Learn from the mistakes of others

Friday, October 13, 2006
Kate Heneroty at 7:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] labeled anti-war activities as "potential terrorist activity" and monitored students, Quakers and other anti-war groups while collecting information for a domestic terror threats database, according to documents [case materials; press release] released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website]. The documents, obtained from the DOD under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit [JURIST report], indicate that the DOD's Threat and Local Observation Notice system, or TALON database [Wired report; JURIST news archive], relied on information provided from sources in the Department of Homeland Security, FBI terrorism task forces and local police departments to monitor anti-war activities.

The ACLU lawsuit came after an NBC News report in December revealed that the military maintained the database of "suspicious incidents," including peaceful anti-war protests and groups. Vietnam war era regulations [PDF text] limit what information the military can collect about people and activities taking place inside the US, and the Pentagon launched an investigation [DOD press release; JURIST report] into possible misuse of the program. According to DOD officials, the investigation revealed that 261 entries were improper and subject to removal [JURIST report]. Military official have also acknowledged that some records were kept longer than the DOD's internal 90-day policy even though the groups had been deemed not to be a threat.

The New York Times has more.

Friday, October 13, 2006
Kate Heneroty at 7:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] labeled anti-war activities as "potential terrorist activity" and monitored students, Quakers and other anti-war groups while collecting information for a domestic terror threats database, according to documents [case materials; press release] released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website]. The documents, obtained from the DOD under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit [JURIST report], indicate that the DOD's Threat and Local Observation Notice system, or TALON database [Wired report; JURIST news archive], relied on information provided from sources in the Department of Homeland Security, FBI terrorism task forces and local police departments to monitor anti-war activities.

The ACLU lawsuit came after an NBC News report in December revealed that the military maintained the database of "suspicious incidents," including peaceful anti-war protests and groups. Vietnam war era regulations [PDF text] limit what information the military can collect about people and activities taking place inside the US, and the Pentagon launched an investigation [DOD press release; JURIST report] into possible misuse of the program. According to DOD officials, the investigation revealed that 261 entries were improper and subject to removal [JURIST report]. Military official have also acknowledged that some records were kept longer than the DOD's internal 90-day policy even though the groups had been deemed not to be a threat.

The New York Times has more.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Katerina Ossenova at 2:35 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 05-998, a case that asks justices to decide whether leaving an element of a crime out of an indictment is harmless error. Juan Resendiz-Ponce was deported because of a kidnapping conviction but was subsequently convicted after attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico in 2003 with false identification. His second conviction was overturned [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because his indictment did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US. During arguments Tuesday, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben conceded that more information should have been included in the indictment. He argued, however, that the conviction should be upheld since "such an error violates the Fifth Amendment, but it is harmless." Atmore Baggot, Resendiz-Ponce's lawyer, argued the government should be forced to correct indictment errors. Justice Samuel Alito said that he did not see any defect in the indictment.

AP has more.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Katerina Ossenova at 2:35 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 05-998, a case that asks justices to decide whether leaving an element of a crime out of an indictment is harmless error. Juan Resendiz-Ponce was deported because of a kidnapping conviction but was subsequently convicted after attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico in 2003 with false identification. His second conviction was overturned [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because his indictment did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US. During arguments Tuesday, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben conceded that more information should have been included in the indictment. He argued, however, that the conviction should be upheld since "such an error violates the Fifth Amendment, but it is harmless." Atmore Baggot, Resendiz-Ponce's lawyer, argued the government should be forced to correct indictment errors. Justice Samuel Alito said that he did not see any defect in the indictment.

AP has more.

Monday, October 09, 2006
Joe Shaulis at 3:18 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Navy lawyer who successfully represented the plaintiff Guantanamo detainee in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] and took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court has been denied a promotion and will leave the military by spring, the Miami Herald reports. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift [profile], who has worked in the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions [official website] since 2003, said he learned about two weeks after the Hamdan decision that he would not receive a promotion to commander. Because of the military's "up or out" promotion policy, Swift must retire, although he said he would continue to represent Salim Hamdan [Wikipedia profile], a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, as a civilian attorney. Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, praised Swift's work as "really extraordinary" and said that the timing of the promotion decision was "quite a coincidence."

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military commissions [JURIST news archive] for terrorism suspects lacked proper legal authorization [opinion text] as initially constituted, forcing the White House to win congressional approval of new legislation [JURIST report] setting up the commissions and defining appropriate procedures.

