Guilt by association is very much alive in America today. A few days before Thanksgiving, a flight from Paris was diverted from Washington, D.C. to Bangor, Maine. Two men were removed from the plane and detained.

One of the men turned out to be on the no-fly list. While this does not necessarily mean he is guilty of anything, and my own thoughts about the no-fly list notwithstanding, it makes some sense for the government to not want him on a plane (though the issue of why he was allowed to board in the first place is unclear).

The second man was not on the no-fly list. The only thing he did was travel with the man who was. Despite the fact that the no-fly list is composed of many people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, this man was guilty of associating with someone who may or may not be guilty of something.

The point of the no-fly list is ostensibly to identify people who may be a risk and prevent them from flying. While not everyone on the list is a risk, and not everyone omitted from the list is clean, the government should not be able to detain people whose names do not appear on that list.

The government's no-fly list has created enough problems already for the people on it. There is no procedure for someone who is wrongfully listed to have their name removed. If the government starts to detain people who are not even on the list, what possible recourse do they have?

The fact that the government is detaining people who are not on the list, but are only traveling with someone who is, is deeply disturbing, especially in light of the list's inaccuracies.

Suppose your family is going on a vacation, but by some accident, you have been placed on the no-fly list. Despite having done nothing wrong, and not being a threat, you and your entire family will be prevented from flying and detained for questioning.

There has been a lot done in the name of security in the last three years. Many of the approaches taken have been ineffective, and many have encroached on the basic rights our Constitution guarantees to us. Do not allow a desire for security to blind you to the theft of our rights, to the theft of what makes America the great land that it is. If we allow our basic principled to be taken away, what is there to secure?

Big Brother is turning his ever-watchful eye to college students; or at least, such is the federal government's new plan to collect information on and track the progress of American college students.

The Department of Education has floated the idea of creating a national database of college students. The database would store certain information about each student, including their name, address, birth date, gender, race and Social Security number, along with a history of their college enrollment, financial aid, and tuition payments.

The idea has gained the support of Republicans in Congress, who see it as a way to measure progress in higher education.

For such an idea to become a federal program, it would require changes to existing privacy laws. Currently, release of student records requires the approval of the student or, if under 18, their parents.

The Department of Education has downplayed the privacy aspect, claiming that the information would be safe and would not be shared with anyone else. This claim is somewhat dubious, however, given the government's attempts in the recent past to combine data from companies and federal agencies into a single database for 'security' purposes.

Going to college should not mean that a person should have to let the government track them. Given that there exist privacy laws to protect the records of students, it should be apparent that there previously existed an interest in keeping such things private. There has not been any significant event or change in thinking that would require the availability of such information.

It is likely that Congress will begin to consider the proposal next year. I strongly urge every Stevens student to write to your representatives in Congress and telling them that as a college student, you value your privacy and will not stand for forced release of your student records.

Ukraine divided over election results

Protests are continuing in Ukraine over the results of their presidential election. The officially certified results of the election declared Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich the winner, but opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko has charged that massive fraud took place in the election. Thousands of Yushchenko's supporters took to the streets, and more recently, sieged several government buildings. Negotiations between the two parties are back on track, after having fallen apart several times. Several Ukrainian provinces have refused to accept the official result, and many other nations have strongly urged an investigation into the alleged fraud.

Red Cross finds 'cruel treatment' at Guantanamo Bay

An International Red Cross report states that instances of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment, sometimes bordering on torture, were used at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Guantanamo Bay prison houses hundreds of "enemy combatants," many of whom were captured during the U.S. offensive against Afghanistan. Reporting on a July investigation of the facility, the Red Cross found that the interrogation techniques used by U.S. soldiers, which included severe temperatures, loud music, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity, were a potentially serious violation of internationals laws against torture.

Chinese mine collapse kills 166

A gas explosion at a mine in central China killed 166 miners, according to the Chinese media. The explosion occurred at one of the largest state-run mines, early on Sunday, November 28, while nearly 300 people were at work in the mine. The death toll in the explosion is believed to be the largest in China in at least the last ten years, although accurate numbers are frequently unavailable. Nearly 5,000 people have lost their lives in mining accidents in China, where coal mining is often undertaken without adequate safety precautions.

