Domestic Terrorism


ashcroft: once a civil libertarian?

The American Bar Association Journal has an interesting article on Cyber-Libertarians which focuses primarily on EPIC, the Elecronic Privacy Information Center.
I was somewhat surprised by this comment by David Sobel, EPIC’s co-founder and general counsel:

�We were actually guardedly optimistic when [Ashcroft] became attorney general,� says Sobel. �As a senator he used some of the most stridently anti-federal-law-enforcement rhetoric I�d seen come out of the Senate�just a step short of calling them �jackbooted thugs.� �

Talk about power corrupting someone. Or maybe he hasn’t changed at all and it is ok if they are his ‘jackbooted thugs.’
I suspect the latter is the case. In answer to the opening question: probably not.
Via beSpacific.


Secret Trials

What is the justice department hiding? It is inconceivable to me that there is anything that justifies completely hiding a legal proceding from public scrutiny:

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist – and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Dan Gilmour argues:

If the Supreme Court rules, as I suspect it will, that the White House is free to tear up the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting terrorism (or fighting illegal drugs, the pretext that was used to basically destroy the 4th Amendment under previous administrations), then no one is safe from the predations of a rogue government in the future

Hmmmm, what about a rogue government in the present?
Via Secrecy News.


Taking Tests

Kevin White at Catallarchy is learning the basics of test taking:

Today we had an exam. This was very easy, once I accepted that the professor thinks a “certain way” and expects the highly subjective questions to be answered from that perspective.
This one caught my eye:

True or False: Business leaders have an obligation to see that everyone, particularly those in need, benefit from their firms’ actions.

The answer, in the real world, is so obviously False that it hardly bears discussion. However, within the class, the answer is so obviously True that one scarcely has to stop to consider it.

The basic lesson here applies both inside and outside the classroom. To be successful, and sometimes to survive, you need to understand the perspective of the professor or perhaps the inquisitor. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with their perspective.


Terrorist Government Developing Super Viruses

From the New Scientist:

A scientist funded by the US government has deliberately created an extremely deadly form of mousepox, a relative of the smallpox virus, through genetic engineering.
The new virus kills all mice even if they have been given antiviral drugs as well as a vaccine that would normally protect them.
The work has not stopped there. The cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals including humans, has been genetically altered in a similar way.
The new virus, which is about to be tested on animals, should be lethal only to mice, Mark Buller of the University of St Louis told New Scientist. He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do.
But the research brings closer the prospect of pox viruses that cause only mild infections in humans being turned into diseases lethal even to people who have been vaccinated.

As The Speculist says: A legitimate government has no use for this. It is a tool for terrorists.


Who are the Terrorists?

Leah Roffman, a freshman at Tufts University closes an essay on the Patriot Act with this:

Americans fear a terrorist takeover because terrorists would repeal our rights, threaten our safety, and disregard accountability to citizens. But our current government is doing all of those things right now. I might even become a victim of the USA governmental spying team just for saying so.

’nuff said.