Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:04:13 +1000To: CSL
From: Jim Coughlan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CSL]: The Filter, No. 4.5
===============================
Reading the following item from James Zogby, one does not know whether to
laugh or lament at the arrogance and ignorance of some in America.
However, a recent article by Stephen Kinzer entitled 'Guatemala: The
Unfinished Peace' in the prestigious, but conservative, The New York Review
of Books (June 21, 2001 [Vol. XLVIII, No. 10], pp. 61-63) has a couple of
illuminating passages.
"After describing some of the most awful aspects of the repression,
Tomuschat [a German Christian lawyer who headed a commission of inquiry
into right-wing government repression in Guatemala] added something that
needed to be said: 'Until the mid-1980s, the United States government and
US private companies exercised pressure [through the CIA, etc.?] to
maintain the country's archaic and unjust socioeconomic structure'. The
American ambassador issued a perfunctory denial of that obvious truth, but
a few days later President Clinton came to Guatemala and offered an
extraordinary public apology, which he read from handwritten notes. 'For
the United States,' Clinton said, 'it is important that I state clearly
that support for military forces and intelligence units which engage in
violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must
not repeat that mistake.'" (p. 62., col. 1)
Could the US support for right-wing authoritarian regimes throughout the
world since the 1950s, be the source of many of today's terrorists?
The article goes on, and here is the crunch.
"Last year the [US] State Department refused to grant him [Asturias, a
former Guatemalan guerrilla] a visa to visit the United States, citing what
they called his background as a terrorist. This was odd, not only because
Asturias is now an important political figure in his country's political
system but also because some of the bloodiest Guatemalan officials, true
terrorists in every sense of the word, travel freely to the United States,
and even in some cases have retired to Florida." (p. 62, col. 2)
Read that last sentence again!! And then read it again. Is the Bush
Administration's definition of a terrorist restricted just to those who act
against the interests of the USA, or against the interests of all people,
global humanity? Or is it just with respect to acts of terrorism after 11
September 2001? As the article correctly notes, some American-backed
terrorists live, today, now, with immunity in the USA, are they being
hunted down by the FBI and other US law enforcement agencies? One here is
reminded of American refugee policy for much of the 1900s - for the USA, a
person was classed as a refugee if they were fleeing (authoritarian)
communist or socialist regimes, but people fleeing repressive right-wing
authoritarian regimes were NOT classed as refugees from the perspective of
the USA!! What type of regime you were fleeing from determined your
refugee status in the eyes of the USA; who you commit acts of terrorism
against determines whether you are classified as a terrorist or not in the
eyes of the Bush Administration.
A final quotation from the article, for those whose history is weak.
"The Guatemalan conflict has its roots in a cold war history, specially in
the CIA-sponsored overthrow of President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. Arbenz, a
leftist army officer, wanted to impose a land reform program that not only
offended the United Fruit Company, Guatemala's largest landowner [with US
financial interests], but was also based on the premise that poverty was
the country's central problem." (pp. 62-63)
Sounds familiar - remember that a previous US President, George H. Bush,
father of now President George W. Bush, was previously head of the CIA,
during a period of intense aggressive CIA activity in Asia, Africa and the
Americas which resulted in the 'elimination' of thousands upon thousands of
innocent civilians, amongst others. Maybe more American leaders, and
public, should read a little more about the history of the Viet Nam War
(when a small underdeveloped country of 15 million people - North Vietnam -
defeated the might of the US military and 500,000 American soldiers on the
ground in South Viet Nam), but especially about American involvement in the
Middle East region!! The role of the CIA and the American government in
the rise of Middle East terrorism ... an interesting issue to ponder.
Terrorism is NOT to be supported in any form, but Americans should not
forget that not only are they now victims of terrorism, but American
agencies and governments have in the past initiated and supported acts of
terrorism, around the world. Informed people around the world are aware of
this, and already the American-initiated WAR on terrorism (or is it really
a war on Islam - who does the USA support in the Middle East CONFLICTS? -
people in EVERY Islamic country in the world have held anti-AMERICAN
demonstrations in the past few days) has been greated with peace marches in
most countries of the world, including in New York City itself, although
the American media has chosen to largely ignore these protests.
