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.

This letter is in response to last week's "The 'Right' Opinion" column by Jason Taormina.

In his column, Mr. Taormina states that refusing to show I.D. in order to board a plane is making our country less safe. The overtone of that section seems to be that air travel is a security risk, and as such, the government needs to be involved. In this regard, Mr. Taormina states that John Gilmore "must follow the rules" and show identification.

The issue I was addressing in my column about Gilmore was not that of him refusing to present his identification. The point of the column was that the government would not publicly admit whether an I.D. requirement is actually a law. One cannot "follow the rules" when not only are the rules kept secret, their existence is, too.

Furthermore, Gilmore was prevented from boarding the flight. If not flying makes someone capable of putting the nation in "grave danger," perhaps the government should just have let him on the plane.

Gilmore's case is not about privacy, despite what Mr. Taormina believes. While it is certainly my opinion that someone should not be required to present identification to fly, my column referenced the Gilmore case as a matter of government secrecy.

Another issue with Mr. Taormina's column is his characterization of John Kerry as someone who changes his opinion to suit his audience. He also portrays President Bush as someone who has followed through on what he said he would do.

George Bush is not as stalwart as Mr. Taormina would have you believe. He has a history of reneging on his promises. Bush promised to improve education in the United States, and pushed hard for the No Child Left Behind Act. He did, in fact, sign the bill into law. What Bush did not push for, however, is crucial funding for the now-mandatory programs that states and schools are required to implement. His budget proposals fall billions of dollars short of what is needed.

Bush also made promises about the environment during the 2000 campaign. He said that "the federal government will set high environmental standards," and then backed America out the Kyoto treaty. He is pushing for a "Clear Skies" law, which would weaken the environmental protections of the "Clean Air" act that have been in effect for years.

Mr. Taormina makes the point that Democrats are only interested in winning the election. No presidential candidate would have a chance at the office if their only goal were to win. People will not support a candidate who they feel will not accomplish anything. Given that recent polls show the two candidates tied in popular support, it is clear that many of the American people feel he is the better choice.

President Bush is running his campaign primarily on attacking the character of John Kerry. This is clearly not the "new tone of respect and bipartisanship" he promised during the 2000 campaign.

There is one thing I agree with Mr. Taormina about. He makes the point that if you want to vote for "anyone but Bush," that does not mean a vote for Kerry. I agree, as there are a number of third-party candidates on the ballot, and their position may better fit with yours. Vote for the candidate you actually want, even if it is not George Bush or John Kerry.

Phil Gengler '05

Year-old dreams of fast and cheap trips into space are now one step closer to reality. Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne, a privately funded spacecraft, won the Ansari X-Prize on Monday with its second trip to space and back.

In two flights, one on September 29 and again on October 4, SpaceShipOne flew to a height of over 62 miles, widely believed to be the point where Earth’s atmosphere ends and space begins.

SpaceShipOne is the first private craft to reach space. The pilots for its flights, Mike Melville and Brian Binnie, became the first recipients of private astronaut wings.

Burt Rutan, SpaceShipOne's designer, is hoping that "space tourism will be a multibillion-dollar industry" within 15 years.

Rutan may not have to wait that long. Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic, has invested $25 million into a new project, Virgin Galactic. Using technology licensed from Scaled Composites. Branson hopes to begin suborbital commercial flights within five years.

With the X-Prize now claimed, several other teams which were trying for the prize have announced intentions for orbital spaceflight. Millionaire Robert Bigelow announced a new $50 million prize for putting between five and seven people into orbit. Bigelow is currently developing a private space station.

Rutan intends to use SpaceShipOne as a prototype for larger space vehicles before retiring it from service. He envisions space travel becoming as commonplace as air travel is today.

Congress has already begun mulling safety regulations for the private space industry. Safety requirements for spacecraft and fitness requirements for passengers are among the items being considered.

The X-Prize was announced in 1996 as a $10 million prize to the first group to send a manned ship into space and back twice within two weeks. It was modeled after the Orteig Prize for solo transatlantic flight.

Much of the funding for SpaceShipOne was put up by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. More than $25 million was invested in the program, and Allen plans to share the prize with the Scaled Composites team.