U.S. to add troops before Iraqi election

The United States will be extending the stay of nearly 10,000 troops in Iraq and sending an additional 1,500 to bolster the nation's security ahead of their January presidential election. The move comes amidst requests from numerous Iraqi groups, both secular and religious, to postpone the elections, claiming insufficient time to prepare, campaign, and secure for the elections. Gen. George Casey, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, believes that the additional troops are necessary as the coalition rides the momentum from the assault on Fallujah.

India scales back military presence in Kashmir

Citing an improvement in the region's security, India has withdrawn 1,000 of its estimated 200,000 troops from disputed Kashmir. Further plans for pulling out troops are uncertain, and likely depend on the activity of militant separatists in the area. The move comes as relations between India and neighboring Pakistan begin to cool. The two countries have been on the brink of war over Kashmir, which each nation claims as its own. India has stated it will refuse to accept any agreements that would redraw borders in Kashmir.

EU parliament approves new executive commission

The European Parliament voted to approve leader Jose Manuel Barroso's commission, ending a weeks-long showdown over some of Barroso's nominees. His first proposed commission, presented last month, was blocked by the parliament over concerns about two nominees. The parliament can only vote to approve a whole commission, not individual members. The new commission's term will begin on Monday, November 22, and last for five years.

Erratic behavior prompts questions about North Korea

Several portraits of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il have been removed from public places, and the state-run media has dropped his honorific "Dear Leader" title, creating uncertainty about the country's leadership. While some observers have speculated that there may have been a military coup, others believe the steps may have been ordered by Kim as a way to remove himself as a target for public discontent.

Fighting continues in Ivory Coast

Rebel forces in the northern regions of Ivory Coast have pledged to continue their efforts to oust President Laurent Gbagbo. Cherif Ousmane, commander of the rebel stronghold Bouake, has claimed that the Ivorian Army was nothing more than a "militia" and that negotiations with its leader were impossible. The renewed fighting began two weeks ago, after Gbagbo broke an 18-month truce and ordered bombings of rebel strongholds. The move prompted retaliation from the French, who destroyed the Ivorian air force. Gbagbo has pledged to rebuild the air force, despite a U.N. arms embargo imposed on the country.

Iran allegedly seeking to build nuclear missiles

Iran is trying to adapt missiles to carry nuclear warheads, according to intelligence presented by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell's statements also partially corroborate claims from an Iranian opposition group, which says that the Iranian government is deceiving the U.N. and intends to have nuclear weapons as early as next year. According to Powell, there is no evidence that Iran has the capability to build nuclear weapons, but their efforts to adapt conventional missiles for nuclear warheads "should be of concern to all parties."

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat dies

After several days of uncertainty and many conflicting reports, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has died, according to a spokesman for the French hospital in which he was being treated. Arafat, who has been in a coma for a week, was initially diagnosed with a blood disorder and rushed to France for treatment. He will be buried in his compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Rawhi Fattuh, parliamentary speaker for the Palestinian Authority, will serve as the group's interim president until elections can be held.

U.S. forces launch assault on Fallujah

United States and Iraqi military forces have launched an offensive into the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which has become a stronghold for militant groups in Iraq. The operation, designed to move swiftly and oust insurgent forces in the city, has been a success so far. Military commanders report that three quarters of the city has been secured. Rebel forces have reportedly seized three relatives of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and threatened to kill them unless the offensive is halted.

Ivory Coast erupts in violence

Anti-France demonstrations have prompted French officials to evacuate nationals from Ivory Coast. The demonstrations came as a result of the destruction of the nation's air force by French bombers, a move sparked by the killing of several French peacekeepers. The French have had a significant involvement in a peace effort in the nation, and have been accused of trying to overthrow the country's president, a charge the French government denies.