The following (unpleasant) posting was posted on a political science
discussion group: "The US public voted for GW Bush; Bush has said NO to
the Koyoto Global Warming Agreement, Bush has said NO to equal free global
trade, Bush has said YES to drilling for oil in pristine Alaska; the
results of Bush's arrogance towards the rest of the world and the planet's
future will be carried by the American public."
A refugee is given refugee status only if it is the political interests of
the USA; global free trade is only free trade when it is in the interests
of American big business; international terrorism is terrorism when it is
perpetrated against the USA and its interests, but it is 'action for
freedom' when perpetrated by the USA for American interests.
> No. 4.5 <--The Filter--> 10.05.01
>
> Your regular dose of public-interest Internet news and
>commentary
> from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
> H a r v a r d L a w S c h o o l
>
>
> CONTENTS:
>
> [1] Quotable
> [2] In the News
> [3] Berkman News
> [4] Dispatches
> [5] Bookmarks
> [6] Talk Back
> [7] Subscription Info
> [8] About Us
> [9] Not a Copyright
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> [1] QUOTABLE
> ================
>
> "In the current context, when you ask that question you're going
> to get that kind of response [...] I would say if you asked people,
> 'Should terrorist sympathizers have their toenails forcibly plucked
> from their toes?', you would probably get something akin to that."
>
> --James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, reacting
> to news that one third of New York residents polled by the Sienna
> College Research Institute favor the establishment of internment
> camps for "individuals who authorities identify as being
> sympathetic to terrorist causes" (Newsday via Declan McCullagh's
> politech list serve).
>
> <http://politechbot.com/p-02560.html>
>
> "Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion [...]
> All you have to give up is your illusions, not your privacy. Right
> now you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about your
> neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much they
> earn and if they had a late mortgage payment and tons of other
> information."
>
> --Oracle chairman and CEO Larry Ellison in the wake of the
> September 11 terrorist attacks, explaining why there is no valid
> privacy argument against the creation of a national identification
> card system. Ellison's offer to provide the US government with the
> software necessary for creating such a system "absolutely free"
> has so far been rebuffed.
>
> <http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.htm>
>
> "It is not a wish list; it is a modest set of essential proposals."
>
> --US Attorney General John Ashcroft, using an unfortunately
> Swiftian turn of phrase to describe provisions he urged the House
> Judiciary Committee to include in a draft for the new
> Patriot anti-terrorist legislation (via Ditherati.com).
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html>
>
> "A strange thing happened after the cold war ended: patriotism
> all but disappeared from American politics. The right and the
> left essentially offered a choice between hedonisms: tax cuts
> or spending. No one asked for sacrifice; no one spoke of a common
> purpose. Liberalism settled for irony and contempt, which
> mobilize no one. [...]
> Sept. 11 changed all that, instantly. That day a policeman
> tried to help an investment banker who had fled the twin towers
> and seemed to be in shock. 'I'm not in shock,' the banker replied.
> 'I like this state. I've never been more cognizant in my life.'"
>
> --Excerpt from "Recapturing the Flag," an article by George
> Packer published in The New York Times Magazine on September
> 30.
>
> "What we're seeing isn't the death of irony. It's the death of apathy.
> And thank f***ing God."
>
> --John Krewson, writer for The Onion, the immensely popular
> satirical newspaper and website.
>
> <http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47155,00.html>
>
> [2] IN THE NEWS
> ================
>
> *Who Wants to Be a Patriot?: If there is one development that
> best illustrates the core Internet policy debate emerging from
> the September 11 terrorist attacks, it may be the House Judiciary
> Committee's mark up and unanimous approval, Wednesday evening, of
> the Patriot Act of 2001. The issue is how best to balance the
> interests of national security and the protection of civil liberties.
> The Patriot Act--which stands for "Provide Appropriate Tools
> Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"--remains for
> many a troubling answer. Although legislators removed or
> revised some of the more worrisome aspects of earlier drafts--
> including a provision that would have allowed for "indefinite"
> detention of immigrant suspects--civil liberties groups including
> the ACLU say the revisions do not go far enough. "Because of
> the broad new powers to wiretap telephone and Internet
> communications, the legislation weakens essential checks
> and balances that the judicial branch has exercised over
> law enforcement," said Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU's
> Washington National Office. "[O]ur fear is that the American
> public will look back to this legislation and say, 'this is where we
> crossed the line to a surveillance society.'"