Turkey gets approval for EU membership talks

The European Union has given Turkey approval for initial talks regarding membership in the EU. Several member states expressed concern over Turkey’s politics and human rights records. While members of the Turkish government are hopeful about their chances, French President Jacques Chirac expects the process to take 10-15 years "at a minimum." The Turkish government has been aspiring for EU membership for years, and has implemented a number of social and economic reforms to increase its chances of being accepted.

Mount St. Helens alert level lowered

Scientists have lowered the alert level for the Mount St. Helens volcano, following several minor steam releases. While continuing steam blasts are possible over the next few weeks, geologists monitoring the volcano "no longer think that an eruption is imminent in the sense of minutes or hours." The volcano, which has not had a major eruption since 1980 and has been dormant since 1986, began exhibiting unusual seismic activity approximately two weeks ago prior to a small steam explosion.

Violence in Haiti interrupts emergency relief

U.N. relief workers in Haiti have found it harder to distribute emergency supplies due to frequent violence. Supporters of deposed president Jean-Bertrand Aristide have taken to the streets this week, and have killed at least 13 people so far. Reports indicate that nearly 2,500 tons of food, intended to help those affected by hurricane Jeanne, remain on docked ships, since many customs and dock workers are afraid to come to work.

U.S., South Korea reach agreement on troop withdrawal

The United States and South Korea have reached an agreement that will reduce the U.S. military presence in South Korea by one-third over the next four years. Over 12,000 troops will be redeployed from South Korea in three phases, the first of which will be completed by the end of next year and reduce the number of U.S. troops by nearly 5,000. The United States will continue to maintain a rocket system in South Korea and provide financial assistance for South Korea’s defense.

Once again, the judicial branch of the United States is shown as the reasonable branch of our government. A federal judge has ruled a section of the USA PATRIOT Act ("Patriot Act") unconstitutional. The affected section allowed the FBI to demand financial records from companies, and was challenged by the ACLU.

The judge struck down the provision because it "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge" and did not provide a way for people to challenge the government’s request.

While this is a victory for both privacy and liberty, it is interesting to note that once again, the issue had to go all the way to the courts to get a constitutional resolution.

The Patriot Act was supported by President George Bush and passed by both houses of Congress. Many of the provisions of the Patriot Act were considered unconstitutional or at the very least, controversial. In the face of this, Congress passed the act anyway. After it was passed, the Act drew even more criticism that it was unconstitutional. President Bush and many of the members of Congress who supported the act stood by it, claiming it to be a necessary tool in the war on terror.

Whether or not the Patriot Act is a useful tool in the fight against terrorism—which I personally do not believe it to be—is not the point I am trying to make. Our nation's Constitution is designed to define our government, and the Bill of Rights was passed to ensure that the government did not overstep its bounds. It is the highest law of the land, and yet, our Congressional leaders and our President seemingly chose to ignore it, deeming it more necessary to 'fight terror' than to abide by the very document that gives the government its power.

Fortunately, we have the judicial system to keep the legislative branch in check. It is interesting to note, however, that the judicial branch of this country is the only one that is not elected by the people. In this American "democracy," why is the voice of reason the one not elected?

While I support the separation of powers, and the judicial branch's power of judicial review, we as a people should demand that the other branches of government respect the Constitution. If Congress and the President do not abide by the Constitution, then our judges will be the ones making our laws. President Bush has condemned the practice of "legislating from the bench," and it is something we should all condemn, if not for the same reasons.

Democracy requires the involvement of the citizens. If our country is left in a state where the citizens cannot 'vote out' lawmakers, then it is not a democracy. Demand that your elected representatives respect the Constitution, and demand they do not hand power of this nation over to an unelected authority.

Mount St. Helens may be ready to erupt

The Mount St. Helens volcano in Washington state may erupt soon, according to scientists. The volcano began having increased seismic activity last week, with over one thousand small earthquakes occurring in less than seven days. The Cascade Volcano Observatory reports that the lava dome of the volcano is growing, which suggests the volcano may erupt soon. Researchers caution that eruption predictions are still preliminary, and further analysis of data is necessary to draw a conclusion. The last eruption of Mount St. Helens was in 1986.

