, the less restraint you can expect. As time goes on, it will be harder and harder to distinguish one side from the other based on its conduct of the war.
they are saying that NOTHING is going to happen
These two articles from the Daily Telegraph give a fairly detailed descriptions of the military preparation that is underway:
SAS to play key role in capturing bin Laden
SAS to join American special forces
Both articles describe a scenario involving cruise missles and air strikes followed by special forces brought in by helicopter. One article says the assault could begin within a week.
From James Joyce's The Dead: Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age.
I'm not religious either but at times I've felt the impulse to be part of something larger than myself, to make some sacrifice that would distinguish an ordinary life. People without that particular impulse may find it hard to understand people that have it.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's an impulse that is generally best resisted. It means that people will die heroically for a bad cause as easily as a good one. People will commit atrocities for a good cause as easily as a bad one.
In normal times it makes one suspicious of all creeds and causes. After the events of September 11, however, one realizes that one must choose a side with all its faults or be justly labeled a traitor and a coward. Like it or not, one is part of something larger than oneself.
I'm not religious but I turn to Psalm 144:
Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them
Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;
Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood
Interesting thread here. Thanks.
I have no such tendancies and thus I don't need to look into my heart.
I detect some hostility in you post. Does that not suggest there is some hostility in your heart? Perhaps it's not Columbine-level hostility but enough to suggest you should take a look.
Your major faults are the fact that you A) stereotype people
The point of my post, as well as the New York Times stories, was that the terrorists were not stereotypes of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics.
BTW, because you disagree with me, don't presume you know what my major faults are.
But that doesn't change the fact that it makes a HUGE difference in success rate once you know that something is possible. Just knowing it gives you the clarity and confidence to succeed.
Knowing that someone ran the 4 minute mile is not going to make it easier to run it unless you're in superb physical shape. How many terrorist organizations can field 20 members bent on suicide? That is, knowing that you can't even run a 5 minute mile, how likely are you to attempt the 4 minute one? Still, it is hard to know what inspires suicide attacks. Generally, they are signs of weakness and desperation. A defeat can inspire them more easily than a victory.
We have two choices: fighting or not.
Not the issue. If one looks at countries where terrorism is endemic, like Britain or Israel, one sees that despite decades of fighting terrorism by a combination of methods, the number of terrorists appears to be about the same as ever. Both Britain and Israel hope to end terrorism by some form of negotiation and concessions.
You cannot negotiate with someone who has no demands save your death.
Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?
If you would like the last word here I would be happy to read it.
we now hate them enough to die to hurt them.
Do we? Let us see if outrage such as yours turns into long lines of young people volunteering to join the armed forces. Let us see if there is clamour for higher taxes to pay for the war. Let us see if the U.S. commits ground troups.
Reports say that Bush is planning on calling up 50,000 reservists. That's not war. War is reinstating the draft. Let's see what people say when they're yanked out of their careers to do pushups and 50 mile hikes with a full pack.
There are a hundred groups planning attacks on US citizens after a success like this.
Evidence for this figure? I've seen nothing published.
After the first person ran the mile in under 3 minutes...
I think you mean 4 minutes here.
Once they knew it could be done it was easy to reach the goal
You think running a mile in 4 minutes is easy? Try running one in 5 minutes sometime.
How many more will die in attacks before its acceptable for us to say, "shit, we'd better hit back"?
Zero people! You hearby have permission to say "we'd better hit back." Actually hitting back, of course, takes a lot more thought and preparation. Hit back if you must but drop the sanctimony. It's going to be a miserable business.
Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.
The same suggestion was made when Clinton ordered attacks in retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, 1998.
Clinton responded that neither the Secretary of Defense, who was a Republican, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would put American servicemen's lives at risk for a political reasons. The same reasoning would apply today.
The real question is: what alternatives does the U.S. have to air strikes? Clinton's air strikes, which were aimed at bin Laden, obviously failed to deter the WTC terrorists just as repeated bombings in Iraq have failed to stifle Saddam Husein. Bush may still order air strikes anyway because they put the fewest U.S. servicemen's lives at risk, not because they are the most effective strategy.
A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.
Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off.
People who want to understand how terrorists could target civilians need read no further than this comment and similar ones on slashdot.
If the profile of the WTC terrorists could be based on the people who make these sort of comments here, it would a person of above average intelligence, technically inclined, a bit of an idealist, hardworking, thoughtful and disciplined.
Also, the person will have no direct experience of the evil he seeks to avenge.
This New York Times story is headlined: A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.
That profile is: They were adults with education and skill, not hopeless young zealots. At least one left behind a wife and young children. They mingled in secular society, even drinking forbidden alcohol, hardly typical of Islamic militants.
And this story, also from the New York Times, is headlined: An Unobtrusive Man's Odyssey: Polite Student to Suicide Hijacker.
The story described suspected terrorist Mohammed Atta as: He was diligent. He was polite. He had, until quite recently, a taste for black jeans and a liking for a hangout here called Sharky's Billiard Bar, which calls itself "The Bar With Mega-Possibilities." But Mohammed Atta, 33, was not what he long appeared to his teachers at the Technical University...: an unobtrusive man leading an unobtrusive life.
How close are these descriptions to everyone you know? If you want to understand these monsters we have only to look into our own hearts.
This slashdot post says: Folks, this war is going to take a long time. This isn't gonna be over in days or weeks or months, and the resolution is not gonna be on tomorrow's news. He is speaking for the terrorists as well as America.
The designer of the WTC, Henry Guthard, agrees with you. He says:
We believe that if the building is not replaced by a building very much like it, the failure to do so would be a monument to terrorism.