Horace Mann Review
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Horace Mann Review
Issue II, Vol. XVII
15 Replacing the Guilty
35 What American Justice
with the Innocent: Accesorial Liability Laws By Spencer Penn
has Become: The Review Interviews Ellen Alonso-Lubell, Constitutional Rights Lawyer and Guantanamo Bay Expert
29 Navigating the Barbary
Treaties: Diving into the Past to Uncover Treasure for the Upcoming Election By Dan Temel
37 Drugs In Literature: The Review Interviews Author Don Winslow
33 Genocide Beijing 2008 By Nancy DaSilva
21 Driven To Failure: Victor Ladd investigates Governor Spitzer’s immigrant license plan and the impact it would have had on the immigrants of the state.
5 A PATRIOT Decon-
structed: USA Patriot Act By Will Dubbs
7 IP: Private or Not? By Aradhna Agarwal
9 They’re Watching:
Security Cameras Dot Major Cities, including NYC By James Yaro
19 A Journalist’s Shield: Federal Shield Law By Belle Yoeli
Features: Privacy 11 Zooming into Google Earth:
24 Forgotten Principles:
2008 Presidential Candidates Forget the Constitution in the Name of “Your Security” By Justin Katiraei
With Google Earth we can now view the world with the click of a mouse. Jason Sunshine explains why the privacy concerns have been overstated.
This article is about this and this. It’s really interesting, so you should probably read it. The Horace Mann Review.
25 Now You See Me Now 3 Disclosed Privacy: Nick Herzeca
explores Facebook social ads which provide companies with users’ personal information to be used for advertising campaigns. Also, facebook privacy has become a hot topic at Horace Mann.
You Don’t: the State of the Witness Protection Program By Dan Shapiro
27 Air Strip One: Limitations on Privacy in Airport Security Technology By Sonja Perl
31 Decrypting Cryptography: Online Privacy By Katie Dubbs
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy
Letter From the Editor Dear Reader,
The Horace Mann Review Volume XVII , Issue 2
A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture Kunal Malkani Editor-in-Chief
Lindsay Gellman Editorial Director
Tal Shachar Production Manager
Jake Sloane Managing Director
Rachel Siegel Copy Chief
Neal Poole Director of Technology
Ted Sumers Photography Editor
Dexter Richard Webmaster Ben Jacobson Kimya Zahedi Senior Columnist
William Kim Production Assistant
Thomas Hwang Venkat Kausik Alice Kissilenko Zach Malter Ben Mishkin Senior Editor
Charles Stam Anoushka Vaswani Chairpeople of the Board Associate Editors Will Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Spencer Penn, Rumur Dowling, Nancy DaSilva, Nick Herzeca, Dan Temel, Jason Sunshine Contributing Writers Nick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Eliza Harkins, Nancy DaSilva, Will Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Jason Sunshine, Victor Ladd, Sonja Perl, Aradhna Agarwal, Miguel Alonso-Lubell, Dan Shapiro, Justin Katiraei, James Yaro, Belle Yoeli Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio and Dr. Barbara Tischler TheReview@horacemann.org The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at TheReview@horacemann. org. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.
Welcome to the second issue of The Horace Mann Review. We are extremely pleased with the welcome our first issue received, and we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions from our readers. We are also happy to announce that the National Scholastic Press Association just awarded The Review All-American Status with Five Marks of Distinction, their highest possible award, in recognition of the great dedication of our writers and editors. Needless to say, we Editorial Directors are extremely proud of the work of our staff. When picking the topic for our second issue, we wanted something that was timely and relevant, nationally and internationally, but also an issue would resonate with Horace Mann students. In light of facebook’s new, more intrusive advertising system, the spread of security cameras in the name of security, and the concerns about the safety of information online, we decided to focus on privacy. How can we assess whether concerns of security or the desire for advertisement-supported services are worth a loss in confidentiality? How much is our privacy worth? What information is currently private, and where are the next threats to our privacy? Our staff of talented writers has delved into the topic to produce insight on a number of issues. Will Dubbs deconstructs the PATRIOT Act by examining specific sections that grant new surveillance authority to the government in the name of security. James Yaro looks at the explosion in the use of CCTV cameras in major cities around the world, and in private institutions like Horace Mann. Other articles also address other aspects of the shifting understanding between what information is truly private, and what should be sacrificed in the name of peace of mind and profit. The issue also includes a number of articles outside of the central theme. Victor Ladd looks at the controversy surrounding Eliot Spitzer’s now defunct plan to provide driver licenses to illegal immigrants. Dan Temel looks back to the Barbary Treaties for the foundation of our relations with the Arab world, and for one of the first examples of a young America exercising power internationally. The issue also features two interviews, one with the author Don Winslow, who wrote a best-selling novel about the drug trade. The second is with Ellen Alonso-Lubell, a constitutional rights lawyer representing a prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay. On behalf of the entire staff, thank you for picking up a copy of this issue. Please let us know what you think. Sincerely,
Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is pleased to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. Email us at TheReview@horacemann.org for information. Thank you for your support.
© 2008, The Horace Mann Review
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
How facebook is Transgressing Users’ Privacy Rights
he social networking site Facebook recently announced the introduction of a new marketing tactic called social ads. These ads are profile pages paid for and created by patronizing organizations or individuals. The implementation of social ads, allows a Facebook user to associate with his or herself with a product or corporation as well as throw their support towards an
“New technological advances are now allowing companies to target their ads to people based on information listed on users’ Facebook profiles.” individual, such as a presidential candidate. Facebook has partnered with 60 companies which have created over 100,000 social ad pages. Despite the advantages posed by social ads, many hold the belief that they violate the personal privacy rights of Facebook users. Social ads take advantage of Facebook’s most successful tool for the spread of information: the news feed. The news feed informs a Facebook user of his or her friends’ recent online activity. A general news feed might include information such as the addition of friends, the joining of groups, and the changing of profiles. With the creation of social ads, affiliations will also be included in the news feed. For example, if a friend joins the Coca-Cola page, a picture of your friend with the words, “John Doe is a fan of CocaCola” could be found on your news feed. The software program Beacon, the founder of the social ads, also transmits information about recent purchases to a user’s friends through the news feed. Facebook has made advertising arrangements with numerous companies such as Fandango.com, Overstock.com and Travelocity.com. Social ads are very attractive advertising options for companies because they allow the targeted promotion of products to a consumer market of approximately 50 million people. New technological advances are now allowing websites such as Facebook to broadcast, a given user’s recent purchase information. Users who are connected with a product or company are used as spokespeople for that commodity or business. CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg claimed in The New York Times
that “Nothing influences a person more than the recommendation of a trusted friend.” Zuckerberg’s rationale for social ads is that they could help products become part of daily conversation and be thrust into the public eye. Although Facebook is not actually selling information about its users, the site is using the forces of peer influence to promote the sales of a product. Facebook will allow advertisers to tap the vast powers of peer pressure. Additionally, companies can target their ads at people based on information listed on users’ profiles, such as specific interests, locations, political views, favorite media, education, and relationship status. Companies are utilizing this available goldmine of consumer interests to provide users with targeted ads. Although social ads, as well as ad targeting, may be a brilliant idea for generating revenue, they also generate significant privacy concerns. Many feel that Facebook is overstepping its boundaries in assuming that a person’s purchasing a product, means he or she consents to being used in its advertisement. Such an assumption is often times wrong. The use of a person’s name in an advertisement without that person’s consent, some feel, violates that individual’s personal privacy. Many users do not fully understand exactly what they are agreeing to when they check the Facebook general terms and conditions. It is wrong to assume that because a user visits a website
“In order to maintain Facebook’s recent success, Zuckerberg must listen to user opinion in order to keep it user friendly and not overly commercialized.” or rates a product highly that the user wants to be featured in an ad for that product. There has been an outcry among Facebook users about the lack of an explicit mechanism for users to opt-out of Beacon ads. There have been petitions, most sponsored by the liberal advocacy organization MoveOn.org, signed by over 60,000 people urging Facebook to accommodate users who are opposed to Beacon. Since then, Facebook has twice attempted to make the opt-out mechanism more visible, but some users still are
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy not satisfied. Many users feel that Facebook is currently violating their personal privacy by revealing their purchases. For example, people could be exposed as having embarrassing medical conditions or socially embarrassing partialities. In addition to the privacy concern as reported by The New
“Many users do not fully understand what they are agreeing to when checking the Facebook general terms and conditions that are actually hyperlinked to fine print.” York Times, William McGeveran, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, believes that social ads are illegal. The New York Consolidated Privacy Statute states that “any person whose name, portrait, picture, or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained” can sue for damages. The definition of written consent and the age at which a person can yield his or her own consent have recently been the focus of much controversy. Arguably, this statute could apply to an ad using a person’s name displayed on a computer screen if his or her consent is not given. New York’s Attorney General could take action against Facebook. Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General has taken Facebook to court for failing to properly protect minors using the site. As reported in the New York Times, Chris Kelly, the chief privacy officer of Facebook, believes the New York law doesn’t apply to the new social ads. Mr. Kelly noted that the advertisements are simply a “representation” of the action users have taken: choosing to link themselves to a product. He added that in many states, consenting to something online is now seen as the equivalent of written consent. Social ads have recently made large strides in the realm of online advertising. They give businesses the ability to tap into a huge network of people and use the Facebook friend system to create product endorsements. Privacy issues regarding user consent could potentially generate anti-Facebook sentiment. Moreover, Facebook could lose popularity with a new saturated flood of advertising. Zuckerberg must be wary of the many privacy laws currently instated before expanding on the concept of social ads. If Facebook begins to sell email lists of users to companies who cater to individuals’ interests, many Facebook users may deactivate their profiles. Such means of advertising would further infringe upon the personal privacy of Facebook users. What Zuckerberg must remember is that these social ads are not finished products. In order to maintain Facebook’s recent success, Zuckerberg must pay attention to users opinions, including the petitions regarding Beacon, and continuously reevaluate Facebook in order to keep it user friendly and not overly commercialized.
.. at HM Drizzler
Horace Mann students, faculty members, and administrators have already encountered privacy issues concerning Facebook. A situation arose last year when a few members of the Horace Mann student body wrote disparaging and inflammatory remarks about faculty members on Facebook. When these comments were discovered, a school wide debate ensued over the appropriateness of Horace Mann’s involvement in the online activities of its students. Issues were raised about students’ freedom of speech outside of Horace Mann and their representation of the school on the Internet. In the last year, there have been two assemblies at Horace Mann regarding students’ online activities. In these assemblies, the faculty and administration urged students to be cautious in their online discussions and to be aware that when they are using a Horace Mann email account they are representing the school and are held accountable for what they say. The Horace Mann School Family Handbook states that anyone using the Internet off campus is “subject to school policy and discipline.” Students have also been reminded students that anything written on the Internet is publicly available and can be viewed by anyone. Some students reacted in outrage over what they perceived as an attempt by Horace Mann to monitor and censor their online activity. “I believe that it is unnecessary and wrong for the faculty to try and control what we say outside of school. They are going out of their way to deny our freedom of speech,” said Zach Bernstein (10). Other students felt that it was vital to inform students that they need to be wary about what is said online. “I think the school should address this issue because although most students know the risks of having a Facebook account, these safeguards must be addressed through assemblies,” stated Brenton Arnaboldi (10). The differing opinions among the student body generated heated debate and spirited classroom discussions concerning Facebook at Horace Mann. As a result of the Facebook incident, some students deactivated their Facebook accounts or removed themselves from certain Facebook groups. The incident clearly had a chilling effect on the online activities of the Horace Mann community and many students became more cautious about what they say online.
