Question:
‘Providing support’ must be considered to relate to implied moral support and justification

There is far more to aiding an enemy of the state than supplying them with armaments or funding. Propagandists and other saboteurs of the mind [i] have always been seen as a very real threat to national security, especially in times of war. To present the actions of Tarek Mehanna as anything other than endorsing and giving encouragement to those seeking to harm US personnel overseas takes an unusually determined form of niaivity.

He may have stopped short of posting instructions for bomb making online but he expressly stated that Muslims should resist the invasion of their lands by non-Muslim invaders. Proposition has been strangely silent on how, exactly, that could be done without the use of an AK47 or an IED.

Mehanna’s remarks are clearly a call to take up arms against US troops, presumably with the intention of killing them. That is, by definition, to be part of a conspiracy, along with his readers, to kill US citizens overseas – the crime with which he was charged and convicted.

[i] Lawfare. Benjamin Wittes. Peter Margulies Responds to David Cole. 21 April 2012.

Tarek Mehanna was engaged in promoting a political viewpoint that may not be shared by many but is certainly shared by some. Among them other American citizens [i] . When did promoting a viewpoint in the land of free speech become a crime? While we may not like that a U.S. citizen sympathises with the objective of removing US soldiers from Afghanistan and believes this enough that he considers that military resistance may be necessary to get the Americans out it is not the case that this moral support provides physical support for such attacks, and it is unlikely that he would even have provided inspiration. Mehanna was lynched, he was a scapegoat created out of the paranoia created partly by events and partly by the actions of a US administration with a point to prove.

[i] Guardian. Ibid.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Differing nature of war (not essays against king or country but about creeds)

In an unusual show of unity, most analysts are agreed that the wars of the 21st century will be markedly different from those that went before [i] . Clashes will be between civilisations and global perspectives fought with comparatively scant regard to national boundaries. Within this framework, the groups identified, broadly, as ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ [ii] seem to be lining up as the two main players – although this seems to be by default in the case of the West. In this regard, at least, Bush jr. was absolutely spot on with his ‘with us or against us’ assessment of the nature of modern conflict.

Tarek Mehanna’s publications aren’t idle musings on political philosophy, they are practical suggestions about how his readers can involve themselves in a war against the US and its allies – advice given in his translation of 39 Ways to Participate in Jihad - a war between a sexist, reactionary, mediaeval theocratic mindset and those peoples who seek to defend the liberal and democratic principles of the Enlightenment. One of the reasons highlighted by the prosecution was that Mehanna and others like him don’t need to recruit a regiment or resource a battalion. The Terrorist atrocities that have shaken the world in recent years, 9.11, 7.7, Madrid and the rest, have involved in total a few dozen people. One inspirational individual, as the judge in this case noted, is quite capable of creating bloodshed and murder with a very small following.

Mehanna was and remains in no doubt about what side he is on. Prop’s only argument seems to be that he wasn’t a very effective agent. In response to which; firstly, thank God and, secondly, it would be an odd way to fight a war to wait until a massacre was committed before doing anything about it.

[i] Neumayer, Eric and Plümper, Thomas (2009) International terrorism and the clash of

civilizations. British journal of political science, 39 (4). pp. 711-734.

[ii] Although politicians have been at pains to stress that the battle with Islam per se many scholars have used the terms. This view was codified in Samuel P. Huntington’s book Clash of Civilisation in 1993. An article that preceded its publication (Foreign Affairs. Samuel Huntington. Clash of Civilizations? Summer 1993) can be found here .

Warfare hasn’t changed because it is now a battle between creeds – that has often been the case in the past. The asymmetric warfare to which op refers is a direct result of the military hegemony of the US. To confuse criticism of taking a military approach – that bombs are not the answer in a battle of ideas – with material support for the other side hands them a victory. It’s worth remembering that the US won the battle of ideas with the Soviet Union by demonstrating its virtues, as the body count increases in the foray with Islam, attitudes are hardening on both sides as we see the worst of both.

To take the one example given by Op, 39 ways to participate in Jihad – and this was at the heart of the prosecution. Google the term and you’ll come up with 590,000 returns, including full English translations and comment from respected scholars and journalists [i] .

It is impossible to protect the principles of liberty and democracy by locking people up for expressing their opinions. As the UK’s former Lord Chief Justice Woolf, pointed out, it is inconceivable that terrorist acts could pose a danger to nation states comparable to WWII and yet the response of many governments has been to go further in the removal of basic rights than was the case during that conflict.

[i] The New York Review of Books. David Cole. 39 ways to Limit Freedom of Speech. 19 April 2012.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Views of free speech in time of war (Japanese internment, American Communist party, etc.)

Nations act to defend themselves in times of war. Frequently those actions do not represent the highest ideals against which that nation may wish to be judged but they are an unpleasant reality of survival. It is demonstrably true that there have been Jihadi cells in western nations and that Western troops are at risk from their allies and enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Stopping them before they act seems vastly preferable to the deaths of dozens or hundreds of civilians and military personnel.

