- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

FC: Text of Bush's order creating military tribunals for civilians
by Declan McCullagh 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Many folks wrote to me pointing out that President Bush's order was online this morning, probably by the time I sent my note to Politech. It also appeared in today's New York Times. Mea culpa. I wrote my note last night, but did not doublecheck before sending it out this morning and heading off to the Cato Institute conference for the day. I haven't has as much time to look at this as I'd like, but the order says military tribunals will hear cases dealing with only an accused terrorist "who is not a United States citizen." Jason Zengerle has a perhaps-prescient article giving arguments for a military tribunal here: http://www.thenewrepublic.com/111901/zengerle111901.html Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02794.html -Declan --- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 13, 2001 Military Order Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Findings. (a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces. (b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks). (c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government. (d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks. (e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals. more (OVER) 2 (f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts. (g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency. Sec. 2. Definition and Policy. (a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that: (1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times, (i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida; (ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and (2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order. (b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4. (c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense. Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be -- (a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States; (b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria; more 3 (c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment; (d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and (e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe. Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order. (a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death. (b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section. (c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for -- (1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide; (2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law; (3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person; (4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings; (5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order; (6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; (7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and more (OVER) 4 (8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose. Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense. Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order. Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense. (a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order. (b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code. Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order. (b) With respect to any individual subject to this order -- (1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and (2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal. (c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States. more 5 (e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred. Sec. 8. Publication. This order shall be published in the Federal Register. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2001. # # # ---

1 0

FC: Text of Bush's order creating military tribunals for civilians
by Declan McCullagh 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

Many folks wrote to me pointing out that President Bush's order was online this morning, probably by the time I sent my note to Politech. It also appeared in today's New York Times. Mea culpa. I wrote my note last night, but did not doublecheck before sending it out this morning and heading off to the Cato Institute conference for the day. I haven't has as much time to look at this as I'd like, but the order says military tribunals will hear cases dealing with only an accused terrorist "who is not a United States citizen." Jason Zengerle has a perhaps-prescient article giving arguments for a military tribunal here: http://www.thenewrepublic.com/111901/zengerle111901.html Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02794.html -Declan --- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 13, 2001 Military Order Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Findings. (a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces. (b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks). (c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government. (d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks. (e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals. more (OVER) 2 (f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts. (g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency. Sec. 2. Definition and Policy. (a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that: (1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times, (i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida; (ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and (2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order. (b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4. (c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense. Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be -- (a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States; (b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria; more 3 (c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment; (d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and (e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe. Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order. (a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death. (b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section. (c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for -- (1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide; (2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law; (3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person; (4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings; (5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order; (6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; (7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and more (OVER) 4 (8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose. Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense. Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order. Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense. (a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order. (b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code. Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them; (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order. (b) With respect to any individual subject to this order -- (1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and (2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal. (c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States. more 5 (e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred. Sec. 8. Publication. This order shall be published in the Federal Register. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2001. # # # ---

1 0

Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal
by Jei 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