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
A PATRIOT Deconstructed By Will Dubbs
When the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 was signed, Congress was asked to produce legislation that would, according to Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah, “provide our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they needed to wage war on the terrorists and protect the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.” The bill was passed 99-1. The only exception was Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, and Democrats and Republicans believed that they had, according to Hatch, “developed bipartisan consensus legislation that would accomplish both goals.” As we look back in the year 2007, a deconstruction of the USA PATRIOT act reveals that Americans’ individual rights may have been ignored. Section 201: Gives authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Pro: One of the most controversial sections of
the USA PATRIOT act, Section 201 authorizes the use of “wiretapping.” Under section 203 wiretapping information can be shared during a Federal Grand Jury investigation as well. Wiretapping is for the most part confidential, and its effects are difficult to determine. PATRIOT act critics have pointed out that the wiretapping is approved by a “secret” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. However, a recent article in the 2006 Harvard Political Review points out that only the executive branch has the Constitutional authority over all matters concerning war and national security. The article went on to point out that “President Clinton’s deputy attorney general stated the standard view from all administrations when she testified that ‘the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes.’”
Con: When the USA PATRIOT Act was about
to be passed in October 2001, Barack Obama (D) said that the act ignored the safeguards and checks needed to protect innocent Americans from excessive surveillance. Obama and other democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, called for the Senate to expand upon the civil liberties protections in the Act before considering it. A recent broadcast by National Public Radio (NPR) mentioned that previously, “investigators had to show that the ‘primary purpose’ of the [wiretapping] was to gather foreign intelligence; the Patriot Act lowered that requirement to a ‘significant purpose.’” The broadcast continued to argue that “investigators will too easily use spying and terrorism as an excuse for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches. Now, the number of intelligence wiretaps exceeds the number of criminal taps.”
National Public Radio concluded that “since these probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, abuses could be difficult to uncover.” The public does not even know if there are breaches of innocent Americans’ civil liberties. The important fact is that the USA PATRIOT act allows for a breach to happen. Thus, I agree with the solution proposed by NPR which would “require that the Justice Department release more information about foreign intelligence investigations” so that Americans will know if the government is abusing the civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Constitution Page 5
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy Section 215: The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Pro: Supporters have argued that authorities
need to use every method possible to make sure that terrorists do not follow through with their plans. They feel it is better to infringe upon civil liberties than to suffer a terrorist attack. Senator Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, supporting the PATRIOT Act, notes that “rather than serving as a menace to law-abiding citizens, the Act is credited with aiding a sting operation that apprehended alleged Islamic terrorists at a hotel in Germany, for example, as well as assisting the dismantling of alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle and Portland.” To combat the accusations that the Justice Department is looking into an average American’s personal life, the Justice Department has released statistics that showed that the government has never looked at something as personal as one’s library record. Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah also pointed out that Congress has held around 24 hearings on PATRIOT Act abuses, none of which has been able to document an instance of abuse.
Con: This section of deals with the investigation
of “intangible things,” which can range from medical records to credit ratings to library records, for the sake of protection against terrorism. Opposition to this section, led by Senators such as Russ Feingold (D), has pointed out that the section is not very specific and leaves room for interpretation. For example, the Act allows the FBI access to any record. Senator Feingold said that his concerns “go beyond library and bookseller records.” Feingold explains that such records as those kept by doctors, hospitals, or credit agencies may contain sensitive personal information. “All the FBI would have to do is assert that the records are ‘sought for’ a terrorism investigation” and the records would be confiscated. Senator Hillary Clinton adds that this is an extremely lenient standard, one that for the first time gives the government almost unchecked access to the sensitive personal information of innocent Americans.
Once again, Americans are faced with the same dilemma. The Justice Department insists that it has not violated any personal rights, but it definitely could if deemed necessary. Although the USA PATRIOT Act has the potential to eliminate all privacy, there has been no evidence of a breach as of yet. Another “sunset” clause added to this section would temporarily solve this dilemma by requesting that Congress revisit this section in another three to four years. Even then, Americans will have choose: either let the government search the innocent American or prevent the government from catching the guilty terrorist. Page Page 6 6
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
By Aradhna Agarwal
he average American teenager spends more than 25 hours a week online, the majority of which is spent on social-networking communities such as Facebook, MySpace, Instant Messenger, and LiveJournal. How would you feel if everything that you did in these communities was being watched, recorded, and saved, so that someone could track not only your activities on those specific websites, but all your internet activity? This is not only a reality, but something that is done by every single website that you visit
“Alone, an IP is just a dotted decimal number; what you do with it and how others use it makes this an issue of privacy.”
College of M issouri
information. Your ISP is what traces all of your internet activity even if your IP address changes. However, this information is confidential business information which is normally only revealed for legal reasons. No matter what, however, someone knows it, and the only thing keeping it from being revealed is the ISP’s lack of willingness to do so. “It is absolutely unbelievable,” Paul Stephens, policy analyst with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, told the E-Commerce Times. “It is certainly frightening to think that when you go online and visit a Web site anonymously and in an entirely legal fashion -- just reading a news article -- that subsequently your IP address might be revealed [by your ISP] to law enforcement.” Most major website corporations do not consider an IP address to be personally identifiable information. Your IP address is vital to their function. For this reason, they consider their server logs (a record of everything you do on their site) separate from your personal information. Alone, an IP address is just a dotted decimal number; however, what you do with that IP
on the internet by recording Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. An IP address is defined as the unique address that electronic devices use to identify and communicate with one another on a computer network space. In Layman’s terms, an IP address is the address or identifier of your computer (very similar to your phone number or your street address) that allows you to use the internet. Just as a street address or a phone number uniquely identifies a house or a telephone, an IP address can identify a specific computer. IP addresses are indispensable components in accessing the internet. Without them, it would be impossible to do so. For example, every time you visit a webpage there is a simple exchange of information between the website’s IP address and your own. Because IP addresses are crucial to internet access, they are also easily available to any remote computer that you directly or indirectly interact with. The critical question in all of this is what kind of private information can be gained by an IP address and where IP addresses come from. IP addresses come from your ISP (Internet Service Provider). Your ISP provides the IP address and therefore access to the internet. Your ISP contains information about who you are and can correlate the IP address given to you with your account information. Your name, physical home address, phone number, and other billing information are also a part of your ISP account
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy and how that IP is used by others make this an issue of privacy. Privacy is not only limited to directly personal information but also to your actions on the internet – the web pages that you visit, the information that you enter into websites. Amazon is one of the corporations that doesn’t consider your IP address to be personal information; yet, whenever you buy a product from Amazon you provide your name, your credit card number, and your street address. Amazon is not the only internet corporation recording your IP address; any advertiser on the page is as well. Amazon ex-
“Just as a street address or a phone number identifies a house or a telephone, an IP address identifies a specific computer.”
“It is frightening to think that when you go online anonymously and in a legal fashion, subsequently your IP address might be revealed to law enforcement.” known as the World Wide Web. There are ways in which you can hide your IP address (which you can find out by contacting your ISP), but even by doing this you are not truly hiding your internet identity, because no matter what – someone is tracking your whereabouts and actions on the internet. It’s an inevitable reality that is essential to the knowledge of any individual who uses the internet. “The internet,” says a member of the Curious Computer Exploitation Society, “is not as private as people like to believe.”
Advertisers, spammers, hackers, identity thieves, and government agencies routinely collect and use IP addresses to find names, street addresses, and other personal information. Most hackers use IP addresses to monitor your personal business. Your home address and other personal information can be retrieved once your IP address is known. “[Hackers are] targeting anything with an IP address, such as routers, printers, network-attached storage units, wireless access points and backup appliances,” says James E. Gaskin of Network world. “Their motto is simple: have IP address, hack IP address.” A hacker needs your IP address in order to hack your computer because it is what connects you to him. Your IP address not only tells him the location of your ISP (or in some cases, your home), but the configuration of your Operating System and web browser allowing them to narrow down what viruses and other malicious programs can harm your computer. Don’t go ahead and try to figure out how to remove your IP address! An IP address, as stated before, is crucial to your use of the internet. It allows you to talk to and communicate with your friends and conduct research and a variety of other things that would otherwise be impossible to do. There is really no other alternative to an IP address because they are the fundamental building blocks of the internet. They are the threads that connect to form the network
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
They’re Watching Security Cameras Dot Major Cities, including NYC By James Yaro
n June 29th, 2007, terrorists attempted to surveillance before, during, and after the attack may deter the terset off two car bombs in London. By July 3rd rorist. Working with license plate readers connected to informapolice had apprehended two suspects. This tion databases, security cameras can easily chart the progress of a swift reaction resulted from the use of sur- vehicle throughout a city, allowing for shorter investigations, quicker veillance camera footage. Law enforcement arrests, and earlier sentencing. Private cameras also reduce the inis hard-pressed to keep up with terrorists, and as a result, security stallation and maintenance costs of these vast security networks. cameras have been introduced Since the London government was first permitted to by various nations to stop use the private sector cameras, the these criminals before coverage provided by the camthey cause harm. Neteras increased about fivefold. works consisting of Even dummy cameras hundreds of these are effective in deterring cameras, such as the crime. It is essentially imRing of Steel in Lonpossible to tell the differdon, have been shown ence between real and fake to be effective at procameras. The use of a small hibiting terrorist attacks or number of dummy cameras intercatching terrorists soon after spersed among the real cameras they kill innocent civilians. could be an effective tool to help By linking private and maintain the illusion that the terrorgovernmental security camist is constantly under surveillance eras, governments may create while decreasing the cost of running an all-seeing eye to combat terthe camera. A terrorist may not take rorism and crime. Yet, there is a the chance that the camera is fake and downside to the use of security camtherefore may not commit the crime. eras. Although cameras may deter Nonetheless, while the facts resome terrorists, they still may not offgarding deterrence are indisputable, the set the drive to kill, destroy, or rob. In costs to society that arise with widespread addition, the widespread use of cameras surveillance are much greater than the benefit raises fundamental privacy issues, primarprovided by blanket security. While cameras may ily the blanket monitoring of civilians, or the be useful in deterring some terrorists and later identiuse of cameras ubiquitously regardless of perceived a fying criminals, it is almost impossible to catch someone threat or likelihood of attack. Critics have lambasted in the act of terrorist activity through the use of surveiland attacked a planned Ring of Steel in New York City. lance cameras. “I don’t know of a single incident where The deterrence of future attacks is the most CCTV [camera surveillance] has actually been used to important advantage of camera security throughout spot, apprehend, or detain offenders in the act,” said Steve the world. In London alone, 102,910 businesses, or Swain, a former officer specializing in counter-terrorism 41% of all commercial operations, operate a total of operations for the Metropolitan Police in London. 421,000 private cameras. When these private camFor obvious reasons, security cameras have little eras are used in conjunction with 80,000 government effect on suicide bombers: “The presence of CCTV is cameras, there is almost no public place where a civilirrelevant for those who want to sacrifice their lives to ian is not under the eye of a surveillance camera. The carry out a terrorist act,” Swain said. The use of illegal www.iraqwatch.org knowledge that he or she is going to be under constant private sector cameras in security camera networks
