SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21454)12/24/2003 7:50:34 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793691
 
BBC equals "Blows Blood Capacity." Gotta quit reading it. Meanwhile back at the UN.


[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 12/24/03 ]

GUEST COLUMN: INTERNET FREEDOM

Resentment, fear drive U.N. quest for control

By ADAM THIERER and WAYNE CREWS

There's mounting evidence that the Internet's good old days as a global cyberzone of freedom -- where governments generally take a "hands off" approach -- may be numbered.
In fact, two weeks ago, delegates from 192 countries met in Geneva to discuss how the Internet should be governed and what steps should be taken to solve the global "digital divide" and "harness the potential of information" on behalf of the world's poor. Also on the table at the session -- the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society -- was the question of domain name management and how much protection free speech and expression should receive on the Net.

The real issue, however, is whether a "United Nations for the Internet" is on the way. There was discussion at the recent conference of whether Internet decision making should be shifted from largely private management to the United Nations. Another summit is scheduled for 2005.

In one sense, none of this is surprising. Regulators across the globe have long been clamoring for greater control over content and commerce on the Internet. Ironically, in the guise of protecting the world's citizens, statists around the world want to get their hands on one of the world's most liberating technologies.

While the U.N. conferees have "generously" agreed to retain language that enshrines free speech, despite the disapproval of countries such as China and Iran, these matters are far from settled. There have been a few notable international cyberspats already, such as a French court's attempt to force Yahoo to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens, and an Australian court's ruling that the online version of the Dow Jones publication Barron's could be subjected to that country's libel laws. And Chinese officials have attempted to censor the search engines Google, AltaVista and Yahoo.

If enough countries start playing these games, the threat of retaliation and potential trade wars increases as cross-border legal spats intensify over privacy, gambling, pornography, intellectual property and tax policy.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts a Web site online, one has "gone global." Should that mean you have automatically and willingly subjected yourself to the laws of every country on the planet? Shouldn't the origin of content matter?

This is one reason some favor the "U.N. for the Net" model. But others have suggested that international treaties or adjudication by the World Trade Organization might offer the better approach. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for companies, consumers and citizens alike.

We favor the latter. But to the extent pure laissez-faire is not an option, "country of origin" standards may provide the best default solution. That is, government should only exert authority over those actors who physically reside within the confines of their traditional geographic borders. In this sense, an origin-based jurisdictional methodology protects sovereignty while giving meaning to the notion of "consent of the governed" in an online setting.

The great advantage of the Net is precisely the ability to reach as many people as possible and overcome artificial restrictions on trade or communications at traditional geographic boundaries. The Web, whatever problems it has raised, has provided far more opportunity and freedom to mankind. The United Nations appears eager to assume greater control over the Net, not because of its failures, but because it undermines members' authority. That sounds like the best reason ever to make sure a United Nations for the Internet never becomes a reality.

Find this article at:
ajc.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21454)12/24/2003 7:59:22 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793691
 
"Fast Times at Baghdad High"

An Iraqi teenager's run-in with the U.S. Army.
By Wendell Steavenson SLATE
Updated Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003, at 2:00 PM PT

From: Wendell Steavenson
Subject: The U.S. Army Goes to High School
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003, at 1:13 PM PT

Ibrahim Ahmed Hakmet is 16, a cocky, engagingly arrogant kid; slim, with close-cropped hair, a little acne on his temples, and a tendency to giggle at me, because apparently I remind him of his aunt.

A few days after Saddam's capture, he was arrested by the Americans. About a hundred soldiers in armored Humvees and tanks surrounded the Amriyeh High School (a school for boys aged between 16 and 19). With the Iraqi police in attendance, they went from classroom to classroom matching faces to photographs and names to a list. They were looking for boys who had been at a pro-Saddam demonstration the day before.

"It's against the law," explained Lt. Col. Leopoldo Quintas, commander of the 2-70 "Old Ironsides" Armored Battalion, which carried out the operation. "And they were displaying pictures of Saddam."

"It's subversive," added his public affairs officer.

Ibrahim said he was the first to be caught because he was on his way out of school to get a doctor's note; it was midmorning, and he was the only student on the front entrance path.

"An American officer shouted at me: 'Sit down! Sit down!' and indicated that I should kneel, pointing with his gun. Then he said, 'Get up!' I didn't understand what he wanted me to do, so I put my hands on the wall. He kicked me twice on the leg. He was very big. He checked me roughly, even behind my ears, and threw my English and Arabic books away. He cuffed my hands with wire, roughly. He sprained my wrist. And later, when he was taking the wire off, he cut me when he was cutting it with a knife."

Ibrahim and several other detained boys (Ibrahim says nine or 10, the Americans say five or six) were put in the back of a truck. The truck broke down and had to be towed by a tank. An outraged crowd had gathered: parents, passers-by, kids from neighborhood schools, shouting and yelling.