I thought this would be relevant to the list members. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html http://cryptome.org/pmo111301.htm http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml And what is a Crypto Terrorist, you ask? Of course, it is someone who hides things with cryptography, e.g. a potential Cyber Terrorist. ;-P ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:43:51 -0400 From: John Noble <jnoble(a)DGSYS.COM> Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote: >I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary >courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have >jurisdiction over civilians? > Article III extends the judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, etc. Article I authorizes Congress to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, something apparently apart from the laws of the United States. The real issue is not an Article III tribunal vs an Article I tribunal, but whether you get the little niceties like a public trial, a jury, and a lawyer. In other words, it's not about whether the military tribunal has jurisdiction, but whether the "defendant" has constitutional rights in either forum. Wong Wing v. U.S., 163 US 228 (1896) holds that resident aliens are entitled to the protection of the 5th and 6th Amendment (due process, jury trial) if they are to be charged and imprisoned instead of deported. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 1092 (1990) distinguishes Wong Wing in holding the 4th Amendment does not apply to searches outside of the United States where the alien has "no significant voluntary connection" to the U.S. In that case the defendant was grabbed and his house searched in Mexico before he was whisked into the U.S. for trial, where his 4th Amendment claims were rejected because the Bill of Rights doesn't protect non-resident aliens. It is likely that the rationale of Verdugo-Urquidez supports the constitutionality of the executive order as applied to alleged terrorists captured in Afghanistan, and either tried there or like Verdugo-Rodriguez brought here involuntarily. Non-resident aliens are simply unprotected by the Bill of Rights. With respect to those captured in the U.S., Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) indicates that "unlawful belligerents" accused of violations of the "laws of war" are not entitled to jury trials because violations of the laws of war were not among the crimes triable by jury at common law (like claims in equity). The problem is the uncertain scope of the terms "laws of war" and "unlawful belligerents" -- Quirin seems to be define each only by reference to the other, and the terms seem even less exact today than they did in 1942. Quirin characterizes as unlawful belligerents (in contrast with lawful belligerents who must be treated as POWs) those "secretly passing through the defenses of the United States in civilian dress, for purpose of committing hostile acts." In the context of the current "war on terrorism," the terrorists found in the U.S. likely qualify as unlawful belligerents if they are here to commit "hostile acts." It seems to me that "hostile acts" might include money laundering, drug smuggling, even credit card fraud. It's not even clear that the "hostile acts" have to be otherwise criminal acts, but it is clear from Quirin that ordinary crimes, like conspiracy to blow up a building, can be re-cast as violations of the law of war when perpetrated by "unlawful belligerents." Moreover, Quirin indicates that even U.S. citizenship does not entitle an unlawful belligerent to a jury trial. Quirin claimed to have been a citizen since he was 4 years old, an issue that the Court found unnecessary to address. The problem with this is that in Quirin the court looked to a real honest-to-god declaration of war as the source of the President's authority to send the German spies to a military tribunal. This time, we're looking at a joint resolution authorizing the President to use necessary and appropriate force to end terrorism, which is undefined. The foreign belligerent is not a foreign nation, but a network that is not altogether foreign. It raises a question as to whether there is a distinction between a war on terrorism, and, for example, a war on drug trafficking; or whether terrorism might be defined to include drug trafficking, or almost any other anti-social behavior that we want to deal with free of all the nasty complications caused by lawyers and juries. How hard would it be to define people who blow up abortion clinics, or set free lab animals, or write computer viruses, or (you'll like this, Andrew) distribute DeCSS, as among the enemies in the war against terrorism. John Noble ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request(a)listserv.aol.com **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: Red Herring: Terrorism and the challenge to globalization.
by Nomen Nescio 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

> [Another glimmer of hope as even some of the mainstream business press is > venturing beyond simple patriotic flag waving. Posted in its entirety > as its not online.] > > Terrorism and the challenge to globalization. > BY PETER SCHWARTZ Stupid article, and your comment doesn't make much sense either. First, the terrorist attacks are the best thing that has ever happened for globalization. No one is a purer anti-globalist than bin Laden. Now the anti-global movement is associated with death and terror. Anti-globalization protests have been scaled back and cancelled all around the world since September 11. To the extent that radical Islam is the new standard bearer for anti-globalism, the movement is doomed. Contrary to the predictions of this article, the only hope for the anti-globalists is to disassociate themselves as fast as possible from Islamic terrorism. That's going to be tough, given the images that are burned forever into people's minds. Second, we can update Gordon Gecko's line from Wall Street. Instead of "greed is good," now "globalism is good". Globalism is a matter of free association and free choice for billions of people. It represents market capitalism at its best, with each country providing those goods and services at which it has a comparative advantage. Globalism is freedom. Third, cypherpunk technologies will promote globalism. To the extent that the future is cast as a battle between global capitalism and democracy, technology is on the side of capitalism. Democracy is an inherently coercive institution. It relies on physical force to achieve its goals. Capitalism is non-coercive. It is cooperative. It invites, it does not compel. Cypherpunk technologies enhance the opportunities to interact in cooperative ways, free of external coercion. If they can't see what you do, they can't control what you do. Cypherpunks are supporting globalism by their actions, whether they understand that or not.