AP has more.

The Miami Herald has additional coverage. [JURIST] The US Navy lawyer who successfully represented the plaintiff Guantanamo detainee in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] and took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court has been denied a promotion and will leave the military by spring, the Miami Herald reports. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift [profile], who has worked in the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions [official website] since 2003, said he learned about two weeks after the Hamdan decision that he would not receive a promotion to commander. Because of the military's "up or out" promotion policy, Swift must retire, although he said he would continue to represent Salim Hamdan [Wikipedia profile], a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, as a civilian attorney. Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, praised Swift's work as "really extraordinary" and said that the timing of the promotion decision was "quite a coincidence."

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military commissions [JURIST news archive] for terrorism suspects lacked proper legal authorization [opinion text] as initially constituted, forcing the White House to win congressional approval of new legislation [JURIST report] setting up the commissions and defining appropriate procedures.

AP has more.
The Miami Herald has additional coverage.

Monday, October 09, 2006
Joe Shaulis at 3:18 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Navy lawyer who successfully represented the plaintiff Guantanamo detainee in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] and took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court has been denied a promotion and will leave the military by spring, the Miami Herald reports. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift [profile], who has worked in the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions [official website] since 2003, said he learned about two weeks after the Hamdan decision that he would not receive a promotion to commander. Because of the military's "up or out" promotion policy, Swift must retire, although he said he would continue to represent Salim Hamdan [Wikipedia profile], a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, as a civilian attorney. Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, praised Swift's work as "really extraordinary" and said that the timing of the promotion decision was "quite a coincidence."

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military commissions [JURIST news archive] for terrorism suspects lacked proper legal authorization [opinion text] as initially constituted, forcing the White House to win congressional approval of new legislation [JURIST report] setting up the commissions and defining appropriate procedures.

AP has more.

The Miami Herald has additional coverage. [JURIST] The US Navy lawyer who successfully represented the plaintiff Guantanamo detainee in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] and took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court has been denied a promotion and will leave the military by spring, the Miami Herald reports. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift [profile], who has worked in the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions [official website] since 2003, said he learned about two weeks after the Hamdan decision that he would not receive a promotion to commander. Because of the military's "up or out" promotion policy, Swift must retire, although he said he would continue to represent Salim Hamdan [Wikipedia profile], a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, as a civilian attorney. Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, praised Swift's work as "really extraordinary" and said that the timing of the promotion decision was "quite a coincidence."

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military commissions [JURIST news archive] for terrorism suspects lacked proper legal authorization [opinion text] as initially constituted, forcing the White House to win congressional approval of new legislation [JURIST report] setting up the commissions and defining appropriate procedures.

AP has more.
The Miami Herald has additional coverage.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Holly Manges Jones at 10:12 AM ET

[JURIST] The Law Lords [official website], the judicial panel of the UK House of Lords that is Britain's highest court, ruled [opinion] Wednesday that media in Britain should not be subject to libel charges if they publish allegations against public figures as long as they act responsibly and in the public interest. The case was an appeal brought by the Wall Street Journal Europe [media website] challenging a decision by the High Court which was upheld [judgment text] on appeal, ordering the newspaper to pay £40,000 ($74,230) to Mohammed Jameel, a billionaire Saudi Arabian car dealer. The paper had published information in 2002 that the US requested Saudi authorities to monitor Jameel's personal and business bank accounts to ensure no funds were being routed to suspected terrorists. The House of Lords disagreed with the High Court decision, saying it was a perfect situation for the newspaper to use the public interest defense.

The judges further said that even if the published information later turned out to be false, the media outlet should not be subject to libel charges, noting that judges should not evaluate in hindsight editing decisions made in busy newsrooms. The test offered by the court to determine whether libel damages should be available was whether the media organization acted fairly and responsibly in receiving and publishing the information.

From the UK, the Times has more.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Holly Manges Jones at 10:12 AM ET

[JURIST] The Law Lords [official website], the judicial panel of the UK House of Lords that is Britain's highest court, ruled [opinion] Wednesday that media in Britain should not be subject to libel charges if they publish allegations against public figures as long as they act responsibly and in the public interest. The case was an appeal brought by the Wall Street Journal Europe [media website] challenging a decision by the High Court which was upheld [judgment text] on appeal, ordering the newspaper to pay £40,000 ($74,230) to Mohammed Jameel, a billionaire Saudi Arabian car dealer. The paper had published information in 2002 that the US requested Saudi authorities to monitor Jameel's personal and business bank accounts to ensure no funds were being routed to suspected terrorists. The House of Lords disagreed with the High Court decision, saying it was a perfect situation for the newspaper to use the public interest defense.