>
> <http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf>
>
> <http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47312,00.html>
>
> <http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/>
>
> What effect might the Patriot Act have on ordinary citizens? For
> an analysis of how its provisions could impact lawful immigrants'
> lives, read Berkman Fellow Anita Ramasastry's Findlaw
> article "Indefinite Detention Based Upon Suspicion" at the below
> URL.
>
> <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html>
>
> The House Judiciary Committee version of the Patriot Act
> carries an automatic expiration date of December 31, 2003--a
> "sunset" provision that was considered key to its bipartisan
> approval. Yesterday, however, US Attorney General John
> Ashcroft held a press conference at which he took a stand
> against the provision, arguing that "No one can guarantee
> that terrorism will sunset in two years." In addition, senior
> members of the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly released
> outlines of a compromise bill that did not contain the sunset
> provision.
>
> <http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1002230022128721040.htm>
> (Registration required.)
>
> What is the US government's legislative history with regard to
> the treatment of citizens' civil liberties during wartime? Follow
> the link below for Declan McCullagh's "Why Liberty Suffers in
> Wartime," which provides a thoughtful overview.
>
> <http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47051,00.html>
>
>
> [3] BERKMAN NEWS
> ================
>
> * ILAW, Winter 2002: Registration is now open for the Berkman
> Center's Winter 2002 Internet Law Program of Instruction, the
> central segment of which will take place in Singapore. Taught by
> leading experts in the field, the program will address the most
> controversial cyberlaw issues being debated by lawmakers, courts
> and practitioners in the US and other countries. The program
> is designed for a broad audience including professionals in law,
> politics, business, journalism and education. It offers an optional
> online instructional component in addition to the intensive, three-day
> series of lectures and discussions January 2-4 in Singapore.
> Follow the link below for further details, including syllabus
> and registration information.
>
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw>
>
> Questions regarding the Internet Law Program of Instruction
> should be directed to: [log in to unmask]
>
> * Berkman Center Welcomes New Fellows: Among the
> Berkman Center's 2001-2002 fellows are five who have
> just recently joined us. We are proud to welcome Justin
> Chan, Rohan Kariyawasam, Don McGovern, Mark Patterson,
> and Anita Ramasastry.
>
> Justin Chan
> Mr. Chan's research focuses on the evolution of rules in the
> digital economy: how the economics of new technology compels
> changes in the law. He is a former clerk to Singapore Supreme
> Court Chief Justice Yong Pung How and has worked closely with
> the Singapore Academy of Law, serving as project coordinator
> for the Academy's Information Technology Law Immersion
> Program 2001 and as Secretary to the Technology Law
> Development Group, a cyberlaw think tank.
>
> Rohan Kariyawasam
> Mr. Kariyawasam's research interests include the interpretation
> of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules relating to
> telecommunications, Internet and broadcasting (including webcasting),
> open access to electronic networks and services, and legal and
> regulatory mechanisms to help reduce the digital divide between
> the developed and developing worlds. He is a Fulbright scholar and
> UK solicitor who has worked as a consultant for both the Media &
> Communications Department at Clifford Chance, and for the
> Telecommunications & Internet Department at Field Fisher
> Waterhouse.
>
> Don McGovern
> Mr. McGovern comes to the Berkman Center from a post as the
> World Wide R & D Manager in Hewlett Packard Operations (HPO).
> Before joining HP, McGovern was vice president in Novell's
> Operating System's Division. McGovern was a board director
> of X/Open Company Limited, the Open Software Foundation (OSF),
> and the X Consortium. While in residence, McGovern will head
> research into the structure of a global, Net-based, open source
> learning consortium.
>
> Mark Patterson
> Professor Patterson is an Associate Professor at Fordham
> Law School, where he teaches Antitrust Law, Patent Law, and
> Corporations. He has taught seminars in Competition and
> Information and Law and Scientific Research, and in the spring
> of 2002 he will be co-teaching a seminar in Technology and
> Human Rights. Patterson's work at the Berkman Center focuses
> on developing an antitrust analysis for the control and use of
> information, particularly in electronic commerce.
