Mobileread, a user-driven site that assists e-book enthusiasts access to public-domain knowledge around existing ebooks and ebook reader community support, has a series of wiki pages that describe how to use all sorts of devices and user-supplied support programs.
There are many sources for e-books and many formats. One of the most popular, and the one relevant to this article, is the Mobipocket format. Mobipocket is a format of e-book produced by the Mobipocket company, now owned by Amazon. E-book providers, other than Amazon, use the Mobipocket format, notably OverDrive, a large technology supplier for public libraries around the country. Some public libraries that use the Mobipocket OverDrive DRM (OD) allow their users to "check out" e-books and read them, typically with Mobipocket desktop software.
One of the support utilities described on the Mobileread site was called kindlepid.py, a Python-language script that displayed an e-book reader's device Personal ID (PID) created by Igor Skochinsky in 2007 when the Kindle version 1 was released. This PID is used to encode DRM-secured e-books from other vendors, whether it's OverDrive-enabled libraries or other public sellers. Amazon Kindle users who want to view DRM-protected e-books from these vendors can use their Kindle's PID to "fix" e-books so that they're able to be read on the Kindle (or, for that matter, their iPhone/iPod Touch with the Amazon Kindle app).
Mobileread, the user-driven site, had step-by-step instructions on how to download, install and use kindlepid.py to obtain a device PID. This script does not break, hack, crack, or remove the DRM from an e-book in any way but obtains the PID that's on the device. It enables legally purchased e-books to be read these e-books on legally purchased e-book readers.
The "fixing" part is enabled by another, separate, software script that was also described on the Mobileread site which utilizes the PID, kindlefix.py. This shifts the location of the PID in the DRM'd e-book file so that the Kindle (or iPhone Kindle app) can find it.
Amazon seems to have an issue with the kindlepid.py script and sent the owners of Mobileread.com a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) "take-down" notice: asking Mobileread.com to remove references to kindlepid.py from their site, but not specifically with the kindlefix.py script.
Individuals posting on the Mobileread forms about this topic suggest that, since the kindlepid.py script has been around since 2007, Amazon is noticing this script now due to their release of the Apple iPhone/iPod Touch version of their Kindle reader. Additionaly, Amazon has removed "My Serial Number" which displayed a user's Kindle serial number from the "Manage My Kindle" page on their site around the same time that the iPhone/iPod Touch app was released. Posters also suggest that it's evidence that Amazon wants to control the origin of purchase and that this restriction of control may constitute a monopoly by preventing competition in the distribution channel. It was pointed out that Amazon's actions aren't restricting the publishing (that's already been covered by Amazon's assumed agreements with the publishers to DRM publisher's works and distribute them), but only where you obtain e-books from - only Amazon, not libraries or other vendors, such as BooksOnBoard and others.
Other posters take the angle that Amazon is attempting to preserve their relationship with publishers now that a Kindle app for the iPhone exists - preventing iPod owners who aren't entitled to buy from the Amazon store from using the app to read OverDrive or other vendor's DRM books.
(#156, #158, #159)
In light of the Author's Guild's issues with TTS and other e-book advocates' calls for support of formats other than Mobipocket, such as ePub, this line of thinking also seems logical.
And additional point that has been made by Kindle/Amazon watchers is that Amazon has been following an Apple-like trajectory for their product: from the exclusivity of distribution channel (iTunes store) to the DRM issue. Now that Apple's making a DRM-free iTunes store, some are wondering when Amazon's going to catch up. Catch up, at least with e-books, since Amazon already offers DRM-free mp3's for sale. Similar to the cycle of iTunes updates that "broke" hacked ("jailbroken") iPhones and iPod Touches, will Amazon look at the contents of a user's Kindle and remove any shifted DRM e-books? Amazon's Terms of Use for the Kindle states that Amazon can look into any Kindle and with their Whispernet connectivity possibly even update the firmware on the device to use a different DRM scheme and replace the DRM on DRM-protected e-books.
Is Amazon wielding the DMCA in "bad faith" in this situation? Is it even a proper use of the DMCA? Since neither the site or the scripts don't actually violate the DMCA, what's Amazon doing throwing it around?
Many long time Kindle advocates that frequent the forums are getting very discouraged at the "take down" notice that Amazon presented to Mobileread and are beginning to lose their enthusiasm for the product that made Kindle owners some of the most fervent supporters and source of free marketing. Some have even gone so far as to say they're no longer supporting Amazon, itself, which speaks to the wider issue of loss of customer loyalty. On the forums, disappointment ranges from expressing the feeling of loss of rights (feeling criminalized by reading library books), Sony e-reader owners breathing a sigh of relief feeling like they've chosen the correct device, to people considering dumping/returning their Kindles and purchasing an iLiad or waiting for another e-reader device such as the Wizpac Txtr.