Police raid Darfur refugee camp

Police forces executed their second raid in a week on the El Geer refugee camp in southern Darfur. The police vehicles were used to knock down several makeshift houses, fired tear gas, and assaulted several of the camp's inhabitants. In their first raid, police forcibly relocated at least 8,000 people staying in the camp. Peace talks in the region are continuing, with agreements reached on several minor issues. No overall settlement is in sight, however.

Doctors Without Borders pulls out of Iraq

Aid group Doctors Without Borders has announced it will be withdrawing 90 Iraqi workers, citing "escalating violence." A spokesperson for the group said that it was no longer possible "to guarantee an acceptable level of security for our staff." The move comes in the wake of a Care International worker, Margaret Hassan, who is still being held. Doctors Without Borders removed its foreign workers from Iraq a month ago.

Ecuadorean congress begins impeachment process

The Ecuadorean congress has begun a hearing that could ultimately lead to the impeachment of president Lucio Gutierrez. His opponent's charge that he misused public funds to finance his election campaign. Gutierrez denies the charge and has vowed to fight impeachment plans. Analysts believe that Gutierrez has enough support in the congress to avoid being impeached.

Arafat in critical condition, on life support

Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat is reportedly in critical condition and on life support in a hospital in France. Arafat, who was admitted last week, has been suffering from a blood disease. Doctors ruled out the possibility of leukemia. Despite some reports, the Palestinian Authority says that Arafat is not clinically dead. Two U.S. officials have claimed that Arafat is being kept alive on life support while burial arrangements are worked out.

Brazilian defense minister quits

Jose Viegas, Brazil's defense minister, has resigned his post in outrage, after the army issued a statement defending the conduct of the country's former military government. Viegas tendered his resignation nearly two weeks ago, but it was not publicly accepted by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva until Tuesday. A military dictatorship ruled the country from 1964 until 1985.

U.N. warns Darfur is 'close to anarchy'

Jan Pronk, the United Nations envoy to Sudan, has warned that the Darfur region of the country is "close to anarchy" and a potential "recipe for disaster" due to the increasing violence in the area. Despite a Security Council threat of sanctions against the country, Pronk said that the government is not in control of its military forces. The escalating violence has caused several aid agencies to leave the country, and has left several others considering the same. A 3,000 troop force from the African Union is expected to arrive by the end of the month.

In the October 22 issue of The Stute, Jason Taormina wrote about his disgust with nonvoters. While his argument stops short of calling for mandating voting, his 'threats' to nonvoters are simply contrary to the spirit of this country.

While being able to vote is the basis of the representative government in this country, it is not something the Framers saw fit to require of the people, and for good reason. Being able to vote is a freedom, but so is being able to not vote.

Taormina tries to spur people to vote by calling nonvoters a "slap in the face of every American serviceman." He also makes a historical appeal, the gist of which is that if people do not vote, "you are among the Nazis and Japanese who tried to push back democracy."

Choosing not to vote does mean that someone does not support democracy. The choice not to vote is perhaps what makes all of us free. People should be allowed to make their own choices regarding whether or not to vote Their decision should be a personal one, not one made because they do not want to be called "Nazis."

Furthermore, Taormina makes the claim that, taken as a whole, the Stevens campus would have had enough votes to influence the outcome of the 2000 election. This may be the case, but the fact that the election hinged on a 537-vote margin is taken out of context. Florida's electoral votes, and as a result, the overall result of the election, were determined by those 537 votes. If all Stevens students had registered to vote in Florida, then perhaps it may have made a difference.

Stevens, however, is not located in Florida. New Jersey has traditionally voted Democratic when it comes to presidential elections. If we assume that 1600 Stevens undergrads voted in the last election, and all cast their votes in New Jersey for George Bush, Bush still would have lost the state by nearly half a million votes.

The race in New Jersey will likely be much closer this time around; current polls give Kerry a 7%, compared with Gore's 2000 15%, margin of victory. Nevertheless, it does not appear likely that 1600 votes—slightly more than .05% of the total votes cast in New Jersey in 2000—will be able to directly influence the race.