>
> Anita Ramasastry
> Professor Ramasastry is the Associate Director of the Center
> for Law, Commerce & Technology and Assistant Professor of
> Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.
> Her research and teaching areas include law and technology,
> international commercial law and banking and payment systems.
> At the Berkman Center, Ramasastry is researching "virtual"
> protest, or hacktivism, including the use of rhetoric and metaphor
> in the debate on activism.
>
> To read more or view the full roster of 2001-2002 fellows, visit
> the URL below:
>
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/fellows.html>
>
>
> [4] DISPATCHES
> ================
>
> This week we're featuring a brief selection of articles written
> in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedy that have moved us,
> informed us, or provoked us to think deeply. (We do not, of
> course, necessarily espouse the viewpoints expressed by the
> authors.)
>
> "An Afghan-American Speaks," by Tamim Ansary
> <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html>
>
> "Access Denied," by Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman
> <http://www.msnbc.com/news/636610.asp>
>
> "How the Terrorist Crisis Threatens Our Personal Liberties,"
> by Dan Kennedy and Harvey Silvergate
>
><http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/document
>s/
> 01839407.htm>
>
> "Securing the Lines of a Wired Nation," by John Schwartz
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/technology/circuits/04SECU.html>
>
>
> [5] BOOKMARKS
> ================
>
> * BNA Internet News
>
> <http://ecommercecenter.bna.com/>
>
> Website where you can sign up for Professor Michael Geist's
> invaluable daily dispatch of summaries of breaking developments
> in Internet law and policy.
>
> * Snopes.com: "Rumors of War"
>
> <http://www.snopes.com>
>
> The urban legend debunkers at Snopes.com assess the veracity
> of rumors spawned by the September 11 terrorist attacks.
>
> * Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund
>
> <http://www.familiesoffreedom.org/>
>
> Website for the organization that administers the "Sept. 11 College
> Fund," an initiative to raise scholarship funds, on behalf of higher
> education, for the children and spouses of the victims of the World
> Trade Center tragedy.
>
>
> [6] TALK BACK
> ================
>
> Comments? Questions? Opinions? Submissions? Send a letter to the editor
>at
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> [7] SUBSCRIPTION INFO
> ================
>
> You are receiving this email because someone (perhaps you) requested
>that
> your name be added to our mailing list. Follow this link to unsubscribe
> from the list:
>
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/subscribe>
>
>
> [8] ABOUT US
> ================
>
> Read The Filter online at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/>.
>
> Who we are:
>
> Editor: Donna Wentworth
> Reporter: Cedar Pruitt
>
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/about.html>
>
>
> [9] NOT A COPYRIGHT
> ================
>
> A publication of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
>Law
> School <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>
>
> You may--and please do--forward or copy this newsletter to friends and
> colleagues.
>
> [cc] <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html>
>
>***************************************************************************
*********
>Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
>list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
>study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please
>visit:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
>***************************************************************************
**********
>
--=====================_32858379==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=3D"Bookman, Bookman" size=3D4>Reading the following item from
James Zogby, one does not know whether to laugh or lament at the
arrogance and ignorance of some in America.<br>
<br>
However, a recent article by Stephen Kinzer entitled 'Guatemala: The
Unfinished Peace' in the prestigious, but conservative, <i>The New York
Review of Books</i> (June 21, 2001 [Vol. XLVIII, No. 10], pp. 61-63) has
a couple of illuminating passages.<br>
<br>
"After describing some of the most awful aspects of the repression,
Tomuschat [a German Christian lawyer who headed a commission of inquiry
into right-wing government repression in Guatemala] added something that
needed to be said: 'Until the mid-1980s, the United States government and
US private companies exercised pressure [through the CIA, etc.?] to
maintain the country's archaic and unjust socioeconomic structure'.
