This is a remarkable, sobering moment in our nation’s history, and the world’s. When the President gave his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein the night of March 17, I thought, “This is what it is to be a citizen of the empire.”² For, America is now an empire, so the New York Times has told us, and we ought to “get used to it.” But I don’t think I will get used to it. Last September, in publishing his strategy for national security,³ the President signaled that he meant to prosecute a new kind of war in American history (new, that is, since the Indian wars⁴) when he announced a doctrine of preventive first-strike⁵; that is, authority to make preventive war against any possible threat to (in the words of a Times reporter) this nation’s “enlightened domination of the world.”⁶

Now this nation is at war: not the metaphorical “war on terror,” but the traditional business of killing. This is the president’s new war of prevention. Hundreds of thousands of troops in the awesome, disciplined, professional force that is the American military are in Iraq, where they are searching for, intending to destroy the rule and perhaps lives of, three men – Saddam Hussein and his two sons – and the ring of guards complicit in their despotic regime. My heart is low. We hear of the growing number of deaths among the American and British forces, the civilian casualties on all sides, and even the dead Iraqi soldiers. I wish they were not there. I wish they were not fighting. I hope beyond reason that no more people will die. Whatever the rationale for this war, now that we are in it, I hope we will win honorably. I wish our military people would return home as soon as a just peace can be established; but I fear this won't happen for a very long time.

The President tells us that this “homeland” of ours, too, is now a battlefield, because of the September attacks. Recently, I learned that journalists, or at least the Pentagon, now refer to the “battlespace,” rather than battlefield, because of such changes as satellite up-links and the twenty-four hour news cycle. During the first days, my ear on the battlespace was turned for the most part to NPR’s respectful special coverage. But on Thursday, March 19, I happened to hear on CBC’s streaming audio an interview with a Liberal M.P., Mr. John Godfrey. The interlocutor asked his opinion about Canada’s position on the war, which has been to stay at a distance, and whether Canada should question the United States more boldly. Mr. Godfrey replied – I believe I quote him accurately – “A redefinition of America is going on. We should wait for it to settle down: don’t provoke – or go too close.”

A redefinition of America is going on. This country seems to me as divided as before the Civil War. The matters at issue are not bondage and rebellion, however, but what kind of nation we have become: how we should conduct ourselves in the world, and how we should treat our people at home. Our country has amassed an astonishing military power, unknown in human history, and has decided to use that power as its principle instrument of foreign policy. And so, refusing to heed the council of so many of its old allies, unwilling to remain within those mutual associations it had carefully built over the last half-century, it has unleashed its might to provoke “shock and awe” over Baghdad. But we had already known shock and awe, here at home, on September 11, 2001. Is this, now, to be the nature of war?

In this new kind of war, in this battlespace, we look first to history to find the grounds for the right of free speech.⁷ Yet, I am not confidant that legal precedent is our only guide. I must ask why our basic rights were changed after the September attacks, and who has agreed to this.⁸ I would consider several, to me more disturbing, developments as leading to the present moment.

For, I see the President’s war⁹ as an instrument of his politics, and I suggest that not only the current ground and air war against Iraq, but also the so-called war on terror be understood as part of the redefinition of America remarked on by Mr. Godfrey. I do not believe that we have settled on a new definition of ourselves yet, however. I believe – perhaps desperately, perhaps defiantly – that the political process is still in operation, and that “empire” may not become our permanent condition.

If it is not, if we are to recover ourselves, we citizens ought to insist firmly that our public officials offer satisfactory answers to a series of questions. Among them would be these:

Once the war on Iraq is over – but how will we know when it is over? – must the nation accept the permanent condition of a “war on terror”? Since the end of the Cold War, presidents have come to use the military as the prime instrument of American power. Our troops are deployed in more than one hundred countries, engaged in disarming minefields, fighting drug traffickers, bringing disaster relief, and a multitude of peace-keeping or protective tasks, as well as invading Iraq. Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, writes: “When the fighting stops in Iraq, the U.S. military – 22-year old infantry soldiers – will again be given the lead in rebuilding civil society there, a mission that could easily take more than 10 years.”¹⁰ It is the military which now imposes our national will, or that of our President, on the rest of the world. Will this practice continue with the consent of the governed?

An extension of military dominance is the missile defense program,¹¹ which is to be operational within two years. Ostensibly, it is being assembled for our protection against “rogue” states like North Korea. More important, however, it is meant to achieve the “weaponization” of space, dominated by this enlightened nation. Will we desist from this course of aggression?

