Regulating Speech Online - Revision history

Harvard212: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-20T10:55:34Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 20 March 2012
Line 137:		Line 137:
	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


	~~'''Class 3 Regulating Speech Online (Feb 7)'''~~
	~~I missed this class, but through the readings these were my thoughts on Regulating Free Speech. Previously updated to Harvard212 MyTalk~~

	I respect the opportunity that America provides for its citizens in regards of Free Speech. Ultimately, it would be great to see that truly (and fully) utilized in the spectrum of Journalism. However, I agree with the Citizen Media Law writing on Defamation (http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation) - especially having completed the Feb 7th Wikipedia assignment. It is too easy to pass personal judgment on the Net as "facts." The risk of defamation and the opportunity to slander and diminish an individual's (or corporation) reputation is freely available to any individual. As I worked through the Wikipedia website, and as a critical reader, I was not hasty to pass certain information as true. Sadly, that can't be said of all individuals that contribute "information" on the Internet.

	I also appreciate the Protection for Private Blocking and Screening ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230). First, for its bullet point conciseness. Second, for its clarity on the message (benefits of privacy and screening).

	I had done a little curious reading into Zittrain and found this week's reading by Cornell Law useful in shedding light on the Morris worm phenomenon. It served to synthesize the material and juxtapose arguments on Morris' contribution, fluke, or unnecessary risk(s) in a balancing (and understanding) way. Without Morris' random tap into MIT's computers, we wouldn't have the social phenomenon and understanding of computers getting bugged. Simultaneously, it creates job opportunities and work for security companies. It is important to remember that all users take personal responsibility in the usage of the Internet and decipher the best practice for their communicative needs. As we can see now, the Net carries a certain set of liabilities and benefits. For those who have already been tripped up in this area, I say: live and learn. And don't take the bait to any prowless pranks or angry postings.

	'''Class 3 Regulating Speech Online (Feb 7)'''		'''Class 3 Regulating Speech Online (Feb 7)'''

Harvard212: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-20T10:54:49Z

Class Discussion

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws.  Of course, from this stems primary concerns about [[legitimacy]].
 [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 == Links from Class ==

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:49:20Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 14 February 2012
Line 134:		Line 134:
	"US lawyers have nevertheless tried to sue SWIFT for violating their privacy rights under the Financial Privacy Act. Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse filed a class action lawsuit in a federal court the same day that the New York Times revealed the program, on 26 June 2006. They claimed that the US federal executive branch violated their privacy rights by obtaining their financial data through the SWIFT network."		"US lawyers have nevertheless tried to sue SWIFT for violating their privacy rights under the Financial Privacy Act. Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse filed a class action lawsuit in a federal court the same day that the New York Times revealed the program, on 26 June 2006. They claimed that the US federal executive branch violated their privacy rights by obtaining their financial data through the SWIFT network."

	I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws.		I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws. Of course, from this stems primary concerns about [[legitimacy]].
	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Links from Class ==		== Links from Class ==

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:43:56Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 14 February 2012
Line 122:		Line 122:
	“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”		“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”

	What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction, expanding powers, and so on and so forth. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ~~ruthless action~~.		What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction, expanding powers, and so on and so forth. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthlessness.

	Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:42:49Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 14 February 2012
Line 122:		Line 122:
	“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”		“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”

	What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.		What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction, expanding powers, and so on and so forth. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.

	Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:41:00Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 14 February 2012
Line 126:		Line 126:
	Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.

	However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, ~~or talk about sports~~ are basically immune. ~~For~~ those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the ~~U.S.~~ – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. ~~For~~ the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.		However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, and are not engaged in mass culture are basically immune. Yet, for those people we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although is not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the United States – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. Just how far humanity will go has yet to be seen, but progress continues. And for the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.

	"In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy over their banking records. Following that decision, US Congress passed the 'Right to Financial Privacy Act' in 1978 to re-establish privacy rights for US bank customers. (Connorton 2007)"		"In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy over their banking records. Following that decision, US Congress passed the 'Right to Financial Privacy Act' in 1978 to re-establish privacy rights for US bank customers. (Connorton 2007)"

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:37:51Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 14 February 2012
Line 124:		Line 124:
	What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.		What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.

	Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these second ~~clas~~ US citizens fit into the overall ~~picture~~? It is a slow and painful process.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.

	However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.		However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:35:23Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 14 February 2012
Line 124:		Line 124:
	What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.		What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.

	Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? It is a slow and painful process.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? Just how are these second clas US citizens fit into the overall picture? It is a slow and painful process.