Your vote in an election does matter, but it does so in ways that are much harder to understand. I encourage people to exercise their right to vote, but I also understand that people in this country have the freedom not to.

Phil Gengler '05

Afghanistan holds first presidential election

Hamid Karzai, the current interim president of Afghanistan, appears to have won in the country's first-ever presidential election. Despite flaws and obvious fraud in the election, Karzai appears to have captured over 55% of the vote. A final announcement of the winner will be made after investigations into several instances of fraud are concluded.

Arafat to receive medical treatment in France

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, suffering from a low blood platelet count, will receive medical treatment at a hospital in France. In his absence, the Palestinian Authority, the prime minister, and legislative council will assume leadership. Members of the Palestinian leadership have said they are satisfied that Israel will allow Arafat to return once his medical condition improved. Arafat's doctor says that there is no evidence of leukemia or poisoning, as some believe.

Hotel explosion injures five

An explosion at a hotel in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad injured five people on Thursday, October 28. The cause of the explosion is believed to have been an electrical short-circuit and not a bomb. Of the five injured, one was an employee at the American embassy in Islamabad and three were Pakistani.

Bomb in Taiwan kills one, injures 20

One person was killed and at least 20 injured when a bomb exploded in the Narathiwat region of Taiwan on Thursday, October 28. The region has been tense in recent weeks, with the deaths of 78 residents in military custody. Earlier in the day, police in the area defused another bomb found in a town in Narathiwat.

Election workers kidnapped in Kabul

Armed men kidnapped three U.N. election workers in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital. The election workers, all of whom were women, had been working to oversee the recent presidential election in the nation. The workers were allegedly abducted from their car at gunpoint. The driver of the car was also reported to be missing.

This election is going to be one of the closest in our nation's history. Polls conducted nationwide show John Kerry and George Bush neck-and-neck both overall and in the dozen or so "swing states."

Our country is now divided along partisan lines to an extent never seen before in our lifetimes. With such major issues as national security, the economy, and Iraq—just to name a few—facing the country this election year, the mass media in this country is failing its citizens.

Jon Stewart, a stand-up comedian and host of Comedy Central's Daily Show, recently appeared on CNN's Crossfire. He pleaded with the show's hosts, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson, to "stop hurting America" with their "theater." As Stewart put it, "we [Americans] need help from the media and they're hurting us."

Stewart's comments are spot-on, given the way the mass media has been covering news lately. During the three weeks of the presidential debates, major television networks, and to a lesser extent, newspapers, have had a significant amount of coverage of the Scott Peterson trial in California. Analysts and anchors on news shows have spent countless hours discussing the case and the trial, despite the fact that a good number of women go missing and turn up dead every year.

This coverage of singled-out murder trials comes at the expense of coverage of what really matters—the election.

It goes without saying that even with over-coverage of "news" like the Peterson trial, there has been a good deal of attention on the two main presidential candidates. Much of this attention, however, is misguided. Kerry's "heroic" service in Vietnam was repeatedly called into question, a campaign led by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group. Bush's military service during the Vietnam era was also a subject of discussion, culminating with CBS's use of, what were later shown to be, forged documents.

In both cases, attention was diverted from important campaign issues and shifted to events which took place nearly 30 years ago. The effect of the CBS forgery 'scandal,' however, goes beyond just putting the organization in a position of distrust. A scant few weeks after impeaching Bush's Air National Guard duty with forged documents, management at CBS deemed it "inappropriate" to air a story concerning the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

Indeed, the entire Iraq affair went completely under-scrutinized in the mass media. The New York Times printed an apology for "coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been," saying that "we, [the Times editors], wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged—or failed to emerge."

Iraq is not the only issue that has not received the coverage it is due. It is a little-known fact that there was a chance the third presidential debate would not have happened. A lawsuit launched by the Libertarian Party in Arizona sought to stop the debate, alleging that Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, was being unfairly excluded from the process. In Arizona, Badnarik is the only third-party candidate who will appear on the ballot.

Badnarik should also have been in the news again when he, and Green party candidate David Cobb, were arrested at the second presidential debate. Badnarik was attempting to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with a court order from an Arizona court when he was arrested. In national polls, the Libertarian party is polling fourth, behind independent candidate Ralph Nader. Despite this, no major news organization even mentioned the incident.

The "war on terror" is another area where the media has failed to meet its obligations. Whenever the government raises the threat level or announces some new development, the media laps this up and reports statements from government officials nearly verbatim.

The information regarding changed in the alert level has always been vague. In nearly all cases, there is "credible" evidence, but no indication of a time or methodology for an attack. When the threat level was raised locally for certain alleged targets in the New York City area, it was later revealed that some of the intelligence used to justify this was based on three-year-old information. From the outset, however, the story was reported as though an attack were imminent. UPI reported that there was "very specific" information that was "alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information."

New security initiatives are also reported without much questioning. The government's move toward biometric passports is one example. Local news shows are full of warnings about how new security measures, such as metal detectors or random searches, may cause delays or inconvenience to some people. These segments do not even mention the possible violation of civil liberties such measures may cause.

Much of the media's coverage of the "war on terror" is little more than a campaign of fear. When Jose Padilla was arrested and accused of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city, the media was abuzz with warnings and graphs about the effects of a dirty bomb. As it turns out, the casualty figures for such a device were overstated—they assumed there would be no clean-up and that no one would leave the area for a year.

This fear-mongering plays right into the hands of the government, and is not a partisan affair. If the government can convince people to give up certain freedoms in exchange for the illusion of security, those people will be more accepting of a stronger government role in people's lives.

While the media has been solidly in the government's pocket, it has been missing the chance to challenge the government on many controversial assertions and programs. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, much of the media felt it was a prudent move to appear as patriotic as possible, and to put a lot of blind trust in what the government was telling them. This condition has persisted to this day.

CBS anchor Dan Rather spoke to a British audience about this back in June 2002. Rather said that no reporter was willing to "bore in on the tough questions" and that many people in news were "limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge."

Major media organizations have a greater responsibility to the citizens of this nation, just as this paper has a responsibility to the students of Stevens. When these groups fail to meet their obligations, people should not stand for it. This is true for The Stute, and it should be true for all media organizations. It is truly a sad state of affairs when not only is this happening, but people are willing to accept it.

Once again, the judicial system of this nation has proven itself the protector of liberty and freedom in America. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that protesters at a rally against a U.S. military school in Columba, GA could not be subjected to going through metal detectors to reach the protest site.

In the ruling, Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote that "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over."

"Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country."

The September 11 attacks have been used to justify a constant assault on the civil liberties of the American people. In this context, it is refreshing to see that there is a group willing to say that some of these "security measures" "eviscerate the Fourth Amendment."

President Bush has said during the course of his campaign that increased security measures are necessary, because "we have to be right 100% of the time. And the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us."
It is true that the enemy (al Qaeda) has already "hurt us;" however, if we allow a single incident to force us to limit the freedom and liberty we have, then we are allowing the enemy to continue hurting us, without any overt attack.

Throughout the course of its history, the United States has been confronted with many enemies. However, we have not let these enemies force us to change fundamental aspects of our nation. Groups like al Qaeda are merely a new enemy, and while dealing with each new enemy requires a new approach, we should never let any enemy drive us to changing basic American ideals, in particular those in our Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was passed with our Constitution because many of the state representatives felt there needed to be explicit protections of certain freedoms. This is where we are ensured such freedoms as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and several important protections for criminal trials, among others. Perhaps the most important of these amendments, however, is the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that the rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights afforded to American citizens. The Ninth Amendment is its own argument against those who claim that people do not have certain rights from the Constitution.

The truth is that we have more rights than the few listed in the Bill of Rights. Each and every one of should be standing up for all of these rights; to do that is to protect America and to truly be patriotic.

Care International suspends work in Iraq

Humanitarian group Care International has suspended its work in Iraq after the kidnapping of Margaret Hassan, the woman in charge of the program. Hassan, who holds dual citizenship in Iraq and Britain, is one of the most widely known humanitarian officials in the Middle East. A video broadcast on Al-Jazeera shows that Hassan is still alive; the group holding her has not announced its name or its intentions. At this time, Care International is not planning to evacuate workers from Iraq, opting instead to shut down its operations for a time. Iraq's national security advisor is urging other groups not to pull out of Iraq as a result of the kidnapping.

African Union to send more troops for Darfur

The African Union has agreed to increase the number of troops in the Darfur region of Sudan from fewer than 400 to more than 3,000. The organization hopes to have the new troops deployed to Darfur by next month. Sudan has agreed to accept the troops, but opposes their use as a peacekeeping force. The exact role of the troops was not announced.

Bird flu ravages Thai zoo

An outbreak of the bird flu among tigers at a private zoo in Thailand has prompted health officials there to propose killing 80 more tigers to stop the disease. The tigers that would be killed are already exhibiting early symptoms of the disease, which is untreatable, and doing so would prevent the zoo from becoming "a reservoir for the disease." More than thirty tigers in the zoo have already died from the bird flu, which killed at least 11 people in Thailand earlier this year. The World Health Organization has said, however, that the infected animals do not pose a threat to human health.

Lebanese prime minister resigns, dissolves cabinet

Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's prime minister, unexpectedly dissolved his cabinet and announced his resignation. Hariri also said that he will not seek a position in a new government in Lebanon. Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, widely regarded as a rival of Hariri, accepted his resignation without comment. The conflict between Lahoud, who is pro-Syrian, and Hariri, who is not, has led some observers to comment that Hariri's move is designed to get him more power from the parliament. The United Nations has urged Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

If you went to a political protest, would you want the FBI or the police to be able to know that? Would you want them to be able to identify everyone who was there, even if nothing illegal transpired? If radio frequency identification (RFID) becomes part of your driver’s license, this scenario will come true.

With RFID as an integral part of your driver's license, it would be possible for anyone with an RFID reader to 'see' whatever data the RFID chip had stored in it. The information is broadcast ‘in the clear’ and transmits without any prompting. It is the same technology used in the EZ-Pass system today.

A driver's license is one piece of identification that most people carry with them. If RFID were to be included, any nearby person with an RFID reader would be able to obtain the information contained on your license without your knowing. This data includes your name, home address, and driver’s license number.

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU, says that with RFID in driver's licenses, "FBI agents, for example, could sweep up the identities of everyone at a political meeting, protest march, gun show, or Islamic prayer service."

Virginia's consideration of RFID for its licenses comes at a time when members of Congress are pushing for a national identification card. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) has introduced H.R. 5111, "[t]o enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved social security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes." Dreier’s bill would require employers to hire only those people who presented a valid federal identification card. The information on the card would then be checked against a large government database.

Other legislation is pending in the Senate, sponsored by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). The Senate bill would give the Department of Homeland Security "a blank check ... to design a national driver's license."

Giving a federal agency such power may be unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States respectively." The federal government is not granted the power to create a national identification system anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a power "reserved to the States."

I urge everyone to oppose the use of RFID in driver's licenses, and to oppose the creation of a national identification system. Neither proposal will make this country safer, but each will take away some of the freedom and liberty our nation is supposed to represent.

China rejects call for peace talks

The Chinese government rejected a request from Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian for peace talks. Shui-ban urged China to agree to talks in the hope of easing tensions between the two nations. China refused, with Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing calling Shui-ban's plans "separatist" and warned they "will only bring great catastrophe." China has over 600 missiles aimed at Taiwan and has repeatedly stated it will invade if Taiwan declares independence.

Iraqi leader threatens Fallujah militants

The interim leader of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, has issued an ultimatum to militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Allawi is demanding that residents of the city turn over Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is believed to be behind a series of kidnappings and violence. If al-Zarqawi is not turned in, Allawi has threatened an assault on the city. Fallujah has been a center of resistance against the U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

Millions of children in poverty, says U.N.

