Vincent G. Rinn Law Library

Attacks on Census Funding - Claiming To Solve Our Economic Problems In The Dark ?

With the  first spending bill of the year, The House Appropriations Committee's bill  for Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations, slashes government's data collection arm by 25 percent. The cuts in question target the Commerce Department's Census Bureau . The U.S. House of Representatives voted  (232 - 190) to eliminate all funding for the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), which replaced the traditional census long form starting with the 2010 Census. These cuts follow the Obama's own proposed cuts to the bureau's budget.

A U.S. Department Of Commerce, Office of Inspector General's report, in June 2011,  raised questions re. the cost of conducting the ten-year census mandated by the constitution. However, the Census Bureau has been striving to cut administrative costs, re-engineer their survey processes to bring down its costs while maintaining the quality & accuracy of the statistics  gathered.

But for most of the congresspersons who want to gut the Census Bureau, it's not only about costs.  "Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) famously declared she would not fill out her 2010 Census form, even though doing so is required by the Constitution and law. Bachmann even raised the specter of the World War II-eraJapanese interment camps to argue against the Census."

And while the Economic Census is the foundation for the country's most important measures of our economy,  House Appropriations Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) claims that  "This legislation roots out extraneous, duplicative and unnecessary programs while prioritizing some of the most critical aspects of government," One wonders how having accurate & authoritative economic data, esp. in these times, can be seen as unnecessary !

The damage that these apparently ideologically motivated cuts will cause is significant. "The Census Bureau would have to terminate major statistical programs, cease critical data collection and vital benchmark reports on the nation's economy, population and housing, as well as lay off off as many as 700 employees."

As Census Director Robert M. Groves states, The ACS is our country’s only source of small area estimates on social and demographic  characteristics."  Manufacturers, retail businesses , home builders, local communities all rely on its updated data. "There is no substitute from the private sector for ACS small area estimates."

The cuts would prevent the continuing work on finalizing the results from the 2010 census. Also, not being able to test new methods will probably mean that the 2020 census will not be at a  lower cost per household than that of the 2010 Census. If saving taxpayer money is a real motive, the cuts don't really further that objective.

Business interests do not support the proposed drastic cuts. "The Chamber of Commerce, for example, strongly advocates funding them, since its members rely so much on the information they provide on basic things such as household spending, per capita income, and population estimates. " Andrew Reamer, a research professor at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy states that “The loss of the American Community Survey will cause chaos and inefficiency in the operations of business and government in the U.S.,”

 As  Phillip Swagel, an economist and nonresident scholar at American Enterprise Institute states, “Those agencies are essential,” “The data they provide really tell us what’s going on in the economy. This shouldn’t be a political issue.” Unfortunately, it appears, that is exactly what it has become.

Family Law Center Lecture : Rape Allegations in the 21st Century

Historians' Law Suit Gets Release of Nixon Grand Jury Files

In the federal court case, of In Re Petition of Stanley Kutler, et al', filed by Stanley Kutler, Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists, the Court was asked to unseal the transcripts of President Richard M. Nixon’s grand jury testimony during June 23 and 24, 1975.

According to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) press release, the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) had decided that it  was necessary to question former President Richard M. Nixon in connection with various investigations being conducted by by the Special prosecutor at the time. According to courts documents, the agreement to take President Nixon’s testimony in connection with its open investigations, was conducted in a manner that would avoid litigation over such issues as executive privilege.

"On June 23 and 24, 1975, President Nixon testified for eleven hours before two members of the grand jury and several WSPF attorneys. Afterward, a full transcript of the proceeding was read to the remaining members of the grand jury in Washington, DC."

Traditionaly grand jury testimony is to remain secret. But the rule of grand jury secrecy is not without exceptions. After considering several factors raised by the petitioners and the government, the judge decided that :

"Taken together, the Court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of unsealing President Nixon’s grand jury testimony and the WSPF’s associated materials, subject to NARA’s review procedures. The special circumstances presented here—namely, undisputed historical interest in the requested records—far outweigh the need to maintain the secrecy of the records. The Court is confident that disclosure will greatly benefit the public and its understanding of Watergate without compromising the tradition and objectives of grand jury secrecy".

As a result of this ruling, the National Archives opened 26 files from its Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) collection including transcripts of President Nixon’s grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975. There are some redactions made for the privacy of still-living persons and for national security.