And our domestic safety is to be secured by every-growing secrecy¹² of government, restriction of information, hiding of documents from public view, including increasing the difficulty of FOIA searches, classification of documents, and extending the length of time documents are left classified from public knowledge. Will our civil liberties continue being limited and reduced?

In that light, I am going to watch what happens on a number of fronts, including:

1. The USA Patriot Act. Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis) lone voice against the passage of that too-quickly enacted law remains available on Archipelago.¹³ I will follow the progress of H.R. 1157, The Freedom to Read Protection Act, introduced on March 6, which allows us some slightly increased protections against F.B.I. Under the Patriot Act, the F.B.I. is allowed to search bookstore and library records with a warrant obtained from the secret FISA court “without even the need to show probable cause of criminal activity or an individual’s connection to a foreign power,” writes Pat Schroeder, President of the Association of American Publishers. “Librarians and booksellers cannot reveal the fact that such a warrant exists and so they cannot defend their right to disseminate, and the right of their patrons to receive, constitutionally-protected materials.”¹⁴

Given the very troubling provisions of the Act, this is the least of it.

Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978)¹⁵ after the excesses of Federal spying on domestic political groups in the years of the Vietnam war and civil rights movement. Its purpose was to allow gathering of counterintelligence information, not to bring criminal prosecutions. Under the guidance of a team of lawyers from the Justice Department, the F.B.I. would conduct surveillance. But the Act quietly instituted a new judicial layer, by creating a special – that is, secret – court of sitting federal judges who would approve FISA wiretaps in the same way regular judges approve criminal wiretaps.

For the following twenty-four years, the F.B.I. always got its approval of secret wiretaps (perhaps 10,000, rather than the few hundred each year, as was originally supposed), until last May, when the secret FISA court – for the first time, apparently – refused Ashcroft’s request, saying the F.B.I. evidence was defective. The public did not learn about this until August, when the Washington Post published the story.¹⁶

The Patriot Act authorizes the reduction of – to the point of nearly eliminating – standard Fourth Amendment protections of any persons subject to criminal investigations, allowing the government to use the less stringent presumptions of intelligence while investigating American citizens.

I will also watch as an increasing number of municipalities¹⁷ take a public stand against the Patriot Act. Will that change, now? Let us see.

2. Language and propaganda (the underbelly of language). We have many sources of direct, reliable information now, because of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Regularly, I read or listen to the New York Times, the Washington Post, Ha’aretz, the International Herald Tribune, The Guardian, the CBC, BBC World Service, and other sources.¹⁸ I read blogs – web logs; a very fine one is run by Helena Cobban, at Just World News.¹⁹ I receive and send information and opinion by e-mail. If I remain eternally vigilant, I may be among those who continue to secure our liberty.

But let me note how vigilant we must remain, with one not untypical example, from a White House briefing by Ari Fleischer on March 20. “Mr. Fleischer disputed the view of Europeans and others who argue that the pending invasion is a violation of the United Nations Charter. He cited three Security Council resolutions that he said provided all of the authorization Mr. Bush needed. But he also likened the current preparations to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, arguing that just as President John F. Kennedy imposed a quarantine around Cuba – ‘an act of war,’ Mr. Fleischer said – to force Havana to remove nuclear Missiles, Mr. Bush is acting to protect the United States from a threat that it would never see coming.”²⁰

I do not know if the assembled reporters gasped at the untruth of Mr. Fleischer’s statement. I gasp at it, and correct him: a quarantine is specifically not an act of war. That is why President Kennedy did not impose a blockade, which is such an act.

3. How the post-war reconstruction is managed, particularly in regard to the contracts already let to Halliburton, Bechtel and other trans-national corporations.²¹ (That the Vice-President came to office from Halliburton should have, I would have thought, raised questions before the President began the war.) As I write, it appears that this government intends to continue on its present course, insisting, as Secretary Powell has done to Congress, that the coalition forces – that is America, Britain, and Australia, the three combatants – would remain in control of Iraq post-war. How, and whether, the other members of the United Nations could provide humanitarian assistance and development is unclear. It looks to have become a question, in lesser part, of the distribution of power and the spoils; and, in greater part, of responsibility for the destruction of the country and death and wounding of its citizens.

Compared to the humanitarian crisis, this next point seems almost trivial. The reconstruction of Iraq is related, directly and indirectly, to our energy policies, as well, because of the role those transnational companies play in oil development. The matter will turn on whether our government will allow Iraq, the nation, to control its oil fields.