From my personal experience as a Kindle 1 and Kindle 2 owner, I've loved them both, not just because I had portable reading device and not just because the screen is clear, but because I could put my own personal documents and personally converted documents onto the Kindle and the access to the Amazon Kindle store. The combination of personal freedom and access to a large existing market is what makes this device special to me and special enough to show off to anyone who's asked.
There are now several articles on this issue as well as a blog started by a Mobileread user, Dear Jeff Bezos.
I've
been watching Pakistan and the whole Subcontinent area for a while now
and this latest bully move by Musharraf to retain some sort of control
of his country by declaring martial law, or "emergency plus" powers as
the locals are calling it, continues to be instructive. Here in
America we have a choice, do we continue supporting a so-called-ally on
the War on Terror, Musharraf, as in this assertion of power or do we
support our overarching goal, the Rule of Law, which has been the
ostensible underlying principle of our engagement with the rest of the
world as well as the War on Terror?
Musharraf's been
subverting what we'd consider an approved ROL path for years, starting
with his coup and continuing through sacking judges and now this
martial law declaration, all in hopes of bringing the country
together. This latest move was in a small part to attempt to get his
soldiers whom the NWFP rebels captured w/o a shot. Musharraf's been
playing two ends against each other, in my opinion, which to be honest,
is almost the only way he can do it - he's been turning a blind eye,
sort of, to our cross-border interactions between Afghanistan and the
NWFP, causing us to refer to him as an "ally" and causing his own
countrymen to call him a hypocrite and a tyrant. This enrages his
opposition - both the seemingly more democratic Buhtto-esque side as
well as the more fundamentalist Taliban side. The foregone fact that
Al Qaeda's in full force in the NWFP makes it even more of a joke that
we call him an "ally."
So, this new step - does the War on
Terror trump the Rule of Law? Defenders of the Constitution already
have their answer, but for foreign policy nerds we'll have our answer
burned bright in how we react - via hollow diplomatic rebukes (aka
"disappointment") or actual pulling of monies and materiel support.
[Follow up edit]:
CSM Article on this very topic.
Wow. The US government, and dare I say Israel, got their a**es handed to them regarding their believability of evidence for convicting charity organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development of terrorism (technically, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, aka Hamas). No decision on the consipracy charges, no decisions on whether they helped terrorist organizations, etc.
The government argued that the money collected by Holy Land went to other charities which then went to Hamas, which they provided no evidence for, just saying that the money benefitted Hamas. Since 1995, it's been illegal for US organizations to provide money to Hamas. Israeli agents provided via pseudonyms evidence that these other organizations gave their money to Hamas, but not Holy Land. What a strange tactic.
I can't imagine why our government would drop the ball on this case at all. For them, the implications are disasterous - they/we look like we're secret-evidence toting, brown-person targetting, remorseless Muslimhating, double-standard charity platers. It's sad and rediculous. Break out the mouse suits, let the schadenfreude from the left begin.
Brown people jumping on themselves? Check
Babies holding sad signs? Check
To be fair and balanced:
Disaffected, unhappy "fact" reporting? Check
Pictures of Hamas? Check
For what it's worth, Holy Land Foundation Charities is the big fish the government's been trying to spear, knocking off suckerfish over the years:
- Oct 2006 - Georgia Imam Shorbagi pled guilty to funding Hamas (via Holy Land Foundations) (nyt)
- Feb 2007 - Salah & Ashqar acquitted of helping Hamas, where Holy Land was claimed as a defendant (nyt)
Fun quote #1: “The government has tried to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into
something criminal,” said William Moffitt, who is Dr. Ashqar’s lawyer.
“Maybe the government will get it in their heads that the conflict
won’t be settled in the criminal courts of the United States.”
Fun quote #2: The lone guilty finding against Salah related to a written response in
which he denied being a Hamas member that was made in a civil suit won
by the family of David Boim, a 17-year-old American killed in Israel in
1996. Piers [defense attorney] said he expected the $156 million judgment in that case to
be overturned on appeal. [The parents accused Salah and Ashqar of conspiring to kill their son via donations to Hamas] The trial saw an unprecedented appearance by agents of Israel's Shin
Bet intelligence service, who testified in disguise to a cleared
courtroom. They reportedly said Salah was not tortured.