The American ambassador issued a perfunctory denial of that obvious
truth, but a few days later President Clinton came to Guatemala and
offered an extraordinary public apology, which he read from handwritten
notes. 'For the United States,' Clinton said, 'it is important that
I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units
which engage in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the
United States must not repeat that mistake.'" (p. 62., col. 1)<br>
<br>
Could the US support for right-wing authoritarian regimes throughout the
world since the 1950s, be the source of many of today's terrorists?<br>
<br>
The article goes on, and here is the crunch.<br>
<br>
"Last year the [US] State Department refused to grant him [Asturias,
a former Guatemalan guerrilla] a visa to visit the United States, citing
what they called his background as a terrorist. This was odd, not
only because Asturias is now an important political figure in his
country's political system but also because some of the bloodiest
Guatemalan officials, true terrorists in every sense of the word, travel
freely to the United States, and even in some cases have retired to
Florida." (p. 62, col. 2)<br>
<br>
Read that last sentence again!! And then read it again. Is
the Bush Administration's definition of a terrorist restricted just to
those who act against the interests of the USA, or against the interests
of all people, global humanity? Or is it just with respect to acts
of terrorism after 11 September 2001? As the article correctly
notes, some American-backed terrorists live, today, now, with immunity in
the USA, are they being hunted down by the FBI and other US law
enforcement agencies? One here is reminded of American refugee
policy for much of the 1900s - for the USA, a person was classed as a
refugee if they were fleeing (authoritarian) communist or socialist
regimes, but people fleeing repressive right-wing authoritarian regimes
were NOT classed as refugees from the perspective of the USA!! What
type of regime you were fleeing from determined your refugee status in
the eyes of the USA; who you commit acts of terrorism against determines
whether you are classified as a terrorist or not in the eyes of the Bush
Administration.<br>
<br>
A final quotation from the article, for those whose history is=20
weak.<br>
<br>
"The Guatemalan conflict has its roots in a cold war history,
specially in the CIA-sponsored overthrow of President Jacobo Arbenz in
1954. Arbenz, a leftist army officer, wanted to impose a land
reform program that not only offended the United Fruit Company,
Guatemala's largest landowner [with US financial interests], but was also
based on the premise that poverty was the country's central
problem." (pp. 62-63)<br>
<br>
Sounds familiar - remember that a previous US President, George H. Bush,
father of now President George W. Bush, was previously head of the CIA,
during a period of intense aggressive CIA activity in Asia, Africa and
the Americas which resulted in the 'elimination' of thousands upon
thousands of innocent civilians, amongst others. Maybe more
American leaders, and public, should read a little more about the history
of the Viet Nam War (when a small underdeveloped country of 15 million
people - North Vietnam - defeated the might of the US military and
500,000 American soldiers on the ground in South Viet Nam), but
especially about American involvement in the Middle East region!!
The role of the CIA and the American government in the rise of Middle
East terrorism ... an interesting issue to ponder.<br>
<br>
Terrorism is NOT to be supported in any form, but Americans should not
forget that not only are they now victims of terrorism, but American
agencies and governments have in the past initiated and supported acts of
terrorism, around the world. Informed people around the world are
aware of this, and already the American-initiated WAR on terrorism (or is
it really a war on Islam - who does the USA support in the Middle East
CONFLICTS? - people in EVERY Islamic country in the world have held
anti-AMERICAN demonstrations in the past few days) has been greated with
peace marches in most countries of the world, including in New York City
itself, although the American media has chosen to largely ignore these
protests.<br>
<br>
The following (unpleasant) posting was posted on a political science
discussion group: "The US public voted for GW Bush; Bush has
said NO to the Koyoto Global Warming Agreement, Bush has said NO to equal
free global trade, Bush has said YES to drilling for oil in pristine
Alaska; the results of Bush's arrogance towards the rest of the world and
the planet's future will be carried by the American public."<br>
<br>
A refugee is given refugee status only if it is the political interests
of the USA; global free trade is only free trade when it is in the
interests of American big business; international terrorism is terrorism
when it is perpetrated against the USA and its interests, but it is
'action for freedom' when perpetrated by the USA for American
interests.<br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite
cite> &nb=
sp;
No. 4.5 <--The Filter--> 10.05.01<br>
<br>
Your regular
dose of public-interest Internet news and<br>
commentary<br>
&nbs
=
p;
from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at<br>
&nbs
=
p; &n
=
bsp;
H a r v a r d L a w S c h o o l<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
CONTENTS:<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[1] Quotable<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[2] In the News<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[3] Berkman News<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[4] Dispatches<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[5] Bookmarks<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[6] Talk Back<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[7] Subscription Info<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[8] About Us<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[9] Not a Copyright<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
-----------------------------------------<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[1] QUOTABLE<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
"In the current context, when you ask that question you're
going<br>
to get that kind of response [...] I would say if you asked
people,<br>
'Should terrorist sympathizers have their toenails forcibly
plucked<br>
from their toes?', you would probably get something akin to
that."<br>
<br>
--James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute,
reacting<br>
to news that one third of New York residents polled by the
Sienna<br>
College Research Institute favor the establishment of
internment<br>
camps for "individuals who authorities identify as being<br>
sympathetic to terrorist causes" (Newsday via Declan
McCullagh's<br>
politech list serve).<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://politechbot.com/p-02560.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://politechbot.com/p-02560.html</a>><br>
<br>
"Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an
illusion [...]<br>
All you have to give up is your illusions, not your privacy.