1 0

Gambler Depot - 100% Sign Up Bonus Offer!
by newsletter＠gamblerdepot.com 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

1 0

Red Herring: Terrorism and the challenge to globalization.
by mean-green＠hushmail.com 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

[Another glimmer of hope as even some of the mainstream business press is venturing beyond simple patriotic flag waving. Posted in its entirety as its not online.] Terrorism and the challenge to globalization. BY PETER SCHWARTZ THE CATASTROPHIC, evil attacks on the United States are the result of deep grievances held by violent factions of radical Islamic movements. But within hours of the World Trade Center's collapse, many voices that have been raised in opposition to globalization were arguing that the attacks were the result of the American drive for global political and economic hegemony. Is there really a connection here? The question is not whether there is some grand conspiracy. Rather, the question is whether the events of September ii are part of the same story as the challenge to globalization. If so, what does it portend? There are several good arguments that the answer is yes, there is a bigger story that ties together fanatic Islamists and World Trade Organization protesters. Both are challenging American power, and both are opposed to American global dominance of culture, economics, and politics. But there are different interpretations of the opposition to globalization. The globalization debate is really about the power of global corporations, argues Paul Hawken, cofounder of gardening retailer Smith & Hawken, and an active participant in Seattle's anti﷓WTO demonstrations. In his forthcoming book, Uprising, he suggests that a loose network of worldwide organizations is attempting to limit global entities' power to dominate, exploit, and sometimes corrupt societies. These network groups are not opposed to trade, private enterprise, or modernization; they just want these pursuits on terms that recognize certain values. They are repelled by violence. Still, they believe global companies hurt, more than help, people, and that poverty and corporate tyranny fertilize the soil from which fanaticism grows. Kevin Kelly, the former executive editor of Wired magazine and the author of Out of Control: The New Biology of A4acleines,Social Systems and the Economic World (Perseus, i995),suggests that radical Islam could come to play a role similar to that of Communism. The Communist movement around the world served to organize opposition to Western capitalism and give hope to the oppressed, however misplaced. Today in the Islamic world, America is seen as the source of poverty and powerlessness, while radical Islam is seen as the strongest opponent of American power, and the source of an alternative vision of better life. For American citizens, the violent extreme of radical Islam has become, like Communism before it, the nightmare that organizes our darkest fears. The United States calls itself the land of freedom and democracy, but, argues Benjamin Barber, author of Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World (Ballantine Books, t996), it supports an often oppressive and undemocratic international order. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the WTO all function behind closed doors, where the United States and its brethren control the world economy. America has opposed efforts to increase transparency of the system and broaden participation in it. The U.S. government has opposed several new treaties covering issues like global climate change, war crimes, and even biological weapons. Many who challenge American power see the country as reserving democracy and freedom for itself. If these interpretations of political reality are valid, we can glimpse where the geopolitical future may be headed. If radical Islam is the new Communism, we may be in for a long and ugly war. This scenario involves a world of perpetual conflict with no winners. As atrocities on both sides feed on each other, the dividing lines become deeper and wider in an ever more﷓terrible cycle of violence. If Mr. Hawken and Mr. Barber are right, there are at least two possibilities. In the best of all possible worlds, democratic governance would begin to emerge globally. Existing institutions would become more transparent and democratic. New institutions would be created to better regulate common elements like the air and the oceans, and to establish appropriate global rules of behavior for corporations. But one has no trouble imagining another scenario, in which the United States refuses to surrender any sovereignty and acts unilaterally in its own interests. In such a rogue superpower scenario, the reception for U.S. companies around the world will become chilly indeed, as the world lines up to resist American hegemony. Sympathy for any new horrors inflicted upon the United States will be very limited, and cheers will be heard in Paris and Rome, as well as in the back streets of Gaza and Karachi. PETER ScHwaarz, chairman of the Global Business Network, is also a partner at the venture capital firm Alta Partners. Previously he headed scenario planning for Royal Dutch/Shell in London. Write to letters(a)redherring.com.

1 0

Big news for LAUNCH members only
by Launch 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

1 0

Secret congressional briefing on terrorism tomorrow
by Declan McCullagh 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

>Special Orders >Off the Floor: >Members-Only, Classified Briefing on the War on Terrorism. --- Anticipated Floor Schedule: The House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last Vote Expected: 3-4:00 p.m. One Minutes H.R. 2269-Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001 (Modified Closed Rule, One hour and forty minutes of debate) Rolled Suspension votes (3 bills): 1) H.Con.Res. 228-Expressing the sense of the Congress that the children who lost one or both parents or a guardian in the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies (including the aircraft crash in Somerset County, Pennsylvania) should be provided with all necessary assistance (As Amended). 2) H.R. 2887-Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. 3) H.Con.Res. 239-Expressing the sense of Congress that schools in the United States should set aside a sufficient period of time to allow children to pray for, or quietly reflect on behalf of, the Nation during this time of struggle against the forces of international terrorism. Motion to go to Conference (1 bill): 1) S. 180-Sudan Peace Act Special Orders Off the Floor: Members-Only, Classified Briefing on the War on Terrorism. 3:30-4:30 p.m., HC-5, The Capitol. Briefing will be with Administration officials. Friday's Forecast: The House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last vote expected: ?? H.R. 3009 - Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (Subject to a Rule) The House may also consider any conference reports as they become available. Saturday's Forecast: The House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last vote expected: ?? H.R. ___ - Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal 2002 (Subject to a Rule) The House may also consider any conference reports as they become available.

1 0

FREE "Get Osama" Stress Reliever!
by Wallstreet Universe 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

+>+>+> LEARN HOW TO LAUNCH YOUR OWN PROFIT PULLING OPT-IN NEWSLETTER IN JUST 5 MINUTES! <A HREF=" http://www.thewarriorgroup.com/cgi-bin/newsletters.cgi?8728 "> http://www.thewarriorgroup.com/cgi-bin/newsletters.cgi?8728 </A> +>+>+> THE SHOCKING POWER OF HEADLINES... wield an Irresistible Influence on the Internet. Learn the Secrets Today - DON'T WAIT, CLICK HERE NOW! <A HREF=" http://www.thewarriorgroup.com/cgi-bin/headlines.cgi?1362 "> http://www.thewarriorgroup.com/cgi-bin/headlines.cgi?1362 </A> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE WALLSTREET UNIVERSE REPORT - NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Please e-mail us if you are interested in advertising to our 150,000 Subscribers. Cheers - Steven Schwartz and Staff mailto:support@wallstreetuniverse.com <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Hello All Freebie Lovers, It looks like the Taliban has been kicked out of Afghanistan!!! Now women, children, clergy, teachers and everyone else will be able to walk the streets (Dirt Roads) without fear of getting cained. I expect to have Osama in American hands, dead or alive, very shortly! +>+>+> FREE - GET THE NEW "Get Osama" Stress Reliever!!! Even my kids love this game!!! <A HREF=" http://www.freebieexpress.com/stress "> http://www.freebieexpress.com/stress </A> PEACE - Steven Schwartz and Staff mailto:support@wallstreetuniverse.com <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> * To remove yourself from this mailing list, point your browser to: http://i.pm0.net/remove?Wallstreet * Enter your email address (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) in the field provided and click "Unsubscribe". The mailing list ID is "Wallstreet". OR... * Reply to this message with the word "remove" in the subject line. This message was sent to address cypherpunks(a)toad.com X-PMG-Recipient: cypherpunks(a)toad.com <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> pmguid:rd.ujm.37kh

1 0

kuro5hin.org || U.S. House Votes on Bills They Don't Read
by Jim Choate 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/11/14/0327/2510 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1