Hillarity #3: [Riotous shill, Judith] Miller testified that she saw no evidence of mistreatment when she
witnessed an interrogation of Salah and -- in an unprecedented twist
for a U.S. courtroom -- two Israeli interrogators testified under
aliases that Salah was treated well. (
wapo)
What's really interesting is the level of desire to point to Hamas as the issue. Places that are known for good research, like the
9/11 Finding Answers foundation, put the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood and their ties to Hamas down (properly) as a source of violence, but to whom and in what context? In our governments specific fight against "funding sources of terrorist organizations," they've fallen down here, blowing legit chances at unraveling knots by refusing to show how threads are connected, regardless of the clear connections in that region. But here? Our own ties with Israel make our funding pursuit look more and more like a pro-Israel "witchhunt" rather than an exposure of how violent NGOs continue to get funded.
2002 - Jose Padilla picked up and accused of planning a "dirty bomb" plot, stuffed in a Navy brig not to be seen for 3.5 years.
2007 - Fast forward 5 years, he's in civilian court being accused of supporting/organizing a cell in Florida assisting resistance/jihad in BCA (Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan), along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, "providing material support to extremist groups."
Never one to be accused of repeating the obvious, I'll say it looks as if the legal system is being consistent, going for whatever they can make most easily stick, ie the low-hanging fruit. One could also state this in a way that faults the government - they're CYA'ing themselves by not revealing "national secrets" regarding the dirty bomb.
Another way to interpret this is that the lowering of the bar, ie going from terrorism to being a cheerleader as well as punting it to civilian court, is further widening the net to include anyone who's ever given money to support anyone in BCA. Yes, that's broad, but if that's the "scare" that then narrows to "evidence," (again, not to state the obvious) check your charitable records from pre-9/11 because if terrorism or the hint of terrorism is prosecutable in civilian instead of military court, I can't wait to watch the torts.
Btw, the government's evidence is a "
job application."
ref:
A first look at US case against Padilla, Christian Science Monitor
Big Z's coming to Colorado. Specifically, to the ADX Supermax in Florence, where we keep all our traitors (Robert Hanssen), bombers (Hampton El, el Hage, Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols), and general nutcases (Kaczynski). Maybe he can have McVeigh's old cell?
Admitted and accused Al Qaeda member and on-again-off-again 9/11 hijacker Zacharais Moussaoui was sentenced to life w/o parole yesterday evening and this morning Judge Brinkema stated that his destination would be the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) here in Colorado.
Briefly, to have gone through our judicial system and in particular a trial-by-jury is an accomplishment and credit (albeit a phyrric one) to our system. The real insight here was that our judicial system and FBI completely fell down on the job and were wholly inadequate in preventing anything terrorist related. They barely caught Moussaoui whose only connection to Al Qaeda was ideations and delusions of grandeur. Catching what amounts to a decoy is like that mounted singing bass of late-night shopping channels.
Additionally, the spotlight put on how little closure is actually available to the 9/11 victim's families via Moussaoui is embarassing. Again, what's catching an insane person who had no ability to do anything going to assuage? He's not the "one" or even part of anything, people.
Some people may think the real travesty of this case is that the "ones" we do actually have in black sites (such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammaed, planner of 9/11, Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, etc.) will never go through the US judicial system and that the judicial system has failed us by not giving Moussaoui our country's harshest punishment. I firmly believe the judicial system is set up for a retroactive enforcements and is not the proper forum in which to "bring justice" to the real terrorists. With all its strengths and benefits, the judicial system will, would, and could not bring any sort of closure, clarity, or "justice" to terrorism. Terrorism operates outside laws by design, attempting to put stricture on its intents by forcing it within our judicial system or current judicial systems creates the stage of the absurd that only a master nutter like Moussaoui could consistently play such a grand part. It's what'd happen if any other terrorist were brought within the system: they'd jump around on our legal system like monkeys on a jungle gym.
Lastly, not killing him was the right thing to do from both a punishment and Moussaoui's perspective. The only better thing to do would have been to declare him insane and put him away for life, but our judicial system doesn't really allow for that too well. Why? Because insane people can't be martyrs in Islam. Apart from the fact that it's clearly evident since his capture and processing through the system that Moussaoui's totally lost it, his delusions hinge on him being a great Al Qaeda martyr who'll get to heaven by bucking the Great Satan's system. Well, nice try buddy, but not only is he not going to become a martyr, he's continuing his slow decline into insanity.
- "God curse America, God save Osama bin Laden, you will never get him" "I fight for my beliefs. You think that you own the world and I will prove that you are wrong." - Moussaoui's last words
- "Mr Moussaoui, when this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun… hear the birds… and they can associate with whomever they want. You will spend the rest of your life in a supermax prison. It's absolutely clear who won." - U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema
- "Mr Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory. But to paraphrase the poet TS Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper." "You will never get a chance to speak again, and that's an appropriate ending." - U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema
Finally, and on edit, I urge you in the most strongly worded manner that an excess of verbiage can only muster, secondary to writing this as a UN resolution, to not read this article in the Washington Post, Judging the Moussaoui Jury, by Andrew Cohen, 05/04. Why? This article analyses the juries judgements and utterly destroys any high falutin' ideals one might have of our jury system. Contradictions abound in their conclusions. Cohen's conclusion is that it's fitting that a confused defendant, defense would create complexity and doubt and that's how the ends justify the means.
My cousin insisted that I listen a show that This American Life did on 03/10/2006 called "Habeas Schmabeas" (real audio, pdf transcript) which is a much more coherent picture of the difficulties and obvious mistakes made with regards to Guantanamo and enemy combatants (or NLECs, no longer enemy combatants). Along with Moazzam Begg's book, it's pretty evident that the American MPs and other 'handlers' were just over the top in the treatment and hate of the majority of people who should've been released.
If we've labeled them as terrorists, then that's how they get treated.
In this new war, the plan was to build a prison so bleak that the detainees would give up home and talk.
Too bad most of them have nothing significant to talk about. As pointed out in this show and elsewhere, the 50 or so that do know anything are in CIA custody, in black sites, where they should be.
It brings up a lot of good points with regards to the relevance of habeas corpus in this 'new war,' or, as I like to call it, the new cold war. Since '01, I haven't been convinced that habeas should be so sanctified, but the public fallout of what we're told is, and continues to be, nothing short of egregious. The longer it goes on, the easier it gets to believe that Americans both hate and are afraid of Muslims, carte blanche, instead of thinking that this is a tight situation navigating legal precedent.
even if I were an angel, I would still be a terrorist to them, because it's the thing that they wanted. People don't want to take responsibility for their mistakes, that's it. They want to put it on others.
- Abdullah al Noaimi, a Bahraini 19 y/o who'd been to Spring Break in Daytona Beach and other places in the US, as a tourist; released in 2005
It's a good listen.
XII.
And for preventing illegal imprisonments in prisons beyond the seas; (2) be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no subject of this realm that now is, or hereafter shall be an inhabitant or resiant of this kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall or may be sent prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or into parts, garrisons, islands or places beyond the seas...
Habeas Corpus Act, 1679
The best thing for the 'enemy combatant' law (so far) has happened: it's not going to be addressed or challenged (at this time) by the Supreme Court.
Jose Padilla's detention appeal was in line to be considered by the Supreme Court until they decided, today, not to hear it.
Padilla was detained in Chicago returning from Pakistan on grounds that he was intending to commit acts of terrorism in the US and held for 3 years in a Navy brig in South Carolina. Recently, he was released from being in 'enemy combatant' status and charged with non-terrorism crimes and sent to Florida. His lawyers appealed the change in status, because it made their case - questioning the legality of the President's ability to designate US citizens caught on US territory as 'enemy combatants' - irrelevant. The appeal was rejected in the 4th Circuit and was headed towards the Supreme Court
No such luck. Padilla's still in custody, though not as an 'enemy combatant.' Better luck next time. Souter and Breyer dissented.
Supreme Court Refuses to Review Padilla Case, Washington Post
For more background, see my previous posts:
Time has an article whose title poses the question
What's Really Wrong With The Moussaoui Case? Following the case (and related terrorism prosecution in Spain, etc.), the answer's easy: Prosecuting terrorism within the Justice system doesn't work as a deterent, method of closure, or, well, anything at all. Sorry, John Kerry.
Proclaiming "I am al Qaeda," Zacarias Moussaoui was escorted from a federal courtroom in Alexandria on Monday at the outset of jury selection in his terrorist conspiracy trial. As he was removed by federal marshals, he shouted, "This trial is a circus."
CBS News, today
Why oh why can't we see this stuff on TV? We miss out on Moussaaoui's insane ramblings just like we do Mr. Saddam's trial. There must be TV executives who are squirming for rights to broadcast this great, great stuff.
Here're some other nuggets from Moussaoui (in no way definitive):
- I don't want you to have the time to manipulate the system again against me
- Do you think that I am crazy to see your Doctor Frankeinstein.
- Do you think that every month I am going to put up with your insanity
- Leonie Brinkema your mentally sick.
Wikipedia on MoussaouiMoussaoui Letter 1,
Letter 2,
Appeal Transcript, The Smoking Gun
Did I misspeak about Jose Padilla being unknighted as an "enemy combatant"? Maybe! (and hold onto that t-shirt, Jose!)
In a major setback to the government this week, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit refused both requests and questioned the government's motives in seeking to move Padilla to Florida and vacate the earlier ruling.
The administration's actions create "an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision [in the Padilla case] by the Supreme Court," writes Judge J. Michael Luttig in a 13-page order released on Wednesday.
"We believe that the issue [in Padilla's case] is of sufficient national importance as to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court," Judge Luttig writes.
The CSM reports 12/23/2005 that the US government is slowly losing traction on the tactic to avoid the Supreme Court questioning the Presidential abilities to designate someone an "enemy combatant." A few weeks ago, the government un-designated Jose "Dirty Bomber" Padilla as an "enemy combatant" and ordered him sent to a Miami prison to face criminal charges (conspiracy), thus releasing him from a 3.5 year hold in a Navy brig. The appeals process wound Padilla's case through the system regarding the legality of the designation that placed him effectively outside the legal system until the only place that it could be taken would be the Supreme Court. There, the government would be directly confronted to legally justify an extra-legal situation. This question is way too hot to have that much scrutiny, especially when the consequences of losing would be having to go through a legal system which requires proof of past acts for convictions. There's just no way to convict someone of the crime of maybe thinking of blowing up an apartment building with a leaky neutron bomb - we'd have to wait until it happened. Even then, like Germany, our legal system might arbitrarily release terrorists or simply give them slap-on-the-wrist sentences (under 10 years).
Luttig's the same judge who wrote the opinion upholding the detention of Padilla and said that the appeals court was concerned that the administration might be seen as having intentionally made the enemy combatant case moot "not as legitimate justification but as admission of attempted avoidance of review." I can't figure this out - do the judges want the case to be brought before the Supreme Court because, in their eyes, the only legitimate way to fight this out is in their arena, or are they actively steering the case towards the Supreme Court in order to press the legitimacy of Presidential powers? It's not clear that those options are mutually exclusive, either. It seems that courts want to assert the "check and balance" power of the Judiciary and that's fine, but at what point does it become a burden to the other branches? Is it something spectacular, like this case, or is it smaller things? When do they bound, blind eyes of Justice actually become a detriment?
The court said that while a president's power to detain an enemy combatant should not be taken lightly, the government cannot "yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war on terror,'' an impression the court thought the government could not afford.
Other posts:
Other references:
'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Padilla Indicted, SF Gate/AP, 11/22/2005
Jose "Dirty Bomber" Padilla has been indicted in Miami with criminal
charges of being "part of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim
persons in a foreign country and provide material support to terrorists
abroad. " These charges are different from what he's been
widely accused of doing ever since being nabbed in O'Hare airport in
2002 returning from Pakistan and held since as an "enemy combatant":
planning to blow up hotels and apartment buildings with a radiological
device.
This indictment's a pretty significant since
it seeks a ruling against Padilla as something less than testing the
edges of the "enemy combatant" designation - there's no push to prove
that Padilla was on-ground in Afghanistan/Pakistan fighting against US
troops, etc. The next step for Padilla contesting the ec
designation would've been the Supreme Court. Padilla's no longer
an "enemy combatant."
Also, Padilla's lawyers can argue
against more "classic" charges such as conspiracy and material support.
I'm looking for the text of the indictment (which charges 4 other
suspects, too) and will post it when it's unsealed by AG Gonzalez later
this morning (now, I think).
Padilla'll probably be transfered
from his Navy brig cell in South Carolina where he's sat for 3 years to
Miami shortly thereafter.
Edit: SF Gate updated their AP article, so I'll update this:
"The
others indicted are: Adham Amin Hassoun, Mohammed Hesham Youssef, Kifah
Wael Jayyousi, and Kassem Daher. Hassoun also was indicted on eight
additional charges, including perjury, obstruction of justice and
illegal firearm possession.
Hassoun, a Palestinian computer programmer who moved to Florida in
1989, was arrested in June 2002 for allegedly overstaying his student
visa. Prosecutors previously described him as a former associate of
Padilla.
Padilla
has been held at a Navy brig in South Carolina. Following the
indictment, which was handed up last Thursday, President Bush sent a
memo to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordering Padilla transferred
to the federal detention facility in Miami."
Also, I just pulled
today's indictment, the President's 11/20/2005 memo to the SECDEF
releasing Padilla from EC-ness, and the brig transfer memo. I'll
post quotes soonish.
From the President to the SECDEF, in a memo dated 11/20/2005:
"I
hearby determine that is in the interest of the United States that Jose
Padilla be released from detention by the Secretary of Defense and
transferred to the control of the Attorney General for the purpose of
criminal proceedings against him... This memorandum supersedes my
directive to you of June 9, 2002 [Ed: When I declared him EC], and,
upon such transfer, your authority to detain Mr. Padilla provided in
that order shall cease." EC no more! Turn in your t-shirt.
Everone's favorite enemy combatant (no, not me) US-born, New York-native Jose Padilla* has today lost in a federal appeal in the 4th Circuit courts and is now, again, an enemy combatant, sitting in solitary. Further, Judge Luttig writing for the three-judge panel court (Luttig appointed by Bush, the other two by Clinton), said that Padilla's even more an enemy combatant than Saudi-born, Louisiana-native Yaser Hamdi.**
Padilla v. Hanft, 09/09/05 (pdf)
*
- on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 2000, was recruited to jihad by Al Qaeda
- trained and fought in Afghanistan in 2001, escaped to Pakistan
- met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and accepted a mission to go back to the US and blow up buildings
- arrested May, 2002, suspected of a "dirty bomb" plot
- designated an "enemy combatant" June 2002 and held in solitary confinement in a naval brig in South Carolina
- won a federal ruling that in February 2005 that said he couldn't be held indefinately and that the government has to charge him with a crime or free him
**
- captured on the battlefield in 2001 in Afghanistan
- freed in October 2004 and sent to Saudi Arabia and gave up his US citizenship as conditions for his release
Morrocan Man Sentenced on Terror Charges, AP/Yahoo, 08/19/2005
German court convicts 9/11 suspect, UPI/WorldPeaceHerald, 08/19/2005
This is an interesting case of Munir Motassadeq, a Moroccan-born German
man who's accused of assisting the 9/11 hijackers. It brings up a lot
of issues from how the US interacts with foreign courts, in this case
German, to how the US's concerns for information secrecy might have
freed this guy and on to the efficacy, in general, of the legal
system's prosecution of terrorism. I follow a bunch of this
stuff, but I comment
very little, unfortunately.
For example, Motassadeq was convicted of 'assisted
murder' in 02/2003 and given 15 years - a sentence which was overturned
by appeal and he was freed. Freed? I'd have thought the US
would've wanted this guy, at the very least, in Gitmo pronto, but free
he was for about a year. Another Moroccan, Abdelghani Mzoudi, a friend of
Motassadeq, was acquitted in a seperate trial (with identical charges) in 02/004.
Free. The prosecutor's request for appeal for Mzoudi was thrown
out.
There were various reports of the levels of political
pressure and non-pressure to have Motassadeq retried, as he has been, as well
as accusations (by the German prosecutors) that the US wasn't being
forthcoming enough to convict Motassadeq. International
cooperation on terrorism, people, please? Kuno Boese, a terrorism
expert at a Berlin university said "That's good. We can't be the
laughing stock of our EU neighbors any longer."
Found guilty of belonging to a terrorist cell, Motassadeq was found
innocent of over 3,000 counts of being an accessory to murder. Whether
there's an appeal, how this case affects Germany's legal
system and other legal implications for prosecuting terrorism are still
open questions.
Spain is currently trying 24 Syrian-born Spanish men accused of being Al Qaeda members (
It's Liberty vs. Security in Spanish Terror Trial,
LA Times, 08/10/2005), 3 of whom are accused of assisting in 9/11, with
a verdict to appear in September. Some info and key people in
this trial: Pedro Rubira, Spain's lead prosecutor; Jacinto Gil, a
defense attorney; investigating judge Baltasar Garzon; key defendant,
Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, alleged head of the Spanish Al Qaeda cell,
'Soldiers of Allah'; co-defendant Driss Chebli - Barakat & Chebli
are accused of arranging a 07/16/2001 planning meeting w/ Mohd Atta in
Spain and having taken video tape of the WTC; co-defendant Taysir
Alouni, an Al Jazeera reporter. Spain has a max of 40 years prison time
for terrorist activites and no death penalty - the prosecutors are
seeking sentences totalling tens of thousands of years.
Further, last month the EU put into effect a Europe-wide arrest warrant
for Al Qaeda suspects. Good, right? Germany found it
unconstitutional and let Mamoun Darkanzali, a Syrian-born German, go
free from the extradition Spain sought for the trial mentioned above. (
EU: Commission says Europe-Wide Arrest Warrant Still Valid,
AKI, 07/18/2005) Darkanzali was accused of being a member of a
terrorist cell and "providing logistics support and financing the
network,
including the purchase of a cargo vessel that he and two others bought
in December 1993 for its leader Osama bin Laden." Free.
A May 27 story in the Greeley Tribune quoted Allard
as saying the more illegal immigration there is, "the more crime you
have." ... Colorado Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak called on Allard to apologize and assailed his remarks as "another example of Republican attitudes toward the Latino community ...
"I think the chair of the Democratic Party owes an
apology to the Hispanic community for identifying all illegal
immigrants as Hispanics," Allard said.
Denver Post, 06/29/2005
That quote from Senator Allard prompted cries for apologies.
I'm
unclear here, isn't something that's illegal already a crime? And
if it's not -- because for something to be designated a "crime" it has
to be prosecuted -- doesn't this beg the question about our enforcement
and tolerance of illegal immigration?
One of the arguments in the illegal immigrant issue focuses on the people who hire them: go after thoses that hire illegals, fine them, and enforce legislation against them and there'll be less incentive for illegal immigrants and those that hire them to be, well, illegal in the first place. This is an argument similar to one in the "don't steal music," illegal filesharing, and p2p debate. I see these as parallel arguments in issues that almost mirror each other. Bear with me, if you will, and hold off on the 'denigrating hispanics as if they were low-bitrate encoded mp3s" retorts and subsequent calls for apology. Additionally, I'm somewhat shotgunning this, so tough it out.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a service was all important in whether a p2p software company could be sued for misuse, regardless, or rather even in respect of, the software company's intent. [
MGM v. Grokster] Interestingly and notably, the Court ruled that highly restrictive limits should not be placed on a newly emerging industry based upon rapidly changing technology. We have Digital Rights Management (DRM) that serves to hamper, but not eliminate, copyright infringement. There're many ways to circumvent all kinds of DRM as shown with the recent
PyMusique iTunes clone which can strip Apple's DRM. Focusing on the individuals who download music, the end user, seems not to be fruitful for the RIAA and the MPAA.
Similarly, there're all kinds of ways for illegal immigrants to get around legally obtaining a Social Security Number, paying income taxes, or for an illegal employer, paying unemployment taxes, or paying a living wage. There're registries set up by governments to check SS#'s for self-enforcement and there're ways for illegals to get checking accounts and drivers licenses to falsify or feign legitimacy. There doesn't appear to be a lot of enforcement which seems to stem from people wanting illegals to "do jobs that even [Americans] won't do" [Vicente Fox] and the idea that immigration helps drive our prosperity [Greenspan]. In essence, we as consumers appear not to want to do anything (but gnash our teeth) to restrict this flow of cheap labor. Are we infringing on our own economic sovereignty? Trying to round up all the illegals that come over and promptly disappear into our cities doesn't seem to be the answer.
There's some coincidentals with the recent years' Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate ethics prosecutions, too. [Scrushy, Lay, etc.] With these, they're going after individuals with power. The thread in these two (three) broad examples appears to be focusing on what's causing the demand for illegal behavior, not the supply, whether it's the technology enablers propagating a demand for illegal files, employers for the demand for cheap labor and us as citizens for cheaper goods, or corporate leaders demanding rakish profits.
If I could place a request for work to be done, go to bed, wake up the next day and have it done for me, I'd do it too. As Uncle BitTorrent'll do for me, all for the cost of leaving my bandwith on for a certain amount of hours - certainly cheaper than utilizing my credit card at my every whim. Who knows, said work may've even come from a foreign country, like India, who's awake when I'm not. Sorta like offshoring. I guess illegal immigrants are the "Right Shore" for non-digital outsourcing.
I've been on a security tangent lately and one of the documents I decided to read was "Trustworthy Computing," a Microsoft White Paper from 10/2002 [Mundie, deVries, Haynes, Corwine]. Here's a quote on the policy issues surrounding trust of computers:
We are entering an era of tension ... exacerbated by the fact that social norms and their associated legal frameworks change more slowly than technologies. The computer industry must find the appropriate balance between the need for a regulatory regime and the impulses of an industry that has grown up unreglated and relying upon de facto standards.
Substitute "immigration" or "corporate governance" for "computer" industry and there's a statement that rings true, even with gads of case law on the former.
Today,
Arundhati Roy - one of my very favorite leftist heros for almost
innumerable reasons - defined what it means to be an enemy combatant:
"anybody who harbors thoughts of resistance" and then promptly declared
herself to be an enemy combatant. Apart from the immediate
observation I had of this comment, first, she's a few years too late
picking up the mantle and second, I seriously doubt she has a t-shirt
declaring her as such (as I do), I don't think she really would want to
be an enemy combatant. Ideologically, though, I think we both are
- though her definition is too broad and dramatic to be of any real
use. There's a great quote from her conclusion speech today that
I'll have to transcribe for later. It's sort of like moral
aromatherapy: the smells feel nice in your head. Also, I have the damn t-shirt. Anyway, that's a
tangent.
She presided over the
World Tribunal on Iraq
held in Istanbul, Turkey where people came to describe the horrors
they've seen and experienced and to condemn the invasion of Iraq. As expected, they
delivered their condemnation. This exercise was styled after
Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre's
International War Crimes Tribunal
held in the 1960's against the Vietnam War. Being a prominent
writer, playwright, and emotionalist (in my head) one would've thought
I'd be right up there but for some reason, this didn't appear on my
Outlook calendar. I'm a bit disappointed, actually, since I was
looking forward to an international trip. The oddity of all this
is how such conclusions play into the body of statements and laws
called "international law."
As with Russell's forebearer of the UN's ICC, the
World Tribunal on Iraq
came out with a list of condemnations they've entitled "
Preliminary
Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq" in which
they find the US, UK, governments of other countries, private
corporations, the corporate media and UN guilty as charged. Some
of their recommendations include reparations, withdrawal, nullification
of laws, war crimes proceedings, calls for actions against the private
corporations and the military. Unlike Russell's tribunal, they
didn't condemn the US of genocide. Wussies!
One of the charges against the US/UK governments is "Using
disproportinate force and indiscriminate weapons systems". I
don't think they'd've been pleased if the US/UK decided to use nuclear
or chemical weapons on the Iraqi military which would've been a
"proportinate force" considering almost every nation and the UN were
convinced that Saddam's Iraq had wmd at the time. Ah well, gotta
have a clear conscience somehow. I'm not a Pespi product drinker
and therefore my conscience is clear (A recommended boycott list
includes Pepsi - go me!)
Edit:
Here's the statement I wanted to quote from Arundhati Roy:
Surely, we have the right to express an opinion, and surely, if that
opinion is irrelevant, surely, if that opinion is full of false facts,
surely, if that opinion is absurd, it will be treated as such, and if
that opinion is, in fact, representative of the opinion of millions of
people, it will become very huge.
They're not mutually exclusive states.
What a great idea. And I only thought being even more knowledgeable about Islam would help defend myself from rabid Americans. ("Tafsir" is Quranic interpretation done by a religious scholar.)
Though having a scholar debate Islam with Al Qaeda terrorists seems to have worked in Yemen, I'm not sure military psyops'll be adopting this method of combatting terrorists any time soon. The responsibility is definately upon muslims to educate themselves and their own (and of course their non-muslim friends) about Islam and how Islam can work to promote peace.
Abdullah Al Muhajir, aka Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber," has been
denied review by the Supreme Court.
His lawyers wanted to bypass the government's scheduled July appeal of
a February ruling by a South Carolina judge that "Bush has no authority
to have Padilla held as an enemy combatant." The government
appealed and that appeal is pending. Padilla's lawyer argued for
a bypass of procedure and wanted the Supreme Court to address the
issue. No go.
This has been a very interesting case for both the terrorism aspect and
the enemy combatant status. I'll be following up with more
information about Padilla and about the classification as some
historical background as I write more about the convergance of terror
& the law.
Calif. father, son held in al-Qaida investigation, MSNBC - Looks like Pakistani madrassa trained people (aka al-Qaeda sympathizers and potential terrorists) were caught in
Lodi, CA. MSNBC references an
FBI Agent affadavit (pdf), too. This one seems to be a cut and dry case of some people caught out in a lie. It's good the FBI keeps track of talking to these guys otherwise they may have had to wait until something actually happened. Complication: they're American citizens. How hard can the book be thrown at these two for lying?
The media's got some good ones, what with the al-Arian case (Florida CS professor accused of assisting Palestinian terrorist organizations) going on. Financial aid and comfort to terrorists? Probably, but they've got to prove it.
The USA PATRIOT Act's provisions are up for renewal soon (December 2005) and there's a bunch of debate going on in Washington as to it's extent. The Senate Intelligence Committee approved a proposal for giving "Administrative subpoena" powers to the FBI - allowing, in certain cases, requests for records from, say a hospital, without first going through a judge. (
Senate Gives FBI More Patriot Act Power, ABC News)
Jack mentioned something about allowing the FBI free rein to infiltrate mosques in the US. To me, it seems like an idea that's missing the mark. The FBI, as per above, has to pretty much wait until someone's broken a law somewhere before jumping into action. Enforcement of the law isn't usually an invasive or proactive thing and long drawn out court cases show exactly how quickly justice is meted out.
From the MSBNC article:
"Umer Hayat [the father] wore a concealed FBI listening device for the meetings, one source told the Bee [Sacremento news paper], an account confirmed by some of his relatives." The FBI used an informant to get more info to make their case. Much easier than a plant.