Right<br>
now you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about
your<br>
neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much=20
they<br>
earn and if they had a late mortgage payment and tons of=20
other<br>
information."<br>
<br>
--Oracle chairman and CEO Larry Ellison in the wake of the<br>
September 11 terrorist attacks, explaining why there is no
valid<br>
privacy argument against the creation of a national
identification<br>
card system. Ellison's offer to provide the US government with
the<br>
software necessary for creating such a system "absolutely
free"<br>
has so far been rebuffed.<br>
<br>
<<a
href=3D"http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.ht=
m"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn0923=
01.htm</a>><br>
<br>
"It is not a wish list; it is a modest set of essential
proposals."<br>
<br>
--US Attorney General John Ashcroft, using an unfortunately<br>
Swiftian turn of phrase to describe provisions he urged the
House<br>
Judiciary Committee to include in a draft for the new<br>
Patriot anti-terrorist legislation (via Ditherati.com).<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html</a>>=
;<br>
<br>
"A strange thing happened after the cold war ended:
patriotism<br>
all but disappeared from American politics. The right and the<br>
left essentially offered a choice between hedonisms: tax cuts<br>
or spending. No one asked for sacrifice; no one spoke of a
common<br>
purpose. Liberalism settled for irony and contempt, which<br>
mobilize no one. [...]<br>
Sept. 11 changed all that, instantly. That day a policeman<br>
tried to help an investment banker who had fled the twin
towers<br>
and seemed to be in shock. 'I'm not in shock,' the banker
replied.<br>
'I like this state. I've never been more cognizant in my
life.'"<br>
<br>
--Excerpt from "Recapturing the Flag," an article by
George<br>
Packer published in The New York Times Magazine on September<br>
30.<br>
<br>
"What we're seeing isn't the death of irony. It's the death of
apathy.<br>
And thank f***ing God."<br>
<br>
--John Krewson, writer for The Onion, the immensely popular<br>
satirical newspaper and website.<br>
<br>
<<a
href=3D"http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C47155%2C00.html=
"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47155,00.html<=
/a>><br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[2] IN THE NEWS<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
*Who Wants to Be a Patriot?: If there is one development that<br>
best illustrates the core Internet policy debate emerging=20
from<br>
the September 11 terrorist attacks, it may be the House
Judiciary<br>
Committee's mark up and unanimous approval, Wednesday evening,
of<br>
the Patriot Act of 2001. The issue is how best to balance the<br>
interests of national security and the protection of civil
liberties.<br>
The Patriot Act--which stands for "Provide Appropriate
Tools<br>
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"--remains
for<br>
many a troubling answer. Although legislators removed or<br>
revised some of the more worrisome aspects of earlier=20
drafts--<br>
including a provision that would have allowed for
"indefinite"<br>
detention of immigrant suspects--civil liberties groups
including<br>
the ACLU say the revisions do not go far enough. "Because
of<br>
the broad new powers to wiretap telephone and Internet<br>
communications, the legislation weakens essential checks<br>
and balances that the judicial branch has exercised over<br>
law enforcement," said Laura Murphy, Director of the
ACLU's<br>
Washington National Office. "[O]ur fear is that the
American<br>
public will look back to this legislation and say, 'this is where
we<br>
crossed the line to a surveillance society.'"<br>
<br>
<<a
href=3D"http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf</=
a>><br>
<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C47312%2C00.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47312,00.html<=
/a>><br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/</a>><br>
<br>
What effect might the Patriot Act have on ordinary citizens?