The materials may be obtained at the following websites:

Government Printing Office (GPO)
    Scribd
        Our Archives - Wiki

Events in Norway Have U.S. Echos

Two recent news reports on the politically motivated attacks in Norway : "Norway attacks focus attention on US right-wing extremists" (msnbc) and "We could have another Timothy McVeigh': U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter 'inspired' by Robert Spencer and Unabomber" ( dailymail.com, Daily Mail UK), have anti-terrorism experts warning U.S. authorities in the wake of the attacks.

In the stories, a connection is made with US right-wing ideologues who were heavily quoted or paraphrased in the 1500 word manifesto that the admitted perpetrator had posted online before carrying out the attacks. While this may show some commonality in approaching issues of immigration, trends toward multicultural populations and ideas of cultural identity, by itself, this overlap should not imply that the like-minded US advocates condone such heinous actions. In fact, Mr. Robert Spencer states in the NBC News story that "'There’s nothing in any of my writings that is anything but a defense of human rights, a defence of the equality of rights of all people before the law.""So if somebody gets from that that they should kill, well then he’s nuts."

Having made that important distinction between being quoted by an accused terrorist and actually supporting or promoting similar acts, there is independent evidence for the concerns that there are individuals and groups in the U.S. who could conceivably engage in similar acts of terror.

The two news stories both quote U.S. anti-terrorism experts whose own work has raised expectations that certain domestic US individuals and groups could try to carry out such attacks in the US.

The Southern Poverty Law Center that monitors the activities of extremist groups of various political orientations, recently released a report that noted an upswing in anti-Islamic attacks in the United States in the past few years, including the burning of a mosque in Tennessee arsons and bombings in Florida, Michigan and Oregon. The report is entitled, "Jihad Against Islam.

In it's introduction the report states, "...an astonishing number of people have turned into a kind of political wolf pack, convinced that 0.6% of the U.S. population is on the verge of trampling the Constitution and imposing an Islamic, Shariah-guided caliphate in its place. Like the communists that an earlier generation believed to be hiding behind every rock, infiltrated "Islamist" operatives today are said to be diabolically preparing for a forcible takeover."

In the Daily Mail article Heidi Beirich from the Southern Poverty Law Center said: 'When you push the demonisation of populations, you often end up with violence."

Even more disturbing is that a report by Daryl Johnson, former senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and his team authored in April 2009, entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.", has been removed from the DHS websites, even after it had been approved by DHS head Napolitano. The internal report was leaked and heavily attacked by conservative commentators who wrongly claimed it equated conservatives with terrorists.

The backlash did not stop there. Mr. Johnson's government unit was dismantled."DHS officials told NBC News that the domestic intelligence division of DHS was merely reorganized." But in an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, he make it clear that is not what has happened.

"When the right-wing report was leaked and people politicized it, my management got scared and thought DHS would be scaled back. It created an environment where my analysts and I couldn't get our work done. DHS stopped all of our work and instituted restrictive policies. Eventually, they ended up gutting my unit. All of this happened within six to nine months after the furor over the report..."

When asked about the potential effect on the citizen's safety, Mr. Johnson says that  "What worries me is the fact that our country is [also] under attack from within, from our own radical citizenry. There have been a lot of small-scale attacks lately,.." "These incidents are starting to add up. Yet our legislators, politicians and national leaders don't appear too concerned about this. So, my greatest fear is that domestic extremists in this country will somehow become emboldened to the point of carrying out a mass-casualty attack, because they perceive that no one is being vigilant about the threat from within. That is what keeps me up at night."

 

UN Libya Panel & International Criminal Court Grapple With Difficult Issues

In late April the United Nations authorized an  inquiry into the violence and human rights abuses in Libya since forces supporting Muammar Al-Qathafi began a crackdown against protesters earlier this year. 

The panel is lead by Professor Cherif Bassiouni, Professor emeritus at DePaul’s College of Law, and an Egyptian jurist and war crimes expert who has previously served as a UN rapporteur;  Asma Khader, a Jordanian-Palestinian lawyer who serves on the executive committee of the International Commission of Jurists; and Canada’s Philippe Kirsch, who was the first president of the International Criminal Court.

While mostly motivated  by the reported actions of the Gadhafi forces, the investigation includes "all human rights violations — and it applies to anyone and any party. “ , according to Bassiouni. This could also include ”… actions of the NATO-led mission that has been enforcing a U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya and targeting military forces on the ground.”

The panel's report is expected to be completed by June 17. But  Bassiouni said the panel already plans to ask for more time to investigate. "This is a very short period of time to be able to do the work," Bassiouni said. "We will do the best we can, but it is our intention to recommend an extension."

Within the last few  weeks, events seem to be out-pacing the work of the panel. “On 4 May 2011, (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo informed the United Nations Security Council that in a few weeks he will request the judges of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against three individuals for crimes against humanity committed in Libya since 15 February 2011.”

According to the evidence collected so far, (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo  states  that “Crimes against humanity have been and continue to be committed in Libya, attacking unarmed civilians including killings and persecutions in many cities across Libya”

Both the investigatory panel and the ICC have their own mandate. According to Professor Bassiouni, "We don't work for the ICC, they don't work for us. We have a mandate, they have a mandate. We have, however, decided that we are going to have a collaborative relationship,"

It will be interesting to see how the arrest warrants from the IIC might affect the continuing work of the panel. Some might argue that once Gadhafi is subject to arrest warrants, he will be  bound to dig in his heels. That may be the short term impact. However,  the long term interests of the Lybian people as a whole, may best be served “..when those subject to arrest warrants are permanently removed from their lives.” The arrests warrants preclude the option of a deal  being made that maintains war criminals in position of power.

Also to be addressed by the panel, are issues of possible abuses by the NATO forces, as Professor Bassiuoni’s earlier comment left that possibility open. The political positions of UN member states like Russia & China, will not let this aspect of the investigation be forgotten.

“Russia and China accuse the coalition of going beyond the UN mandate, particularly with strikes such as a raid on Saturday in which one of Gaddafi's sons and three of his grandchildren were killed.” Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN envoy told the security council, “"Unfortunately it must be noted that actions by NATO-led coalition forces also lead to civilian casualties. This took place in particular during recent bombings of Tripoli,"

The Vatican has also criticized the continuing NATO military actions, “Giovanni Martinelli, the Vatican's delegate in Tripoli, called for a halt to NATO air strikes in Libya and for the West to negotiate with Gaddafi's government.”

 

Recent Congressional Bills On Digital Privacy - Already Behind The Technology ?

 
www.usmint.gov/images/

Three recent bills in Congress are attempting to put a legislative brake on the uncontrolled collection and selling of an ever expanding pool of personal information on consumers and citizens.

The bills include :

H. R. 1528  the ‘‘Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011’’, introduced  APRIL 13, 2011

S. 799 the ‘‘Commerci al Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011’’, introduced  APRIL 12, 2011

H. R. 654  the ‘‘Do Not Track Me Online Act’’, introduced in February 2011

An example of congressional concern from a recent news story, is Representative Markey's responce to the disclosure of Apple's hidden and unencrypted tracking saying, "“Apple needs to safeguard the personal location information of its users to ensure that an iPhone doesn’t become an iTrack,” “Given the widespread usage of iPhones and iPads by individuals under the age of 18, is Apple concerned that the wide array of precise location data logged by these devises can be used to track minors, exposing them to potential harm?”

According to an article by George H. Pike, director of the Barco Law Library and assistant professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, "The proposals would set minimum requirements for security of the information collected, and require senior management accountability for developing and implementing those standards. The Senate proposal would go further, imposing a “privacy by design” regime that would require businesses to incorporate information privacy protections and safeguards throughout the life cycle of a product or data gathering tool, rather than as an afterthought. The Senate bill would also impose rules for data minimization—collecting and retaining the minimum data for the minimum amount of time necessary to complete a transaction—and require procedures to ensure data accuracy." No congressional action has been taken on H.R. 654, as of yet.

Not all the threats to people's privacy come from actors outside the law. The developments in mobile technology and affordable forensic software and the application of the "plain view" doctrine to digital data by many courts, may make the next police traffic stop, into a legally sanctioned expedition into your daily life.

Writer , Alexis Madrigal, in an article in April Atlantic Magazine, describes the unexpected and frightening extent to which the off-the-shelf forensic software, "Lantern", provided a detailed record of his daily activities reflected in the memory of his cell phone :

"I plugged my phone into my computer and opened an application called Lantern, a forensics program for investigating iPhones and iPads. Ten minutes later, I'm staring at everything my iPhone knows about me. About 14,000 text messages, 1,350 words in my personal dictionary, 1,450 Facebook contacts, tens of thousands of locations pings, every website I've ever visited, what locations I've mapped, my emails going back a month, my photos with geolocation data attached and how many times I checked my email on March 24 or any day for that matter. Want to reconstruct a night? Lantern has a time line that combines all my communications and photos in one neat interface. While most of it is invisible during normal operations, there is a record of every single thing I've done with this phone, which also happens to form a
pretty good record of my life."

Mr. Madrigal says that according to the ACLU in Michigan, an FOIA request suggests that state troopers were using the "Cellebrite UFED", software similar to "Lantern", during routine traffic stops.

One reason that Congress is looking at legislation is that the current practices of "self-regulation", “have been too slow, and up to now have failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.” "Although many companies use privacy policies to explain their information practices, the policies have become long, legalistic disclosures that consumers usually don’t read and don’t understand if they do. Current privacy policies force consumers to bear too much burden in protecting their privacy.", according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Employing technology on the side of the consumer to provide more choice and control for the user is what the FTC calls a "privacy by design" approach that builds privacy protections into everyday business practices. Since gathering, retaining & bundling user information is such a valuable commodity, it may be a hard sell to get businesses to consider such technology.

Only time will tell whether legislation and regulations can have a meaningful impact on the swiftly changing technology and practices that threaten to make  4TH Amendment's rulings on "search & seizure" and “reasonable expectation of privacy.”,  just historical relics.

 

National Archives Re-visits Watergate Portrayal at Nixon Presidential Library

The opening of the Nixon Presidential Library’s exhibit on the Watergate scandal, curated by National Archives staff rather than Nixon Foundation personnel, presents a very  different perspective on the events.

The National Archives (NARA), took control of the Nixon library and museum in 2007. Previously, the Nixon library was begun and financed by Nixon loyalists and operated separately from the federal government's National Archives which operates all the other presidential libraries. NARA spent $500,000 remaking the Watergate section of the museum with interactive exhibits and displays describing the scandal and cover-up that led to the president's resignation and criminal convictions of aides.

Presidential libraries, even for NARA, probably have a tension between celebrating the achievements of past presidents and presenting the unvarnished history that may put these presidents in an unfavorable light.

However, when it comes to the Nixon Library, the assertion of NARA's control has corrected what was a self-serving historical revisionism on the part of the Nixon Foundation.

As reporter, Christopher Goffard of the Los Angeles Times, describes the changes :

“Where the old exhibit featured a heavily edited version of the "smoking gun" tape that sealed Nixon's resignation in 1974, the new exhibit presents it in full. Where the old text contended that a "mechanical malfunction" explained the infamous 18 1/2-minute gap in a key Nixon conversation, visitors will now be told it was probably a deliberate erasure. And where the old text portrayed the scandal as a "coup" engineered by Nixon's enemies, the new narrative places the Watergate burglary within a broader pattern of dirty tricks, spying and sabotage by the Nixon White House."

However, the Nixon Foundation vigorously fought the new presentation of the Watergate era by sending  a 158-page memo assailing the proposed exhibit line by line, panel by panel which resulted in a nine-month delay in presenting the exhibit.

How seriously one can take such a memo, is clarified by the quote of a former member of the Foundation, John Taylor. that “it has fallen into the hands of "Nixon White House operatives … including individuals involved in Watergate or Watergate-era activities,"

Constitutional criminals still trying to cover their assets by distorting the historical record !

Sources :

Nixon library now tells full Watergate story
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY

A new take on Watergate at Nixon library
By Christopher Goffard, Los Angeles Times

Governor Quinn Signs Death Penalty Bill, Illinois Becomes 16TH State to Abolish

This past Wednesday, Illinois Governor Quinn signed the bill from the General Assembly that abolishes the death penalty in Illinois. It is now Public Act 096-1543. Senate Bill 3539 had been  adopted by the Illinois General Assembly in December after more than a decade of debate, discussion and analysis of Illinois’ system of capital punishment.

