Wandering the 'Net, as I do, I came across a blog entry discussing 10 Stupid Mistakes Made by the Newly Self-Employed, and I found myself agreeing ...
Wandering the 'Net, as I do, I came across a blog entry discussing 10 Stupid Mistakes Made by the Newly Self-Employed, and I found myself agreeing ...
You could end up doing some traveling today, Steven. You could find yourself driving to meetings, interviews, or other appointments. Or you could travel over a much larger distance. Chances are that you won't stay in one place. You'll feel a bit of a restless energy building up, so it could be good for you to take in some new sights. Keep a map handy and make sure that you have some good directions!
You could end up doing some traveling today, Steven. You could find yourself driving to meetings, interviews, or other appointments. Or you could travel over a much larger distance. Chances are that you won't stay in one place. You'll feel a bit of a restless energy building up, so it could be good for you to take in some new sights. Keep a map handy and make sure that you have some good directions!
Monday, April 24, 2006
Australia tries suspected terrorist under new laws
Lisl Brunner at 10:47 AM ET
[JURIST] Australian prosecutors on Monday accused a Pakistani-born Australian immigrant of planning to bomb one of two targets in Sydney in one of the first cases to be tried under the country's new Anti-Terrorism Act [text] which was passed [JURIST report] in December 2005. Faheem Khalid Lodhi, who immigrated to Australia [JURIST news archive] in 1996, has pleaded not guilty to four charges and is being tried by a jury at the New South Wales Supreme Court [official website]. Prosecutors stated that an October 2003 search of Lodhi's home produced a terrorist manual that indicated the defendant's plans to bomb either an electrical supply system or defense installations in Sydney.
Jack Roche, an Australian who converted to Islam, was the first Australian to be convicted under a version of the new laws, which some have criticized as too harsh [JURIST report]. Lodhi's defense will begin its case on Wednesday, and the trial is expected to last up to eight weeks.
AAP has local coverage.
Reuters has more.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Australia tries suspected terrorist under new laws
Lisl Brunner at 10:47 AM ET
[JURIST] Australian prosecutors on Monday accused a Pakistani-born Australian immigrant of planning to bomb one of two targets in Sydney in one of the first cases to be tried under the country's new Anti-Terrorism Act [text] which was passed [JURIST report] in December 2005. Faheem Khalid Lodhi, who immigrated to Australia [JURIST news archive] in 1996, has pleaded not guilty to four charges and is being tried by a jury at the New South Wales Supreme Court [official website]. Prosecutors stated that an October 2003 search of Lodhi's home produced a terrorist manual that indicated the defendant's plans to bomb either an electrical supply system or defense installations in Sydney.
Jack Roche, an Australian who converted to Islam, was the first Australian to be convicted under a version of the new laws, which some have criticized as too harsh [JURIST report]. Lodhi's defense will begin its case on Wednesday, and the trial is expected to last up to eight weeks.
AAP has local coverage.
Reuters has more.
How does this policy 'promote unit cohesion' and 'reduce sexual tension' if homosexuals are expected to keep their sexuality hidden - while heterosexuals are allowed (even expected) to display theirs openly? If keeping your job relies on you keeping your sexuality secret, that's hardly a recipe for cohesion and reducing tension. Nor does it advance the safety of those suspected of being homosexual.Monday, April 24, 2006
Judge dismisses challenge to military 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy
Katerina Ossenova at 6:01 PM ET
[JURIST] A federal judge in Boston Monday dismissed [ruling, PDF] a suit filed in 2004 by twelve members of the US armed forces [JURIST report] represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) [advocacy website] challenging the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy [Wikipedia backgrounder; SLDN timeline, PDF] requiring them to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge. The case was one of first impression for the US First Circuit [official website], but Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. [official profile] rejected the argument that the military policy violates the First Amendment [text] by denying service members their right to privacy, free speech, and equal protection under the law: “The fact that one might speak about one’s conduct, or one’s propensity or intention to engage in certain conduct, does not mean that a governmental regulation pertaining to the conduct is also an impermissible restriction on speaking about it.”