For<br>
an analysis of how its provisions could impact lawful
immigrants'<br>
lives, read Berkman Fellow Anita Ramasastry's Findlaw<br>
article "Indefinite Detention Based Upon Suspicion" at
the below<br>
URL.<br>
<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasas=
try.html</a>><br>
<br>
The House Judiciary Committee version of the Patriot Act<br>
carries an automatic expiration date of December 31, 2003--a<br>
"sunset" provision that was considered key to its
bipartisan<br>
approval. Yesterday, however, US Attorney General John<br>
Ashcroft held a press conference at which he took a stand<br>
against the provision, arguing that "No one can=20
guarantee<br>
that terrorism will sunset in two years." In addition,
senior<br>
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly released<br>
outlines of a compromise bill that did not contain the sunset<br>
provision.<br>
<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1002230022128721040.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB100223002212872104=
0.htm</a>><br>
(Registration required.)<br>
<br>
What is the US government's legislative history with regard=20
to<br>
the treatment of citizens' civil liberties during wartime?
Follow<br>
the link below for Declan McCullagh's "Why Liberty Suffers
in<br>
Wartime," which provides a thoughtful overview.<br>
<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C47051%2C00.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47051,00.html<=
/a>><br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[3] BERKMAN NEWS<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
* ILAW, Winter 2002: Registration is now open for the Berkman<br>
Center's Winter 2002 Internet Law Program of Instruction, the<br>
central segment of which will take place in Singapore. Taught
by<br>
leading experts in the field, the program will address the
most<br>
controversial cyberlaw issues being debated by lawmakers,
courts<br>
and practitioners in the US and other countries. The program<br>
is designed for a broad audience including professionals in
law,<br>
politics, business, journalism and education. It offers an
optional<br>
online instructional component in addition to the intensive,
three-day<br>
series of lectures and discussions January 2-4 in Singapore.<br>
Follow the link below for further details, including syllabus<br>
and registration information.<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw</a>><br>
<br>
Questions regarding the Internet Law Program of Instruction<br>
should be directed to: [log in to unmask]<br>
<br>
* Berkman Center Welcomes New Fellows: Among the<br>
Berkman Center's 2001-2002 fellows are five who have<br>
just recently joined us. We are proud to welcome Justin<br>
Chan, Rohan Kariyawasam, Don McGovern, Mark Patterson,<br>
and Anita Ramasastry.<br>
<br>
Justin Chan<br>
Mr. Chan's research focuses on the evolution of rules in the<br>
digital economy: how the economics of new technology compels<br>
changes in the law. He is a former clerk to Singapore Supreme<br>
Court Chief Justice Yong Pung How and has worked closely with<br>
the Singapore Academy of Law, serving as project coordinator<br>
for the Academy's Information Technology Law Immersion<br>
Program 2001 and as Secretary to the Technology Law<br>
Development Group, a cyberlaw think tank.<br>
<br>
Rohan Kariyawasam<br>
Mr. Kariyawasam's research interests include the
interpretation<br>
of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules relating to<br>
telecommunications, Internet and broadcasting (including
webcasting),<br>
open access to electronic networks and services, and legal=20
and<br>
regulatory mechanisms to help reduce the digital divide
between<br>
the developed and developing worlds. He is a Fulbright scholar
and<br>
UK solicitor who has worked as a consultant for both the Media
&<br>
Communications Department at Clifford Chance, and for the<br>
Telecommunications & Internet Department at Field Fisher<br>
Waterhouse.<br>
<br>
Don McGovern<br>
Mr. McGovern comes to the Berkman Center from a post as the<br>
World Wide R & D Manager in Hewlett Packard Operations
(HPO).<br>
Before joining HP, McGovern was vice president in Novell's<br>
Operating System's Division. McGovern was a board director<br>
of X/Open Company Limited, the Open Software Foundation=20
(OSF),<br>
and the X Consortium. While in residence, McGovern will head<br>
research into the structure of a global, Net-based, open
source<br>
learning consortium.<br>
<br>
Mark Patterson<br>
Professor Patterson is an Associate Professor at Fordham<br>
Law School, where he teaches Antitrust Law, Patent Law, and<br>
Corporations. He has taught seminars in Competition and<br>
Information and Law and Scientific Research, and in the=20
spring<br>
of 2002 he will be co-teaching a seminar in Technology and<br>
Human Rights. Patterson's work at the Berkman Center focuses<br>
on developing an antitrust analysis for the control and use=20