The Governor himself undertook a protracted process of evaluation with input from many constituencies both pro & con before coming to his decision. In a radio interview on a local station WBEZ, he said that he spoke with leaders of various faith traditions. He mentioned that the book, "A Gift of Peace" by the late Cardinal Bernadin had paricular influence on his decision. Among the religious he consulted was Sister Helen Prejean, longtime death penalty opponent who recently donated her personal archives to DePaul.

He also mentioned the input of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens from Illinois regarding the inability of constructing an error-free and impartial death penalty system. Like the Justice, Governor Quinn does not believe, that is possible to have such a system in our state. He cites the 20 exonerations of Illinois death row inmates and the effects of factors such as race, economic status, geographic location, and also the  behavior of some prosecutors.

When asked whether the reforms to the sytem under previous legislation had fixed the problems. The Governor said he did not believe that mistakes would be eliminated even with the reforms. A system that would still run the risk of killing an innocent person, was not acceptable to him.

DePaul law Professor Andrea Lyon who has argued and won 19 death row cases herself, had encouraged Governor Quinn to sign the death penalty bill. In a commentary on the huffington Post she commended the Governor for his decison. She said that, "He made his points about his reasons with clarity and compassion saying -- as I also believe -- that people of good will can come out on this issue with differing points of view."

In an interview on local radio station WBEZ she also reiterated the governors point that reforms would not fix the system. She said that while some of the refroms have improved some procedures, wrongful convictions would still occur due to many factors that are not controlled and because we are human and fallible.

People of good will like our own Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and  Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez and several other prosecutors have opposed Gov. Quinn's decision, frequently citing the most gruesome cases of murders and the outrage that the families directly affected and the general public rightly feel.

But as Mark Osler,Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas, points out to all of us :

"...She has identified exactly the dynamic -- a narrow focus on the shocking facts of a case -- that led to so many innocent people being placed on death row in Illinois. The bare truth is that it is in these worst, most compelling cases that we too often convict the wrong person in haste, because the cry for retribution is so strong."

"When a child is shot, a policeman killed, a pregnant woman and her husband gunned down for someone's thrills, we are justifiably incensed. However, that public mood creates tremendous pressure on public servants like Madigan to bring someone to trial, and that pressure has led too often to the pursuit
of weak cases that led in the end to exoneration. It leads us right back to the scandal of innocents on death row that shocked us into action to reform the death penalty in the first place."

New Professor Bassiouni Book Examines U.S. Torture Policies

A post on this blog from two years ago,"The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld", Book From The Center for Constitutional Rights , highlighted a book entitled "The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld A Prosecution by Book. It is "... a book that lays out the evidence that high-level officials of the George W. Bush administration have ordered, authorized, implemented and permitted war crimes, in particular the crimes of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The authors point out by including "by book" in the subtitle, they did not have expectations that the officials involved would actually be investigated or held accountable for the consequences of their policies.

Two years later, well into the new Obama administration, the situation has only partially improved. Some of the most egregious policies and practices have stopped. But some continue under new names. Still there are no serious investigations by either the administration or Congress , of past practices and who formulated and carried them out. There have been some significant changes but much of the past remains unexamined, not allowing us the means to judge accountability and threatening a re-occurrence of those practices in the future.
[ Obama Team Is Divided on Anti-Terror Tactics, Eric Holder and the battle over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ]

  It is propitious that at this time, DePaul law Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, has come out with the book, "The Institutionalization of Torture by the Bush Administration , Is Anyone responsible?", to forcefully and cogently raise again those issues of accountability and of the need to end those practices that continue to violate our constitution, our treaties and not least of all, our morals as a nation.

In documenting what the problems have been, Professor Bassiouni points out the central role of resident Bush's official lawyers in providing a "legal" basis for what was undertaken. Professor Bassiouni says that, "In time, future generations of Americans, as well as non-Americans...will wonder why these actions were allowed to occur, why the organized bar failed to oppose such crimes or investigate for possible ethical violations those lawyers who wrote memoranda justifying torture, why so many Americans supported torture, and why the Obama administration has failed the principled task of investigating the crimes allegedly committed."
[ Foreword p. xii ]

In a comment on Professor Bassiouni's book, John D. Hutson, Dean of the University of New Hampshire School of Law who also served as Judge Advocate General of the Navy, states "...It's a tough subject, but an important read for anyone who wants to ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated by this great nation."     [book jacket]

Link to book on Amazon

Addendum:

Link to podcast of a talk with Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University and author of "The Institutionalization of Torture by the Bush Administration: Is Anyone Responsible?" and Chicago attorney Candace Gorman, who represents two Guantanamo detainees, on the WBEZ program Worldview, Jan. 24, 2011.

