Month: March 2003

The Iraqi blogger’s website is pretty slow, but it looks like the PyGoogle folks are taking pity on his excessive bandwidth usage. He’s giving some amazing insight on how the war is being felt in Baghdad:

While buying groceries the woman who sells the vegetables was talking to another about the approach of American armies to Najaf city and about what is happening at Um Qasar and Basra. If Um Qasar is so difficult to control what will happen when they get to Baghdad? It will turn uglier and this is very worrying. People (and I bet “allied forces”) were expecting things to be mush easier. There are no waving masses of people welcoming the Americans nor are they surrendering by the thousands. People are oing what all of us are, sitting in their homes hoping that a bomb doesn’t fall on them and keeping their doors shut.
The smoke columns have now encircled Baghdad, well almost. The wids blow generally to the east which leaves the western side of Baghdad clear. But when it comes in the way of the sun it covers it totally, it is a very thick cloud. We are going to have some very dark days, literally.

From the weekend, lots of protest notes around the blogosphere:

• Esta notes that the riot police had to be called out in Richmond (“Richmond has riot police?”)
• George notes that the protests in San Francisco didn’t necessarily convince people on the fence (“Graffiti, destruction of public and private property, disruption of traffic, and destroying police cars do not exactly bring me around to their cause.  In addition, it alienates more peaceful protestors who might actually be able to intellectually articulate their point of view”)
• Tony posts a brilliant photo essay that bridges the Oscars and the pro- and anti-war protests in LA.
• Jessamyn talks about the disconnect between protestors’ rhetoric (“shut down the town”) and reality (“my electricity and water were still running safely, as was my network connectivity and phone. There were no holes in the walls of my house and my life was in no danger. My family and friends were likewise fairly safe. Food was readily available and inexpensive. I could take a bus to within about eight blocks of my final destination and I like to walk. I had no shopping to do, or businesses to visit, and I feel comfortable among teeming throngs of activists. Shut down? Not to me.”)

Now, a confession. I still haven’t been to a protest. This is probably creeping suburbanism at its worst, but I have this funny feeling. It says I shouldn’t go to a protest unless I’m so sure of my convictions I’m willing to get arrested. And I’m not there yet. But God bless those who are.

Washington Post: U.S. Steps Up Secret Surveillance: FBI, Justice Dept. Increase Use of Wiretaps, Records Searches. This is pretty disturbing:

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department and FBI have dramatically increased the use of two little-known powers that allow authorities to tap telephones, seize bank and telephone records and obtain other information in counterterrorism investigations with no immediate court oversight, according to officials and newly disclosed documents.

The article credits the PATRIOT Act, which loosened restrictions on when these “national security letters” and “emergency foreign intelligence warrants” may be used, for the increase in use of these tactics. With no checks and balances, these powers may be the most immediate threat to civil liberties out there.

Do I exaggerate? I don’t think so. Remember, the secret court that oversees the requests for these warrants has said that the Justice Department isn’t doing a good job of justifying them. And much of the case for war was made with dubious information. Can the Justice Department be trusted to process the information it already has? If not, why should we grant them a blanket right to reach into our bank and telephone records?

Qui custodiet custodies?

LA Times via Seattle Times: “Slaves’ courtroom fights for liberation revealed.” Archivists in St. Louis have uncovered, and digitized, an archive of the records of 283 “freedom suits” filed by slaves against their masters in St. Louis from 1814 to 1865. Many predate Dred Scott’s suit, often with more successful results. In fact Missouri, like Virginia, had a practice of “set[ting] aside taxpayer money to hire lawyers for slaves who sued for freedom.” The story, and the archive, open the doors on a fascinating chapter of US history.