A new UNICEF report says that millions of children are living in poverty in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In the nine countries studied, nearly 44 million children are in poverty—one-third of the children living in those countries. The high poverty figures come in spite of economic progress and reforms being undertaken.

Food aid scaled back in Darfur

The United Nations is scaling back food aid projects in the Darfur region of Sudan due to its escalating violence. The decision came in the wake of the killing of two Save the Children aid workers. The Darfur region is gripped in what the U.N. calls a "genocide," with nearly 50,000 people killed in the last 20 months.

American citizens are all suspected terrorists. With new laws in place, and more being considered, we are increasingly being treated as though we are all terrorists, unless we can prove otherwise.

John Gilmore, who I have written about in the past, was once removed from a plane for wearing a "suspected terrorist" button to protest such treatment.

Provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to demand information about customers from companies without any judicial oversight, and without informing the person whose information is obtained.

Congress is pushing toward a national identification card and internal 'security points' where all citizens are required to present their identification.

After 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft promoted a program called TIPS, which would rely on neighbors, repairmen, and postal workers, among others, to report any suspicious activity to the FBI.

Pending changes to the nation's intelligence services would increase domestic surveillance.

Within a few years, our passports and other identification will contain biometric information about us.

More and more, the burden is on us to prove that we are not terrorists, and not up to law enforcement to find the actual terrorists. In criminal cases, the accused are entitled to presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

When someone is accused of being a terrorist, they are automatically assumed to be a danger to our country. It took the Supreme Court to rule that those detained as terrorism suspects were allowed to contest that assertion and have access to legal counsel.

Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that "[The Patriot Act] is just the first step. There will be additional items to come."

Ashcroft says the Patriot Act, and similar legislation, is needed to "prevent terrorists from taking advantage of American freedoms." Apparently the task of taking over American freedoms should be left up to our own government.

In Arizona, members of the local Libertarian Party recently filed a lawsuit against Arizona State University, which will host the third presidential debate. The lawsuit alleges that by spending nearly $2 million dollars for the debate, the state (through the public institution) is making an illegal campaign contribution to both parties.

One of the attorneys behind the lawsuit, David Euchner, said that "Arizona recognizes three political parties ... A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial, and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."

Euchner's remarks seem to match with much of the opinion I've heard about the first debate. Many people I know feel that it was not so much a debate as side-by-side campaign speeches.

This case does raise some interesting points about the debates. The organization that is responsible for the debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was established by an agreement between the Democratic and Republican parties. This fact has many people claiming that the Commission is just a tool of both parties and increases the difficulty for third-party candidates to get national exposure.

The Commission on Presidential Debates does have a policy for determining eligibility. It requires a valid candidate, being on enough ballots to have a theoretical chance to win enough electoral votes, and at least 15% popularity in national polls.

The point of the Libertarian Party's case in Arizona, however, is not that the Commission is somehow conspiring to keep them from the debates.
In Arizona, only three candidates will be listed on the ballot: George Bush, John Kerry, and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik. The lawsuit alleges that since the Libertarian Party is one of only three on the ballot, the state of Arizona recognizes it as a party.

This is where the idea of the debates as speeches comes into play. By putting $2 million toward the debate, which does not include the Libertarian Party, the argument is that Arizona is making a large campaign contribution to both of the major parties.

I believe this is a valid point, especially given that the first debate, at least, was used as a chance for each candidate to repeat their positions. This is not to say the debates are not important; a candidate's ability to perform well in that sort of situation is representative of their ability to think quickly and clearly.

Should public money be used to effectively fund this sort of thing, however? Some may argue that the debate is a public service, and so yes, public money should be used. What about third-party candidates? The argument for having eligibility requirements for the debate is to keep them from getting out of hand with too many candidates. In Arizona, however, there are only three recognized candidates.

Does this case involve a state using public money to unfairly and illegally make a campaign contribution to the Democrats and Republicans? I believe it does, as there are three candidates, yet only two are getting any effect of the $2 million.