	However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.		However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T21:33:33Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 14 February 2012
Line 122:		Line 122:
	“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”		“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”

	~~Just how~~ the ~~drawn-out~~ the ~~bombing~~ of ~~the World Trade Center in New York City will last on the public consciousness within the~~ United States ~~has yet to be seen~~. I ~~think that most people – particularly within Europe – would like to~~ see ~~it buried along with~~ the ~~villain, Bin Laden. I think that people are tired~~ of ~~living in fear, and are starting to wake up to~~ the ~~fact that its just a bunch~~ of BS and there really is no terror except for what is manufactured. However, US intelligence would in all likelihood wish to see it last forever. And as far as extending powers is concerned, it has proven itself to be quite effective.		What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.

	~~What I think~~ is ~~really compelling about~~ the ~~SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes~~ to ~~surrounding~~ the ~~legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction.~~ ~~I see~~ a ~~clear~~ and ~~distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the cutthroat post 9/11 display of action~~.		Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave? It is a slow and painful process.

	~~After reading the article, I found that there were three primary questions that stuck out in my mind as problematic.~~		However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.

	First of all, I think about the legitimacy of extending United States law into European countries. Second, I think about the problems associated with unrestricted enforcement – that is distinctly once sided, and is designed to be that way. And, most of all, I think about United States intelligence extending its powers into new jurisdictions by way of strategic historical legal precedent.

	~~Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave?~~

	~~A bunch of rubbish: So what's it all about anyway? Have another reach ...~~

	The primary concern that I think a lot of people have with The Borg in Star Trek is that it tries to assimilate everything in its presence and leaves everything that is assimilates as completely devoid of its original state of being. However, the primary problem that I think a lot of people have with “Americanization”, or “globalization” is that a lot of people do not want things to change wherever they are in the world. For the most part, they are used to the way that things are, they like things in their geographic area, and so there is a bit of resistance when it comes to readjusting cultural norms. However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms. Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism. The process slowly continues with each new generation. And there is resistance within older generations. Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt. Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history. The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion. And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior. Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it. Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, or talk about sports are basically immune. For those people -- we have Google, and now Facebook. Great Britain still has power, although not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2. And the U.S. – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain. For the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries.

	"In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy over their banking records. Following that decision, US Congress passed the 'Right to Financial Privacy Act' in 1978 to re-establish privacy rights for US bank customers. (Connorton 2007)"		"In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy over their banking records. Following that decision, US Congress passed the 'Right to Financial Privacy Act' in 1978 to re-establish privacy rights for US bank customers. (Connorton 2007)"

	What I am really wondering about here is whether or not, if ever, most of these post 9/11 laws are going to be retracted.		What I am really wondering about here is whether or not, if ever, most of these post 9/11 laws are going to be retracted ... yet, gone with the wind.

	"US lawyers have nevertheless tried to sue SWIFT for violating their privacy rights under the Financial Privacy Act. Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse filed a class action lawsuit in a federal court the same day that the New York Times revealed the program, on 26 June 2006. They claimed that the US federal executive branch violated their privacy rights by obtaining their financial data through the SWIFT network."		"US lawyers have nevertheless tried to sue SWIFT for violating their privacy rights under the Financial Privacy Act. Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse filed a class action lawsuit in a federal court the same day that the New York Times revealed the program, on 26 June 2006. They claimed that the US federal executive branch violated their privacy rights by obtaining their financial data through the SWIFT network."

	I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws.		I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws.

	[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)		[[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Links from Class ==		== Links from Class ==

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-02-14T08:51:23Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 14 February 2012
Line 122:		Line 122:
	“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”		“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism. Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).”

	Just how the drawn-out the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City will last on the public consciousness within the United States has yet to be seen. I think that most people – particularly within Europe – would like to see it buried along with the villain, Bin Laden. I think that people are tired of living in fear, and are starting to wake up to the fact that its just a bunch of BS and there really is no terror except for what is manufactured ~~through the media~~. However, US intelligence would in all likelihood wish to see it last forever. And as far as extending powers is concerned, it has proven itself to be quite effective.		Just how the drawn-out the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City will last on the public consciousness within the United States has yet to be seen. I think that most people – particularly within Europe – would like to see it buried along with the villain, Bin Laden. I think that people are tired of living in fear, and are starting to wake up to the fact that its just a bunch of BS and there really is no terror except for what is manufactured. However, US intelligence would in all likelihood wish to see it last forever. And as far as extending powers is concerned, it has proven itself to be quite effective.

	What I think is really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. I see a clear and distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the cutthroat post 9/11 display of action.		What I think is really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction. I see a clear and distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the cutthroat post 9/11 display of action.