Canadian embassy in Beijing stormed by refugees

A group of 44 people, believed to be North Korean refugees, stormed the Canadian embassy in Beijing, China. Eyewitness reports indicate the refugees used homemade ladders to climb over the embassy walls. The police apprehended one man; the remainder successfully made it into the embassy. A decision about the fate of the refugees has not yet been made, as embassy staff is still trying to determine where the group had come from.

Palestinian rocket attack kills two children, provokes retaliation

A rocket attack by Palestinian militants killed two Israeli children and wounded ten other people in the city of Sderot. In response, Israel launched a helicopter assault on a Palestinian refugee camp, killing one and wounding three others. The attack came in the midst of an Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip aimed to stop attacks on civilians. Three Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli troops as part of the campaign.

Nigerian cease-fire agreement reached

Militia leaders have reached an agreement with Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, seeking to put an end to fighting in the country's main oil-producing region. Coupled with threats against foreign oil workers in the area, the violence is believed to have contributed to the recent climb in oil prices. Several oil companies slowed or halted production as a result of tensions and fighting.

USS Cole bombers sentenced to death

Two men were sentenced to death, and four others to prison terms, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. All six men were also charged with being members of al Qaeda. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, one of men given a death sentence, is believed to have been involved in the 1998 bombings of U.S embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Appeals are expected in all six cases, and the brother of one of those convicted intends to petition Yemen's president to lessen the sentences.

To the editor:

This is in response to Ronen Peled's op-ed about gun control in the September 24, 2004 issue. From the last paragraph, it appears he was trying to educate people about gun control. The rest of the piece, however, does not accomplish this.

Unlike most op-ed writers, Mr. Peled does not write with a single opinion. Instead, he presented both sides of the issue, each with a bias toward that side. This makes it very hard to get accurate information from the piece, as each side's "facts" are distorted.

Nevertheless, there are a few points I would like to address.
Firstly, Mr. Peled puts forth the idea that "[I]f Americans do not have vigilance for themselves, many more 9/11's will happen." In context, Mr. Peled appears to believe that if the general population is not allowed to carry guns, terrorists will attack us again. Implied in his statement, however, is the idea that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if everyone was carrying a gun.

While I fully support the right of citizens to bear arms, it should be noted that the 9/11 hijackers used box-cutters to take over the planes. This is not because box-cutters are better weapons, but because airline screeners did not stop people with them from boarding planes. Guns, however, were not allowed. If everyone was allowed to carry a gun, and to take these guns onto airplanes, it is extremely likely that the hijackers would also have used guns.

Later in the piece, Mr. Peled noted the passage of the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, which is supported by the Department of Homeland Security. This fact directly contradicts the idea that more weapons make for a safer nation. If this were the case, one would expect DHS to try and make it easier, not harder, for people to obtain weapons.

Mr. Peled also makes the claim that the United States is "prone to Islamic terrorism." As examples, he cites the 1993 WTC bombing and a 1997 incident at the Empire State Building. Adding the USS Cole attack and 9/11 to this list, there are only four examples of "Islamic terrorism." Whether the 1997 shootings should be even be considered terrorism is highly debatable. Should any shootings be considered terrorism, or only those committed by Arabs?

While any single act of terrorism can be considered 'too many,' to call four incidents "extensive" is simply wrong. Furthermore, he uses the "extensive" attacks as a rationale for gun control, when only one of the incidents was carried out with a gun. To use such an example to get stronger gun control by equating it to 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.

There are many valid points on each side of the gun control debate. The points that Mr. Peled made in his op-ed, however, are not. It is a shame that he felt the need to use the tragic yet unrelated events of 9/11 to strengthen his points.

Phil Gengler '05

Recently, the Information Technology department instituted a new policy for blocking virus-infected computers from the network.

It has been the policy of the department to block infected machines for some time; until now, however, manual identification of infected machines was required. Under the new policy, an automated program is used to watch for computers that frequently scan for other computers on the network. "Scanning behavior is most commonly associated with a computer virus or worm," said the IT department in its announcement of the policy, and hopes to prevent then from having free reign on the Stevens network.

Some students reported their computers had become infected immediately after reinstalling Windows.

Joe Haydu '05 believes the new policy will make the network safer. "Hopefully it will cut down on the viruses on the network. I just reinstalled Windows, and I was worried my computer would get a virus before I could patch it," explained Haydu.