The judges further said that even if the published information later turned out to be false, the media outlet should not be subject to libel charges, noting that judges should not evaluate in hindsight editing decisions made in busy newsrooms. The test offered by the court to determine whether libel damages should be available was whether the media organization acted fairly and responsibly in receiving and publishing the information.

From the UK, the Times has more.

Robert M. Thorson
October 5 2006

When is a rock not a rock? When you pass through airport security. Then it becomes a potential weapon, one capable of bringing an airplane down.

I'm mad. I can think of a better way to combat terrorism than taking mineral specimens away from geologists traveling to their conferences. I suggest we get U.S. forces out of Iraq, where our blundering entry and lingering occupation are inflaming anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

There are two versions of what happened to my specimen at Bradley International Airport, Hartford. In the first version, I was completely at fault. Out of ignorance, I broke some unwritten rule. Then, in the name of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration took my rock away.

In the second version, the federal government is at fault for not listing mineral specimens as prohibited items and for creating a climate so fearful of terrorism that it's compromising our economic efficiency, personal freedom and instinct to trust one another.

I was traveling to Hood River, Ore., to attend the annual meeting of the Stone Foundation, an international organization of architects, sculptors, stonemasons, geologists, engravers and engineers united by their love of stone.

To enhance my speech, I nestled one of my favorite specimens between my underwear and shirts in a carry-on bag because I never check luggage on business trips. My banded chunk of the Hebron Gneiss (pronounced "nice") resembled a broken slice of layer cake composed of licorice and cream cheese.

In retrospect, I suppose I could have put the grapefruit-sized specimen inside my sock, swung it around my head like a mace, charged the cabin and attempted to hijack the flight. This, of course, never occurred to me until the zealous inspector declared my rock a "dual-use" item.

"What, pray tell, is a dual-use item?" I asked. I'm afraid I chucked just a little, causing her to glare, withhold a satisfactory answer and call her supervisor. He hefted my rock, scrutinized it for a moment, and agreed that my specimen was indeed a dual-use item, meaning a potential low-tech weapon. During those uneasy moments when I thought I would be detained, I wondered if a doctor's stethoscope would also be declared a dual-use item, since it could be used to strangle a pilot.

The inspectors did give me the option of returning to the ticket counter to check my specimen as baggage. However, having waited more than half an hour for my security clearance, I decided that I didn't have enough time. "Can I claim the rock when I return?" I asked. Their answer, a resounding "no," forced me to choose between possibly missing my flight, and abandoning my rock forever.

I capitulated, surrendering it to that great unmarked graveyard where confiscated items will spend eternity. If rocks had feelings, my beautiful specimen would have been crying as it was hauled away.

My gneiss was not without sentimental value. It has been my traveling companion for three years, and a touchstone for thousands of people who have attended my talks. And though my rock is gone for good, what worries me is that some analyst - perplexed by the usual nature of my dual-use object - will write a report to be sent up the bureaucratic food chain.

Who knows? Perhaps your tax dollars will be used by an internal think tank of agency hire-ups to ponder why on earth a geologist would travel with a rock. Who knows? Perhaps the government will wiretap my phone or check my library records to see whether I have checked out a Koran or a book about stone-age warfare.

I'm a middle-aged, balding, blond and blue-eyed Scandinavian-American. If the gauntlet of untrusting looks at airport security intimidates me, then how much worse would it be for an Arab American? Would the threshold weight for rock confiscation be lower?

After my conference, I brought back a specimen of rhyolitic ignimbrite (welded volcanic ash) to mitigate the loss of my nice gneiss. This time, I took no chances. I put it in my carry-on bag and checked it as luggage to ensure that my new rock would make it home, which it did.

What's next for airport screening? My dual-use laptop?

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut and a member of The Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson@hotmail.com.

E-mail: robert.thorson@uconn.edu

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-thorson1005.artoct05,0,777555.column?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Robert M. Thorson
October 5 2006

When is a rock not a rock? When you pass through airport security. Then it becomes a potential weapon, one capable of bringing an airplane down.