A few other questions:

4. Who was responsible for bugging the headquarters of the European Union,²² in particular, the offices of the French and German representatives? This was revealed during the week before the war was started, but no responsible party has been found or, at least, named.

5. How the Air Force reports on the recurring incidence of rape of young women at the Academy, and the recurring non-prosecution of culprits.²³

6. Cyberwar. After the September attacks, the Administration and Congress, concerned that computers and the Internet are vulnerable to both espionage and crime, organized various commissions to protect and defend aggressively what they often call “cyberspace.” In February of this year, according to the Times, “President Bush has signed a secret order allowing the government to develop guidelines under which the United States could launch cyber-attacks against foreign computer systems…. The United States has never conducted a large-scale cyber-attack, but officials said last month that the unfolding cyber-strategy plan made it more clear than ever that the Defense Department can wage cyber warfare if the nation is attacked.”²⁴

James Gilmore III, director of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (known as the Gilmore Commission) and formerly, Republican governor of Virginia, was interviewed on NPR on March 20. He suggested that we ought to keep two things in mind at the same time: the importance of our civil liberties, and the need for security. He noted that people tend to be more vigilant about liberties when they feel more secure; and suggested that we should recollect that risk is part of life; that we live with a new sort of risk; but that we are an “individualistic, liberty-loving people and would not give up our liberties easily.” He fudged when asked whether the Administration is (as many people think, said his questioner) working to limit our civil rights.

I note that on March 27, al-Jazeera’s Web site was hacked by a group calling itself Patriot Freedom Cyber Force Militia.”²⁵ I draw no conclusions (nor do I mean to imply even faintly that the Gilmore Commission is involved in cyberwarfare) but, being in the business myself, I remain attentive to the breadth of possibility.

My last but most important question is, How will our political speech be limited?

Our genius as a nation is that we are a secular polity formed by a marvelous Constitution, in which the ever-larger inclusion of citizenship has been fought for and won over the last 225 years. Our civil rights, too, have been fought for and won. Are they permanent, however? Although he denied having done so, Robert McNamara had commissioned the writing of a secret history of the Vietnam War. Are secret histories being written now, I wonder; have they been written; and will the Administration’s doctrine of secrecy require another Daniel Ellsberg to bring them to light?

But so much of what lies before us is not secret. The respectable media have reported on when the American drive toward war began; who the advisors responsible for planning it are; and why they thought it necessary to do so. For this very reason, I am deeply concerned about the continued, well-organized expansion of government secrecy, such as the executive order that will keep presidential papers hidden for decades from public scrutiny; and the authority allowing the F.B.I. to examine our most intimate records, without our knowing, on the merest suspicion of some vague possible threat from someone we once sat next to on an airplane; and the rule that authorizes the Immigration and Naturalization Service to track our movements even beyond our borders. A sample of recent headlines tells more of this troubling story:

“U.S. to Make Airlines Give Data on Americans Going Overseas”

“U.S. Hopes to Check Computers Globally”

“How a Deal Creating an Independent Commission on Sept. 11 Came Undone”

“Grounded: The Government’s Air Passenger Blacklist”

“Government intercepts, confiscates AP reporters’ package – Federal officials opened a package mailed between two reporters and illegally turned the contents over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation”

“Tucson Citizen photographer arrested while shooting campus protest”

“Leaked Bill would increase terrorism action secrecy”²⁶

Last November, according to the Post, “a new Pentagon research office began designing a global computer-surveillance system to give U.S. counterterrorism officials access to personal information in government and commercial databases around the world.” The director of this office, John H. Poindexter, had the weird, shocking authority to collect every electronic record about every American citizen – and, it seems, citizens of other nations, into a national database. Let us not forget: this is the same Admiral Poindexter who was convicted of crimes in the anti-constitutional Iran-Contra arms sales of the Reagan administration.²⁷

We are watching our civil rights vanish before our eyes, in the name of an impossible goal of “security.” Surely, Americans can learn to live with greater risk at home without redefining their nation into the imperial, and frightening, governor of the world.²⁸ Yet at this moment, the accumulated power of the presidency looks monolithic, while the opposition absents itself from the fray. I live in hope that it is still possible to make the political process work for those of us who were in the majority in 2000, and a hair’s breadth away from it in 2002. America is riven by at least two (opposing) theories of power and governance: a doctrine of unilateral power, against a belief in shared sovreignty and multilateral alliances. These political ideas animate our people domestically as well as internationally, and neither side, however bitterly opposed to the other, can claim to love this nation more. No one of us is less a patriot than any other fellow citizen, though our differences be sharp and seem nearly insoluble.

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass, daughter of European Jews who escaped the Holocaust and found refuge in Palestine, now reports from Ramallah. Her colleague Robert Fisk writes about her: “‘There is a misconception that journalists can be objective…. Palestinians tell me I’m objective. I think this is important because I’m an Israeli. But being fair and being objective are not the same thing. What journalism is really about – it’s to monitor power and the centres of power.’”

I am not a journalist, but I think she is right.

March 29, 2003

¹ See Leo Tolstoy, “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,” from STORIES GIVEN TO AID THE PERSECUTED JEWS, at “Leo Tolstoy: Twenty-three Tales”.

² See President Says Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq within 48 Hours, March 17, 2003 l; “Iraq Ultimatum,” Slate, September 9, 2002 Philip H. Gordon, Martin S. Indyk, and Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution ; John Lewis Gaddis, “A Grand Strategy of Transformation,” Foreign Policy; Michael Ignatieff, “The Burden,” New York Times Magazine, January 5, 2003.

³ National Security Strategy of the United States.

The President’s Introduction to the National Security Strategy, September 2003, in which he announced America’s doctrine of preventive strikes: “And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.” (Ital. added)

……..

The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.

As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world’s great powers find ourselves on the same side— united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers—even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement….

See also, “Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine,” Frontline

⁴ A correspondent reminded me that the Mexican War also was a war of aggression. Lincoln spoke out against it in congress and Grant, in his memoirs, said that he thought it was the most unjust war ever waged by a powerful nation against a lesser one.

⁵ “Preventive” has become the commonly-used term to describe this President’s doctrine, although “pre-emptive” appeared in early reports; the two words have different meanings in international law. See, for instance, Mike Allen and Barton Gellman, “Preemptive Strikes Part of U.S. Strategic Doctrine,” Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2002.

A Bush administration strategy announced yesterday calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction, and underscores the United States’s willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on U.S. soil or against American troops overseas.

The strategy introduces a more aggressive approach to combating weapons of mass destruction, and it comes as the nation prepares for a possible war with Iraq…. (continued)

See also, David E. Sanger, “U.S. Issues Warning to Foes in Arms Plan,” New York Times, December 11, 2002.

See also, Jon Bonne, “Is a U.S. war against Iraq illegal?” MSNBC.com, March 20, 2003.

⁶ Todd S. Purdom, “The Brains Behind Bush’s War,” New York Times, February 1, 2003.

⁷A thoughtful, scholarly discussion of the legal precedents of restrictions on, and freedom of, speech during wartime occurred at the Virginia Festival of the Book, March 21, 2003. Profs. Henry Abraham, Barbara Perry, and Robert O’Neil offered contrasting perspectives on the past and present right of free speech in wartime. Their discussion is available on streaming audio at VaBook, part 1 (scroll down). This writer was the fourth member of the panel and was asked to offer a current perspective as publisher and editor; those remarks, an earlier version of the present essay, and discussion and questions among the panel, are available on part 2.

⁸ Among many articles warning about an increase in government secrecy and intrusion into citizens’ affairs was William Safire’s column, “You Are A Suspect,” New York Times, November 14, 2002, which reads, in part:

If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as “a virtual, centralized grand database.”

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a “Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks….

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the “Information Awareness Office” in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the “data-mining” power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight. (continued)

See also, Adam Clymer, “Government Openness at Issue as Bush Holds Onto Records,” New York Times, January 3, 2003.

⁹ The President Addresses the Nation, March 19, 2003: the opening of hostilities.

¹⁰ WashingtonPost.com Live OnLine. Dana Priest, THE MISSION: WAGING WAR AND KEEPING PEACE WITH AMERICA’S MILITARY. New York: Norton, 2003.

¹¹ See, Eric Schmitt, “Bush Ordering Limited Missile Shield,” New York Times, December 18, 2002:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - After nearly two decades of debate over the wisdom and utility of trying to intercept missiles fired at the United States, President Bush today ordered the Pentagon to field a modest antimissile system within two years. If it works, it could intercept a limited attack from a state like North Korea.

Mr. Bush’s decision marked a major turning point in a debate that has consumed Washington and defense organizations since Ronald Reagan first announced plans for a far more ambitious space-based missile shield. A year ago, Mr. Bush withdrew from a treaty signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union that banned such systems; his action today marked the first time the United States had actually moved to field such a system, even though its capabilities are far more limited than proponents once hoped, and its reliability is still in doubt…. (continued)

See also, Michael Wines, “Moscow Miffed Over Missile Shield but Others Merely Shrug,” New York Times, December 19,2002:

MOSCOW, Dec. 18 - Russia warned today that President Bush’s order to field a limited missile-defense system in 2004 had pushed the venture into “a destabilizing new phase,” but here, as in many places, weary shrugs were the dominant response to the American decision, which had long been considered inevitable…. (continued)

Also, “Opposition Unlikely for Missile Defense,” New York Times, December 18, 2002.