The change affects primarily affects student computers, as the computers used by the administration are maintained by the IT department. Students who have their network access blocked should contact the Information Technology Help Desk at x5500 for more assistance.

The policy is intended to do more than just keep more computers clean. The IT department is also hoping the new policy will ease "an overload on routers and Internet bandwidth."

The department's efforts to ease overload extends beyond blocking virus-infected computers from the network. Network traffic both into and within the Alpha Sigma Phi house is being throttled. As a result, "network access is much slower," according to Brian Quinn '05, an Alpha Sigma Phi brother affected by the slowdown. Ellis Farmer '05, vice president of Alpha Sigma Phi, said the move indicated a "lack of quality service" and was an "unnecessary hindrance." The fraternity is considering the purchase of a cable modem for Internet access.

The head of the IT department, Eric Rosenberg, was unavailable for comment.

Shortly after last week's issue went to print, I became aware that the Ninth Circuit had recently ruled against the government in John Gilmore's case. This means that the government will have to reveal the law or directive, if any, which requires airline passengers to present I.D. in order to fly.

The government's assault on our liberties has not ended, however. Recently, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced that it will be requiring airlines to turn over passenger data from the month of June. This data, which may include credit card information, would be used in a program called "Secure Flight," which would check the airline's data against terrorist watch lists.

The program is reminiscent of the CAPPS II program, which would also have required airlines to give the government records of their passengers. That program was halted after several lawsuits were launched against the government by privacy advocacy groups.

Even if you believe it is acceptable for the government to be monitoring airline passengers, there are other aspects of the program that go beyond that. The TSA plans to compare the data against several databases to look for fraud and identity theft.

This is something that no one should accept. The government should not have the authority to demand private data from a private company, ostensibly for the purpose of "fighting terrorism," and then use that data for other, unrelated endeavors.

The Secure Flight program goes above and beyond existing watch lists. Instead of comparing a passenger manifest against a "no-fly" list, Secure Flight would also look for other "suspicous" factors. These include the method of payment, choice of meal, and in some cases, the passenger's nationality.

Recently, Sen. Ted Kennedy was prevented from flying, since a "T Kennedy" allegedly appeared on a watch list. It took Kennedy three weeks of phone calls with officials in the Department of Homeland Security to get his name removed. Most citizens do not have those connections, and would have little recourse for clearing their name.

With an "active" system like Secure Flight, as opposed to a passive one such as checks against a list, the potential for false positives increases. If the government creates a "profile" of a likely terrorist, such as an 18–35 year-old man of Arab descent, then thousands of people matching that profile will be stopped and searched simply for the "crime" of "being Arab." Meanwhile, all a terrorist group would have to do is use operatives who do not match the profile, since much of the security attention will be focused on those who do.

Our government is seeking new powers at the expense of existing liberties, all in the name of "making America safer" or "preventing another 9/11." Yet many of these proposals would do nothing for our safety, and had they been in place before the 9/11 attacks, would have done nothing to stop them. Do not let the government step on the liberties our nation has enjoyed for so many years.

Iran may end nuclear cooperation

Amid U.S.-led criticism of its plan to enrich uranium, Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, stated that Iran may end cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Khatami's remarks come after the IAEA passed a resolution demanding Iran stop its enrichment plans and answer questions about its nuclear program.

Iran has argued that its intentions are peaceful and that it is complying fully with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Hurricane Jeanne leaves 800 dead in Haiti

Flooding caused by hurricane Jeanne left over 800 people dead and 1,000 missing in Haiti. Damage from the hurricane has also left another 175,000 without food, water, or electricity. International Red Cross workers have been working to distribute emergency supplies to affected people. U.N. peacekeepers, still in Haiti from the February overthrow of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, are also taking part in the relief effort.

Thousands flee unrest in Democratic Republic of Congo

Fighting between government troops and dissident soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo is causing thousands of people to flee the country, according to U.N. officials. Some reports put the number of displaced civilians at 20,000, while estimates from within the country put the number at nearly 150,000. United Nations peacekeeping forces have been unable to stop the violence, leading U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to call for a doubling of the 11,000 troops already in the country.

The clashes come in spite of a peace deal signed last year, which gave the rebel group positions in a new power-sharing government.

EU to lift sanctions against Libya

Following the United States' lead, the European Union announced that it will be lifting a ban on the sale of weapons to Libya. The sanctions were originally imposed in 1986, in response to support of terrorist groups by the Libyan government. Relations with Libya have improved with the government's promise to compensate families of victims of two airline bombings.

Two US hostages killed in Iraq

Iraqi militants killed two U.S. hostages, and are threatening to kill a third unless the U.S. releases all female Iraqi prisoners. The United States government admits to holding two women in custody, but said it has no plans to release them. Despite a televised plea for help by the wife of one of the hostages, there is no indication that the government was asked to accede to the demands.

Going to college in America is expensive. For nearly all students at Stevens, this sentiment is nothing new.

Recently, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released its biannual "Measuring Up" report. The study analyzes aspects of higher education policy in each state and issues a 'report card', that grades in five areas, Preparation, Participation, Affordability, Completion, and Benefits.

New Jersey scored highly in all areas except "Affordability," in which the state was given a 'D.' The report states that "New Jersey makes a large investment in need-based financial aid," but adds that "even with financial aid, however, the costs of attending public two- and four-year colleges remain high."

Most other states also scored poorly in the Affordability category, with only California, Minnesota, and Utah receiving above a 'D.' Thirty-six states were given failing grades, and America was rated an 'F' overall for Affordability.

When asked about the report, Vice President for University Enrollment & Academic Services Maureen Weatherall said that the low grades make it "very hard to draw any comparative analysis among states." She added that "there are significantly more families who receive financial aid from Stevens than qualify for assistance from the state."

Financial aid can have a big impact on the cost of college. Tim Garner '08 remarked that "after financial aid is factored in," the cost of Stevens compared to other schools such as WPI or Florida Tech was "all about the same."

With financial aid such an important factor in the cost of attending college, Weatherall believes that New Jersey "has done a much better job than the federal government" in providing aid to college students. For example, "the direct/Stafford loan has not increased from the $2625” it was" when Weatherall attended college.

For its part, New Jersey is attempting to keep the cost of college down. Public colleges and universities were subject to an eight percent cap for tuition increases for this year. Despite having the highest per capita income in the country, college tuition at private universities in New Jersey is only eight percent above the national average, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

College students in New Jersey also have an advocate in Congress. Sen. Jon Corzine (D, NJ) has sought to provide more financial aid to students. Corzine has worked to block changes to financial aid calculations that would lower the amount of aid many students receive.

Like many Americans, when John Gilmore wanted to travel somewhere, he decided to fly. Unlike most people, however, he refused to show identification or submit to an intensive search before boarding the plane. As a result, he was not allowed on the plane.

For most people, the story would have ended there. But John Gilmore is not your ordinary American. Gilmore is a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a strong advocate of privacy. After being turned away from his flight, Gilmore filed a lawsuit against the government and several airlines challenging the identification requirement to fly.

It is not just the challenge to the requirement of his identification that makes Gilmore's case an important one for civil liberties. After having his case dismissed in district court, Gilmore appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The government is asking the court to allow for secret briefs to be filed, with redacted copies made available to Gilmore and to the public. Most disturbingly of all, the government refuses to confirm or deny the existence of any law or directive that would require an airline passenger to present identification.

It is a common saying in the law arena that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That is, you may commit an act made illegal by a law you did not know of, or did not bother find out about. In any case, since the law was on the books you may still be found guilty for your crime.

This saying holds because nearly all of our country's laws are a matter of public record. You can find out, without much trouble, just about any bit of law on the books in America. You may have been ignorant of a law, but at any time you could have checked to see if such a law existed.

Now, however, we have the government supporting requirements that may or may not be law. It is impossible to expect anyone to be aware of laws that the government will not even confirm exist.

Secret laws are a massive threat to civil liberties. Should the Ninth Circuit rule in favor the government, that opens the door for arrests and detentions of innocent people who were not violating a law, and more importantly, could not have possibly known they were violating a law.

Enacting laws and directives in secret gives the government major loopholes to our system of justice. Part of the requirements of an arrest is that the accused is informed of their crime. He/she are arraigned and tried for a specific crime. Some lawyers will find problems with the laws criminalizing such activities, and it is possible for courts to overturn laws. But what if you cannot find out the phrasing of a law, or even if the crime you stand accused of is actually a crime?