I'm mad. I can think of a better way to combat terrorism than taking mineral specimens away from geologists traveling to their conferences. I suggest we get U.S. forces out of Iraq, where our blundering entry and lingering occupation are inflaming anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

There are two versions of what happened to my specimen at Bradley International Airport, Hartford. In the first version, I was completely at fault. Out of ignorance, I broke some unwritten rule. Then, in the name of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration took my rock away.

In the second version, the federal government is at fault for not listing mineral specimens as prohibited items and for creating a climate so fearful of terrorism that it's compromising our economic efficiency, personal freedom and instinct to trust one another.

I was traveling to Hood River, Ore., to attend the annual meeting of the Stone Foundation, an international organization of architects, sculptors, stonemasons, geologists, engravers and engineers united by their love of stone.

To enhance my speech, I nestled one of my favorite specimens between my underwear and shirts in a carry-on bag because I never check luggage on business trips. My banded chunk of the Hebron Gneiss (pronounced "nice") resembled a broken slice of layer cake composed of licorice and cream cheese.

In retrospect, I suppose I could have put the grapefruit-sized specimen inside my sock, swung it around my head like a mace, charged the cabin and attempted to hijack the flight. This, of course, never occurred to me until the zealous inspector declared my rock a "dual-use" item.

"What, pray tell, is a dual-use item?" I asked. I'm afraid I chucked just a little, causing her to glare, withhold a satisfactory answer and call her supervisor. He hefted my rock, scrutinized it for a moment, and agreed that my specimen was indeed a dual-use item, meaning a potential low-tech weapon. During those uneasy moments when I thought I would be detained, I wondered if a doctor's stethoscope would also be declared a dual-use item, since it could be used to strangle a pilot.

The inspectors did give me the option of returning to the ticket counter to check my specimen as baggage. However, having waited more than half an hour for my security clearance, I decided that I didn't have enough time. "Can I claim the rock when I return?" I asked. Their answer, a resounding "no," forced me to choose between possibly missing my flight, and abandoning my rock forever.

I capitulated, surrendering it to that great unmarked graveyard where confiscated items will spend eternity. If rocks had feelings, my beautiful specimen would have been crying as it was hauled away.

My gneiss was not without sentimental value. It has been my traveling companion for three years, and a touchstone for thousands of people who have attended my talks. And though my rock is gone for good, what worries me is that some analyst - perplexed by the usual nature of my dual-use object - will write a report to be sent up the bureaucratic food chain.

Who knows? Perhaps your tax dollars will be used by an internal think tank of agency hire-ups to ponder why on earth a geologist would travel with a rock. Who knows? Perhaps the government will wiretap my phone or check my library records to see whether I have checked out a Koran or a book about stone-age warfare.

I'm a middle-aged, balding, blond and blue-eyed Scandinavian-American. If the gauntlet of untrusting looks at airport security intimidates me, then how much worse would it be for an Arab American? Would the threshold weight for rock confiscation be lower?

After my conference, I brought back a specimen of rhyolitic ignimbrite (welded volcanic ash) to mitigate the loss of my nice gneiss. This time, I took no chances. I put it in my carry-on bag and checked it as luggage to ensure that my new rock would make it home, which it did.

What's next for airport screening? My dual-use laptop?

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut and a member of The Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson@hotmail.com.

E-mail: robert.thorson@uconn.edu

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-thorson1005.artoct05,0,777555.column?coll=hc-headlines-oped

A system and method for data rights management across multiple data rights management architectures is disclosed. The system and method solves the problems posed by multiple incompatible data rights management architectures. In particular, a data rights management clearing house is provided that generates permits, permit classes, and enables content packaging across multiple data rights management architectures. Consumers may acquire rights to content packaged with different data rights management architecture from the single data rights management clearing house. Additionally, the system and method enables content packagers to package content with multiple data rights management architectures. Finally, the data rights management clearing house provides consumers with a single location from which to manage data access rights and restore data access rights that have been lost.

A system and method for data rights management across multiple data rights management architectures is disclosed. The system and method solves the problems posed by multiple incompatible data rights management architectures. In particular, a data rights management clearing house is provided that generates permits, permit classes, and enables content packaging across multiple data rights management architectures. Consumers may acquire rights to content packaged with different data rights management architecture from the single data rights management clearing house. Additionally, the system and method enables content packagers to package content with multiple data rights management architectures. Finally, the data rights management clearing house provides consumers with a single location from which to manage data access rights and restore data access rights that have been lost.