April 14, 2005

National Review Online discusses proposed changes to the Patriot Act:

What they most want to change is Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section allows federal judges to order that records be provided to law enforcement when those records are sought for the purpose of fighting international terrorism. While the act does not specifically mention library records, it does not exempt them, either, so critics have latched on to the idea that the FBI is going to be poring over John Q. Public’s reading list. But criminal prosecutions can look into library records, too, when they are relevant to an investigation. Grand juries can subpoena records without the judicial and congressional oversight that Section 215 provides for.

...The Patriot Act’s provision concerning “delayed-notification” or “sneak-and-peek” searches has also come under attack. Even though it is not up for renewal this year, a bipartisan coalition of congressmen wants modifications. The law allows terrorism investigators to get a warrant for delayed-notification searches when they can persuade a judge that immediate notification would endanger someone’s life, cause a suspect to flee, result in the destruction of evidence, cause the intimidation of witnesses, or “otherwise seriously jeopardize” an investigation. (The judge decides how long notification can be delayed, although investigators can apply for extensions.)

The critics want to pare back that list of causes: They don’t want to allow delayed notification just because investigators and judges believe that immediate notification might result in witness intimidation or jeopardize an investigation. This is an unreasonable, and dangerous, position. The critics complain that judges rarely turn down requests for delayed-notification searches — but we can be sure that if they were turned down regularly, the critics would regard the denials as proof that investigators were overzealous in requesting them.

Suggestion for the U.N.: a Definition of Terrorism

U.N. Passes Global Nuclear Terrorism Pact:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) – After a seven-year struggle, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a global treaty Wednesday to prevent nuclear terrorism, making it a crime to possess radioactive material or weapons with the intention of committing a terrorist act.

...Moscow launched the campaign for a treaty to combat nuclear terrorism in 1997 when Boris Yeltsin was president, but it was stymied for years because countries believed the draft convention was trying to define terrorism – an issue that has deeply divided the General Assembly.

...”Any agreement on a definition of terrorism must not prejudice the legitimate rights of people to struggle against foreign occupation and for self-determination and national liberation – nor exclude state terrorism,” Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram said Wednesday,

Defining terrorism does require some attention. Here’s a definition from Dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That says “unlawful,” so (in the absence of a globally recognized judiciary) it only applies within a country. Between countries, which country’s laws apply? Some Islamic nations publicly praise suicide bombers, so it’s unlikely those nations would consider such actions unlawful.

Some thought is needed to come up with a good definition. I would suggest that a definition be found that does not say that all the nations that were involved in World War II, and attacked the civilians of other countries, which was common practice in all wars in all history up until about 40 years ago, were terrorists.

How about this:

ter·ror·ism
n.
1) The intentional targeting of civilians for murder by a person, or by a group that is not a nation-state, or by a nation-state that has not declared war on the nation in which the targeted civilians live.

2) The intentional targeting of property for destruction contrary to the laws of the nation in which that property is located, by a person, or by a group that is not a nation-state, or by a nation-state that has not declared war on the nation in which the targeted civilians live.

It is important to distinguish between war and terrorism. This definition does not condone or approve war; war is to be avoided whenever the alternative is not far worse.

With regard to the concerns expressed by Pakistan’s Ambassador Akram (quoted above), if Hamas blows up a schoolbus with kids on it, that’s terrorism. If Ambassador Akram supports that, I would be shocked; but it’s terrorism whether he supports it or not.

Convicted Millenium Plotter Cooperated With Feds:

SEATTLE  — An Algerian convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport (search) on the eve of the millennium later provided information about more than 100 potential terrorists, according to the man’s lawyers.

...”Among the individuals he discussed were people whose names meant nothing to us when first heard, but were later identified as significant players in Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks,” Ressam’s lawyers wrote in court documents in advance of his sentencing this month.

The World Economy is Doing Well

I had not previously heard that the economy of the world as a whole is doing well:

After bounding ahead by 5.1 percent in 2004, the global economy is projected to grow by 4.3 percent this year, the IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook. The forecast for 2005 is unchanged from an estimate the IMF released in September.

The U.S. economy is doing well also:

For the United States, the IMF is predicting economic growth will increase by 3.6 percent this year, as well as next year. While that would be a moderation from the brisk 4.4 percent growth registered in 2004, it would still be considered healthy.

“The United States continues to hum,” Rajan said.

Lots of pictures of cats sleeping in silly positions.

(via GeekPress. )

Reuters Managing Editor Admits to “Terrible Quality Problems’’ at Reuters

Reuters admits ‘terrible quality’:

Reuters, the news agency which bars its reporters from using the word “terrorist” in stories, is in turmoil following an e-mail from its global managing editor lamenting “terrible quality problems’’ at the wire service.

“Our content platform is burning,” wrote David Schlesinger in a memo intended for 10 senior managers, but was read by thousands of employees in the company’s daily briefing. “Our news is perceived as not having enough insight; our data is perceived as having terrible quality problems. Both news and data are not nearly the differentiating factors in Reuters’ offering that they should be, that they could be, that they need to be.”

The word about Reuters’ anti-American bias appears to be getting out.