of<br>
information, particularly in electronic commerce.<br>
<br>
Anita Ramasastry<br>
Professor Ramasastry is the Associate Director of the Center<br>
for Law, Commerce & Technology and Assistant Professor of<br>
Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.<br>
Her research and teaching areas include law and technology,<br>
international commercial law and banking and payment systems.<br>
At the Berkman Center, Ramasastry is researching
"virtual"<br>
protest, or hacktivism, including the use of rhetoric and
metaphor<br>
in the debate on activism.<br>
<br>
To read more or view the full roster of 2001-2002 fellows,
visit<br>
the URL below:<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/fellows.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/fellows.html</a>>=
<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[4] DISPATCHES<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
This week we're featuring a brief selection of articles
written<br>
in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedy that have moved
us,<br>
informed us, or provoked us to think deeply. (We do not, of<br>
course, necessarily espouse the viewpoints expressed by the<br>
authors.)<br>
<br>
"An Afghan-American Speaks," by Tamim Ansary<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html=
"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan=
/index.html</a>><br>
<br>
"Access Denied," by Michael Isikoff and Daniel
Klaidman<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.msnbc.com/news/636610.asp"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.msnbc.com/news/636610.asp</a>><br>
<br>
"How the Terrorist Crisis Threatens Our Personal
Liberties,"<br>
by Dan Kennedy and Harvey Silvergate<br>
<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/docu=
ment%0Ds/%0D%A001839407.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/fe=
atures/document<br>
s/<br>
01839407.htm</a>><br>
<br>
"Securing the Lines of a Wired Nation," by John
Schwartz<br>
<<a=
href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/technology/circuits/04SECU.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/technology/circuits/04=
SECU.html</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[5] BOOKMARKS<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
* BNA Internet News<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://ecommercecenter.bna.com/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://ecommercecenter.bna.com/</a>><br>
<br>
Website where you can sign up for Professor Michael Geist's<br>
invaluable daily dispatch of summaries of breaking
developments<br>
in Internet law and policy.<br>
<br>
* Snopes.com: "Rumors of War"<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.snopes.com/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.snopes.com</a>><br>
<br>
The urban legend debunkers at Snopes.com assess the veracity<br>
of rumors spawned by the September 11 terrorist attacks.<br>
<br>
* Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.familiesoffreedom.org/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.familiesoffreedom.org/</a>><br>
<br>
Website for the organization that administers the "Sept. 11
College<br>
Fund," an initiative to raise scholarship funds, on behalf of
higher<br>
education, for the children and spouses of the victims of the
World<br>
Trade Center tragedy.<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[6] TALK BACK<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
Comments? Questions? Opinions? Submissions? Send a letter to the
editor<br>
at<br>
[log in to unmask]<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[7] SUBSCRIPTION INFO<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
You are receiving this email because someone (perhaps you)
requested<br>
that<br>
your name be added to our mailing list. Follow this link to
unsubscribe<br>
from the list:<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/subscribe"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/subscribe</a>><br=
>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[8] ABOUT US<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
Read The Filter online at<br>
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/</a>>.<br>
<br>
Who we are:<br>
<br>
Editor: Donna Wentworth<br>
Reporter: Cedar Pruitt<br>
<br>
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/about.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/about.html</a>><b=
r>
<br>
<br>
&nbs
=
p;
[9] NOT A COPYRIGHT<br>
&nbs
=
p;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
A publication of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard<br>
Law<br>
School
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu</a>><br>
<br>
You may--and please do--forward or copy this newsletter to friends
and<br>
colleagues.<br>
<br>
[cc]
<<a href=3D"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html</a>><br>
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