Human Rights Day, The Nobel Peace Prize & Wikileaks

Today Dec. 10 has been designated, Human Right Day, by the United Nations. The day commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Yesterday was also the day that the Nobel Committee awarded Chinese pro-democracy activist, Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize in abstentia. Both of these events highlight the continuing struggle to make the provisions of the declaration a reality in countries around the world.

Each year,  Human Righs Day has a particular focus for that year. In the past such issues as poverty,torture, discrimination and human right education have been focal issues. This year the focus is on "human rights defenders". As Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, states :

"We owe the progress we have made to the enormous efforts of hundreds of thousands of largely unsung heroes, known collectively as human rights defenders.Human rights defenders come from all walks of life, ranging from princesses and politicians, to professionals such as journalists, teachers and doctors, to people with little or no formal education. There are no special qualifications. All it takes is commitment, and courage."

"One important set of statistics is missing: we have no idea how many human rights defenders there are, or how many of them are intimidated, harassed, beaten up, jailed or killed each year. We have also failed to develop ways to measure their successes, which are often credited not to them but to the politicians or governments that finally listen to them or give in to their pressure. We need to do a much better job of defending our defenders."

At this specific historical juncture with the vociferous condemnation of the Nobel award by the Chinese government and the attempted prosecution and  demonization of Mr. Juliam Assange of Wikileaks, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration seems particularly relevant to the protection of our human rights defenders.

Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

 We have high-profile politicians like Mr. Newt Gingrich self-righteously accusing  Mr. Assange of fictious crimes :

"Assange has published hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. documents on the Internet. Gingrich told Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano that Assange “is an active enemy combatant who is engaged in information warfare against the United States. What he is doing is going to have incalculable damage to this country. It is going to have a number of innocent people killed, a number of our allies killed. It is going to put Americans at risk.... This is an act of war against the United States.”

Mr. Gingrich begins to sound more like the Chinese officials who try to smear Mr.Liu Xiaobo :

"According to Chinese media reports, Liu Xiaobo has been used by western countries as a political tool in order to weaken China and throw the country into chaos. The Nobel Peace Prize was described as an award to Liu for committing treason."

"Liu Xiaobo broke Article 105, a crime of instigating the subversion of state power," Jiang said Thursday. "He went beyond general criticism of the state.

What often is lost in these fevered accusations, is placing the activities of such persons in a human rights context as "human rights defenders" who call attention to and take serious risks to defend those rights that Human Right Day was created to proclaim.

In regards to Mr. Assange and the wikileaks revelations, Amnesty international (AI) provides this context  and a thoughtful response to some of the hysteria that is developing around these releases. In a short question & answer format, AI raise the human rights issues involved and helps clarify some other issue in this case.

Some of the significant point that AI makes include :

While government can impose restricions on its employees and can take measures to keep it's communications confidential, it should only restrict freedom of expression to specific and narrowly-applied grounds.This canot constitute "...a blank cheque to keep information secret or to punish individuals for publishing it, simply by declaring the information to be “classified” or declaring it necessary to restrict it as a matter of "national security"..."

Ai has called upon Wikileaks to insure that individuals are not put at risk by being identied as sources in the documents. But this different from the risk of public embarrassment for particular officials.
"...criminal proceedings aimed at punishing a private person for communicating evidence about human rights violations can never be justified. The same is true with respect to information on a wide range of other matters of public interest."

"...governments cannot avoid their obligations to respect the right to freedom of expression by attempting to do indirectly what they would be forbidden from doing directly.  Businesses, too, should ensure that their own actions, at minimum, respect human rights."

Once classified information has been released, "...states cannot rely on sweeping claims of national interest to justify coercive measures aimed at preventing further public disclosure or discussion of the information."

The AI response reasserts the human right dimension of "dissident" freedom of expression here in the U.S. as well as in China. We should value the role that these human right defenders are playing for all of us.