By MORRIS D. DAVIS
New York Times
Arlington, Va.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.
Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”
Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.
Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce. The defense may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves. If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.
Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Citizenship: Rights, Responsibilities and Liberties
讲到role of gov, citizenship可以用到的一点概念
Describe concepts that define the meaning of democracy as expressed in the United States Constitutional system.
Explain that concepts of democracy define and shape the meaning of citizenship.
Identify fundamental political concepts:
• Fundamental worth and dignity of the individual: All persons are entitled to life, liberty, and due process under the law.
• Equality: All persons are entitled to equal rights and treatment before the law.
• Majority rule: The will of the majority as expressed through elections is fundamental to the American system.
• Minority rights: The Constitution of the United States protects the rights of the few from oppression.
• Compromise: The structure of the United States government necessitates compromise by all sides.
Individual freedom: All persons are born free, equal, and independent.
• Explain that an analysis of current events demonstrates contemporary applications of democratic concepts.
Explain that Civil liberties are freedoms upon which the government may not infringe.
Explain that the Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. It guarantees the rights of individuals and expresses limitations on federal and state governments.
Identify First Amendment freedoms:
Religion
• Government may not establish an official religion, nor endorse, or unduly interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Speech
• Individuals are free to express their opinions and beliefs.
Press
• The press is free to gather and publish information, including that which criticizes the government.
Assembly
• Individuals may peacefully gather.
Petition
• Individuals have the freedom to make their views known to public officials.
Explain that the Bill of Rights protects citizens from
• Unreasonable search and seizures
• Double jeopardy
• Self-incrimination
• Cruel and unusual punishment
Explain how the right to due process of law is outlined in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Describe two types of due process of law
• Procedural due process of law—The government must use fair proceedings.
• Substantive due process of law—The laws under which the government acts must be constitutional.
Explain how the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America protect due process of law:
• 5th Amendment—Prohibits the national government from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner__
• 14th Amendment—Prohibits state and local governments from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner.
Using the following information, analyze how the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) greatly enhances the protection of civil rights and extends the Bill of Rights protections to state proceedings:
• Beginning in the twentieth century, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) to limit state actions, just as the Bill of Rights limits the national government.
The Supreme Court has incorporated in the due process clause all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights except those of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 10th Amendments and the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment.
Explain how the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, is balanced by compelling public interest.
Describe the limitations of rights because few rights, if any, are considered absolute:
• Some forms of speech are not protected (e.g., libel, slander, and obscenity).
• Speech that is a “clear and present danger” is not protected (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded building).
• The press can be restricted when publication will cause serious and irreparable harm (e.g., national security).
Explain that the equal protection clause is contained in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Explain that the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment provides the basis for the safekeeping of civil rights.
Describe how the promise of equal protection under the law does not guarantee all people will be treated exactly the same.
Explain that the government may classify or categorize people into groups for justifiable government goals (e.g., adults under 21 may not purchase alcohol).
Analyze applications of the equal protection principle:
• Civil Rights Movement—Congress passed a series of laws outlawing discrimination.
• Affirmative Action—The government passed laws and implemented procedures to reverse the effects of years of discrimination primarily against women and minorities.
Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life depends upon the exercise of good citizenship.
Identify characteristics of good citizens:
• Trustworthiness and honesty
• Courtesy
• Respect for the rights of others
• Responsibility
• Accountability
• Self-reliance
• Respect for the law
• Patriotism
Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life is essential to the nation’s well-being.
Identify duties of responsible citizens:• To obey the law
• To pay taxes
• To serve as jurors
• To register and vote
• To perform public service
• To keep informed
• To respect the opinions of others
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Saving, Not Victimizing, Children
Published: May 9, 2007
Sexually exploited children can be helped by the law or victimized by it. An Eastern European child smuggled as a sex slave is offered protection under the federal law. An American child who flees abusive parents and ends up selling her body on the streets is labeled a crimina.
That would change under a new law that would reform the juvenile justice system so it protects rather than punishes exploited children.
Under the proposed Safe Harbor law, young children who have been battered and exploited by pimps and johns on the street would no longer be charged with prostitution. They would instead be put under state supervision under existing child welfare laws and placed in safe housess. The children would be given medical care and counseling that they would almost never get in detention, and be assigned adult advocates who would follow their cases. The bill provides for long-term housing.
Children placed in shelters, however, would remain under the control of the courts, and could be sent to detention for noncompliance. If necessary, the Legislature could also make that provision explicit.
Sexually exploited children can be helped by the law or victimized by it. An Eastern European child smuggled as a sex slave is offered protection under the federal law. An American child who flees abusive parents and ends up selling her body on the streets is labeled a crimina.
That would change under a new law that would reform the juvenile justice system so it protects rather than punishes exploited children.
Under the proposed Safe Harbor law, young children who have been battered and exploited by pimps and johns on the street would no longer be charged with prostitution. They would instead be put under state supervision under existing child welfare laws and placed in safe housess. The children would be given medical care and counseling that they would almost never get in detention, and be assigned adult advocates who would follow their cases. The bill provides for long-term housing.
Children placed in shelters, however, would remain under the control of the courts, and could be sent to detention for noncompliance. If necessary, the Legislature could also make that provision explicit.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Toward a Federal Shield Law
When the subject of a journalists’ shield law comes up in Congress, as it has this week, the issue is often framed as an attempt by reporters to give themselves special privileges to the detriment of criminal investigations and even national security.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to purchase two guns despite his history of mental illness has cast new attention on Virginia’s relatively lax gun laws. And since states are supposed to enforce federal gun laws, the sales raise questions about whether Virgina — and other states — fully comply with the federal restrictions.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. As a result, the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification only addresses the state criteria, which lists two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police — someone who was “involuntarily committed,” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” said Mr. Bonnie. The commission he chairs was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter: “We are going to fix this.”