Ibrahim was rather enamored of his adventure.

"We were laughing," he said, all tough and unconcerned, wearing his bandaged wrist like a trophy and using a single crutch to support the leg he said was kicked and beaten with a stick. "We knew we hadn't done anything. One of the Americans said in Arabic, 'Incheb!' Shut up!" Ibrahim was full of himself, laughing at the Americans to their faces, getting beaten for his defiance, and then asking for more. "The more I laughed, the more he hit me. It shows what kind of a weak man he was to hit a boy," he sneered.

The Americans, in their efforts at zero tolerance, intimidation, containment, detentions, night arrests, and operations to arrest high-school kids, provoke only frustration, outrage, and distrust.

"The soldiers went through my class," said Mr. Karim, the math teacher, " 'What is your name? What is your name?' The children were afraid."

"They had no right, no right to come!" Mr. Hamza, the Arabic teacher, was indignant. "Is this American democracy?"

The headmaster, Mr. Fadhil, said he was angry. The boys in the school were angry with him. He had not protected them against the Americans; he had invited the Americans to arrest them. Spray-painted on the wall of the school were slogans: "Saddam's High School!" "Down Down USA!" and "Down With the Informer Principal Fadhil!" They were quickly painted over.

"Do you think Mr. Fadhil can keep his job after this unpleasantness?" I asked.

Ibrahim hid his mouth behind his hand and giggled at such a silly question. "Oh we want him to stay! He's in our pocket now! Who else will pass us this year?"

Ibrahim does not go to school very regularly. He says he has observed that those with an education and those without end up earning the same amount. He has been learning English for five years and cannot speak a word, except to understand some of what the American soldiers shouted at him. School, for him, is more of a place to hang out with friends than an institution of discipline and educational standards. The Amriyeh High School is newly painted and has some old computers. The classrooms are very bare: cheap wooden desks, benches, blackboard, and chalk. The Americans have been refurbishing schools, but it's often just a paint job. It's the state of lassitude and corruption that is the problem. Pay the teachers—a few bribes, threats, whatever—and they will pass you. Ibrahim shrugged, "The principal is a moody guy. Sometimes you can give him some chocolates and he is all right. Other times he wants a million Iraqi dinars."

Amriyeh is a suburb with Sunni Triangle sensibilities, where a lot of families from Ramadi and Tikrit settled. It's also an area in which Saddam distributed land to Mukhabarat (intelligence) officers.

"These are their sons," explained Mr. Hamza, the Arabic teacher.

"This was a real country to be proud of," said Ibrahim. "I am Iraqi. They are humiliating every Iraqi when they humiliate Saddam. Even if Hitler came here he would not fill our eyes [make us proud] as much as Saddam did." Ibrahim has read about Hitler.

When the Americans arrested him and his school friends, they took them to their base nearby (a former Republican Guard barracks) and held them in what Ibrahim described as "a cage," and what the colonel called "a temporary holding facility," although he wouldn't let me see it "for security reasons."

The soldiers let them out to use the washroom and to be questioned. They were fed chicken and macaroni and chocolate bars for lunch. Ibrahim said it was pretty good.

"They are civil in a way," Ibrahim said. "They are afraid of the situation here, and that's why they behave badly." But he is not intimidated by them. His family has seen plenty of American injustice. His father (something to do with the former government, though exactly what Ibrahim wouldn't say) has been detained three times, his uncle twice. His cousin was shot in the leg at an American checkpoint when he didn't understand what the soldier was shouting. His grandmother had three and a half kilos of gold and an heirloom diamond necklace taken during a nighttime raid on her house. All run-of-the-mill, unverifiable stories of the kind I have heard many times.

"A foreigner will always be the weaker one." observed Ibrahim. "This is my country: They came by force they will leave by force."

The Americans questioned Ibrahim and the others and determined that they were just schoolboys protesting; there had been no particular resistance involvement.

"I would have preferred not to have done it," said Lt. Col. Quintas, while acknowledging that the operation at the school had been undertaken on his initiative, "But they need to understand that they are not allowed to do this and that there are consequences."

The boys were released that evening and driven home. Ibrahim said that was the only time he was scared—he was worried the Humvee he was being taken in might get hit by the resistance.

They rang the doorbell. His father came out.

"It was funny," said Ibrahim. "He didn't know if they were going to return me or take him!"

Wendell Steavenson, a former reporter for Time, is the author of Stories I Stole. In March and April of 2003, Slate published her series of "Dispatches From Northern Iraq."

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21454)12/25/2003 12:52:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793691
 
Lieberman Talks Up Religion as Democrats Poke, Jostle, Warn and Joke
By DIANE CARDWELL - New York Times

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Dec. 23 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut called on Tuesday for strengthening the role of religion in public life and took a veiled swipe at Howard Dean, who has run a steadfastly secular campaign.