America’s actions against Japanese civilians in WWII or Communist sympathizers during the Cold War may fall short of the ideals one might hope for but they ensured the survival of those ideals against the threats posed firstly by Nazism and then by Communism. In the face of Islamofascism, the response of governments in the West has been comparatively restrained when set alongside those earlier periods.

However, where there is a demonstrable threat to a nations civilian or military personnel, it would be a dereliction of duty not to take action. Mehanna’s conviction and imprisonment was a relatively modest act considering the threat – and far more humane than what has been meted out in return by those he supported against US and other citizens overseas – without the niceties of due process or the outrage of the liberal press.

It is an interesting argument to suggest that the suppression of Mehanna’s rights is okay because it has not been as sweeping as the generalised internment of Japanese Americans or the insanity of the McCarthy trials. Op is basically arguing, “Look, it could have been far more brutal, so count yourselves lucky.” One cannot help but suspect that comes as very small consolation to Mehanna in his prison cell. We should remember that the United States is not at war as was the case in World War II, congress has not declared war since 1945, nor even is the United States in a struggle with a peer competitor as during World War II rather it is at most fighting a disparate band of terrorists, hardly a thread that justifies such large violations of rights. [i]

[i] Bailey, Ronald, ‘How Scared of Terrorism Should You Be?’, reason.com, 6 September 2011, http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad

It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]

Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.

[1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09

[2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weapons/Arms_Trade.html

[3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/house-bill-would-ban-surveillance-gear-sales-by-american-firms.html

A democracy, like any state, owes its first duty to its citizens, and its national interest is therefore in selling this equipment to help business at home. While it is convenient, perhaps even morally right at times, to stand publicly for the universality of democratic principles, such stands should not be taken at the expense of national security or influence. It should certainly not be considered an obligation. Sweeping policies like this will alienate valuable allies and make it more difficult for democracies to deal with the undemocratic world. With regard to domestic freedoms, states have long held different standards of action when dealing with their own citizens than those of other states, and that has never served to erode domestic freedoms.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments

Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.

[1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/house-bill-would-ban-surveillan...

[2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011. http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/senior-mep-calls-for-freeze-on-arms-sale-to-north-africa/

[3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’ http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international-affairs/european-union/house-believes-lift-arms-sales-ban-china

Corporations are bound to obey the laws of the societies in which they are based, but they are not so constrained in their foreign dealings, in which they are bound instead by foreign laws that are often much more lax. The nature of the international landscape, with its many incompatible and overlapping forms of government and regulatory frameworks, demands that corporations be flexible in order to survive. The constraints put upon the manufacturers of surveillance equipment put forward by this policy will make them less competitive in the international market, which is often the primary market for these businesses. Furthermore, if they feel constrained they may pull up stakes and move their operations abroad to a more accommodating jurisdiction. This would serve to harm domestic jobs and undermine the ability of democratic states to maintain their edge over others in essential surveillance technology development.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Advanced surveillance technology prevents dissidents from being able to organize and sue for freedom

High-tech surveillance technology has given repressive governments and police states a new lease on life. Now more than ever they can intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, ensuring that dissent is cowed for fear of the ever present threat of the security services. The vision of Orwell’s 1984 has become a living nightmare for people all over the world. Their power has made it extremely difficult for movements for reform, government accountability, and democracy, which have foundered when faced with these sophisticated security apparatuses (Valentino-Devries, 2011). [1] By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Thus China blocks access to the internet and to other forms of communications in Tibet to “ensure the absolute security of Tibet’s ideological and cultural realm”. It cuts the Tibetan people off from outside world so as to prevent any rerun of the instability that occurred in 2008, which China blamed on the influence of the Dalai Lama from outside. [2]

Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. The surveillance equipment on which these regimes rely is often only available from firms and governments in the democratic world where, by and large, technology is generally far more advanced than in the non-democratic world. Without access to these technologies, the regimes would be far more hard-pressed to keep rigid tabs on their citizens, allowing for the seeds of dissent to take root. Only then can the forces clamouring for democracy hope to be able to organise networks of activists, and to have their views considered by the state.