He also said he believed similar problems likely exist elsewhere in the country.
“I’m sure that the mis-fit exists in states across the country, and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After a pair of female students complained about his behavior in 2005, Mr. Cho was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a professor of law at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health issues, said that under his reading of the Virginia law, outpatient treatment could also qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia state law should have barred him from buying a weapon as well, an interpretation Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagree with.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia state attorney general’s office declined to comment today, saying only that various agencies are “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, would only say today that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But he added: “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia has probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” he said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” he said, explaining the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing them. “When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this.”
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, has been pushing a bill that would require states to automate their criminal history records so that computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete. The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the NICS system, the statement said.
According to gun control advocates, however, the mental health information submitted is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate, with Ms. McCarthy. According to congressional aides, he is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The NRA doesn’t have objections,” he said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the NRA declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies: “It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms.”
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to purchase two guns despite his history of mental illness has cast new attention on Virginia’s relatively lax gun laws. And since states are supposed to enforce federal gun laws, the sales raise questions about whether Virgina — and other states — fully comply with the federal restrictions.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. As a result, the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification only addresses the state criteria, which lists two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police — someone who was “involuntarily committed,” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” said Mr. Bonnie. The commission he chairs was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter: “We are going to fix this.”
He also said he believed similar problems likely exist elsewhere in the country.
“I’m sure that the mis-fit exists in states across the country, and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After a pair of female students complained about his behavior in 2005, Mr. Cho was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a professor of law at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health issues, said that under his reading of the Virginia law, outpatient treatment could also qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia state law should have barred him from buying a weapon as well, an interpretation Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagree with.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia state attorney general’s office declined to comment today, saying only that various agencies are “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, would only say today that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But he added: “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia has probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” he said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” he said, explaining the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing them. “When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this.”
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, has been pushing a bill that would require states to automate their criminal history records so that computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete. The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the NICS system, the statement said.
According to gun control advocates, however, the mental health information submitted is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate, with Ms. McCarthy. According to congressional aides, he is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The NRA doesn’t have objections,” he said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the NRA declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies: “It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms.”
Monday, April 09, 2007
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.
But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.
But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
Saturday, March 31, 2007
France backs extradition to China
France has signed an extradition treaty with China despite concerns expressed by human rights groups over Beijing's use of the death penalty.
France's justice minister said a suspect would be extradited in cases punishable by death only if China guaranteed they would not be executed.
Pascal Clement also said the treaty excluded offences judged to be political or military.
France is the third EU country after Spain and Portugal to sign such a pact.
"This treaty explicitly anticipates the rejection of extradition requests based on offences viewed as political offences or military offences," said Mr Clement at the signing ceremony.
A further guarantee was that the arrest warrants issued by a police authority also had to be "validated by a judicial authority", he said.
Human rights groups have urged the French parliament - which must ratify the treaty - to block its adoption because of what they say are continuing serious human rights violations in China.
Amnesty International France said there was "no certainty that a Chinese citizen extradited one day with the clearest guarantees will not be sentenced to death at a later date on a different charge".
Outgoing French President Jacques Chirac, who made an official visit to China in October aimed at strengthening economic ties, is a staunch advocate of engagement with Beijing, correspondents say.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Organ Harvesting Before “Brain-Death“ Increasingly Common
By Gudrun Schultz
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Organ harvesting from patients before brain-death has been declared is a rapidly increasing trend in U. S. hospitals, the Washington Post reported March 18, alarming doctors and ethicists about the dubious ethics behind the practice.
Instead of waiting until brain function ceases and the patient is declared “brain-dead“ by medical officials (itself a questionable practice since there is no universally-accepted definition of brain-death) surgeons have begun following an approach known as “donation after cardiac death.“ Organs are harvested once the heart has stopped beating and several minutes have passed without the heart spontaneously re-starting.
“Non-beating heart“ organ donations have more than doubled since 2003, from 268 to more than 605 in 2006, and the numbers are continuing to rise. The United Network for Organ Sharing and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations now require all hospitals to evaluate the practice and decide whether or not to adopt it.
The Alliance for Human Research Protection issued an alert Sunday warning that the policy is under consideration by hospitals without allowing for public input.
“The race to catch-up to China's policy of live vivisection organ removal from prisoners is underway right here in the US where, the Post reports, the trend is expected to accelerate this year,“ the AHRP stated.
“So far as we know, our right to informed consent--which means the right to
say, NO--has been abrogated without so much as a public hearing!“
While doctors normally wait five minutes after the heart has stopped before pronouncing death, more and more doctors are shortening the wait period to maximize the quality of the organs. Surgeons at the Children's Hospital in Denver, Colorado wait only 75 seconds after infants' hearts stop beating before removing the heart for transplant, according to the Post. The demand for usable organs is a powerful incentive to push back the ethical boundaries of harvesting policies, say alarmed physicians.
“A lot of us are not particularly happy about cutting that line particularly
close,“ said Gail A. Van Norman, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist at the
University of Washington in Seattle.
“It's worrisome when you stop thinking of the person who is dying as a patient but rather as a set of organs, and start thinking more about what's best for the patient in the next room waiting for the organs.“
While the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine approved the practice as ethical so long as strict guidelines are followed, opponents say it is difficult to ensure patients are not being killed by over-eager harvesting, particularly in pediatric situations. Van Norman and others said the practice could put pressure on families to stop care prematurely, especially when doctors and nurses are caring for both the potential donor and potential recipient.
David Crippen, a University of Pittsburgh critical-care specialist, told the Post he is concerned the changing definition of death will eventually lead to organ harvesting from the disabled.
