Sunday, January 20, 2013

'Sheep justice' vs cyber freedom

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
1/18/2012



While the battle over the Cybercrime Law rages on in the Supreme Court (SC), with Internet freedom hanging in the balance, the first global martyr for information freedom has emerged. On Jan. 11, 2013, as the world was still basking in the afterglow of New Year revelries, Aaron Swartz died by hanging in his New York apartment after two years of struggle against the US Department of Justice's persecution over his core advocacies. As to whether or not it was a suicide is still in question. Twenty-six-year-old Swartz was a prolific American computer programmer and Internet activist, co-founding Internet systems such as the Rich Site Summary or RSS (which allows users to retrieve select news updates without having to visit many sites), Reddit and Infogami, aside from joining the Harvard University Center for Ethics and co-founding Demand Progress (which campaigns against the Stop Online Piracy Act).

Over two years ago, on Jan. 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by federal authorities for systematically downloading millions of articles from Journal Storage (JSTOR)'s library of academic journals and charged with violating federal hacking laws. JSTOR's practice of compensating corporate publishers, instead of authors, out of the fees it charges for access to such works was, to Swartz, an undue limitation on public access to academic materials produced at American colleges and universities that taxpayers pay for anyway. For doing something that writer Stephen Lendman likens to merely "checking out too many library books at the same time," Swartz was charged with "unauthorized (computer) access" under the Computer and Abuse Act.

The authorities claimed Aaron intended "to distribute material on peer-to-peer networks," which was something that he never did. In July 2011, a Massachusetts grand jury indicted him and was later arraigned in a Boston District Court. With Swartz pleading not guilty to all charges, he was freed on a $100,000 unsecured bond. He faced up to 35 years in prison and a $1-million fine if convicted.

To learn more about Aaron Swartz, let's read some of his own words in his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, where he begins by saying, "Information is power… But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves…
"The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it…

"Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 'I agree,' many say, 'But what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights. They make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — there's nothing we can do to stop them.' But there is something we can, something that's already being done: We can fight back. Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world…

"Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends. But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

"There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture. We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerrilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?" What a stirring clarion call, indeed! But will the Philippine SC heed it?

Sadly, the sanctimonious "Sheep Justice" still quibbles over the alleged need "to regulate certain freedoms that have the potential to inflict harm on others, or infringe on other people's rights" while her fellow sheep justices "baa-baa" about "Internet bullying," when all the harm and bullying are being committed by the oligopolistic corporations and tyrannically corrupt politicians they cavort with!

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 pto 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com, with this week's topic, "City and National Reform Movements;" also visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Just a priest?

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
1/14/2013



A Jesuit priest recently passed away and the mainstream media and members of "civil society" were full of glowing obituaries for him.
When I was a college student, I also had been an innocent admirer of the man since everybody else was. College life in exclusive Catholic schools generated such kind of enthusiasm, in that "elite" students were made to patronize the stage plays produced and conducted by this priest in his exclusive girls' school down in Malate. You were "in" when you could sing lines from his version of Carousel and other Broadway plays and musicals. As he was knighted by mainstream media's celebrities as a "mentor to generations," who would ever question the shining aura of this priest?

Still, there is one facet of this character that should be retold — that of the celebrated rape case against Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith. It began on Nov. 1, 2005 with four US Marines out to have a good time in Olongapo. In the course of their merriment, the four got embroiled in a case that would grip Philippine media for at least five years. It was "People of the Philippines vs Chad Carpentier, Dominic Duplantis, Keith Silkwood and Daniel Smith," in a criminal rape case involving Nicole (not her real name) who accused them of gang rape. Later Nicole zeroed in on Daniel Smith as the rapist (while the rest cheered) in a moving Starex van at Alava Pier in Subic. The US Marines' defense was that the sex was consensual.

That Smith gained "carnal knowledge" (as the narrative quaintly states) of Nicole was beyond any doubt, with the accused claiming "consensual sex." Thus, the tug-of-war for the public's sympathy, bolstered by Nicole's statements, as well as support from militant nationalist women's groups, raged. Throughout that time, the recently deceased Jesuit openly sided with the US Marines and cast offensive aspersions on Filipino nationalism and women's advocates. After countless court hearings, in December 2005, Judge Benjamin Pozon of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 139 found Smith guilty of rape, sentencing him to life imprisonment as the prescribed by law. No American soldier had ever been convicted of raping a Filipino woman until then.

After the conviction, Smith was whisked off to the US Embassy instead of a Philippine jail. From beginning to end, the controversy became all the more explosive in light of the VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement), as it highlighted the abusive and iniquitous treatment the Philippines receives from its "partner," the US of A.
The role of the Jesuit in question is underscored by an article dated Sept. 5, 2006 by noted US journalist Seth Mydans, entitled, "Is he really just a spiritual adviser?" Mydans writes, "Leaning forward in his wheelchair at the front of a courtroom is a small, bald man in a crisply ironed white cassock, his eyes darting from witness to judge to angry lawyer, drawing his own conclusions. 'I think it was seduction,' said the man in the cassock, James Reuter, of the highly charged case…" The declaration, "I think it was seduction," Mydans argues, "(has) a discordant ring in a trial that has been cast by nationalists and women's groups as a symbol of US abuse and exploitation. This was made especially so, Mydans adds, since the priest had "no formal role in the case but has taken it upon himself to be not only a spiritual adviser but also an energetic advocate for the marines."

