In the first World Trade Center bombing case in 1993, prosecutors had to give the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators. The list, he writes, was “delivered to bin Laden” ” and “was later found during the investigation of the African embassy bombings.”

Thats an interesting datapoint. Of course, Bush's response to this threat was to simply not have trials at all. The court has required trials, so they've got to hold them. What confuses me is why they can't preserve proceedural fairness while improving information security. Haven't you limited the suspect's ability to communicate with free conspirators? Don't the defense attorneys have security clearances? (Of course, the latter could be used as a tool by the government to remove any useful defense attorney, but that need not be the case.)

A Terror Trial, With or Without Due Process

Mike the Usurper wrote:

A complaint announced today by the FBI alleges that through a company called HDTV Ltd. located in Brooklyn, Iqbal and others provided customers in the New York area with satellite broadcasts of al Manar, which is a television station owned and/or operated by Hezbollah.

The Department of Treasury named al Manar as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity" in March 2006, thereby making it a crime to, among other things, engage in business transactions with al Manar. In conjunction with the arrest, agents executed search warrants at both HDTV's Brooklyn office and Iqbal's Staten Island residence where, it is alleged, Iqbal maintained several satellite dishes.

Okay, so here's an interesting question. If he's paying Al Manar to distribute their signal, he's consorting with terrorists, but if he's not paying them, then he's stealing their signal and liable under FCC copyright issues? I'd be interested to see what he was doing, because I'm not seeing any way to square this with the first amendment. You can do time, place and manner restrictions, and you can't shout "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse or the like, but otherwise, speech may not be restricted.

This one looks really ugly.

This IS an interesting question.

1. Its not legal to retransmit this broadcast without paying for it. However, it is extremely unlikely that any U.S. organization would enforce those laws on behalf of a designated terrorist organization. They should have stolen the broadcast. Of course, this could have openned them up to extra-legal fee collection from local Hezbollah supporters.

2. Its not legal to engage in commerce with a designated terrorist organization without a license. He could have applied for one. It probably would have been denied, but he could have challenged this denial on first amendment grounds, and he might have won such a challenge. Dan Bernstein did exactly this a few years ago with respect to cryptography export controls. The fact that he did this without obtaining a license muddies the water considerably. It could be argued that a licence requirement places a chill upon the freedom of speech, but its much harder to get that arguement to fly, particularly if the restrictions aren't hard to comply with and are directly connected to legitimate national security interest.

3. The FBI is likely most interested in his subscriber lists.

RE: The Raw Story | FBI: Brooklyn HDTV company provided users with 'Hezbollah TV'

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.

The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Refuse to be Terrorized - Wired News

terratogen wrote:
Examples of photo manipulation to create more dramatic news stories. It's odd that they didn't pick out things which didn't have to do with lebanon. This sort of thing is pretty much standard.

There is a degree to which the sort of manipulation performed by the media is mirrored by those who expose it, as most have an agenda. Little Green Footballs is a right wing blog. They have an interest in demonstrating a particular kind of media manipulation and only that kind. Noam Chomsky and groups like Ad Busters often demonstrate a different kind of media manipulation, and only that kind.

The media is a megaphone. Input goes in and is amplified. Its interest is in the dramatic, not the true. Its agents create drama where none exists. Those who are skilled at manipulating the media know how to point it toward favored drama. Those who are unskilled risk being the drama pointed at. The media's focus can bring wealth or recrimination, depending on how it comes. Mastering this is the key to mastering the broadcast society.

As we've matured, it has become clear to many of us that the media manipulates. As more information has become available the people are awakening. The political powers have managed this problem by injecting the fantasy that the media is only manipulated by the other guys, never by us. Widespread realization that the media is manipulated by everyone is the next step, but unfortunately few have an interest in such a development.

RE: Photo Fraud in Lebanon

A scuffle broke out Thursday between saffron-robed monks and anti-war demonstrators at peace rally in Sri Lankan capital.

About six or seven monks from a right-wing Buddhist faction had stormed the stage during a peace rally attended by about 1,000 people in the capital, Colombo, shouting pro-war slogans, an AP reporter at the scene said.

Pro war monks?

What the hell is this world coming to?

Pro-war Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka?

James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected.

"The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," he said.

I wish I could find the actual source for this quotation. Its possible that the sentence that followed this in the original source material started with the word "However." Fortunately I have reporters to do the thinking for me.

Having said that, this story finds numerous commentators who seem to be saying that Israel is intentionally punishing the civilian population of Lebanon in order to influence them politically.

Military analysts question Israeli bombing - Yahoo! News

Iranians... believe that their country... should stay out of the Arabs' fight with Israel and focus on improving living standards at home...

The shop where he works abuts a vast mural depicting a female suicide bomber with a baby in her arms, accompanied by the words I LOVE MOTHERHOOD, BUT I LOVE MARTYRDOM MORE. Frustration with such propaganda underpins young people's reactions to the conflict.

TIME.com: Meanwhile, The View From Inside Iran -- Jul 31, 2006 -- Page 1

The Hezbollah political headquarters are demolished in the militant group's southern Beirut stronghold yesterday by Israeli air strikes.

Lebanon picture of the day

Q Does the President thus far have any problem with what the Israelis have been targeting, given the fact they have hit a lot of civilians?

MR. SNOW: They have hit civilians. And one of the things we've pointed out is that it has been the deliberate tactic of Hezbollah to place assets in civilian areas, including sometimes in the homes of its own members, as part of the tactics so that they would not get hit. And we lament the death of innocents whether they be in Israel, or in Lebanon, or in Gaza, or anywhere else. So it is something of which we are keenly aware. And it is also a reflection of tactics that would have been unthinkable in other conflicts at other times, but there is a deliberate attempt on the part of Hezbollah to place civilians in harm's way. And, unfortunately, they are.

Q You have no problems with the targeting that Israel --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get in -- I'm not going --

Q But the President called for restraint. You have no problem with what's already been targeted?

MR. SNOW: The President has called for restraint. And, frankly, Martha, unless you or I have been in on the meetings that talk about targeting, it is beyond our competence to judge precisely the methods by which they've done it because neither you nor I know the intelligence that went into it or the precautions that have been made. So it's a good argumentative question, and I really don't have an answer for it.

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

This report contains good news and bad news. Here is the good news:

In Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, likely in response to the devastating terrorist attack in Amman last year; 29% of Jordanians view suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified, down from 57% in May 2005.

Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria's Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.

Pew Global Attitudes Project: Introduction and Summary: The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other