"I know that some people believe that faith has no place in the so-called public square," said Mr. Lieberman, an observant Jew. "They forget that the constitutional separation of church and state, which I strongly support, promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Some people forget that faith was central to our founding and remains central to our national purpose and our individual lives."

The comment came on a day of pushing and pulling for the soul of the Democratic Party. Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said he needed the support of conservatives, while Senator John Edwards of North Carolina scolded his rivals for bickering. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio unveiled an advertising campaign, and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts wrapped up a 24-hour, 645-mile trip across Iowa.

Mr. Lieberman, who spoke to reporters after helping serve lunch to homeless people at a church here, has been trying to paint himself as a centrist more in step with the political mainstream than Dr. Dean. In emphasizing the need to connect with voters though the language of values and faith, Mr. Lieberman is trying to yoke himself to the legacy of Bill Clinton and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, Mr. Clinton's springboard to the presidency.

"I understand that there are limits to what any president or any Congress can do or should do about all this," Mr. Lieberman said. "But, you know, just because our leaders can't do it all doesn't mean we should do nothing. It doesn't mean we should be silent; it doesn't mean we cannot encourage people toward these acts of charity and service."

Earlier, in Manchester, Mr. Lieberman seized on Dr. Dean's reference on Monday to the Democratic Leadership Council as the "Republican part of the Democratic Party," saying that it was "just the most recent in a series of offensive and divisive statements he's made."

Mr. Lieberman, who rejected Dr. Dean's contention that the remark was a joke, added, "He's pushing Bill Clinton, 100 members of Congress, countless governors and mayors around America, state officials who are members of the D.L.C. and the New Democratic movement out of the Democratic Party."

"Howard Dean may think you can conquer by dividing," he said, "but the truth is, in politics you win by uniting."

Dr. Dean, speaking after picking up the endorsement of the New Hampshire chapter of the United Auto Workers union, restated his commitment to unify the party, saying that "to take back the White House, we need every Democrat, including conservative ones."

As for his remark about the leadership council, he said, "I was having a little fun at their expense.

"They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."

Mr. Edwards, who has steadfastly refused to join the criticism of Dr. Dean, said the attacks and counterattacks among the nine Democrats seeking the party's presidential nomination were turning off voters.

"If you are a voter here in New Hampshire or if you're a caucus-goer in Iowa or in one of these early primary states, you can barely turn your television on or open your mailbox without seeing one candidate criticize another," Mr. Edwards said in a speech to the Nashua Chamber of Commerce. "It's about what so-and-so said yesterday or what so-and-so candidate said seven years ago. I've seen attack ads about Iraq, I've seen attack ads about Medicare, and most recently I have seen attack ads about attack ads."

Mr. Kucinich, a staunchly antiwar candidate, introduced his first television advertisements for Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. The nine spots, which will be broadcast starting Jan. 4, address the Iraq war, fair trade and health care.

They are similar in presentation. One, narrated by the actor Danny Glover and produced by George Lois, raises the specter of a revived draft.

"Listen up, young America," Mr. Glover intones. "If pre-emptive war continues to drive our foreign policy, if our volunteer troops are stretched thinner and thinner, you could be facing compulsory draft. All young Americans deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Kucinich for President! The eyes that see through the lies!" As Mr. Glover finishes his remarks, the camera focuses on Mr. Kucinich's eyes.

The advertisements grew out of a project for The New York Times Magazine in which directors and designers were randomly assigned to create posters for the presidential candidates. Assigned to Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lois created a poster for the Nov. 30 magazine that read, "The Eyes That See Through the Lies."

In Iowa, a bleary-eyed Senator Kerry closed out a grueling overnight session of buttonholing newspaper pressmen, questioning lobster-shift nurses and delivering doughnuts to pothole-patching crews. By the time the marathon ended, he had spoken to 614 voters, far fewer than would normally see a 30-second TV commercial, even in the wee hours, even in Iowa. But he had made an impression on some.

"I think it's fantastic that he really wants to know what's going on in the real world," said Annie Driessen, 26, a nurse at Mercy Hospital in Des Moines, after Mr. Kerry queried nurses about Iowa's low Medicare reimbursements, shortage of nurses and looming cutbacks in overtime.

Whiling away a leg of the trip with a grab-bag game organized by his daughters, Mr. Kerry drew No. 1 from a hat, only to learn that even first place can be ignominious: when he chose a porcelain gingerbread house, an ABC News producer, Edward F. O'Keefe, acted within the rules to snatch it from him.

"How often in life does one get to say, `I'll take the senator's house?' " Mr. O'Keefe cracked.

"That's a good line," said Mr. Kerry, who has mortgaged his Boston town house to keep his campaign afloat. "And if I don't win this race, it could happen."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company