“Now that we've established that we're going to take organs from patients
who have a prognosis of death but who do not meet the strict definition of
death, might we become more interested in taking organs from patients who
are not dead at all but who are incapacitated or disabled?“
Sunday, March 25, 2007
City in Florida Fires Official Who Planned to Change Sex
The longtime city manager here was fired early Saturday, one month after he disclosed his plans to seek a sex change.
The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.
Several transgender people spoke on Mr. Stanton’s behalf, including a former deputy mayor of St. Paul, as did a few dozen people from Largo and throughout the state. A smaller number spoke in favor of firing him, including one man who said Mr. Stanton had made Largo “the laughingstock of the whole country.”
Mr. Stanton’s wish to become a woman named Susan came to light last month, after The St. Petersburg Times learned of it, got him to confirm it and published an article. Before that, Mr. Stanton said, he planned to announce his decision later this year, when his son would be out of town.
The City Commission had generally praised Mr. Stanton in performance reviews, and it gave him a raise last year. But within a week of the newspaper’s report, the commission voted to begin the process of firing him. Mr. Stanton filed an appeal on March 8 in hopes of keeping his job of 14 years, which paid $140,000 a year.
The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.
Several transgender people spoke on Mr. Stanton’s behalf, including a former deputy mayor of St. Paul, as did a few dozen people from Largo and throughout the state. A smaller number spoke in favor of firing him, including one man who said Mr. Stanton had made Largo “the laughingstock of the whole country.”
Mr. Stanton’s wish to become a woman named Susan came to light last month, after The St. Petersburg Times learned of it, got him to confirm it and published an article. Before that, Mr. Stanton said, he planned to announce his decision later this year, when his son would be out of town.
The City Commission had generally praised Mr. Stanton in performance reviews, and it gave him a raise last year. But within a week of the newspaper’s report, the commission voted to begin the process of firing him. Mr. Stanton filed an appeal on March 8 in hopes of keeping his job of 14 years, which paid $140,000 a year.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law
background
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
pros
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
cons:
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
“We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or anything that delays someone’s access, has a big impact on traffic,” said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued that depending solely on filters was insufficient. “It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” he wrote.
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
pros
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
cons:
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
“We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or anything that delays someone’s access, has a big impact on traffic,” said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued that depending solely on filters was insufficient. “It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” he wrote.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
China Scrambles for Stability as Its Workers Age
The proportion of people 60 and older is growing faster in China than in any other major country, with the number of retirees set to double between 2005 and 2015, when it is expected to reach 200 million. By midcentury, according to United Nations projections, roughly 430 million people — about a third of the population — will be retirees.
That increase will place enormous demands on the country’s finances and could threaten the underpinnings of the Chinese economy, which has thrived for decades on the cheap labor of hundreds of millions of young, uneducated workers from the countryside. Changes in the country’s population structure are taking place hand in hand with changes in the structure of the Chinese family. China’s one-child policy, which began in 1980, means that, beginning with the current generation of young adults, couples will face the difficult task of caring for four parents through old age.
By the same token, the ratio of workers to retired people will decline from about six to one now to about two to one by 2040.
Obviously, raising the retirement ages would ease a substantial amount of pressure on the pension system. But there are no plans to do so, and raising the retirement ages would present another set of problems for the government, experts here say.
Last year, for example, 4.13 million young Chinese graduated from universities, and fully 30 percent of them are still unemployed. Unemployment is high among those who are not university graduates, as well. Prolonging employment for older workers would make this predicament worse, possibly with volatile consequences.
The bind that China finds itself in takes form in an often-posed question: Can the country grow rich before it grows old? Increasingly, experts here say the answer, which also has huge implications for the global economy, appears doubtful.
Already, experts say the large financing gap resulting from the early retirement of public sector workers has repeatedly caused the state to improvise to keep the system afloat. Receipts from lottery ticket sales and from foreign initial private offerings of stocks, for example, have been drawn upon to finance the system.
Most troubling to financial experts, the government has used payroll taxes paid by the current generation of workers, who in theory are paying into their individual retirement accounts, to pay pensions for the previous generation.
China’s relatively young private life insurance industry is one of the sectors that stands to benefit most from the growing uncertainty over aging and pensions, but even within the industry, analysts express worry.
“If we continue to have sound and healthy development in the economy we might get through this, but what if we cannot?” said Jiang Shihua, a senior official of the Pingan Life Insurance Company, who spoke of a time when China would have 400 to 500 million old people who “only consume and don’t produce at all.”
That increase will place enormous demands on the country’s finances and could threaten the underpinnings of the Chinese economy, which has thrived for decades on the cheap labor of hundreds of millions of young, uneducated workers from the countryside. Changes in the country’s population structure are taking place hand in hand with changes in the structure of the Chinese family. China’s one-child policy, which began in 1980, means that, beginning with the current generation of young adults, couples will face the difficult task of caring for four parents through old age.
By the same token, the ratio of workers to retired people will decline from about six to one now to about two to one by 2040.
Obviously, raising the retirement ages would ease a substantial amount of pressure on the pension system. But there are no plans to do so, and raising the retirement ages would present another set of problems for the government, experts here say.
Last year, for example, 4.13 million young Chinese graduated from universities, and fully 30 percent of them are still unemployed. Unemployment is high among those who are not university graduates, as well. Prolonging employment for older workers would make this predicament worse, possibly with volatile consequences.
The bind that China finds itself in takes form in an often-posed question: Can the country grow rich before it grows old? Increasingly, experts here say the answer, which also has huge implications for the global economy, appears doubtful.
Already, experts say the large financing gap resulting from the early retirement of public sector workers has repeatedly caused the state to improvise to keep the system afloat. Receipts from lottery ticket sales and from foreign initial private offerings of stocks, for example, have been drawn upon to finance the system.
