U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers
According to this article in today's Washington Post
, the United States' Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to "listen in" on telephone conversations between lawyers and their clients in federal custody—including people who have been detained but not charged with any crime "whenever that is deemed necessary to prevent violence or terrorism." Sounds to me like an infringement of the right to counsel and attorney-client privilege. In a related article
, the DOJ has also decided to stop releasing a count of the thousands of people it is detaining—without charging them with a crime—just as civil libertarians and the media are starting to question the secret and possibly unconstitutional detentions.
posted by terrapin
on Nov 9, 2001 -
White House summons biz chieftains The industry's top leaders, including Viacom Inc. chairman Sumner Redstone and News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, will assemble in Beverly Hills Sunday morning with Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, to hammer out a specific agenda for the entertainment industry to aid the fight on terrorism.
They say it's not about propaganda, it's to identify strategies and agree on practical ideas, which may involve films as well as TV messages.
Huh? That sounds like propaganda to me.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet
on Nov 7, 2001 -
Bush Makes a Pitch for Teaching Patriotism
At a Washington, DC area high school—whose mascot is the Patriot—President Bush spoke on the supposed importance of patriotism.
"The Bush administration has backed a series of initiatives aimed at boosting children's patriotism and enlisting the young in the effort to counter anti-American propaganda abroad."
Is this how the Hitler Youth
posted by terrapin
on Nov 2, 2001 -
All out war! A call to arms for those pixelpushers out there. Sick sense of humor (like the kabul coverage) combined with really great gfx. caution: bandwidth!
posted by heimkonsole
on Oct 30, 2001 -
The New War on Terror
has written a book called 9-11
. He analyses the situation in a long essay published in Counterpunch
Quote: We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it.
posted by alex63
on Oct 26, 2001 -
From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President
: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."
Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff
on Oct 25, 2001 -
Will pictures like this
[not graphic, but disturbing] turn popular support against the bombing in Afghanistan? Or will stories like this
bolster support for military action against the Taliban? What story sways you more?
posted by gazingus
on Oct 24, 2001 -
"No glory in Unjust War on the Weak"
Barbara Kingsolver offers a touching response to America's retaliatory acts on Afghanistan. She is famous for her best-selling novels The Posionwood Bible
and The Bean Trees
. Kingsolver starts off very defensive, wary that she will be ridiculed for her "idealist" or "anti-american" opinion, but she then offers some good reasons why. Very moving.
posted by alex3005
on Oct 14, 2001 -
case becomes criminal investigation as Law Enforcement intensifies its searche for a Summer Intern who worked in the office.
He is said
to be from the Middle East. Hopefully unrelated, but evidence is mounting... i.e. - employees received a strange letter before the WTC attack containing a white powdery substance and a "Cheap" Star of David charm...
posted by da5id
on Oct 8, 2001 -
Chomsky on MSNBC
talks about recent events! That would be news all by itself. I know that a lot of people on the right disagree with him, but who can argue with what he says here? Also from left field an incisive Q&A about Afghanistan history
and the current situation by Tariq Ali.
posted by talos
on Oct 8, 2001 -
This didn`t seem too important to many
but the last pieces of evidence associating Bin Laden and company to the WTC attacks was released, and is detailed by the Sunday Times. It`s surprising that many people were ready to go to war without this info...
posted by holycola
on Oct 7, 2001 -
The G-Rated War: Blowing Smoke, Pipe Dream, or The Real Hashish?
I want to spin antiwar arguments a slightly different way. Previous threads have been quite dim. This Cnn chat transcript focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons, the need to separate innocents from terrorists and separate terrorist networks from Islamic states, and the interviewee is as much as suit as they come. You could cut a diamond on that crew cut. I have several questions: 1) Is the US military actually going to use non-lethal weapons, or is this the new "smart bomb?" 2) Do the 'pacificists' among us consider this to be pacificist? 3) If you do favor peace over war, do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary? More > >
posted by rschram
on Oct 3, 2001 -
On September 30th, there was a peace protest in Washington D.C.