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy is also a problem in the pursuit of terrorists. Using London as an example, 47% of the cameras in Putney High Street were illegally installed, according to the rules laid out by the Data Protection Act of 2000. The evidence provided by these cameras could not be used in court. While the large number of private sector surveillance cameras is helpful in deterring crime, when attempting to catch a terrorist in the act, a large number of cameras can be a disadvantage. It is harder to find real problems when there are so many cameras recording all of human activity of one city or region; it is akin to finding a needle in an ever-increasing haystack. The proliferation of video evidence slows down the process of investigating and arresting of terrorists. The video surveillance plan for Lower Manhattan, called the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative (LMSI) provides for the creation of a system of cameras similar to that of the Ring of Steel in London. When completed, the project will consist of license plate readers, 3,000 cameras below Canal Street, moveable roadblocks, the possible use of face-recognition software, and a command center staffed by the New York Police Department. The project will cost around $90 million, $15 million of which will come from the municipal government, and an additional $10 million from the federal Department of Homeland Security. Authorities hope that the remaining $65 million will also come from the federal government. One hundred and sixteen license plate readers to be placed in mobile and static locations have been ordered. The 3,000 cameras, many of which will be owned by the private sector, will be more advanced than the 250 cameras already installed in New York City. These cameras will be able to transmit live information for instant viewing, unlike the older cameras, which require downloading of information. The system will be able to send out alerts in various instances, for example a bag left unattended for too long. The use of roadblocks has been considered as a method of actually catching terrorists in the act. These gates would stop traffic at strategic intersections throughout the city. This proposed network has incurred the ire of many groups
throughout the New York City area. Along with universal practical concerns, a major problem with the proposed plan is that it infringes upon civil liberties, an issue especially near to the hearts of Americans. Many groups argue that such a plan would compromise the privacy rights of civilians. A statement issued by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) on July 9th states that “[This] plan is a major step towards blanket police monitoring of law-abiding New Yorkers, and it could lead us down a path toward a total surveillance society.” This statement exemplifies the feeling of many opponents to the LMSI, who feel that such a plan would pry too far into the lives of innocent civilians. The proposed plan includes a center staffed by police and private security. The idea that a police officer has the right to examine a person as he or she travels throughout the area covered by the LMSI is one many find to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The overseers of the LMSI plan would argue that the ability to track terrorists is an advantage of the close security proposed by the plan. However, the terrorist has a simple way of dealing with this close surveillance, through the use of hooded sweatshirts, as is often the case of Britain. Therefore, the ability to track a civilian as he or she moves around the streets allows police officers to spy on civilians, and does not make the tracking of terrorists easier. It is absolutely crucial to prevent the installation of surveillance camera networks such as the LMSI in order to protect our freedom. The same blanket coverage that helps to deter ill-intentioned terrorists is also an invasion of the privacy of innocent civilians. Should law-abiding citizens be entered into an NYPD database as if they were common criminals? These cameras trample all over the civil liberties of the individual. The creation of plans similar to the LMSI could be a step towards the development of a Big Brother society. With total blanket coverage, the government could easily and almost imperceptibly change the use of surveillance from terrorism prevention to civilian observation. www.johnseiler.com
CCTV Keep an Eye on Horace Mann
ecurity cameras watch over Horace Mann students, faculty and staff from a wide range of vantage points. There are several overlooking Clark Field, around the perimeter of the campus, and in many of the hallways. These cameras do in fact serve a purpose: they protect the Horace Mann community from preventable threats. These cameras are imperative to ensuring our ability to learn in a school environment. The Security Department is always monitoring the CCTV screens in the Olshan Lobby Security Desk. Though the cameras serve a critical role, there are several flaws in the system that pose a threat to our security and privacy. The cameras do not have audio capabilities; those monitoring cannot hear what potential trespassers or other criminals are saying, or whether or not they are revealing any information that could be useful in a criminal investigation. The cameras are also in locations that do not seem to be places crucial to the school’s overall security, namely, near the bathrooms in the basement. However the school intends to use the information gained from these cameras, one thing is clear: they
are not related to the activities of intruders but rather to those of students, legal or illegal. The school must be careful in its use of security cameras. Cutting back on cameras where they are not necessary must be a priority for the privacy of students and would help to foster a trusting educational environment.
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
By Jason Sunshine
With Google Earth, we can now vew the entire world with just a click of the mouse. But some critics say that’s the problem. Jason Sunshine zooms in on why Google Earth doesn’t jeopardize our security.
oogle Earth, created by Keyhole Incorporated, allows users to view virtually any location on earth using satellite technology. It makes our already small world even smaller. This technology has created controversy, with some claiming that Google Earth jeopardizes the privacy of individuals. In addition, some governments have expressed concern that public access
to satellite images that reveal government buildings, military bases, and nuclear reactors presents a risk to their country’s security. However, despite the criticisms, Google Earth is beneficial to society. The program is not nearly detailed enough to pose a privacy or security threat; rather, it helps unite people from all over the world and garner interest in important global issues. Google Earth plays an important role in educating the public about world issues.
Google Earth has become home to human rights initiatives that allow all of the world’s internet users to see world atroci-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy
Earth Google Headquarters: Googleplex Campus
Purposely Burred Image of Royal Stables in the Hague, Netherlands
ties firsth a n d . Two programs, “Crisis in Darfur” and “Google Earth on the Holocaust,” implement Google Earth to doc-
ument the locations of human rights violations. “Crisis in Darfur” showcases the extreme destitution in the region, while “Google Earth on the Holocaust” presents the sites of concentration camps used in World War II. The initiatives provide links from the sites to related testimony, articles, photographs, and film footage. Notable activists, such as Sara Bloomfield, director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., have supported the use
of Google Earth to document those past and present atrocities. Elliot Schrage, a Google vice president, has also supported addressing important global issues through Google: “At Google, we believe technology can be a catalyst for education and action.” Initiatives like these make the Internet a useful tool, giving people the ability to combat tragedies taking place all over the world. While residents of the U.S. might be concerned about their privacy being “infringed upon,” it is
Left: www.nationalgeographic.com Right: MFK
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Left; the Pentagon seen from Google Earth. Some people have expressed concern that Google Earth will facilitate terrorist attacks. Right, the Isles of Scilly. Proponents of Google Earth note that its images are not high enough quality to be useful to terrorists.
At HM Fischer Hall/Prettyman Gymnasium
Tillinghast Hall/Clark Field
doubtful that residents of Darfur are telling people to “mind their own business.” The main argument made by opponents of Google Earth is that giving terrorists an aerial view of power plants, military sites, government buildings, and other targets of interest may lead to increased likelihood of attack. However, because of the sufficiently low resolution of images and lack of a timestamp, they do not provide any advantage to terrorists that a simple internet search or trip to a local library would not have provided. As a Google spokesman said, “Google Earth is built from information that is already available from both commercial and public sources.” A British newspaper, “The Guardian,” published a story in October 2007 reporting that Palestinian militants use Google Earth to help
‘“Google Earth is built from information that is already available from both commercial and public sources.’” find targets for rocket attacks. “We obtain the details from Google Earth and check them against our maps of the city center and sensitive areas,” said Khaled Jaabari, also known as Abu Walid, a terrorist commander operating in Gaza. Although the terror-
ists may review the information presented in Google Earth, the blurred-out, outdated images have little utility for terrorists. Google has also shown a willingness to comply with the demands of national governments. When Indian President A.P.J
“As long as images of concern are blurred or distorted, no problems will result from their availability.” Abdul Kalam expressed concern over “sensitive areas clearly marked on Google Earth,” Google willingly removed the images President Kalam was concerned about. Currently, Google Earth gives the public the ability to view the South Korean presidential mansion and sensitive military facilities, including restricted air force bases and naval ports. “The service could pose a great security threat to the country, which is still technically at war with North Korea,” said a South Korean Foreign Minister. For this reason, Google is beginning discussions with the government of South Korea regarding how to deal with the issue, and it is very likely that the images of concern will be distorted. Google does not affect global diplomacy or international politics; as long as the images of concern are blurred or distorted, no prob-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy we give respective governments the monumental power of choosing what is fit for their citizens’ eyes. The limits of regulation can be difficult to define. First commercial satellites are banned…next, newspaper ar-
“Information must be available to the public if we have any hopes of maintaining the liberties we hold sacred. “ ticles are regulated…and next, individuals have simply lost their personal liberties. Information must continue to be available to the public if we have any hopes of main-
lem should result from their availability. Personal privacy is a pertinent issue both in the fight for and against Google Earth. Especially in metropolises, the resolution of the satellite images is quite high, and as a result, people can be seen in some images. A new feature to Google Maps, Google Street View, gives users the ability to travel through the streets of select cities in the U.S., and people are often viewed in plain sight. However, the images are, like all of the close-up images Google offers, low quality and as such cannot be used for nefarious purposes. While in theory it is scary to have an “eye in the sky” watching over the entire world, images obtained from the Google Earth satellites do not threaten the secu-
Google Street View, a feature of Google Maps, enables users to virtually navigate through city streets via pictures taken by Google cars. The feature as of now only documents American cities, although an Australian version is expected to be released in 2008. While Google has announced some plans to implmient Street View in Canada, some governmental officials there have brought up privacy concerns. In addition, Google Street View would be illegal in some European countries where people cannot be filmed on public property for public display without their consent. Google has also delayed releasing images in Washington D.C. due to security issues. Google Street View has gained a following online as people have established collections of notable images found on Street View. In almost all cases, a popular Street View snapshot is the result of either camera error or people put in compromising situations. Two well-known Google Streets Images, pictured below, are (top) “ET”/”Alien Laser Beam” and (bottom) “Headless.”
The facility pictured was a Navy barracks revealed to be in the shape of a swastika through the use of Google Earth and other satellite imaging programs. The uproar over the image’s design resulted in a construction plan to change the building’s appearance.
rity of military bases more than any map does, and the images are of too low quality to compromise an individual’s privacy.
By allowing the government to regulate an individual’s use of Google Earth,
“The images on Google Earth are not nearly detailed enough to jeopardize an individual’s safety or privacy.”
taining any of the liberties we hold sacred. People are, understandably, concerned about their privacy being infringed upon and their security being jeopardized, but Google Earth does not have the potential to cause significant harm. If our government is threatened by terrorists’ having blurry, out-dated images of government facilities, that says more about our government’s ability to keep us safe than anything else. Perhaps Google will usher in a new age in which governments are more conscious of what they hide, and citizens are more aware of the world around them.
