The New York Times reports that the Justice Department is seeking a ruling that will allow them to use secret evidence in Immigration Court cases. I can see how secret evidence might be necessary in a very small number of cases, but the idea of denying defendants in court cases the right to see (and thus perhaps refute) evidence against them is an anethema to me.

Here’s why people make fun of California.

Sun has a lot of cool new features planned for the Java debugger in version 1.4 of the JDK. I spent about four hours in the Java debugger yesterday, and I would have really appreciated it if these features were already implemented.

It looks like everyone around the world complaining that there’s no proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks can shut up now. The Washington Post reports that a home movie of bin Laden was found in an abandoned home in Jalalabad (the town where many of the Arabs in Afghanistan lived) during which he basically confessed to planning the attacks. I hope the White House releases it publicly, they have nothing to lose by doing so, and it’s a tape that ought to air on Al Jazeera I think.

The following beauty and hygiene tips were found in an infiltration guide for terrorists:

Deodorant is meant to be used directly on the body, the notes advise, rather than on clothing, while watches should be worn on the left wrist. Rings should be made of gold, even though Islamic fundamentalists say it violates religious law for men to wear gold. It is important to know the difference between perfume and after-shave, the notes say, and even more significant to know the difference between perfume for men and that for women. “If you will use the female perfume so you will be in big trouble.”

Islamists and white supremacists, their hatred and xenophobia bring them together. It’s always nice to see people find common ground.

I think that one marginally interesting story that will come out in the future is the context surrounding the editorial decision at the New York Times to hammer the civil rights issue unrepentingly in months since the attacks. Every day it seems like they have multiple news stories and op-ed pieces about all aspects of civil liberties. There have been plenty of columns that they’ve printed that I haven’t agreed with, but I really appreciate their vigilance on this issue. There’s no question that the fundamental balance of liberty versus security has rightfully changed since September 11, but the work of publications like the New York Times (and perhaps weblogs like this one, too) helps to insure that the balance doesn’t skew too far in the wrong direction.

Columnist Richard Reeves expresses his outrage at John Ashcroft clearly enough in his latest column:

So, the attorney general of the United States tells me: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists.”

Well, screw you, buddy! What are you trying to say? Are you saying that anyone who talks about civil rights, civil liberties and the freedom that makes us Americans is a traitor in this undeclared but loudly proclaimed war?

The Economist has a pretty evenhanded rundown on the administration’s various attacks on our civil liberties/efforts to improve national security in the wake of the September 11 attacks. A lot of people believe that Bush and Ashcroft are attempting to turn the US into some sort of dictatorship, I’m not one of them. However, I believe that all of the steps that have been taken need to be evaluated as a whole, and that we need to consider how they might be misused by someone with good intentions and poor judgement, or someone who flat out has bad intentions. If we don’t give the government the tools to legally monitor and dominate our lives, it’s less likely that it will do so.