Such power could easily be used to arrest otherwise lawful citizens. For example, protesters who are in full compliance with published laws could be arrested simply if the government saw fit. By simply labeling them a risk to national security, the government would seek to be allowed to proceed in secret, without even notifying the person of what they had done wrong.

These laws also remove public participation from the picture. Many bills have been proposed to Congress, only to be withdrawn or voted down after strong public outrage. How can citizens express their opinions about the laws of this country if they are never being told of the laws?

As I wrote in this space last week, there is a need for a trade-off between security and liberty. I want to again reiterate that what is needed is a balance, not a lopsided move toward "security" at all costs, no matter how ineffective or invasive, and the privacy and liberty of our citizens.

Since all students at Stevens have now gone through the Convocation ceremony, and been formally inducted into the Stevens Honor System, it is important to look at just what the honor system means.

The honor system was originally intended to be an indication that faculty could trust students not to cheat or unfairly collaborate on tests, projects, and homework assignments. In exchange for writing a pledge at the top of every assignment and piece of work, students were to be given the freedom to work as they saw fit, with a loss of honor being the punishment for violating the policy. Under this policy, exams were not proctored; in fact, the professor or TA for the class would not even be present in the testing room.

Today, however, things are different. While exams are not officially proctored, professors are allowed to remain in the room during the test. Homework assignments are now checked by TAs and graders to see if they are truly original work, and not copied from someone else's assignment or from the Internet. In the computer science department, graders have a special program to check if two programs are the same, with only the names of variables changed.

Despite these checks against cheating, Stevens maintains the honor system. The pledge is still required at the top of every assignment and test, and the written penalty for not having it is a failing grade on that assignment.

What this all boils down to is that Stevens does not trust its students. The honor system, despite the apparent trust it puts in students, in reality has quite the opposite effect. The supervision used with both exams and assignments assumes that students are cheating and that constant checks are required to deter and catch it. Not writing the pledge is assumed to have been done because of cheating.

At every step in the process, students are not being trusted. The reason for this is that a lot of cheating and other "competitive advantages" do take place here at Stevens. Perhaps the administration and faculty is right in not trusting students.

Whether or not students can be trusted is not the larger issue here, though. The Stevens Honor System presents a facade of trust, which is not actually present. Stevens can continue to promote the honor system as another selling point for the school, but to say that the school trusts its students is a lie.

Either Stevens needs to start trusting its students again, or it should abolish the honor system. Maintain it in such an atmosphere of distrust is a lie to both prospective and current students, and we should not stand for it.

Unidentified North Korean explosion 'not nuclear'

A large explosion in North Korea was "not nuclear," according to U.S., U.N, and North Korean officials. The explosion, which occurred near the North Korean/Chinese border, was large enough to cause a mushroom cloud, resulting in speculation that it was a nuclear blast. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, which monitors for nuclear activity, reported no signs of a nuclear blast. North Korean officials insist the blasting was part of the construction of a hydroelectric power plant.

Sudanese peace talks collapse

Peace talks between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur region of the nation collapsed, even as the United Nations prepares to vote on a new resolution against Sudan. The talks had resumed after a three-week postponement, but one of the groups walked out of the talks, saying they were unable to come to an agreement. As a result, the peace talks will likely be postponed for a month. Meanwhile, the United Nations will be voting on a resolution authorizing sanctions against Sudan. The resolution was drafted by the United States, but several nations, including China and Russia, had objections. Either country could veto the resolution.

Afghan court convicts three Americans of torture

An Afghan court convicted seven people, including three Americans, of torturing Afghani prisoners in a private jail. Sentences for the Americans ran from eight to ten years, and four Afghan accomplices were sentenced to lesser terms. Attorneys for the three Americans contend that the jail was operated with the backing of the United States government, a charge the government denies.

Annan: War in Iraq 'illegal,' elections in jeopardy

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq "illegal" and an act "not in conformity with the UN charter." Annan said that the decision to invade Iraq should have been made by the U.N. Security Council, not by the U.S. alone. The United States denied the war was illegal, citing several U.N. resolutions against Iraq as a "sound legal basis." In an interview with the BBC, Annan also spoke about the upcoming elections in Iraq. He said that there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," but the U.N. would provide assistance and advice to the Iraqi government regardless.