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Replacing the Guilty How Felony Murder and Accessorial Liability Laws are Imprisoning the Innocent By Spencer Penn
renda Prather is currently serving a 40-yearto-life prison sentence for handing a piece of aluminum foil to her husband. Unbeknownst to Brenda, the foil was used in the packaging of drugs that were sold to two undercover New York State police investigators. Under accessorial liability laws, Brenda was sentenced to 40-years-to-life in prison as an accessory to her husband’s illegal drug endeavors. Accessorial liability and felony murder are two outdated laws that inflate sentences for minor crimes and, for the general wellbeing of
theAmericanpeople,mustbereformedordecommissioned.These laws infringe upon the sacrosanct principle of individual freedom. Originally, accessorial liability laws were founded on sound principles. The idea was that if a person is directly and knowingly playing an irreplaceable function in an illegal operation, he or she should be tried with harsh penalties for enabling the crime. In some cases, accessorial liability laws are effective in prosecuting integral participants in a crime. However, the laws oftentimes unduly chastise those whose marginal action aids others in the commission of a crime or in the prevention of detection. Moreover, many accessories abet the criminals unknowingly and unintentionally. The fact that the laws are often effective, or even mostly effective, is not close to sufficient. Accessories to crimes are tried with the sentences equal to that of the perpetrator. This is unjust in many cases, as it was with Brenda Prather’s. People who have little involvement in a crime should receive minimal sentences; Brenda’s commonplace action should not have earned her a potential life sentence. According to American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Legislative Counsel Jesselyn McCurdy, accessorial liability laws “disproportionately hurt those whose only crime was to be in the
Guilty: Pablo Escobar was an infamous Colombian Drug Lord. At one point the power and political influence of his illegal drug cartel was greater than that of the Colombian Government. While current Accessorial Liability Laws are ineffective in protecting the innocent, they are designed partially to prosecute largescale drug-lords, such as Escobar.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Domestic
With the Innocent wrong place at the wrong time.” In a recent ACLU study of accessorial liability with regard to drug policies, it was discovered that accessorial liability has a particular adverse effect on women. There is a specific genre of criminal that is labeled a “drug steerer.” A drug steerer is a person (typically a girlfriend or wife) who peripherally aids a drug operation. According to the ACLU, “In many cases their role is limited to answering telephones.” Often times the exchange between a steerer and client is nothing more than a client calling the house of a dealer and the dealer’s girlfriend picking up the phone. The client asks where her boyfriend is; she tells him and her involvement ends there. It is extremely unjust that such steerers are allotted sentences even close to those of the perpetrators, seeing as their “illegal” actions are in fact routine and seemingly legal. One victim to accessorial liability laws is Leah Bundy, an upstanding citizen who was regrettably dating a man who was involved in the drug trade. Leah was completely uninvolved in, but aware of, her boyfriend’s business. Because of accessorial liability laws, subsequent to a raid of the boyfriend’s apartment, Leah was charged with possession of illegal weapons and various narcotics. At the age of only 21, Leah was given a sentence of 15-years-to-life in prison. It is unjust that people such as Leah are serving life sentences for little to no involvement in a crime. In the eyes of the ACLU, Leah did not actually commit a crime. Her failing to turn her boyfriend into the authorities is not a wrongdoing worthy of potentially serving life in prison. In a 1997 review by the Minneapolis Star Tribune of over 60,000 federal drug cases, it was discovered that the drug steerers, or accessories, generally received longer sentences than their husbands. Men, who often times have larger involvement in the drug operation, are significantly more likely than women to offer the prosecutors evidence against other members of the drug organization in order to reduce their sentences. So it is because men are generally largely involved and play a major role in the illegal operation that they have
the information capable of decreasing their punishment. On the other hand, “The study concluded that…women, as minor players in the trade, lack information useful to prosecutors,” and while minor drug steerers receive sentences equivalent to those of the leaders, but without reduction. By allotting sentences or punishments grossly disproportionately to the crimes being committed, current accessorial liability laws are violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Accessorial liability is an infringement on a foundational value of America, independence. These laws make people’s sentences, convictions, and lives dependant on others’ actions. There is never any case in which one person should be held legally accountable for his or her spouse’s, boyfriend’s, or anyone else’s actions. The logic behind our crime and punishment system is that wrongdoings should be punished proportionally. Allowing for innocent people to receive outrageous punishments undermines the foundations of our legal system. The fact that a vast number of innocent people are punished under accessorial liability laws demonstrates that the laws are flawed in practice and are in need of radical reform. There is
Rocky Mountain News
Innocent: Lisl Auman was an innocent victim of Accessorial Liability Laws, which make felons guilty for murders they do not commit. Auman was in police custody when an accomplice of hers murdered a police officer. However, she was tried and sentenced to first degree murder for her friend’s crime under these laws. Page 16
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII sentences. Yet, this important action would still allow for the continued application of mandatory minimums toward perpetrators. The felony murder doctrine is a law that should not be revised but rather must be removed on the whole. This rule states that if a death occurs during the commission of certain felonies, all perpetrators are tried for both the felony as well as murder in the first degree. The doctrine applies to arson, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and rape. In addition, the perpetrator does not need to have directly caused the death. The flaws of the felony murder system manifest themselves in
“In a recent ACLU study of accessorial liabil-
ity with regard to drug policies, it was discovered that accessorial liability has a particular adverse effect on women.” the case of Lisl Auman. Lisl Auman had recently broken up with her long-time boyfriend. Matthaus Jaehnig, a friend of a friend, helped Auman move a portion of her belongings from her ex-boyfriend’s house to her new residence. Despite the fact that the two had only met once, they still made plans to break into the house of Auman’s ex-boyfriend and steal back the belongings that her boyfriend had not agreed to return to her. On November 12 1997, during the breakin, an onlooker reported the burglary to the police. The police’s arrival quickly evolved into a high-speed chase down US Highway 285.
nothing more heinous than punishing an innocent person. Former Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “I think it is a less evil that some criminals should escape, than that the government should play an ignoble part.” It is better to allow 10 criminals go free than it is to convict 9 criminals and 1 innocent person. The accessorial liability law loophole is the flawed sentencing process. The reason those who are minimally involved receive extreme punishment is because accessories are tried with charges equivalent to those of the perpetrator. When rendering sentences to drug offenders, mandatory minimums are employed. During the Reagan-era War on Drugs, mandatory minimum jail sentences were created such that possession of a certain quantity of illicit narcotic equates automatically to a certain minimum jail time. It was hoped that these minimums would deter drug related activity and rid the country of narcotic issues. However, the largest flaw behind accessorial liability is that mandatory minimums are imposed on accessories. Mandatory minimums being applied to accessories are at the core of the accessorial liability ineptitude. According to former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court, “These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences…they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other.” The simple solution to the issues revolving around accessorial liability is the removal of mandatory minimum sentences for those accused of being accessories to crimes. If mandatory minimums are removed, it will force judges to decide, with accuracy, the correct and just sentencing time. Accessories will no longer have to serve outrageous jail
Hunter Thompson and other celebrities such as Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, and Johnny Depp campaigned to free Lisl Auman, a victim of the felony murder doctrine.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Domestic
Brenda Prather was sentenced to 40-years-to-life for providing foil to her husband, who used it to package drugs.
Eventually, the two stopped at a Denver apartment complex. It was here that Lisl Auman surrendered to the police. She was taken by one officer, handcuffed, and put into the back of the police car. On the other hand, her accomplice, Matthaus Jaehnig, hid in a nearby alleyway. When Officer Bruce Vanderjagt entered the alleyway in pursuit of Jaehnig, Jaehnig pulled out a concealed weapon and shot Officer Vanderjagt 4 times in the head. Shortly after, he took his own life. In 1998, Auman was charged with second-degree burglary. However, under the provisions of the felony murder doctrine, she was sentenced to life in prison without parole. From Auman’s sentence sprang the well-publicized, but unsuccessful, “Free Lisl” campaign. Auman became a convict star, an icon of the injustice of the felony murder doctrine. She received support from such celebrities as Sean
“There is never any case in which one person should be held legally accountable for his or her spouse’s, boyfriend’s, or anyone else’s actions.”
Penn, Johnny Depp, Benecio Del Toro, and the late Hunter Thompson. Felony murder laws, like accessorial liability laws, infringe upon individual liberties; an individual’s breaking of these laws is dependant completely on the actions of others. Had the officer run into the burglarized building and shot himself through the head, the verdict would have been the same. Had the police hit and killed a pedestrian during the pursuit, the verdict would have been the same. There is never any instance in which blaming someone else for another’s actions is justified. This is especially true when dealing with criminal punishment. Accessorial liability and felony murder allow for “legal scapegoating.” They set up a legal infrastructure under which a fairly innocent person can be held accountable for others’ more serious crimes. Jointly, they hinder the judicial system because those who have not committed a crime are subjected to unneeded punishment. Additionally, felony murder is an ineffective “one-glovefits-all” policy. The largest problem is that it’s all or nothing: if a death
occurs during the commission of a felony, it is not debatable. If a person is convicted of the felony, that person is automatically guilty of murder in the first degree. Thus, in a case where a death occurs during the commission of felony, the perpetrator must be guilty or innocent of both the felony and first-degree murder of both accounts. First-degree murder is defined by law as a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, for which the minimum sentence is life in prison without parole. However, manslaughter is defined as a killing that occurs accidentally, in the heat of passion, and/or without malicious intent, for which the sentences can be as low as several years. Lisl Auman did not kill the officer; she did not know that Jaehnig was carrying a gun, and she was in police custody when the killing occurred. There is no way in which the killing of Officer Vanderjagt was willful, deliberate, or premeditated. Thus, the burglars, or their accomplices, should not be tried for the felony and first-degree murder, but rather the felony coupled with manslaughter. A separation of charges would allow for increased precision in sentences. The option to charge a defendant with felony, but not murder, should be made available. Despite its British Common Law origins, felony murder was abolished in England in 1957 because it allotted large sentences for those who committed relatively minor crime. The only way in which fair verdicts can be rendered upon felons is by removing the felony murder doctrine. This would not inadequately punish felons who do not kill, since they would still be tried for the felony. In addition, it would also render just verdicts for felons who do kill, accidentally or in the heat of passion, seeing as they would be convicted for both the felony and for manslaughter independent of the felony charges. Innocent people are everyday becoming legal scapegoats, being sentenced for crimes they have not committed. It is paramount that the felony murder doctrine, a fundamentally flawed system, be decommissioned. In addition, accessorial liability, grounded in reasonable logic, can be fixed by the removal of mandatory minimums. For too long the innocent have been charged with crimes that they have not committed. These reforms are needed to make fairer the appropriation of sentences and to improve our judicial system on the whole.
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
A Journalist’s Shield “It is a matter of the trust relationship between the subject that a journalist is covering and the right of (the journalist) to maintain (the source’s) integrity.” - Josh Wolf The Colbert Report – June 13th, 2007 By Belle Yoeli
reelance journalist and video blogger Josh Wolf spent 226 days in federal prison from late 2006 to early 2007 for dubious reasons. On July 8, 2005, Wolf videotaped an anti-G8 anarchist protest, which became the subject of a federal investigation. The investigation was due to the damaging of a police car during the event, which was not recorded by Wolf. A US District Court subpoenaed Wolf, ordering him to turn over tapes of the demonstration, but the blogger refused. As a result of his refusal, Wolf served more jail time than any other journalist in the history of the United States for the protection of source materials. Journalists do not have complete liberty to do anything they want with their sources. If they refuse to testify when subpoenaed, journalists may face harsh penalties, such as prison time in the case of Wolf. Similarly, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify and reveal the Bush administration officials who leaked Valerie Plame’s name before a federal grand jury. The need to reveal sources when subpoenaed can create an impossible dilemma for journalists who have promised to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Confidentiality is critical because if potential sources do not trust journalists to protect their confidentiality, the sources will not provide journalists with important information. Because the press is so paramount to our nation’s wellbeing, the United States has different laws that protect journalists. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of the press, placing tacit limitations on how much the government can intervene in the media. However, freedom of the press becomes complicated when the information is sensitive and the sources need to be kept secret.