[1] Valentino-Devries, J. “US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses its Gear to Block Web”. Wall Street Journal. 29 October 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577001911398596328.html

[2] Human Rights Watch, “China: Attempts to Seal Off Tibet from Outside Information”, 13 July 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/13/china-attempts-seal-tibet-outside-information

Security services have managed to watch over and infiltrate the efforts of dissidents all through history. The visibility and tactics is all that has changed. The internet was never going to just be an arena that helps dissidents in authoritarian regimes but as with other technological advances, such as the telephone both increases communication and provides methods of monitoring that communication. If non-democratic states were to lose access to Western technology, they would either procure comparable replacements from other non-democracies, or they would pursue more traditional forms of surveillance, ones that tend to be more invasive and physically threatening.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government

A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies serves ultimately as a statement of disapproval. It shows that the undemocratic regimes cannot be trusted with the ability to spy on their people. This signal has several effects. An example of this international shaming affecting is the international bans on the use of landmines. Various states created a framework, the Ottawa Convention, [1] in which their condemnation pressured nearly every other state, including authoritarian regimes, to follow suit. [2] Domestically it serves to bolster people’s faith in the system of rights they value highly and enshrine in law. They can point to this ban as an example of their government’s desire to make a better world and not to increase repression for the sake of power or profit. In the undemocratic states themselves, the regime leaders will be faced with a significant public relations blow as they come under criticism. This serves to embolden and empower holders of dissenting opinions and to spark pro-democratic discourse. In the international community it makes an emphatic value judgement on the merit of certain systems of government, namely the superiority of democracy and government accountability to the people, principles most non-democracies still pay some form of lip-service to. Overall, this policy boosts the credibility of democracy, while undermining the influence of undemocratic states.

[1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House (as the USA) would sign the Ottawa convention banning landmines’, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international/house-usa-would-sign-ottawa-convention-banning-landmines

[2] Wexler, L. “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best Responses, And Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban Landmine and the landmine Ban Treaty”. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2003. http://www.ajicl.org/AJICL2003/vol203/wexlerarticle.pdf

Is a minor ban really a good signal? The chances are the government will ignore it and those who it is meant to encourage will never hear about it. In the event that the regimes it is aimed at do take not far from weakening them, this policy serves only to alienate them. The lack of respect the policy is clearly aimed to show will galvanize the leaderships in undemocratic regimes to cut off various ties with democratic states, limiting the flow of ideas and democratic principles that natural adhere to activities like international trade. The result is non-democracies will be less willing to talk about reform in the international community because they see their very form of government as under threat by foreign agents seeking to discredit them. Ultimately, a boost in Western moral does little to promote democracy and human rights while a negative signal will result in regimes being more suspicious and obstinate.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others

It is a fatal conceit to consider democracies somehow above the influence of using their surveillance technology to curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. The biggest customers of Western surveillance technology companies are wealthy democracies. The United Kingdom, for example, has one of the most-watched populations in the world, with a saturation of CCTV cameras far in excess of any dictatorship. [1] The PATRIOT Act in America, also, has given the federal government enormous scope for domestic spying. These powers are no less simply because the government is composed in part of elected officials. The security establishment is appointed, not elected, and their servicemen are promoted from within. It is base hypocrisy to pretend that the security systems are inherently more just when employed in democratic states than in undemocratic ones. They are used for the same purpose, to ensure that the state is protected and the status quo maintained. Democracies have no moral basis on which to base this policy.

[1] BBC News. “Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’”. 2 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm

While Western states are willing to use surveillance technology to restrict their citizens, they do so always with a democratic mandate. That is the key difference. Democracies use surveillance technology to provide their people with the safety and security they demand, a security over which the people always have the veto of the ballot box. The non-democracy is not checked by any such power, and thus its use of surveillance technology faces no constraint.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The inability to use advanced technologies merely forces non-democracies to utilize more unsavoury methods to achieve their aims

If it is the aim of an undemocratic regime to use advanced surveillance technology to gather intelligence on, and ultimately crush, dissent it will find other means of doing so. Their calculus of survival is not changed, only their available methods. Their first port of call will be the more advanced non-democracies that might be able to supply comparable surveillance equipment. China’s military and surveillance technology is fast catching up to that of the West, and makes an appealing alternative source for equipment. [1] The only difference is that the Chinese have no compunction at all about how the technology is used, meaning worse outcomes for pro-democracy groups who run afoul of them. When this strategy fails regimes can turn to the tried and tested models of past decades, using physical force and other less technological modes of coercion to cow dissent. Again, this form of repression is quite effective, but it is also much more painful to those on the receiving end. Given the options, democracies supplying surveillance technology may be the best option for dissidents in undemocratic countries.

[1] Walton, G. “China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China”. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. 2001.

Oppressive regimes have turned to the use of advanced surveillance technology in response to activists’ learning to evade more conventional methods of surveillance, and by moving their organizations online. Western surveillance technology has filled a niche that was once open for dissidents. By placing this ban, even if the regimes turn back to old methods, they will still be hampered in the crushing of dissent. Furthermore, no regime has the resources or power to have physical surveillance as pervasive as the technology denied them would allow. Electronic surveillance therefore can cast a much broader net that would allow the government to repress many more people who would not be subject to more labour intensive physical surveillance.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]

[1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy

It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]

When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]

[1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.

[2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.

[3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.

[4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.

[5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.

[6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.

[1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]

[1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.

[1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.

[1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1...

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.

[i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.

[ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim