]
] Recently, the news that China is adopting IPv9 is making
] rounds on the Internet. While some of them write off as
] an April Fool's joke (in July?) like RFC 1606, others
] wonder if there is more than meets the eye. But most of
] them wonder what this IPv9 is and how does it actually
] work. And some of the English translated articles are so
] badly done that it is impossible to get any useful
] technical information except that 'It is developed and
] supported by Chinese government!'

Explaining China's IPv9

] The law gives Allawi "extraordinary authorities" to
] declare curfews, restrict communications, seize assets,
] restrict civic associations and assume direct command of
] security forces in areas deemed to be emergency zones. In
] those places, police and military units would have the
] freedom to search and detain people without judicial
] orders.
]
] The country's human rights minister, Baktiar Amin,
] compared the new Iraqi law to the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the
] U.S. law enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that
] gives broader powers to law enforcement authorities in
] pursuit of suspected terrorists. "Similar laws have been
] enacted in a number of countries," Amin said.

Brilliant. No, the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with these kinds of powers. Nor do I think that martial law is entirely out of place in some of these cities. But this comment is interesting on many levels. Isn't it the Human Rights Minister's job to question laws like this? Is he just a rubber stamp? Was our loosening of the rules a carte blache to other nations to loosen them even more. What kind of messages are we sending?

Iraq Approves Security Law Allowing Martial Rule (washingtonpost.com)

] As they walked along, Mike gave a shrug and a twitch just
] so. That was enough cue for his Epiphany wearable. Its
] overlay imaging shifted into classic manga/anime: the
] manzanita branches morphed into scaly tentacles. Now the
] houses that edged the canyon were heavily timbered, with
] pennants flying. High ahead was a castle, the home of
] Grand Duke Hwa Feen...

Free Vernor Vinge short story on wearable/ubiquitous computing.

Vernor Vinge: Synthetic Serendipity

] In practice this means giving people a specially-equipped
] mobile phone that allows them to wander around central
] London and leave virtual notes for other people to read
] by writing them on the phone and then 'sticking' them to
] a building.

Slashdot | Net Sticky Notes All Over London

The strength of a nation is not characterized by what it holds dear in times of peace, but what it holds dear in times of war. Unfortunately, this administration has been all too willing to bend the rules and reinterpret the law.

Wrongly Held: It Can Happen Here

Having finally had time to sit down and read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld its clear to me that the press reports so far have been confusing at best and misleading at worst. While I am heartened that the court has decided that there are some limits to the power of our executive, their decision is far from the stalwart defense of our traditional understanding of civil liberties that it has been presented as. I must express that I share the cynicism of the Russian commentator whose article I posted in spite of that commentator's hypocrisy.

My (apparently incorrect) understanding of how things work in this country is that the legislative branch makes the laws (within the framework of the constitution), the executive enforces them, and the judicial interprets, applies, and upholds them. In this case the legislative passed a vague authorization for the use of military force against Al'Q and the T. From this the executive invented an entirely unprecedented and undefined legal status for prisoners. We'll call this "legislating from the Oval Office." In this decision the judicial has upheld the existence of this undefined status and invented a vaguely defined and unprecedented legal standard to go along with it. We'll call this "legislating from the bench."

From now on, as long as Congress has authorized the President to use "force" against an "enemy" the President may name any citizen an "enemy combatant" and place them in prison. The President is required to present its case against these individuals to a neutral decision maker (which need not be a civilian court), but the standard in these cases is "guilty until proven innocent." This is an enormously important precedent that will continue to impact our history forever.

I do not recall "guilty until proven innocent" ever being a part of how Americans view justice. Nor do I recall that the Supreme Court has the power to invent standards like this for cases of this sort. Missing from every event leading up to this moment (the solidification of a new legal standard for certain prisoners in our justice system) is the explanation of why. Why won't standard POW processes work for "combatants" in Afghanistan? Why do we need a new standard? Why is this situation so significantly different from any we've faced in the past? Justification is what you'd get if this new creation was the product of a normal legislative process. Instead what we have is the technical assertion of power by the executive and the judicial, with no more explanation then "these are bad people."

Maybe the court has reached the right balance here and this is the standard we ought to have. Its certainly preferable to me then Justice Thomas's unsaid statement that the only recourse that you have against unreasonable executive detention is to Impeach him. (If Thomas's well referenced dissent is correct, then I would say we are in need of new laws immediately!) However, I think it ought to have gone through the legislature, and that it ought to have been birthed in the open, with the traditional discussion of ends and means that is typically afforded a democracy when creating a new basic legal framework.

Repeating my basic point to ram it home: A new legal standard has been created in our justice system. It applies to enemies of the state. The standard is guilty until proven innocent. Its use requires Congressional authorization, but that authorization need not be specific. This is a watershed event that will inform future generation's basic understanding of what the Constitution means.

"Nooooo!" the audience roared.

Bush in West Virginia

Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Oregon, was held for two weeks, even though the only other connections between him and terrorism were things like the fact, as the FBI pointed out, that his law firm advertised in a "Muslim yellow page directory" whose publisher had once had a business relationship with Osama bin Laden's former personal secretary.

So is this what you call a Non-Obvious Relationship?

This nation was organized under a rule of law, not a dictatorship of the virtuous. The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights specifically because they did not believe that honorable men always do the right thing.

About Independence

The phone is ringing! Answer it!

The Phone

Mr. Bush gave as good as he got, once his Irish was up. But Ms. Coleman remained resolute. It may have cost her a follow-up interview with Laura Bush. But the griping and debate about the interview was a sad reminder to Americans that the White House seldom welcomes robust questioning, especially when it is most needed.

When Irish Eyes Stop Smiling