The problems that arise when journalists are subpoenaed cannot be addressed merely by the first amendment. As a result, shield laws are becoming popular nationwide. Shield laws aim to provide journalists with the right to refuse to testify about information or sources obtained during the newsgathering process. Currently, shield laws exist in 32 states including New Jersey and Connecticut, but not in New York. However, they are completely absent on the federal level. In fact, numerous journalists, like Wolf and Miller, have been put in jail because they cannot refuse to testify in federal court. In an effort to establish a federal shield law, the House of Representatives passed HR 2102, which states that the disclosure of sources in federal court is only required in order to prevent bodily harm or death, to identify a person who unlawfully revealed a business trade secret or “nonpublic personal information,” or to prevent a terrorist attack on the United States or harm to national security. The purpose of the bill is to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media, according to the bill’s title. This law would assure a balance between the need to protect a reporter’s sources of information and the need for federal courts to obtain information in dire cases. The fact that a shield law bill was passed in Congress with bipartisan support shows just how important it is that journalists are safeguarded from subpoenas, which impede their ability to gather the news. Freedom of the press alone should protect sensitive information and confidential sources. If journalists have the right to report information without governmental interference, they should also
The Horace Mann Review
have the right to refuse to give information without governmental interference. The exceptions should be limited to those outlined in the House shield law bill and should not be broadly interpreted to include cases in which the revealing of information is unnecessary. Even though the House passed the bill with an overwhelming amount of votes, 398 to 21, President Bush threatened to veto the measure. In a press release, the White House stated that shield laws could slow terrorism-related investigations, threatening national security. In reality, it seems that the White House is against the bill primarily because the Bush Administration does not want to see the federal government’s power be limited by a law that allows journalists to avoid testifying in federal court. In other words, President Bush and his advisors do not want to extend too much freedom to journalists because they are so hungry for executive power. If a federal shield law were to be created, President Bush and his administration would have a harder time getting the information that they are used to obtaining through subpoenas of journalists. Additionally, the shield law will not frustrate the ability to investigate acts of terrorism; in fact, it will speed up the process if anything. If shield laws did not exist and it was known that names could be brought up in court, sources with critical information would be more hesitant to provide information to journalists in the first place. By expanding journalists’ ability to obtain information, shield laws will allow reporters to better inform the public about issues such as national security. A shield law must be put into effect in order to protect the flow of information in the media and to ensure freedom of the press as well as confidentiality of sources. Journalists should only be compelled to give information if the information is critical to national security, a scenario that is covered by the House bill. The ultimate goal is to balance the rights of the journalists with the needs of the legal system by giving certain levels of protection with some exceptions.
Issue 2- Privacy
Wolf served 226 days in prison for refusing to reveal participants in an anarchist rally.
Wolf ’s refusal to testify has inspired thousands of Americans to support shield laws and was one of the leading impetuses for Congress to finally take action. As Wolf stated, “It’s an honor that I’ve been given an opportunity to help ignite what I hope will eventually cement the rights of both independent and established media.” President Bush must realize that Wolf was sent to prison unjustly, and he should approve the federal shield law due to injustices of this nature. Journalists’ ability to report effectively and obtain information without government intervention is at stake.
Free Flow of Information Act H.R. 2102 (Federal Shield Law)
Sponsors: Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) & Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va) 1) A Federal entity may not compel a journalist to provide testimony or produce documents, unless the court shows that it is necessary from a “preponderance of evidence” 2) Journalists will only have to reveal the identity of sources when it is need to prevent “imminent and actual harm to national security” or “imminent death or significant bodily harm.” 3) Journalism is defined as “the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news and information for dissemination to the public.” The courts in each case will determine whether bloggers fall under this definition. Page 20
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
DRIVEN TO FAILURE Gawker
By Victor Ladd On November 14, Governor Spitzer was forced to withdraw his plan to provide modified driver’s licenses to immigrants. But at what cost to the thousands of immigrants living in New York?
plan proposed by Governor Eliot Spitzer in September 2007, as a way to monitor drivers who are not legally in the United States, was withdrawn due to a lack of support from government officials and constituents. The plan which would have provided all drivers, including illegal immigrants, with some form of legal, state-issued driver’s license was criticized by officials at all levels of government, from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, down to the civil servants who work in the offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles. However, the plan would have greatly benefited the state by protecting the public from the presence of uninsured drivers on the road. As Governor Spitzer stated, “the public expects and deserves the protection that effective government oversight provides.” Opponents of the plan ranged from New York Congressional Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (D-20) to Long Island Democratic State Senator Craig Johnson. In addition Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) denounced the proposal. Moreover, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg deemed the plan “inappropriate.” The nature of the criti-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Domestic
cism was both based on practical and moral considerations; Mayor Bloomberg called the plan to “factually wrong and morally wrong.” Another official said, “Handing licenses … to illegal immigrants is an affront to those who are in our country legally and puts our communities at risk.” However, most of the opposition seemed political, a response to constituent concerns more than a genuine disapproval.
“Unlike the licenses that United States citizens posses, the immigrant license could not be used to board planes or cross borders.” In spite of the lack of support from a majority of officials, Governor Spitzer stuck with the plan for a couple of months, dubbing it “a perfect resolution for the problem.” The Spitzer license plan would have given illegal immigrants the opportunity to receive insurance for their cars with their new certification. A license would be given to the illegal immigrant if he or she was able to present a valid and verifiable foreign passport. However, unlike the licenses that United States citizens posses, this immigrant license could not be used to board planes or cross borders. This discrepancy between the license under the plan and a conventional license was created due to a change that Spitzer made in October after the original proposal garnered a lukewarm response. But even these modifications were not enough for the plan to gain the support of state officials. Despite the strong backlash, there were some loyal supporters of the plan who recognized its merits. Bruce Schneier, a respected security expert, supported the plan. “Rather than ex-
cluding 13 million people already within our borders, we should encourage non-terrorist illegal aliens to participate,” he stated. Spitzer abandoned the plan on November 14 in response to the lack of political support. “Part of leadership is listening to the public opposition...part of leadership is realizing that getting results is more important than sticking to what may be a principled position,” he stated in his withdrawal speech. His pragmatic words could not conceal the long-term effect of abandoning the plan. Immigrants will continue to drive uninsured and unmonitored and the problem will persist. Despite the criticism of this plan, there were innumerable benefits that would have made New York a leader in addressing the illegal immigration issue. Currently there are 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and they should be recognized as part of the community. As these immigrants work and support their respective neighborhoods, this plan addresses more of a civil rights issue than immigration one. Realistically, the major-
“Because immigrants’ names would be added to the DMV database, the licenses would serve as a law enforcement tool...to track down immigrants who are involved in crimes and deter them from committing crimes.”
ity of immigrants are not going to leave in the near future. Therefore, accommodations must be made in order to acknowledge the fact that they are in this country. Governor Spitzer would have
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII legalized one of their activities: driving without a license. This would have only applied to their driving status and would have ensured that the state’s laws could protect them while driving. In addition, this plan would have provided a way to document and record the immigrant presence. No longer would they be unmarked people. The plan would reduce accidents because immigrants would be more likely to learn how to drive properly. Law enforcement officials would be better capable of ensuring that all residents are aware of local traffic laws and posses accident insurance. With the passage of this plan, auto insurance rates would decline because immigrants would be able to purchase insurance, driving down the prices for everybody else. Moreover, because im-
“Only until politicians are willing to sacrifice the short-term support of their constituents in order to aid the nation’s desperate immigrants will there be any real change.” migrants’ names would be added to the Department of Motor Vehicles database, the licenses would serve as a law enforcement tool, allowing law enforcement to track down immigrants who are involved in crimes and deter them from committing crimes. While some of those who opposed the plan believe that it is unlawful to allow illegal immigrants to live here and use the state’s resources, it is necessary to address the fact that while they are in this country they should be granted the basic right to travel. Ultimately, it should not be the role of the Department of Motor Vehicles to check immigration status and to administer immigration laws. The modified driver’s license would merely allow illegal immigrants to drive and would not serve as a state I.D. or a conventional license. The lack of support for the plan demonstrates the uphill battle that immigrants face in fighting for increased rights and an equitable path to citizenship. Politicians have become unwilling to support immigrant’s plight due to fear that their constitu-
“The lack of support for the plan demonstrates the uphill battle that immigrants face in fighting for increased rights and an equitable path to citizenship.” ents will look unfavorably upon the decision. For example, Hillary Clinton withdrew her support for the plan after coming out as a proponent weeks earlier. As stated by Congressman and Democratic Strategist Rahm Emanuel, immigration is becoming a “third rail” political issue and only until politicians are willing to sacrifice the short-term support of their constituents in order to aid the nation’s desperate immigrants will there be any real change. It is disturbing that a fair-minded initiative aimed to regulate a basic necessity of daily life, the ability to travel to work, met rejection by state legislators. Governor Spitzer was trying to address an inequity in state law, but faced fierce opposition, which forced him to withdraw the plan at the expense of thousands of immigrants.
Spitzer’s Other Proposals Gay Marriage Legalization: Proposal: The governor proposed a bill in
April 2007 to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, joining Massachusetts as the only states to approve this policy. When the bill was proposed, it faced fierce opposition from Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and his Republican counterparts along with some Democrats.
Status: When proposing the bill, Spitzer ac-
knowledged that the proposal would have little chance of passing with Republicans in control of the State Senate; it served as a “statement of principle.” The bill has stalled in the senate, and many Democrats have shied away from this issue due to fear that it will polarize voters. If the Democrats take control of the Senate in 2009, expect Spitzer to reintroduce this proposal and continue the fight to legalize gay marriage in New York.
Workers’ Compensation: Proposal: During his campaign, Governor
Spitzer pledged to overhaul the workers’ compensation system and provide more relief to workers. He planned to work with business, labor, and legislative leaders to forge consensus.
Status: In February 2007, Spitzer reached an
agreement, which reduced premiums that businesses must pay for workers’ compensation by 10 to 15 percent. The plan increased the maximum weekly payment to injured workers from $400 to $600 in three years, but at the same time placed a limit on the number of years some injured workers receive benefits. The bill that emerged from this agreement was signed into law in March, and it has been considered one of the greatest successes of Spitzer’s tenure.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy
Forgotten Principles 2008 Presidential Candidates Forget the Constitution in the Name of “Your Security”
he world has changed dramatically since September 11th, and many Constitutional provisions concerning our privacy have come under attack from the Bush Administration as part of the global “War on Terrorism.” Many Americans, and virtually all of the Democratic Presidential candidates, believe that the Administration has gone too far in hunting for terrorists, trampling on the privacy rights of citizens in the process. Take a look at a few presidential candidates running in 2008. First the front-running democrats: Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, all of whom, have, in theory, strikingly similar stances on privacy. These Democrats all support the Patriot Act and abortion, but oppose wiretapping. The main Republican candidates in the race today include Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, all of whom support the Patriot Act, including all of its provisions for unwarranted wiretapping inside our borders. The collapse of long-serving Senator and Vietnam veteran known for surviving over five years of torture in a North Vietnamese prison John McCain, long an opponent of wire-tapping and torture, highlights the GOP’s support for these Bush policies which push the limits of privacy and constitutionality. The two candidates who most vociferously oppose the Patriot Act and wiretapping, former libertarian Ron Paul (R) and near-socialist Dennis Kucinich (D) are viewed by many as extremists on both ends of the spectrum; each one has poll numbers , at highest, in the single digits. Candidates such as Giuliani and Romney support measures that are clearly unconstitutional. Front-runners have pressing issues at hand, such as being front-runners. Any presidential candidate can conduct polls to find the popular opinion on a topic and adjust his or her morals accordingly for the election. Polls show each candidate that Republican voters support the Patriot Act and do not mind wiretapping nearly as much as Democratic voters do. Giuliani and Romney want to win – at any cost. Paul and Kucinich have nothing to gain by taking the positions they have, other than dignity, morality, respect, honor, and honesty.
By Justin Katiraei These merits are the cornerstone of American civic virtue; George Washington would be ashamed by many of the current front-runners’ incessant pandering to hysterical voters. It is not possible for a candidate to represent the popular opinion in every issue. Virtually every voter disagrees with his or her favorite candidate on one issue. Paul and Kucinich are not only are honest, they are also right. Supporting the Patriot Act and wiretapping puts too much power in too few hands, leading to corruption. The Patriot Act, as Kucinich puts it, “tears into the very concept of We the People.” We the People means that the power is in the hands of the populace, not a king or tyrant. Candidates feed on the fear of Americans by promoting stronger measures against terrorism even when it means robbing ordinary people or their civil liberties. This type of politics is immoral and extremely dangerous. People who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security are dangerous to any republican democracy. According to Kucinich, “Democracy cannot flourish when the government shrouds itself in secrecy and citizens lose their privacy. It should be the other way around… Fear has been used to rob the American people of rights won by the blood of patriots. Rights that withstood our epic battles against the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire.” Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, notes, “If you think the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper, and the separation of powers doctrine has outlived its usefulness, then the USA Patriot Act, passed overwhelmingly on October 25 , is the right recipe to deal with terrorists. On the other hand, if you are concerned about Fifth Amendment protection of due process, and Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, then you should be deeply troubled by the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security.” It’s your choice. You could be for privacy, and pro-constitution, or you could be pro-Patriot Act, and pro-wiretapping. Our Founding Fathers put together a Constitution, which has stood for over two centuries as a global model. It has protected us against Civil War, fascism, and Communism and there is no reason why this President should trample on it solely because he thinks it hinders his war against a renewable enemy. Courtesy of the National Archives
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Now You See Me, Now You Don’t A Look at the State of the Witness Protection Program By Dan Shapiro
n August of 2001, Bobby Gibson stood in a Brooklyn schoolyard as a stranger dressed in black riding on a bicycle drew a gun from his waistband and shot Bobby’s friend dead. Just ten months later, Gibson was ready to testify in court, and on June 27th 2002 the trial began. With the trial in session, Gibson’s name was on a list of witnesses read aloud in a courtroom on the seventh floor of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn. Just two days later, Gibson was dead, shot through the heart a block from the schoolyard where his friend had been killed. The death of crime witnesses such as Bobby Gibson is a reoccurring tragedy in many states across the country. The deaths of witnesses stem from two main structural problems within state government. Firstly, lack of finances inhibits statewide protection of federal witnesses while they are in trial. New
A criminal who is willing to cooperate with authorities is far less dangerous than a guilty one who was let off because no witnesses would testify. York City “can’t afford to put people up in a hotel and have armed guards for them in every case,’’ said Anthony J. Sche-
pis, an executive assistant district attorney in the Bronx, ‘’because there just are not the resources.’’ With the few resources the state has, very few witnesses can be properly protected. Moreover, many states’ statutes prohibit the relocation of persons with a history of drug abuse, criminal record, or unem-
Only a handful of states have comprehensive witness protectoin programs and most do nothing to protect their witnesses ployment. As of October 28th, 2007, 80% of New Jersey’s witnesses fall under one these three categories, as many witnesses of this type hear information while serving time in prison with convicts who become repeat offenders. Therefore, when witnesses agree to talk in court, their names are thrown around in the process. Since 1980, at least 19 witnesses have been killed in New York City. Around the state in the last seven years, local district attorneys have charged at least 14 people with killing witnesses. Although the statistics show that more witnesses live than die, any witnesses who die are cause for concern. If the idea that witnesses are not protected properly circulates, many high-profile witnesses will decide against talking, and numerous criminals will go unpunished. Therefore, more re-
Dead witnesses are far too common in high profile narcotics, organized crime and gang trials
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy what they have in order to save witnesses. Part of the states’ trouble in protecting witnesses goes beyond money, to the very policy the state-run programs apply: the U.S. Attorney General’s State Witness Assistance Program refuses to relocate witnesses who have a criminal record, drug problem, or are unemployed. The justification of this policy is that the states do not want to “ move criminals” into new neighborhoods. This policy is blind to the fact that witnesses offer information in order to show the state that they are reforming. By not granting them safety in relocating them far away from their former associates, the federal government is indicating that Courtesy of Jane Rosenberg/Getty Images criminals are not trusted While witnesses do not hide their identity in court to uphold a defendants civil right to confront their ac- in society, even though they are trusted to tell cuser, once the witness leaves the coutroom a whole new life beings. the truth in a court of law. The modern witsources must go toward the protection of higher-profile witness protection program has its roots in similar systems throughnesses, and restrictions on witness relocation must be altered. out history. For example, the Cosa Nostra, or the Sicilian MaSince its inception in 1970, the U.S. Marshal Service fia, was started in Sicily during medieval times to protect estates has relocated and protected more than 7,500 witnesses and when landlords were not there. By the 1800’s the Cosa Nostra more than 9,500 witness family members as part of the Withad become criminal and used violence throughout Sicily. The ness Protection Program. The federal conception of the promembers were sworn to a strict ethical code called omerta, or gram led to the many individual state programs, and recode of silence, especially when talking to the police. Punishment cently plans for similar programs have spread overseas. for breaking this rule is simple: death. Omerta is still alive and well, as was seen recently when mafia boss Salvatore Lo Piccolo ...between 2001 and 2005 Colorado spent was arrested after years of police searching. Along with Lo Pican average of $29,895 a year protecting wit- colo, two senior Cosa Nostra officials were found after years of searching, evidence of how hard Mafiosi try to avoid the police. nesses statewide, less than the amount DenWhile support for Witness Protection programs is widespread, there is also determined opposition. Supporters of cuts ver spends to plant flowers. argue that money should not be taken away from other state issues such as education and development to be put into relocation programs. Many also argue that relocated criminals Only a handful of states have comprehensive witness propose a threat to the neighborhood to which they are relocated, tection programs and most do nothing to protect their witnesses. however, this argument is specious. A criminal who is willFor instance, in the span of twelve years, sixteen witnesses have ing to cooperate with authorities is far less dangerous than a been killed in the State of Colorado. State lawmakers in that guilty one who is let off because no witnesses would testify. state cut the budget for their program in half, from $100,000 to Relocation programs should be improved through $50,000. The budget can be used to buy bus tickets for witnesses a mixture of stable funding and federal yearly checks to or help them move to new apartments. However, between 2001, make sure that states are utilizing their programs. With and 2005, Colorado spent an average of $29,895 a year protectproper effort, it is not impossible to see the number of witing witnesses statewide, less than the amount Denver spends to nesses murdered nationally decline in the next few years. plant flowers. This is a prime example of states’ inability to utilize
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Airstrip One By Sonja Perl
An image produced by a Backskatter X-Ray, one of the new technologies coming into the airport security market.
Airstrip One, the airport in George Orwell’s 1984, lived in fiction...until now. How new airport security measures jeopardize our right to privacy.
ir travel in recent years has changed drastically. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our government looked to improve airport security measures throughout America. The newlyformed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) implemented several security regulations, such as the placing of air marshals on planes, strengthening of cockpit doors, more thorough screening of persons, checking all luggage for possible weapons and bombs, and training of all guards. The several regulations that have already been put into effect caused some concern among civil liberties groups; however, the most recently proposed security measures of Biometrics and Backscatter X-Ray have been met with outrage by those who fear for a loss of privacy. Biometrics is digital analysis of biological characteristics
such as facial structure, fingerprints, and iris patterns through the use of very small cameras or scanners and computers. The government plans on using these cameras and computers to identify staff, passengers and air travelers at airports, train stations, and other protected areas. Biometrics has actually already been used in the United States: Orlando’s Disney World uses hand recognition software to prevent visitors from sharing seasonal passes; Welfare offices in San Diego use fingerprint-recognition software to make sure recipients do not collect benefits more than once; and New York’s JFK airport uses hand scanners, not for security purposes but to help frequent fliers speed through customs! Aviation experts claim that biometrics is the best answer for overcrowded airports. The Biometrics that will be used at airports relies on faraway cameras to identify people, instead of iris, or fingerprint scanners, which would only make the already hectic airport process even worse. However, there are serious practical problems and privacy issues which call to question whether or not Biometrics can be fairly implemented in airports. The problem with the installation of facial recognition scanners in airports is that it relies on FBI documents of photos of suspected terrorists. These documents, however, are often outdated
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy or even erroneous. Biometrics also would consume even more time and space in the nation’s already jam-packed airports, thus resulting in delays as well as cancellations. These delayed and cancelled flights would cost the nation more than $5 billion a year. The hassle at airports will also have a toll on the fliers who will have to go through another checkpoint. There is also an issue with the fact that these machines will show personal information such as passengers’ addresses, flying patterns, criminal records, and more.
Backscatter X-Rays is a form of X-Ray in which a high energy x-ray beam creates an extremely detailed picture of an object, inside and out. The TSA plans on using these machines at airports to screen passengers and make sure they are not carrying any weapons. The TSA claims that it is a reliable security measure, for it will be able to penetrate through clothes and show a clear picture of the passenger. The TSA also claims it will reduce the hassle factor at airports, for it is able to scan large numbers of people simultaneously and produce an instantly moving image. However, the Backscatter X-Ray calls to concern many issues of privacy. The “virtual strip search,” as it is accurately called, will show very clear pictures of people’s bodies. This has been the source of the majority of complaints about Backscatter X-Ray implementation. “I have a beautiful 29-year-old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don’t want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes,” said Steve Elson, a former Federal Aviation Administration investigator. In response, the TSA has introduced a “privacy algorithm” to the machine, which will blur the image so the body is slightly obscured, while still showing possible weapons. However, this measure has not won over many detractors of the technique, who still note that the Backscatter X-Ray machine has the same abilities as before. “Privacy needs to be built into this system from the ground up, and not added on in the end,” stated Lara Flint, a representative of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Another concern people have is whether the images will be saved. The TSA has claimed that it will not keep records of people who are deemed safe to the public, but rather will delete records after the journey is completed. Only the records of people seen as a threat, will be kept on file. However organizations against the use of Backscatter X-rays like the ACLU discredit this claim, for there is now law to prevent the TSA from saving all images. One problem both Biometrics and Backscatter X-Rays share is they are an obstruction of the fourth amendment of the constitution which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Having someone look at you basically naked while reading your background information is a clear example of an “unreasonable search.” In addition, both Biometrics and Backscatter X-Rays
“‘I have a beautiful 29-year old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don’t want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes.’”
With the advent of Backskatter X-Rays and Biometrics, the familiar airport security machines may be subject to a major revamp.
are extremely expensive and have an extremely high percent of error. Backscatter machines would cost anywhere from $100,000 to $2 million per station depending on the size, while 30 Biometric fingerprinting machines cost $660,000. Biometric machines also have an extremely high 43% error rate.
“Backskatter machines cost anywhere from $100k to $2 million per station depending on the size, while 30 Biometric fingerprinting machines cost $660k.” There are many other options besides using technology that affects our privacy. The government could hire airport officials who have gone through a background check, and they can train them better. More officials at airports should be on the lookout for known terrorists or suspicious individuals. There should be at least one air marshal on every flight and maybe even the installation of a few cameras. First class and business class passengers should go through the same processes as everyone else. These are just a few of the many alternatives that various organization have suggested to the government. While Backscatter X-Rays and Biometrics are meant to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, they pose a serious privacy problem. In a world where it seems that the government seems to be gaining more and more information about us, the introduction of a machine that takes it to the next level, allowing the government to see detailed pictures of our bodies seems absolutely absurd. According to Dr. Jeffrey Tiel, an expert on military ethics and terrorism, “People are always willing to give up liberties when they feel threatened.” The question remains, however, how far will we let the government go before we speak out?
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Navigating the Barbary Treaties
Diving into the Past to Uncover Treasure for the Upcoming Election By Dan Temel
uring the post-Revolutionary period, the fledging American government struggled to establish itself as a strong force in the international community. Ideological differences between politicians hampered the United States’ ability to participate in any major European wars, and isolationist policies developed after George Washington’s famous farewell address of 1796, which instructed the American people to restrict involvement in the affairs of European nations. While many politicians encouraged these isolationist principles, Muslim pirates on the northern coast of Africa continued to attack American interests in the Mediterranean. Without the strong navy of the British Empire to provide protection to American ships, the pirates held many American sailors hostage and sabotaged trading missions. A series of treaties were negotiated between the United States and the city-states of Northern Africa from 1795 to 1836 that attempted to curb the piracy in the Mediterranean and prevent future conflicts. These treaties were significant because they represented the young republic’s first successful handling of a major international incident. These treaties provide insight into the founding fathers’ foreign policy with Arab nations. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli of 1796, a treaty signed between the United States and the Barbary state of Tripoli, attempted to curb piracy and prevent major conflict
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of [Muslim], and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This article has been the stimulus for much debate on the role of religion in American foreign policy. It has continued to define the foreign policy of our nation even after the expiration of the treaty’s legal jurisdiction.
“This article has been a stimulant for many
The Barbary Treaties provide an excellent example of the founding fathers’ principles on foreign policy with Muslim nations. The treaties, negotiated by a host of American diplomats including the great American poet Joel Bartow, established that the American government was not founded on Christian religious principles. This policy was established because the American diplomats found it important to establish the country as a secular state rather than a Christian state, which would be considered the natural enemy of Muslim state. This landmark legislation therefore establishes that all legal rulings and military campaigns that the United States participate in are not for the benefit of the Christian religion, nor driven
debates on the role of religion in American foreign policy and has continued to define the foreign policy of our nation even after the expiration of the treaty’s legal jurisdiction.” from occurring by declaring that the government of the United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in
Article 11 of the Barbary Treaties continue to stir controversy.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Domestic Frank Lambert
The Barbary Treaties brought the violence on the seas to a halt.
by faith. In these treaties, the founding fathers tried to be as explicit as possible, while also ensuring that harmony and transparency can exist between nations in order to avoid a future military conflict. The treaties, however, also refer to America as a Christian state and refer to the Arab states as “Mohamedist.” This contradiction may just be a way the diplomats separated the people because most of the citizens of America were Christian and residents of Arab states were mostly Muslim. Over time this vague reference has been construed as negating Article 11, even though it is difficult to determine the exact intentions of naming the nations in this way. The treaties are also very important in that they clearly state that the American nation was not formed as a Christian nation, and the government clearly separates church and state. These policies were clearly on par with the policies of the members of the House of Representatives when the treaties were ratified, since it passed unanimously. This ruling is particularly interesting, because it is often stated that the 19th century was a much more religious period. Thus, it would be expected that some representatives would believe Article 11 was inaccurate. The aforementioned Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli has been cast into the national spotlight recently due to comments from Senator John McCain and conservative novelist Ann Coulter. McCain stated that the United States is a “Christian nation” and that the United States was formed on “Christian principles,” and Coulter criticized many American citizens for not being religious. Various activist groups have chastised McCain for these comments, citing and re-examining Article 11. Many Christian activist groups refute this legislation, citing that it is no longer enforced and therefore invalid because the city-states no longer exist. Many activist groups state George Washington didn’t actually write and sign the treaty, but rather Presi-
dent John Adams. The signatory of the treaty is irrelevant, since many other founding fathers have expressed similar beliefs on the separation of church and state, as reflected in the writing of the Constitution. Thomas Payne, author of Common Sense, one of the most influential satires of the Revolutionary era, stated that he did not believe in any religion and expressed his hope that the United States would not be created as a Christian nation with an explicitly religious head of state. All of the Barbary treaties are very important to the foundation of the United States even though they are no longer legally binding. Establishing the foreign policy of the United States with Muslim nations proved to be important for future politicians. The separation of church and state as stated in the articles has provided excellent fodder for activist groups against the permeation of Christian beliefs into the executive and legislative decisions of the United States. The articles’ significance is well recognized in the political community as one of the first major international conflicts solved by the newly founded United States. In addition, the treaties provide insight into the thoughts of the founding fathers, serving as a precedent for foreign policy issues regarding Muslim states. The treaties also show the increased transparency between the American states, the ability of the states to come together as a national government and agree on a single policy. Especially pertinent to the 2008 election is the now famous Article 11, which declares that the United States was not founded upon the Christian religion. Senator McCain’s comments may indeed jeopardize his election bid, since it is evident that his views of America are not the same as the views of our founders. The Barbary Treaties are certainly some of the more underrated events that shaped modern American foreign policy and have greatly influenced the foreign policy that our politicians apply today. Ray Irwin
Our attention is on ourselves now rather than the “Moslems.”
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Decrypting Cryptography By Katie Dubbs
Have you ever had your credit card information stolen or received spam email? Most people have. Private information, email or credit card data, can easily be made public. With the help of mathematical encryption, new legislation, and self-regulation by various organizations, subscribers and website viewers will be able to secure their private information. Online privacy is secured by a system of mathematical coding called cryptography. Cryptography is the method by which information can be encoded, sent electronically and then decoded by the recipient. Encrypted messages date back to the time of Julius Caesar, but were first applied to the Internet in 1974 when MIT professors Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman (collectively known as RSA) developed a system to ensure Internet privacy. Their system is based on mathematical problems that are extremely hard to solve, in which a credit card ID number is shuffled a certain number of times. This certain number, also called a “key,” is kept top secret and known only by the business in control of the website. By increasing the number of times the ID number is shuffled, the information becomes more and more secure. Rivest, Shamir and Adleman offer large amounts of prize money for anyone who can crack these keys. This prize money is a small price to pay for being one step ahead of the hackers. When any keys are cracked, RSA can then advise companies to increase the size of their security numbers accordingly. The cash prizes range from $10,000 to $200,000. This process is so effective that one of the codes established by the RSA took seventeen years to crack. Besides the cryptography to protect data, some websites have reliable privacy policies. For example, the Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) requires its members to adhere to certain standards. These standards ensure privacy by not only requiring that staff members undergo training but also by guaranteeing that resources are only accessible to SIIA employees. Data filed in from visitors of a website, according to the SIIA, is only seen by full-time SIIA staff when needed. The government has been active in the issue of online pri-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Privacy
The Horace Mann Review Dear Reader, The Editorial Board of the Horace Mann Review is please to announce that the Review will be offering subscriptions this year. The Review, Horace Mann’s award winning political journal, is now its 17th volume. We are committed to publishing six issues in this school year on politics, current events, and public policy. Note that if your subscription reaches us mid-year, we will mail you all issues already published. The Horace Mann Review has been honored with the American Scholastic Press Association awards for First Place with Special Merit overall and best high school political magazine in the country. Also, the National Scholastic Press Association has presented us with their “All American” status with five special merits, the highest possible ranking. Subscriptions cost $35. Checks should be made payable to The Horace Mann Review. The Review is dedicated to delivering the issues to subscribers in a timely manner. We hope that you take advantage of this opportunity, and support one of Horace Mann’s most important publications. Please do not hesitate to contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions. Thank you,
Kunal Malkani Editor-in-Chief
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII San Francisco Sentinel
By Nancy DaSilva
ithin the past five years, chaos and genocide have plagued the westernmost region of Sudan, also known as Darfur. In 2003 the Sudanese government’s neglect of the drought and security problems in Darfur enraged the non-Muslim, African population of Sudan, mobilizing the Sudanese Liberation Army/ Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement ( JEM). In fear of another wave of attacks by the SLA/M and the JEM, President al-Bashir of Sudan increased the military presence in Darfur. As an extra precaution, the government offered financial support to any tribe willing to fight the people of Darfur. These small tribe-based militias known as the Janjaweed are paid by the government to attack the people of Darfur. Their attacks are extremely successful because of the sophisticated mili-
“For China, the 2008 Beijing Olympics will
be its ‘coming out ceremony.’ The Chinese have been preparing for the Olympics for years and the Chinese government does not want their economic affairs to affect its reputation in the international or Olympic arena.” tary equipment that the Sudanese government has obtained. What complicates the issue is Sudan’s oil supply, which is crucial to the success of many countries’ economies, including China. China is in such need of Sudan’s oil that it is willing to trade almost anything in order to keep the oil flowing. The Sudanese government has capitalized on China’s vulnerability and asks not for money, but rather for state-of-the-art military
supplies. China willingly gives Sudan military equipment which is then used by the government to arm their soldiers in Darfur. This past April, Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg brought China’s trade of weapons with Sudan and its aid to the genocide campaigns in Darfur into the public eye. The two threatened to convince the American government to boycott the 2008 Beijing “Genocide” Olympics. Soon afterwards, the cry of “Genocide Olympics” had been taken up in many countries. For China, the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be its “coming out ceremony.” The Chinese have been preparing for the Olympics for years and the Chinese government does not want their economic affairs to affect the country’s reputation in the international or Olympic arena. China’s involvement in Sudan, however, undermines its success in preparing for the 2008 Olympic Games and violates many human rights policies. In order to halt China’s human rights violations, major corporations must stand up to China. It is imperative that China recognizes its mistakes and pull its resources out of the Sudan before it is too late. Although China’s weapons are being used to aid and enhance the brutal Janjaweed in Darfur, China cares more about its oil interests than human rights. Since the news of China’s aiding the Sudanese government first broke, the government claims to have followed measures that have improved the lives of those living in Darfur. However, statistics show that if anything, the quality of life in Darfur has greatly worsened. Although China did increase its funds for the restoration of Darfur, China also donated millions of dollars directly to the Sudanese government. According to the October 18, 2007 Save Darfur Organization briefing, China has continued to trade with Sudan at an astonishing rate: “trade between the two countries more than doubled in the first half of 2007.” According to the Save Darfur Organization, China is providing the Sudanese government with $13 million interest-free for the new presidential
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- International palace, and a $77 million loan for the building of infrastructure, not including the schools that China has offered to build for Sudan. Moreover, China has erased all debt, approximately $80 million, owed by Sudan, showing the nations of the world that it does not plan on ceasing any sort of trade agreements with Sudan. China also continues to sign new accords, including oil development agreements, that strengthen economic ties between the two countries. Not only has the exchange of funds increased dramatically, but also the trade of military weapons has intensified. “In the spring of 2007, China indicated its desire to further its military relationship with Sudan ‘in every sphere.’” These recent statements from the Chinese government are very disconcerting. If China is going to continue to invest in the genocide in Darfur, then how is the international community expected to trust China and its judgment? The precedent that China is setting will only worsen its reputation, which is exactly what China hoped to avoid. Ever since April, China has been trying to appear as if it is
“It is imperative that the people stand up to
the Chinese government. Major sponsors and supporters of the Olympic Games must warn China against investing in Sudan.” taking an active role in ending the genocide in Darfur. In February 2, 2007, the Chinese president told his Sudanese counterpart to give the U.N. a bigger role in resolving Darfur conflict and recently China signed U.N. Resolution 1769 that provides pro-
tection to the Darfur Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and Refugees. However, Resolution 1769 has no “teeth.” It does not allow for U.N. troops to disarm any Janjaweed they may encounter. It also does not provide for any protection along the DarfurChad border, where numerous Janjaweed attacks occur every day. This resolution has had virtually no affect on the problem at hand. The problems within the refugee and IDP camp systems continue to persist. Just two months ago, on September 24, 2007, Oxfam withdrew its peacekeeping troops from the Darfur and Chad regions because the security situation was growing too dangerous. Within the first week of this past October, World Vision pulled two-thirds of its 500,000 troops from the region. China is providing the world with the illusion that they have any sort of interest in the genocide in Darfur when really China is solely concerned with its economic and financial investments in the Sudanese government. China is knowingly allowing for the Sudanese government to kill over 500,000 of its citizens. It is this type of deception and trickery that has led the world into panic and crisis in the past. It is imperative that the people stand up to the Chinese government. Major sponsors and supporters of the Olympic Games must warn China against investing in Sudan. While boycotting could be very effective, in order for China to realize that continuing to trade with Sudan is wrong, we must shame China. If China were to see how their trading with Sudan is affecting its reputation, hopefully it would begin to divest from Sudan. However, if China does not realize this soon, they will be trapped and unable free itself from the bond it created with the genocidal Sudanese regime.
