i-sako.com

In this recent Salon article (subscription or ad tolerance required), “Old Europe” and a large and important segment of the U.N. Security Council seem to be lining up around the notion that the Bush administration has not made the case that war with Iraq is justified. According to recent polls, a majority of Americans also agree with this view. 

Here’s an excerpt:

At least six members of the 15-member Security Council have adopted the position that the American administration still hasn’t made a good case for attacking Iraq and that the inspectors need to be granted substantially more time. Russia and China, also permanent veto-bearing nations, subscribe to that view.

Here’s another good one:

Anatol Lieven has put it most bluntly: America, that elder daughter of the Enlightenment, has become “a menace to itself and to the rest of the world.”

And a follow-up question from yours truly: If cabinet-level officers in other governments are forced to resign after calling Bush “a moron” or comparing him to Hitler (which, in this blogger’s opinion, is quite an apt comparison), why doesn’t Rumsfeld have to resign for his remarks about France and Germany?

In this Washington Post article, E.J. Dionne Jr. makes the point that I’ve been trying to get across to anyone who will listen for quite some time now: Bush is not smart enough--and far too partisan!--to be president. 

Not only doesn’t he grasp the implications of his “with me or against me” policy, but he cuts down those who do support him if they are not from his party. 

Thanks to John De Hoog for calling my attention to the article. 

I see from a handful of articles at Wired that the money I spent on an ACLU membership last year is paying off. Good!

Seeing news like this assuages some of my concerns that anti-terrorist measures were about to demolish civil liberties in the United States. I applaud the efforts of Senators Wyden, Feingold, and Daschle in bringing these important issues to the Senate’s attention. 

These articles also called my attention to another very worthwhile organization that I have been neglecting for too long (an oversight that I will soon rectify by joining), the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Last year, I contributed about $300 to various political organizations—the first time I have ever made such an investment in politics. If I keep seeing positive results like these, the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and MoveOn.org will continue to enjoy my full support.

After all, $300 is a small price to pay for freedom from government tyranny.

I mentioned Larry Lessig’s ideas about copyrights right around this time last month, then more recently the Supreme Court upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which was a big blow to Lessig. Even more recently still Joi Ito’s weblog pointed me to a NYT article by Lessig that challenges Congress to revise its stance on copyright extensions. 

As I wrote before, this seems like a very reasonable way to handle copyrights. A similar system is already in place for patents, after all.

I applaud Lessig’s drive and hope that Congress will look into this matter more seriously (though the cynic in me doubts that it will).

I also can understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It is not the Court’s job to strike down laws that are wrong, but only those that are manifestly unconstitutional. In order to strike this extension act down, it would need to be clear that all previous copyright extensions were unconstitutional as well. 

I am quite curious, however, how the Court would regard something like the USA PATRIOT Act, which I view as more than merely unconstitutional—it’s just downright sinister!

Upon reading the ACLU’s technology and privacy report, ”Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society,” I couldn’t help but make the following observations.

Why Us?

Perhaps I am just dense, but I have yet to understand why anti-terrorism measures like the ones the proposed in this report are directed at American citizens in the first place. Why does the government feel that it needs greater surveillance powers over us?

If it’s gonna happen, do it right for a change!

Many of the things included in this report will probably come about; I think that’s inevitable. The important thing is that the government implement these things sensibly, with adequate checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority (something noticeably absent in the Bush administration’s view of government: “Trust us, we’re your leaders! We would never do anything bad.")

If these things are going to be done in the name of making the country a safer place, there needs to be more light and less heat coming from Congress. The issue should not be politicized for the benefit of one party’s election strategy. It should not be wrapped in terms of false patriotism. It should be discussed with all the care and deliberation that went into the crafting of the Constitution itself. Anything less should be considered a treasonous offense!

Wouldn’t this be a big setback for modern civilization?

Once people began to realize exactly how closely their every transaction was being watched, I bet a lot of people would start using cash—or even barter!—to prevent their day-to-day activities from being held against them someday. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of where we would like society to go?