The Bush administration argued [JURIST report] that Congress’ approval of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was based on a recognition that the military requires policies not appropriate in civilian society and that the policy “rationally furthers the government’s interest in maintaining unit cohesion, reducing sexual tensions and promoting personal privacy.” The SLDN has not made a final decision whether to appeal the dismissal to the First Circuit but is reviewing all possible responses [press release]. Lawmakers in February 2005 cited a Government Accountability Office report [text, PDF] to criticize the policy [JURIST report] and its negative effect on recruitment and retention of military personnel. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been upheld by appeals courts in several other jurisdictions.
AP has more.
“The fact that one might speak about one’s conduct, or one’s propensity or intention to engage in certain conduct, does not mean that a governmental regulation pertaining to the conduct is also an impermissible restriction on speaking about it.”WTF? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is directed at speech. The military claim not to be interested in whether you are homosexual or not, so long as you don't tell anyone (and that can include getting 'caught' through conduct - speech includes conduct).
How does this policy 'promote unit cohesion' and 'reduce sexual tension' if homosexuals are expected to keep their sexuality hidden - while heterosexuals are allowed (even expected) to display theirs openly? If keeping your job relies on you keeping your sexuality secret, that's hardly a recipe for cohesion and reducing tension. Nor does it advance the safety of those suspected of being homosexual.Monday, April 24, 2006
Judge dismisses challenge to military 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy
Katerina Ossenova at 6:01 PM ET
[JURIST] A federal judge in Boston Monday dismissed [ruling, PDF] a suit filed in 2004 by twelve members of the US armed forces [JURIST report] represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) [advocacy website] challenging the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy [Wikipedia backgrounder; SLDN timeline, PDF] requiring them to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge. The case was one of first impression for the US First Circuit [official website], but Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. [official profile] rejected the argument that the military policy violates the First Amendment [text] by denying service members their right to privacy, free speech, and equal protection under the law: “The fact that one might speak about one’s conduct, or one’s propensity or intention to engage in certain conduct, does not mean that a governmental regulation pertaining to the conduct is also an impermissible restriction on speaking about it.”
The Bush administration argued [JURIST report] that Congress’ approval of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was based on a recognition that the military requires policies not appropriate in civilian society and that the policy “rationally furthers the government’s interest in maintaining unit cohesion, reducing sexual tensions and promoting personal privacy.” The SLDN has not made a final decision whether to appeal the dismissal to the First Circuit but is reviewing all possible responses [press release]. Lawmakers in February 2005 cited a Government Accountability Office report [text, PDF] to criticize the policy [JURIST report] and its negative effect on recruitment and retention of military personnel. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been upheld by appeals courts in several other jurisdictions.
AP has more.
“The fact that one might speak about one’s conduct, or one’s propensity or intention to engage in certain conduct, does not mean that a governmental regulation pertaining to the conduct is also an impermissible restriction on speaking about it.”WTF? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is directed at speech. The military claim not to be interested in whether you are homosexual or not, so long as you don't tell anyone (and that can include getting 'caught' through conduct - speech includes conduct).
Because a commercial entity is always going to think about your interests first. Right?John Leyden
Tuesday 11th April 2006 10:07 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/11/brains_trust/In brief Qinetiq, the former Ministry of Defence research lab, has been given chairmanship of a UK group designed to develop government security policy. The committee, which comprises government officials, academics, and other experts, will help inform UK government policy on issues such as the introduction of biometric-based identity cards and the establishment of ecommerce projects, the FT reports.
Because a commercial entity is always going to think about your interests first. Right?John Leyden
Tuesday 11th April 2006 10:07 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/11/brains_trust/In brief Qinetiq, the former Ministry of Defence research lab, has been given chairmanship of a UK group designed to develop government security policy. The committee, which comprises government officials, academics, and other experts, will help inform UK government policy on issues such as the introduction of biometric-based identity cards and the establishment of ecommerce projects, the FT reports.