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII Philly Sentinel
What American Justice has Become
The Review interviews Ellen
Guantanamo Bay Lawyer from the Center for Constitutional Rights
What distinguishes the Guantanamo bay detention center from prisons on U.S. soil? The Guantanamo bay detention center is located in a small coastal area on the island of Cuba that the United States has been leasing since the early 1900â€™s. The Naval base established on this portion of land has been used for many different purposes throughout the years. At the moment, the Bush administration uses this base to hold prisoners without the rights that they would have if held on U.S. soil. The prisoners include people from ages 10 to 80 years old, and all but 3 of them have actually been charged with a crime. Many of the Prisoners have been held at this detention center for years. What legal rights do the prisoners have? In 2005, the military began to permit the detainees the right to military lawyers. These lawyers attempted to appeal to the district court, petitioning for habeas corpus (the right of an individual to be brought before a judge who determines whether their detainment is unlawful). Unfortunately, none of these judges have agreed to these pleas. Instead of the fair trials that the prisoners should be entitled to, they are given â€œmilitary tribunals.â€? These tribunals do not grant prisoners the right to witnesses, and prohibit them from actually knowing what they are being charged with. Page 35
What contact, if any, do the prisoners have with the outside world (their families, friends, home governments.)? Very little. The U.S. government has prohibited direct contact with their families and even other prisoners. There is no television, radio, or any other means of finding out what is happening in the outside world. Also, the prisoners are not allowed to go outdoors, and are able to see the sun only about once a month. All of these factors have a devastating effect on the mental health of the prisoners. What is the purpose of your visit this upcoming week? I have not visited my client in a few months, so this visit is basically a check-up. During this visit, we will be able to talk to our prisoner, and make his life seem more normal. In the end, many of our visits are really just about making our prisoner feel like he has not been forgotten. How did you become interested in helping people at the detention center and what have you learned from this experience?
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Interview I was reading an article in the New York Times about three suicides at the Guantanamo bay detention center in the summer of 2006. Apparently, one of the prisoners who committed suicide was about to be released within the month. I thought that if the prisoners were being treated terribly enough to contemplate suicide, there was really something wrong. This event motivated me and my partner to contact a human rights organization in charge of assigning private lawyers to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Throughout this experience I have learned that our civil rights are horribly under attack in this country. We are torturing people and denying them their constitutional rights, something completely against the principles of America. Tell me about the prisoner that you are representing.
Absolutely, and many countries and the U.N. have condemned us for our behavior in this situation. These prisoners have been detained indefinitely, which is a complete infringement of human rights. We have humiliated them by trashing and mocking their religion. They are tortured using methods like waterboarding, extreme heat and extreme cold and repetitious loud music. The prisoners that have been released have described many of the horrific acts that take place in the detention center. I find it truly remarkable how a country like the U.S. could permit and support such terrible behavior. How do you think the situation should be resolved (and what role would you like to play in resolving it)?
I believe that every single prisoner should have a hearing, which includes a judge and the right to witnessHe is an Algerian male who worked with an orga- es. As in regular trials, the government needs to prove nization that helped people in his country, however, this beyond reasonable doubt that these people committed organization did have a branch that was devoted partially any crimes (and release them if the charges cannot be to terrorist activities. He was picked up by American proven). I would like to do whatever I can to support authorities with the suspicion of being a terrorist, and has the release of my prisoner and all of the other innocent been held at the Guantanamo bay detention center for people that are being held at Guantanamo. In the end over three years without a trial or charges being brought though, I just want to be at the celebration where my cliagainst him. ent and his family are reunited. How are the prisoners reacting to their treatment at the detention center? Well as I mentioned before, there have been many instances of suicide, and depression is extremely common. What is communication like between you and your client? When we see our prisoner, his legs and arms are shackled to the floor. The room is incredibly small, and a video camera records everything we say. Usually, we talk for around three hours about news, his family, and how he is doing. Sadly, this small amount of time that we have with him is his only human contact (besides with the prison guards) that he is able to have for months.
Ellen Alonso-Lubell... is a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights and will be defending an Algerian male detained at Guantanamo Bay on the tip of the Cuban island. None of the case information can be released to the media. It remains unclear whether or not he will be given a fair trial. Lubell also is a partner at his law firm Tennant Lubell, LLC in Newton Massachusetts where she represents non-profit groups.
Do you think that the basic laws of human rights have been infringed by this detention center? Center for Constitutional Rights
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Drugs In Literature:
An Interview with Don Winslow
Eliza Harkins interviews Don Winslow, Shamus Award-Winning mystery and crime novelist, whose book The Power of the Dog (2005) gives one of literature’s most detailed and explosive accounts of the drug trade. You’ve conducted extensive research for some of your books, including The Power of the Dog, which addresses the War on Drugs. How did you approach the research process? In a number of ways. I looked at a lot of court transcripts, government documents, CIA reports, things like that. And then I interviewed a lot of people. In your novels, how much is grounded in truth and how much is pure fiction? I stayed quite true to the facts; the book is highly factually based. I did make up characters of course, and I did combine some things and changed some other things. Maybe compressed events in time and space a little bit. But at the end of the day the book is a novel and needs to function on that level. However, basically I stayed true to the facts. What originally made you interested in the topics of mob men and drug dealers? It just seemed to make sense. I never really set out to write (The Power of the Dog) to tell you the truth. I woke up one morning and picked up a newspaper and saw that a bunch of people South of us in Mexico had been massacred in a drug related incident. I started to ask myself ‘how did this happen? How did something like the drug trade and the War on Drugs reach this point?’ As I started reading, the research really suggested itself. And of course there had been a lot of criminal proceedings so as a result there were many court transcripts.
What pieces of information do you remember most vividly or surprised you the most? One would be (United States) governmental involvement in drugs over the years. This dates way back; really as far as the Second World War. Far from trying to suppress the poppy fields in Mexico, (the government) encouraged them to grow poppies beJerry Bauer
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 2- Interview cause we needed morphine badly for wounded soldiers in the Pacific. We could no longer get it from across the Atlantic because of German U-boats. This made sense, really. It was the right thing to do. And then later our involvement in Southeast Asia with the heroine dealers there and then again in Central America. There was really a huge amount of pollution and corruption. But what I actually found was that any time the War on Drugs clashed with the War on Communism, the latter won. That was a surprise. But there were all kinds of surprises. Well, I don’t know if it was a surprise, but I did come away with an overwhelming opinion of the War on Drugs. Has your research changed your views about legalizing drugs? Absolutely. I spent five years researching this book (The Power of the Dog). It absolutely turned my opinion around 180 degrees…If it were up to me, I would legalize drugs, I would tax drugs, I would treat them as the medical product that it is. Look, drugs now are easier to get, they are more potent, and they’re cheaper than ever before. And all this after 30 years of this so called “War on Drugs”. It’s just not working. So what, in your opinion, would the effects of legalizing drugs be? I think that there would be two parts; a short term and a long term. I think that in the short term, unfortunately, there would be a spike in drug use, which would peak and then go down. The longterm effect however would be to take the profit out of the drug trade. And therefore we would take a lot of the violence out of the trade. When you say profit, how exactly does the drug trade profit? If a product costs 33 cents on one side of a border and 33 dollars on the other side, that’s an incredible profit. And the profit
comes almost entirely from the illegality. At that point cocaine is no longer the product, the product is who will take it across the border. Because it is so profitable people will kill and be killed in order to get money, and that’s where the violence enters the drug trade. So do you think the government has been effective in preventing the drug trade? No. Despite their best efforts, there are only a few dedicated police officers and agents who fight the war on drugs. But it’s the wrong war. As long as there is a market...as long as there is a buyer, there will be a seller. It’s as simple as that. You’d think we would have learned that back in the 20’s and 30’s with prohibition and alcohol, and we know that the prohibition did nothing to prevent alcohol. All that it did was to create very well financed organized crime. And now the ‘prohibition’ on drugs has become the exact same thing. I have heard that you have actually come in contact with real drug dealers. What was that like for you? I can’t talk a lot about how it came about, for reasons that are probably obvious. It was strange and bizarre. These are not people I have a high regard for or respect. However, it is my job as a writer to see things from their point of view. So it was quite difficult and awkward. At the same time I wanted to get a sense of what life is like for the people actually involved. What lesson(s) about the drug world are you trying to convey to your readers? I don’t know that I have a lesson really. I think that one thing I am trying to say though is that the War on Drugs has a human cause. And that it is incredibly tragic. Really it is something that America has got to take a look at.
Winslow’s mob novel The Winter of Frankie Machine (2006) is being adapted by Martin Scorsese into a film starring Robert De Niro to be released in 2008. The Power of the Dog (2005) follows the Drug Enforcement Administration’s “War on Drugs” spanning from the cartels of Columbia to the opium poppy fields of Mexico. Page 38
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY, 10471