I'm surprised no one else linked to this -- about 50 students from my college
attended and joined the crowd of a few thousand. I would have gone, but I'm dubious about the efficacy of public protest despite the fact that I'm an affirmed pacifist. What do you folks think? Will a totally non-military action be an appropriate response? (And is there any possiblity of the US acting in such a way?) Is the loss of a single additional human life in this new war justifiable?
posted by tweebiscuit
on Oct 3, 2001 -
National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter
as a contributing editor after her call to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." For a person who makes a living out of being as obnoxious, partisan and mean as she can be will this do anything but put her in the spotlight and help her career? The way she has slammed the National Review
since her axing seems to indicate this will be the case. And she's already blaming the "liberal" media and the "anti-Christian bigots."
posted by terrapin
on Oct 2, 2001 -
Finally, a creative idea for the "New War." Granted, it wouldn't solve the whole mess, but it might be a step in the right direction. It sure wouldn't make us any new enemies.
"A panel of four Williams College professors urged restraint in the so-called war on terrorism Monday, with one of them calling upon America to bomb Afghanistan not with explosives but with food and medical supplies.
Anthropology professor David Edwards, speaking during a public forum at Chapin Hall, said airlifts similar to those provided to West Berlin by the United States and Britain in 1948 and 1949 could prove a public relations coup and an unexpected blow to terrorist Osama bin Ladin, in a country wracked by starvation, civil war and oppression.
"Bin Laden expects us to strike with military force. It's what he's prepared for. In dealing with terrorism, you have to do the unexpected," said Edwards, an expert on Afghanistan who was joined on the panel by political science professors Marc Lynch, Gary Jacobsohn and James McAllister."
posted by martk
on Sep 26, 2001 -
Behind the scenes of the "war council."
The New York Times has a fascinating, behind-the-scenes story about the administration's struggle to develop a plan of attack. The story quotes highly-placed sources around Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et al. The most interesting revelation? GWB himself may actually be calling the shots.
posted by pardonyou?
on Sep 22, 2001 -
'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..
' declares this
(otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney
Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished
', a further 800 are missing
following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario
' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons
to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino
on Sep 20, 2001 -
Well, here we go.
Macau authorities have arrested five Pakistanis of (officially) overstaying their visas. They also may be (again, speaking officially here) robbery suspects. But about halfway down the page, we find this little three-liner:
''According to preliminary investigations, the documents seized [in the arrest] appear to contain instructions to attack American targets in the SAR and Macau in the case of an American attack on Afghanistan,'' the [government] source said.
posted by Bixby23
on Sep 17, 2001 -
Realism Urgently Needed - Or Not?
David Ignatius's column today in The Washington Post addresses the question of effectiveness in the war against terrorism. He tells the sobering story of the CIA's collaboration with the terrorist Ali Hassan Salameh.
The downside: "The most obvious (lesson) is that collecting intelligence about terrorists is a truly dirty business. This world cannot be penetrated without help from members or friends of the terrorist network".
The upside: "Paradoxically, these tragic days have probably been an ideal time for the CIA to be recruiting new sources of intelligence about terrorism. The barbaric attacks Tuesday aroused disgust around the world --- not least among civilized Muslims. Some of these disgusted Muslims will surely want to help the United States and its allies put the terrorists out of business."
The crucial moral question: It's really a classic means/ends debate. Is it right - or just acceptably expedient - to collaborate with known terrorists in order to strike out at those we don't yet(or otherwise will never) know about?
posted by MiguelCardoso
on Sep 16, 2001 -
Caution: This links might be inflamatory
A friend runs a site that is a portal dealing with middle-eastern news (for his safety, I will not link to it). He often receives hate-filled emails urging him to act out against various ethnic groups. This link was sent to him a couple of months ago; it is Islamic Resistance Support Association and is loaded with anti-american propaganda. [view at your own risk]
posted by hotdoughnutsnow
on Sep 11, 2001 -