Mydans thus saw Reuter "gambling away his goodwill," quoting Evalyn Ursua: "I feel pity for Father Reuter… I think he is allowing his position to be used as a propaganda ploy to deodorize the accused. And for that reason alone I have lost all respect for him. Obviously his nationality is a paramount factor…"
Reuter replied, "I'm not doing this because I'm an American," yet immediately countered this by saying, "Now I'm asked by an American. Am I going to say no?'"
In the countless US servicemen's rape cases, I don't recall Reuter ever lifting a finger to help any of the Filipino victims, unlike others like Fr. Shay Cullen. Mentoring "collegialas" is great, but what about poor Filipino women who have to decide between selling their bodies and keeping their souls?

Reuter said of the marines, "They're nice guys, clean cut guys," even though they cheered on Smith. About the nationalist rallies, he said, "They bring a mob." And of Filipinos, he had this to say, "The (Filipino) people… are very prayerful." Then he ended by suddenly including himself into the picture. "Are we poor?" asked Reuter. "Yes we are. Are we getting poorer? Yes we are. How is it going to be getting better? I don't know… It seems a discouraging assessment after nearly 70 years in the Philippines… That doesn't sound like an economic plan, but that's what I think."

Over a century of US domination and 70 years of the Jesuit Reuter teaching the Philippine "elite" to sing and dance to Broadway may well account for why the Philippines, with its leaders aping their colonial overlords, still has no economic plan to speak of.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com, with this week's topic, the "Quezon City Revolution" with Johnny Change of MBQC and Kapatiran;" also visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Friday, January 11, 2013

Drones: A rain of terror

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
1/11/2013



The recent discovery by fishermen off the island of Masbate of a US drone focuses our interest on the drone wars of the US.  Before this latest news of the mysterious US drone, another US drone made the local and international news in February 2012.  Jacob Zenn wrote in Asia Times, entitled "US drones circle over the Philippines" and reported on a drone attack in Mindanao that killed 15 Abu Sayyaf elements, including three most-wanted by the names of Zulkifli bin Hir, Gumbahali Jumdail and Mumanda Ali who are all wanted by the US with prices on their heads amounting from $50,000 to $5 million. The attack highlights the role of the US in the operations of the Philippine military against its targeted enemies, as well as raises the question of who really controls the Philippine military operations.

The Philippine military says the drone found off Masbate does not appear to be a surveillance drone, which we take to mean that no camera of any sort was found on it. Some reports claim it is a BQM-74e Chuka, a model produced by Northrop and used as targets for anti-aircraft shooting practice. I researched the drone photo, it also looks like a Hunter, a small drone used for communications relay or monitoring. It was later reported that the US claimed the drone was used and was lost in a naval war game outside Philippine waters, and drifted into Philippine waters. I don't expect that we'll ever really know the truth as there is no reason for the US to level with the Philippines anyway.

As Jacob Zenn wrote, US drones, with emphasis on the plural, already circle the Philippines and few are aware of them until they crash or kill somebody.
Drones are still strangers to the Filipino's consciousness. We should be thankful for that. In many other countries the impact of constant drone flights cause sleepless days and nights, fill wedding celebrations or community meetings with anxiety in countries experiencing US drone strikes.

US drones have been used extensively by the US the past two decades, from the war in the Balkans and Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan, and probably Syria soon from the late 90s to this day. Today, not only the targeted countries of US military adventures are affected by fear of these terror drones, even US citizens are fearful of drone flights over their own cities and communities, as highlighted by the article by Susanne Posel in Occupy Corporation entitled "Drone Over American skies: Obama is Watching You."

The highly controversial The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by Obama that endorses detention of suspects, even US citizens without charge also "established six national drone test sites where the unmanned planes could fly through civilian air space."  Posel cites congressional representatives' concerns about drones in civilian airspace: "The potential for invasive surveillance of daily activities with drone technology is high."
In February of 2012, Congress demanded the Federal Aviation Administration to create "rules to guide domestic drone flights," which ironically paved the way "for defense and aerospace lobbyists to vie for profits amid the hopes of using drones against American citizens…" from the acquisition of drones by the anti-terror Department of Homeland Security (DHS). People can never really know when drones are already hovering above and targeting them. They fly so high up that people won't know if their conversations are already monitored, pictures taken, e-mails or short message texts recorded, or dive bombing already under way on targets beside innocent peoples' activities and taking them down as "collateral damage." 

That's what drone do to people in Pakistan or Afghanistan — traumatizing communities that never know when their mothers and daughters, brothers and/or grandparents are going to be killed in a wedding rite where suspected Talibans may just happen to be walking by. But the drone masters may also be its ultimate victims, as US studies have shown — drone use is backfiring on the US and Obama, victims of backlash and backfire.

A study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law put the percentage of "high-level" targets killed by US drones in Pakistan at only about 2 percent. From June 2004 through September 2012, various drone strikes killed between 2,562 to 3,325 people in Pakistan. The most evil part of the US drone war led by the CIA, is the "double-striking…. moments after the initial hit" killing those extending help. One Pakistani is quoted, "Before this we were all very happy… But after these drones attack a lot of people … have lost members … family. A lot of them, they have mental illnesses."

Drone uses desensitize war and killing, making it a video game for the US war machine and soldiers. With its drones, the US wages a reign and a rain of terror over the World.

(Tune to 1098AM, 5 to 6 p.m. Tuesday to Friday; Watch GNN Ch. 8, Saturday, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and at www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Gun Ban"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. and visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)