Most troubling to financial experts, the government has used payroll taxes paid by the current generation of workers, who in theory are paying into their individual retirement accounts, to pay pensions for the previous generation.
China’s relatively young private life insurance industry is one of the sectors that stands to benefit most from the growing uncertainty over aging and pensions, but even within the industry, analysts express worry.
“If we continue to have sound and healthy development in the economy we might get through this, but what if we cannot?” said Jiang Shihua, a senior official of the Pingan Life Insurance Company, who spoke of a time when China would have 400 to 500 million old people who “only consume and don’t produce at all.”
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils
British authorities proposed new rules on Tuesday to allow schools to forbid Muslim students to wear full-face veils in class, reflecting a wider debate over Britain’s relationship with its Muslim minority.
The recommendation was the latest episode in a saga of rancorous discussion of the full-face veil, known as the niqab. Last October, Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a “mark of separation” that made “other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.”
The Department of Education published the new guidelines after a court in Buckinghamshire rejected a 12-year-old Muslim girl’s demand to wear the niqab in class last month.
The proposed regulations, which have yet to be formally adopted, said the individual right to “manifest a religion or belief” did not bestow a right to demonstrate faith “at any time, in any place or in any particular manner.”
School principals should be allowed to order pupils to show their faces because otherwise “the teacher may not be able to judge their engagement in class,” the proposed regulations said. Moreover, they said, “schools need to be able to identify individual pupils in order to maintain good order and identify intruders easily.”
The issue of Islamic dress in schools has been contentious in many parts of Europe, sometimes pitting secularist ideologies against the religious beliefs of growing Islamic minorities.
But Islamic dress made headlines in Britain for another reason recently, when a trial of terrorism suspects included surveillance television footage of a male suspect at a bus station as he fled London in what appeared to be an all-covering burqa-style dress.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, said Tuesday that schools should consult with parents when setting their regulations on permissible uniforms. “While they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence,” he said in a statement.
The government’s position drew angry responses from some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, whose chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, said it was “simply shocking” for the government to “issue guidance against Muslim communities.”
“Successive ministers dealing with education issues have failed to give proper guidance when requested by human rights campaigners about schools’ obligations regarding religious dress, including the head scarf,” he said.
Others sought to defuse the debate by insisting that disagreements over dress codes could be resolved within schools. “The vast majority of schools are able to solve these issues locally, and that should continue to be the case,” said Tahir Alam, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
The proposed dress regulations also included recommendations enjoining school principals not to discriminate indirectly against minorities by banning hair styles “more likely to be adopted by specific racial groups.”
The rules urged school authorities to outlaw forms of dress “associated with gangs,” but said students should not be expelled for refusing to wear standard school uniforms except in the event of “persistent and defiant” transgressions.
The recommendation was the latest episode in a saga of rancorous discussion of the full-face veil, known as the niqab. Last October, Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a “mark of separation” that made “other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.”
The Department of Education published the new guidelines after a court in Buckinghamshire rejected a 12-year-old Muslim girl’s demand to wear the niqab in class last month.
The proposed regulations, which have yet to be formally adopted, said the individual right to “manifest a religion or belief” did not bestow a right to demonstrate faith “at any time, in any place or in any particular manner.”
School principals should be allowed to order pupils to show their faces because otherwise “the teacher may not be able to judge their engagement in class,” the proposed regulations said. Moreover, they said, “schools need to be able to identify individual pupils in order to maintain good order and identify intruders easily.”
The issue of Islamic dress in schools has been contentious in many parts of Europe, sometimes pitting secularist ideologies against the religious beliefs of growing Islamic minorities.
But Islamic dress made headlines in Britain for another reason recently, when a trial of terrorism suspects included surveillance television footage of a male suspect at a bus station as he fled London in what appeared to be an all-covering burqa-style dress.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, said Tuesday that schools should consult with parents when setting their regulations on permissible uniforms. “While they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence,” he said in a statement.
The government’s position drew angry responses from some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, whose chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, said it was “simply shocking” for the government to “issue guidance against Muslim communities.”
“Successive ministers dealing with education issues have failed to give proper guidance when requested by human rights campaigners about schools’ obligations regarding religious dress, including the head scarf,” he said.
Others sought to defuse the debate by insisting that disagreements over dress codes could be resolved within schools. “The vast majority of schools are able to solve these issues locally, and that should continue to be the case,” said Tahir Alam, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
The proposed dress regulations also included recommendations enjoining school principals not to discriminate indirectly against minorities by banning hair styles “more likely to be adopted by specific racial groups.”
The rules urged school authorities to outlaw forms of dress “associated with gangs,” but said students should not be expelled for refusing to wear standard school uniforms except in the event of “persistent and defiant” transgressions.
LOGICAL ENDINGS
Computers may soon be better than kin at predicting the wishes of the dying
When machines trespass into the area of medical ethics, though, hackles rise. Here it is not the doctor that is being second-guessed, but the patient's relatives. The question is, if you were in a coma, whom would you more trust to come to the conclusion that you would want: your spouse or a machine?
David Wendler, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and his colleagues have looked into this question. Their answer, just published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, is surprising. At the moment, both are equally reliable—but only the machines are likely to get better at it.
Dr Wendler's study began last year, when his team reviewed all the experiments they could find that had attempted to test how well people predict the wishes of patients with life-threatening conditions. Some of these studies used real patients whose conditions might have led them to fall into a coma—when, obviously, they could not make the decision for themselves. Others employed surrogates who were asked to make “living wills” outlining their preferences for treatment (or the lack of it) in various hypothetical circumstances. The desires expressed by these patients, whether real or surrogate, were then compared with what those patients' kin predicted the patients would want, and also with the predictions of unrelated people (doctors, for example) who might be called on to make the decision if kin could not be found.
Dr Wendler found 16 published reports containing almost 20,000 pairs of decisions. His analysis showed that kin and patient agreed only 68% of the time. When they did not agree, kin were more likely to recommend treatment when the patient wanted treatment withdrawn rather than mistakenly to recommend withdrawal. Surprisingly, the bias towards treatment was equally strong when the decision was made by an unrelated person such as a doctor.
Other research has suggested that the variable most reliably governing whether a patient would want the machine turned off is the “1% rule”. This is that people seem to want life-saving interventions if there is at least a 1% chance they will recover the ability to reason, remember and communicate. Less than 1%, and it is time to pull the plug.
Calculating will
Using that rule of thumb, Dr Wendler and his colleagues wrote a computer program that assesses the prognosis for a patient, based on the sort of clinical criteria that the studies had described to both patients and predictors. Only 12 of the 16 original studies contained sufficient detail to be used, but the result was remarkable. In these 12 studies, human predictors guessed the patient's wishes rather more accurately than was true when all 16 were lumped together—getting them right 78.4% of the time. Dr Wendler's program achieved an almost identical result—78.5%.
At the moment, such data do not exist. No one has yet had a reason to collect them. But they do have a reason now. The decision about when to pull the plug on a patient who is not expected to recover is unlikely ever to be handed over completely to a machine. But when no kin can be found, the program's opinion might help. And even when a dying patient is surrounded by people who care about him, those people may welcome some guidance about what his wishes were likely to have been. Individuals are, indeed, individual. But that does not mean their dying wishes are all that different.
When machines trespass into the area of medical ethics, though, hackles rise. Here it is not the doctor that is being second-guessed, but the patient's relatives. The question is, if you were in a coma, whom would you more trust to come to the conclusion that you would want: your spouse or a machine?
David Wendler, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and his colleagues have looked into this question. Their answer, just published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, is surprising. At the moment, both are equally reliable—but only the machines are likely to get better at it.
Dr Wendler's study began last year, when his team reviewed all the experiments they could find that had attempted to test how well people predict the wishes of patients with life-threatening conditions. Some of these studies used real patients whose conditions might have led them to fall into a coma—when, obviously, they could not make the decision for themselves. Others employed surrogates who were asked to make “living wills” outlining their preferences for treatment (or the lack of it) in various hypothetical circumstances. The desires expressed by these patients, whether real or surrogate, were then compared with what those patients' kin predicted the patients would want, and also with the predictions of unrelated people (doctors, for example) who might be called on to make the decision if kin could not be found.
Dr Wendler found 16 published reports containing almost 20,000 pairs of decisions. His analysis showed that kin and patient agreed only 68% of the time. When they did not agree, kin were more likely to recommend treatment when the patient wanted treatment withdrawn rather than mistakenly to recommend withdrawal. Surprisingly, the bias towards treatment was equally strong when the decision was made by an unrelated person such as a doctor.
Other research has suggested that the variable most reliably governing whether a patient would want the machine turned off is the “1% rule”. This is that people seem to want life-saving interventions if there is at least a 1% chance they will recover the ability to reason, remember and communicate. Less than 1%, and it is time to pull the plug.
Calculating will
Using that rule of thumb, Dr Wendler and his colleagues wrote a computer program that assesses the prognosis for a patient, based on the sort of clinical criteria that the studies had described to both patients and predictors. Only 12 of the 16 original studies contained sufficient detail to be used, but the result was remarkable. In these 12 studies, human predictors guessed the patient's wishes rather more accurately than was true when all 16 were lumped together—getting them right 78.4% of the time. Dr Wendler's program achieved an almost identical result—78.5%.
At the moment, such data do not exist. No one has yet had a reason to collect them. But they do have a reason now. The decision about when to pull the plug on a patient who is not expected to recover is unlikely ever to be handed over completely to a machine. But when no kin can be found, the program's opinion might help. And even when a dying patient is surrounded by people who care about him, those people may welcome some guidance about what his wishes were likely to have been. Individuals are, indeed, individual. But that does not mean their dying wishes are all that different.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Students’ Right to Free Speech
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that has attracted attention mainly because of its eccentric story line: An Alaska student was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed by. But the case raises important issues of freedom of expression and student censorship that go far beyond the words on that banner. The court should affirm the appeals court’s well-reasoned decision that when the school punished the student it violated his First Amendment rights. The principal took it from him, and suspended him for 10 days.
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
The Bush administration joined the school district in arguing that schools have broad authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping drugs away from young people. But if schools can limit speech on any subject deemed to be important, students could soon be punished for talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq because the government also considers those subjects important.
Some school administrators would no doubt use their power to clamp down on conservative speech while others would clamp down on liberal speech. A school that values diversity could punish students who criticize affirmative action, while a more conservative school could ban students from taking outspoken positions about global warming. Religious groups have joined civil libertarians in backing Mr. Frederick because they fear schools will punish students who talk about their religious beliefs.
If the Supreme Court wants to dodge the free-speech-in-school issues, it could rule that the off-campus Olympic torch event was not a formal school activity — and that the principal had no right to limit anyone’s free speech there. That would not harm students’ free speech rights, but it would also do little to affirm them.
The court should go further, and rule that Mr. Frederick’s rights were infringed. Students do not have the right to interfere substantially with school activities, but Mr. Frederick did not do that. The court should use this case to reaffirm Tinker’s famous pronouncement that students do not shed their right to free speech “at the schoolhouse gate.”
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
The Bush administration joined the school district in arguing that schools have broad authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping drugs away from young people. But if schools can limit speech on any subject deemed to be important, students could soon be punished for talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq because the government also considers those subjects important.
Some school administrators would no doubt use their power to clamp down on conservative speech while others would clamp down on liberal speech. A school that values diversity could punish students who criticize affirmative action, while a more conservative school could ban students from taking outspoken positions about global warming. Religious groups have joined civil libertarians in backing Mr. Frederick because they fear schools will punish students who talk about their religious beliefs.
If the Supreme Court wants to dodge the free-speech-in-school issues, it could rule that the off-campus Olympic torch event was not a formal school activity — and that the principal had no right to limit anyone’s free speech there. That would not harm students’ free speech rights, but it would also do little to affirm them.
The court should go further, and rule that Mr. Frederick’s rights were infringed. Students do not have the right to interfere substantially with school activities, but Mr. Frederick did not do that. The court should use this case to reaffirm Tinker’s famous pronouncement that students do not shed their right to free speech “at the schoolhouse gate.”
Monday, March 19, 2007
An evil weed
Cigarettes may kill, but their makers know that the addiction will last
THE single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire.The deaths of more than 400,000 Americans each year, 160,000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50m Americans still go on smoking.
Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr Brandt writes: “The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad.”
Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the first world war. Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising.
That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking cigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general's advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking.
But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: “In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for wilful risk-taking,” notes Mr Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock.
However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient “satisfaction”.
For those who thought the settlement was akin to “dancing with the devil”, it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian's hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish.
THE single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire.The deaths of more than 400,000 Americans each year, 160,000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50m Americans still go on smoking.
Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr Brandt writes: “The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad.”
Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the first world war. Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising.
That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking cigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general's advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking.
But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: “In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for wilful risk-taking,” notes Mr Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock.
However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient “satisfaction”.
For those who thought the settlement was akin to “dancing with the devil”, it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian's hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish.
Legalize Euthanasia
is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal in a painless or minimally painful way in order to stop suffering or other undesired conditions in life. This may be voluntary or involuntary, and carried out with or without a physician. In a medical environment, this can be carried out by oral, intravenous or intramuscular drug administration.
Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia:
* Choice: Choice is a fundamental democratic principle and is the basis of the Free Enterprise system.
* Financial: It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society.
* Pain: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Society should not be able to force them to endure such hardship.
Reasons given against Voluntary Euthanasia:
* Hippocratic Oath: Every doctor must swear upon some variation of it, and the original version explicitly excludes euthanasia.
* Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. [1] This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
* Theological: Many religions and modern religious interpretations explicitly regard both euthanasia and suicide as sinful acts (see Religious views of suicide).
* Competence: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
* Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable or palliable, the correct action is to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Pro-Choice
make it legal for a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness, to be allowed to request medical help to die at their own informed and persistent request - If that's what they want.
Everyone wants a good death, which is why opinion polls show 85% of the population support us.
The doctor/patient relationship has changed a lot over the last 50 years, from 'doctor knows best' towards a more equal relationship with doctors giving patients the information they need in order to make their own informed decisions. But when it comes to end-of-life decision making the relationship is far from equal: patients are still disempowered.
This requires a two-way dialogue with our doctors, where our wishes about our own lives are respected.
The desire to have control over our lives is a fundamental part of our humanity.
Everyone knows that doctors help people to die even though it is against the law. For example, in a recent survey 4% of UK doctors admitted to assisting in a patient's suicide, although the real figure is likely to be much higher.
Each year 'mercy killing' cases are brought to court but juries refuse to convict, or when they do judges only give suspended sentences. Without legal safeguards there is little protection here for vulnerable people.
Belgium, conducted a full enquiry into end-of-life decisions, discovered it had five times the amount of non-voluntary euthanasia as the Netherlands, where assisted dying is strictly regulated. The Belgian Senate has now voted to legalise voluntary euthanasia because it recognises regulation is the best way to protect the vulnerable.
Pro-Life
Promoters of these practices take a utilitarian view of human life rather than viewing all human life as uniquely created and deserving of absolute respect.
Dr Christopher Hufeland, Goethe's doctor, warned in 1806 "The physician should and may do nothing else but preserve life. "Whether it is valuable or not, that is none of his business. If he once permits such considerations to influence his actions, the doctor will become the most dangerous man in the state."
The legalising of intentional killing is the catalyst for the wholesale destruction of the elderly - we have seen the torrent of death in Holland where the elderly are terrified of entering hospital for fear of involuntary euthanasia.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Britain Wonders if More Elections Equal More Democracy
THE members of the House of Lords, that august assembly of scarlet-robed and mainly appointed peers which forms the upper chamber of Britain’s democracy, voted last week to stand firm against pressure to become fully elected.
After centuries as a hereditary chamber that only reluctantly permitted appointed members to join its clubby conclaves, no one expected the House of Lords to welcome the latest demand from the House of Commons to change its ways.
But as this longstanding battle between the upper-crust and the commoners entered its probably protracted final phase, it produced a somewhat counterintuitive notion: more elections may not necessarily mean more democracy.
Since 1999, the House of Lords has challenged the House of Commons — and thus the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, which has a majority in the more powerful lower house — on 350 issues. True, the Lords chose to oppose the government on some matters, such as a ban on fox hunting, that seemed to reflect the older interests of an assembly of nobles controlling vast estates where equestrian hunters charged and gamboled.
But many of the tussles related to civil rights and counterterrorism laws seen by the Lords as repressive. The Lords, in other words, became the improbable champions of the underdog in the face of a Labor government that once claimed the libertarian mantle for itself. In the process, the Lords displayed a doughty independence born of lifetime tenures that leave them largely aloof from electoral politics.
The battle now is between nonelected independence and electoral legitimacy.
The Commons wants to replace 600-odd life peers, appointed in various ways, and the remaining 92 hereditary peers with people elected from party lists for a single 15-year term. Some opponents of the plan argue that because accountability won’t be reinforced by re-elections, the voting might purchase an appearance of legitimacy at the expense of cherished independence.
“The promise of democratic legitimacy is a sham,” wrote Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, in The London Review of Books. “The bar on re-election strips voters of their basic tool for democratic accountability: the politicians’ fear that their constituents will throw them out of office.” Or, as one Labor legislator, Tom Levitt, said in the House of Commons, “it’s not the election that makes democracy, it’s the re-election.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair had favored a mixed House of Lords, half appointed, half elected, a plan that backfired when the Commons went much farther than he wished. The Lords — and Ladies — were not too keen on a mixed chamber, either, saying competition between Lords and Commons could create unmanageable tensions between two competing elected bodies
A hybrid house, said Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, a Labor peer, “is not a connection to democracy; it’s a connection to constitutional uncertainty and electoral unfairness.”
The House of Lords has always been a font of patronage. Almost by definition, the peers owed their elevated positions to the largess of their monarch and their ability to raise taxes and armies in return. Indeed, Bob Marshall-Andrews, a Labor legislator opposed to the proposed changes, told Parliament: “The true curse of the British political system is patronage.”
And it may be that the police inquiry into the so-called cash-for-honors scandal gave the final push to almost a century of efforts by the House of Commons to limit the power of the Lords.
After centuries as a hereditary chamber that only reluctantly permitted appointed members to join its clubby conclaves, no one expected the House of Lords to welcome the latest demand from the House of Commons to change its ways.
But as this longstanding battle between the upper-crust and the commoners entered its probably protracted final phase, it produced a somewhat counterintuitive notion: more elections may not necessarily mean more democracy.
Since 1999, the House of Lords has challenged the House of Commons — and thus the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, which has a majority in the more powerful lower house — on 350 issues. True, the Lords chose to oppose the government on some matters, such as a ban on fox hunting, that seemed to reflect the older interests of an assembly of nobles controlling vast estates where equestrian hunters charged and gamboled.
But many of the tussles related to civil rights and counterterrorism laws seen by the Lords as repressive. The Lords, in other words, became the improbable champions of the underdog in the face of a Labor government that once claimed the libertarian mantle for itself. In the process, the Lords displayed a doughty independence born of lifetime tenures that leave them largely aloof from electoral politics.
The battle now is between nonelected independence and electoral legitimacy.
The Commons wants to replace 600-odd life peers, appointed in various ways, and the remaining 92 hereditary peers with people elected from party lists for a single 15-year term. Some opponents of the plan argue that because accountability won’t be reinforced by re-elections, the voting might purchase an appearance of legitimacy at the expense of cherished independence.
“The promise of democratic legitimacy is a sham,” wrote Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, in The London Review of Books. “The bar on re-election strips voters of their basic tool for democratic accountability: the politicians’ fear that their constituents will throw them out of office.” Or, as one Labor legislator, Tom Levitt, said in the House of Commons, “it’s not the election that makes democracy, it’s the re-election.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair had favored a mixed House of Lords, half appointed, half elected, a plan that backfired when the Commons went much farther than he wished. The Lords — and Ladies — were not too keen on a mixed chamber, either, saying competition between Lords and Commons could create unmanageable tensions between two competing elected bodies
A hybrid house, said Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, a Labor peer, “is not a connection to democracy; it’s a connection to constitutional uncertainty and electoral unfairness.”
The House of Lords has always been a font of patronage. Almost by definition, the peers owed their elevated positions to the largess of their monarch and their ability to raise taxes and armies in return. Indeed, Bob Marshall-Andrews, a Labor legislator opposed to the proposed changes, told Parliament: “The true curse of the British political system is patronage.”
And it may be that the police inquiry into the so-called cash-for-honors scandal gave the final push to almost a century of efforts by the House of Commons to limit the power of the Lords.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Delays for Casino License Appeals Could Cost Pennsylvania
The legal battle over appeals filed by four companies that lost out in the recent round of bidding for casino licenses in Pennsylvania could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in gambling tax revenue and delay promised property tax relief.
“If this drags on,” said Thomas A. Decker, the board chairman, “you end up having the citizens lose that valuable tax relief, the economic development, the horse racing industry income, even the jobs that would be created at the casinos would be delayed, and you never get that back.”
When all 11 casinos are up and running, they are expected to generate about $1.7 billion annually from a 55 percent tax on their gross terminal revenue, what remains after bettors are paid their winnings but before casinos pay their expenses.
Of that 55 percent, 34 percent is to go to property tax relief statewide, 12 percent to the horse racing industry, 5 percent to tourism and economic development and 4 percent to local and county governments where the licenses were awarded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/us/17casino.html?ex=1331784000&en=f5e5c3e4fe74db52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“If this drags on,” said Thomas A. Decker, the board chairman, “you end up having the citizens lose that valuable tax relief, the economic development, the horse racing industry income, even the jobs that would be created at the casinos would be delayed, and you never get that back.”
When all 11 casinos are up and running, they are expected to generate about $1.7 billion annually from a 55 percent tax on their gross terminal revenue, what remains after bettors are paid their winnings but before casinos pay their expenses.
Of that 55 percent, 34 percent is to go to property tax relief statewide, 12 percent to the horse racing industry, 5 percent to tourism and economic development and 4 percent to local and county governments where the licenses were awarded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/us/17casino.html?ex=1331784000&en=f5e5c3e4fe74db52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Friday, March 16, 2007
Call for Speed Limit Has German Blood at 178 m.p.h. Boil
Ask Marc Bongers about the wisdom of introducing a speed limit on the German autobahn, and he answers by impatiently revving the 435-horsepower engine of a specially modified Porsche. Slowpokes, he said, already spoil half the fun.
“A lady,” Mr. Bongers sniffed, as a Mercedes scuttled out of his way in the passing lane on a busy highway in southern Bavaria. “And she’s talking on her phone,” he said the other day, shooting her a sidelong glance. “Doesn’t she know it’s against the law to do that on the autobahn?”
Few things are closer to the German heart than the freedom to drive like Michael Schumacher. Rule-bound and risk-averse in so many other ways, Germans regard driving on the autobahn at face-peeling speeds as close to an inalienable right.
Now, though, Germany’s love of speed is colliding with its fears about global warming, as it becomes clear that its Sunday race-car drivers are spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the air.
“Speed limits are useful for many reasons, and are the order of the day in most of the E.U.’s 27 member states and the United States,” Mr. Dimas said in an interview with the mass-market newspaper Bild. “Strangely enough, it is only in Germany where they are controversial.”
No kidding. His mild words were met with heated indignation from politicians and automotive groups here. Some acted as if Brussels were demanding that Germany outlaw beer and bratwurst.
This is “a trivialization of the climate problem,” declared the German environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel. The German Association of the Automotive Industry said Germans needed “no coaching” from other Europeans on how to protect the environment.
She is hardly a car buff. Unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, she is rarely photographed behind the wheel. But she seems to realize that, like Social Security in the United States, the autobahn is the third rail of German politics — potentially deadly to those who dare touch it.
Critics brandish statistics that show a speed limit of 120 kilometers an hour (75 m.p.h.) would reduce Germany’s overall carbon-dioxide emissions by a few million tons a year, less than 0.5 percent. Better, they say, to focus on building more efficient power plants and houses.
Yet, as environmental groups and a few lonely politicians point out, a few million tons of carbon dioxide is still a considerable savings. Unlike other measures — clean coal plants or hybrid cars, for example — a speed limit could be imposed tomorrow and at relatively little cost.
For years, speed limit advocates tried to argue their case on safety grounds. The autobahn, though, is statistically safer than highways in many countries, even if its crashes are singularly horrific. Saving the planet, it turns out, may be more persuasive than saving lives.
Mr. Schneider is realistic. Driving fast, he said, is deeply rooted in the German psyche.
Germany also has a powerful economic incentive to resist a speed limit. It builds some of the world’s fastest cars, and the autobahn is a valuable showcase and marketing tool for the industry. A tour operator even organizes driving tours of the highway for Chinese visitors.
Car connoisseurs from around the world flock to Pfaffenhausen, a one-horse town where the local company, Ruf Automobile, makes cars with many horses. Mr. Bongers, the sales manager, said people who bought these custom-modified Porsches often took them for a spin on the autobahn. For most, it is the only place they can legally test the top speed of their new toys.
In the depths of the oil crisis in late 1973, West Germany imposed a speed limit of 100 kilometers an hour (60 m.p.h.). Four months later, the government rescinded it. Mr. Ruf recalls worrying during those dark days that the family’s sports car business was doomed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/europe/16autobahn.html?ex=1331697600&en=87a49017e1dd490c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“A lady,” Mr. Bongers sniffed, as a Mercedes scuttled out of his way in the passing lane on a busy highway in southern Bavaria. “And she’s talking on her phone,” he said the other day, shooting her a sidelong glance. “Doesn’t she know it’s against the law to do that on the autobahn?”
Few things are closer to the German heart than the freedom to drive like Michael Schumacher. Rule-bound and risk-averse in so many other ways, Germans regard driving on the autobahn at face-peeling speeds as close to an inalienable right.
Now, though, Germany’s love of speed is colliding with its fears about global warming, as it becomes clear that its Sunday race-car drivers are spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the air.
“Speed limits are useful for many reasons, and are the order of the day in most of the E.U.’s 27 member states and the United States,” Mr. Dimas said in an interview with the mass-market newspaper Bild. “Strangely enough, it is only in Germany where they are controversial.”
No kidding. His mild words were met with heated indignation from politicians and automotive groups here. Some acted as if Brussels were demanding that Germany outlaw beer and bratwurst.
This is “a trivialization of the climate problem,” declared the German environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel. The German Association of the Automotive Industry said Germans needed “no coaching” from other Europeans on how to protect the environment.
She is hardly a car buff. Unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, she is rarely photographed behind the wheel. But she seems to realize that, like Social Security in the United States, the autobahn is the third rail of German politics — potentially deadly to those who dare touch it.
Critics brandish statistics that show a speed limit of 120 kilometers an hour (75 m.p.h.) would reduce Germany’s overall carbon-dioxide emissions by a few million tons a year, less than 0.5 percent. Better, they say, to focus on building more efficient power plants and houses.
Yet, as environmental groups and a few lonely politicians point out, a few million tons of carbon dioxide is still a considerable savings. Unlike other measures — clean coal plants or hybrid cars, for example — a speed limit could be imposed tomorrow and at relatively little cost.
For years, speed limit advocates tried to argue their case on safety grounds. The autobahn, though, is statistically safer than highways in many countries, even if its crashes are singularly horrific. Saving the planet, it turns out, may be more persuasive than saving lives.
Mr. Schneider is realistic. Driving fast, he said, is deeply rooted in the German psyche.
Germany also has a powerful economic incentive to resist a speed limit. It builds some of the world’s fastest cars, and the autobahn is a valuable showcase and marketing tool for the industry. A tour operator even organizes driving tours of the highway for Chinese visitors.
Car connoisseurs from around the world flock to Pfaffenhausen, a one-horse town where the local company, Ruf Automobile, makes cars with many horses. Mr. Bongers, the sales manager, said people who bought these custom-modified Porsches often took them for a spin on the autobahn. For most, it is the only place they can legally test the top speed of their new toys.
In the depths of the oil crisis in late 1973, West Germany imposed a speed limit of 100 kilometers an hour (60 m.p.h.). Four months later, the government rescinded it. Mr. Ruf recalls worrying during those dark days that the family’s sports car business was doomed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/europe/16autobahn.html?ex=1331697600&en=87a49017e1dd490c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