Also, Katherine McNamara, “The Bear,” Archipelago, Vol. 5, No. 4.

¹² See, for example, Adam Clymer, “U.S. Ready to Rescind Clinton Order on Government Secrets,” New York Times, March 21, 2003:

WASHINGTON, March 20 - Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was “significant doubt” as to whether its release would damage national security.

The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006…. (continued)

See also, NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #13; 27 March 2003) by Bruce Craig  National Coalition for History (NCH):

BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order “Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information” (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See “Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates” — NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president’s signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as “advance damage control.” The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001. (continued)

See also, “Leahy introduces ‘Restore FOIA’ bill to amend Homeland law. A bill to curb the Homeland Security Act provision criminalizing disclosure of some business-submitted information was introduced in the U.S. Senate Wednesday.

“March 13, 2003 — Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the ‘Restoration of Freedom of Information Act’ today to combat requirements for secrecy in legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, which Congress passed in November.” (continued)

Also, Senator Robert Byrd’s Web site.

Also, Adam Clymer, “Government Openness at Issue as Bush Holds Onto Records,” New York Times, January 3, 2003.

¹³ Senator Russell Feingold, “On Opposing the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act,” Archipelago, Vol. 6, No. 2.

See also, Senator Feingold, “’Confused Justifications and Vague Proposals’: Why I Oppose Bush’s Iraq War Resolution,” Counterpunch, October 10, 2002

¹⁴Association of American Publishers and AAP Freedom to Read Committee.

¹⁵ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978): The passage following is from “America’s Secret Court,” by Paul DeRienzo and Joan Moossy. The article is undated but was written before the September 2001 attacks, and the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (see Senator Russell Feingold’s speech, cited above) and the recent Homeland Security Act. These laws have only increased the intrusive powers of the Federal government. The passage offers some background.

¹⁶ Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt “Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft, Justice Dept. Chided On Misinformation,” Washington Post, August 23, 2002.

¹⁷ See, “Cities Say No to Federal Snooping (December 19, 2002) ‘Fearing that the Patriot Act will curtail Americans’ civil rights, municipalities across the country are passing resolutions to repudiate the legislation and protect their residents from a perceived abuse of authority by the federal government.’” American Library Association, USA PATRIOT Act

¹⁸ See, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Ha’aretz, the International Herald Tribune, The Guardian, the CBC, BBC World Service.

¹⁹ Helena Cobban’s Just World News; war blogs; “Where’s Raed,” Salam Pax’s blog from Baghdad. In addition, although hardly a blog, is George Loper’s excellent Web site in Charlottesville, Va., designed as a medium of community discussion on-line.

²⁰ See, John Kifner, “Intense Bombardment of Baghdad Lasts About 10 Minutes,” New York Times, March 20, 2003.

²¹ A report on Halliburton KBR’s long-term employment in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, by Jordan Green, “The Influence of big energy corporations in the Bush administration is no secret,” Institute for Southern Studies Report, was posted Feb. 1, 2002, on Institute for Southern Studies. (The report is no longer posted, but may be available by subscription). Green writes,

²² “Bugging devices found at EU,” BBC News

²³ Robert Gehrke, “Air Force Secretary Reports 54 Cases of Rape, Assault,” Washington Post (AP), March 6, 2003.

²⁴ See, National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace September 2002

²⁵ See, “Hackers bring down al-Jazeera news site”

²⁶ Links to headlines:

²⁷ See Arthur L. Limon, “Hostile Witnesses,” The Washington Post, August 16,1998.

²⁸ See Ian Bruce’s brilliant Flash movie, “Technical Difficulties,” on MoveOn.org.

Robert Fisk, “The Keys of Palestine,” Archipelago, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4. An interview with Fisk from Baghdad, March 25, is on Democracy Now.

“Patriotism and the Right of Free Speech in Wartime.” A panel discussion broadcast on C-Span March 21, 2003, with Profs. Henry Abraham, Barbara Perry, and Robert O'Neil, and Katherine McNamara, Editor and Publisher of Archipelago. Streaming audio of the panel discussion is available at Virginia Festival of the Book  (scroll down).

Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression