Thursday, December 04, 2003 :::
 
When Knocking Creates an Exigent Circumstance

Not the most catchy title for a blog post but a pretty succinct summary of the unanimous holding of the Supreme Court in US. v Banks. They create three categories of the circumstances surrounding the execution of a valid search warrant.
An example of the first category would be a situation where police are going to find someone who has been kidnapped and there is a reason to believe that person will be imminently harmed/raped/killed. Those facts create an exigent circumstance in which the police do not need to knock and announce their presence but can break down the door and rush in because every second counts. An example of the second case would be where the police are searching for a stolen piano. There are no concerns that the piano is about to be harmed and there are no concerns that evidence of the crime is about to be destroyed (where ya gonna hide a piano?) Here, police must knock and announce their intention to search the premises. They can only enter the premises by force if they are refused entry. This is a common law tradition to prevent unnecessary damage to people's homes that was codified into federal law. The courts had previously decided that the police need not wait for a verbal refusal but can use force to enter if enough time passes that the police can infer that the occupant, if at home, is refusing to open the door.
The court in Banks says it granted cert to clarify how long is a reasonable amount of time before police enter. From this formulation one would assume that the court would go about deciding what amount of time can reasonably be considered a refusal to come to the door. [The defendant lived in a small apartment, the police were searching for cocaine, they knocked and the broke the door down 15-20 seconds after knocking. The defendant was in the shower and came out dripping wet and in a towel after he heard the door crash in claiming he never heard the knocking]
I am no big fan of the 9th Circuit but in their own sloppy and misguided way they at least addressed that question, making distinctions between studio apartments, townhouses, and estates. The Supremes said this was a reasonable refusal inference issue and then came out with a decision based on a completely different concept. The issue, they asserted is not really what the police can infer is a refusal from the silence on the far side of the door, but that this was a drug case and the evidence could easily be disposed of by flushing down the toilet or the sink. Therefore, as soon as the police announced themselves, they have created an exigent circumstance which demanded they enter the apartment before the evidence can be destroyed.
Wheeha! We have just created a new category: no exigent circumstances exist which can legally justify a "no-knock" warrant from a judge (presumably this standard is to protect property and privacy rights) yet the police create the exigent circumstances when the knock and announce themselves. Now, the Supremes say, no need to wait for refusal, just bust down the door.
It's a pretty weak decision even if it is unanimous, maybe I'll write more later but either we take this protection seriously and do not consider this an exigent circumstance case, or we dispense with the charade, because knocking will no longer protect a citizens door if it takes longer than 10 seconds to answer the doorbell.


::: posted by Ari at 5:17 PM



Wednesday, November 26, 2003 :::
 
A Thanksgiving Mystery
Even those who hold Jews should not eat turkey on Thanksgiving [see my response in the post below] do not object to eating turkey at the other times of the year. Why should they you ask? Well the laws of kosher are pretty complicated especially when it comes to what birds/fowl are allowed to be eaten under the law. The Orthodox tradition is basically to only eat from birds that we have a “mesorah,” a teaching passed down through the generations that establishes it as kosher.
Chickens, Geese, Ducks, and Turtledoves all had ancestors in the ancient near east that can be tied in a direct line of descent to the common species of today. But the turkey is supposed to be native to North America, a great symbol of this country (at least according to Ben Franklin). So where did its mesorah come from and why can we eat it as kosher today?


::: posted by Ari at 3:02 PM


 
“A Very Jewish Thanksgiving”
There is a segment of Orthodox Jewry that refuses to acknowledge the American holiday of Thanksgiving. This is a complicated position based on a number of factors. Some object to its origins as a Puritanical Christian day of thanks and worship, others object to the very notion of Jews participating in a custom or ritual without Jewish origins. Still others object on the notion of separating their community from the non-Jewish community surrounding them, and others object based on biblical injunctions not to act in the ways of the Non-Jew.
I know these reasons sound interrelated, and in fact they are just each one stressing a particular reason for the objection. One of my former teachers even went so far as to say that one cannot eat turkey the night of Thanksgiving. Even if the household had regularly scheduled meals and Thursday was always turkey night, the teacher stressed that we must show we are different by switching the meal. It’s not enough to ignore it, we have to be different.
I respectfully disagree. The biblical injunction not to follow the ways of the other nations of the world is certainly applicable to their practices we find immoral, such as idol worship, sexual matters, and personal modesty. It may even apply to “neutral” practices as some scholars have written, such as certain forms of their entertainment which we feel has no value and only distract one from other endeavors that are more productive in leading a spiritually fulfilling life. But definitely does not apply to learning from non-Jews when they do the right thing. In that case, the obligation of the Jew is to study the practice praise those who do it, and try to emulate it ourselves.
How do I know we are supposed to learn and emulate the positive actions of the other nations of the world? From an ancient tradition that we repeat on the holiest day of the year. Every year on Yom Kippur, during the afternoon prayers as the Sun is disappearing and the holiest moments of the holiest day approaches we read the entire book of Jonah. Many commentators ask why this book is read at this particular time and answer that on the day of Divine forgiveness we learn an important lesson of repentance: after simply hearing the word of God’s prophet Jonah, the entire city of Ninveh came together to sincerely repent. It was the failure of the Jewish people to emulate Ninveh by listening to the words of their prophets that allowed the descendants Ninveh to lead the Jews into captivity. [As an aside, many commentators use this as the reasons for Jonah’s refusal to obey God. He knew that Ninveh would repent and that the Jewish people would fail to repent and thus be subjected to a successful attack by the descendants of Ninveh. He hoped by not going to prevent the repentance that would eventually lead to enormous destruction for the Jews.]
On Yom Kippur (!) we must learn a lesson from and try to emulate the positive practices of “the goyim.”
This was a day created and still observed to thank the creator for allowing people to establish this portion of the world as free from religious persecution. As we Jews look throughout the world today how thankful must we be that there exists this country that allows us to fulfill our full spiritual potential without real fear of attack from our neighbors.
One of the Giants of the past generation Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (May the memory of the righteous be blessed) called this country a “Medinah Shell Chesed” a “Land of Kindness” and said it was for that reason it was able to grow in power and wealth (consider Abraham as a parallel.) And if one can tell the true character of a country or a people by how it reacts to adversity, well then… we need not strain our memories to recall the lines of people willing to donate blood, or the thousands of people working without pay to recover the remains at ground zero, or the hundreds of millions donated not just in money to the victims but in supplies and water and food to the rescuers during the recovery, or those rushing up the burning towers, or those who sacrificed their lives so the attackers could not cause even more destruction.
There are days when we as a Jewish people celebrate and thank God for the hidden miracles that saved us long ago. There are days when Jewish communities celebrate and thank God for the hidden miracles that allowed their spiritual leaders and thus the community to survive. Tomorrow is a day to celebrate and Thank God for another hidden miracle that created the safety of this Land of Kindness, and established as a guiding principal the freedom from religious persecution that allows us to fulfill our spiritual destiny as Jews. Even if we learned about celebrating this hidden miracle from the non-Jews who recognized it long ago.


::: posted by Ari at 2:37 PM


 
“Insource, Outsource, all Around the Town-source”
These are my simplified thoughts about an issue that according to many commentators including the “Blogfather” will play a big role in the upcoming presidential campaign.
Traditionally, creating a product or a service to capture/create some of the global “wealth” two main components are needed: capital and labor. This is a rough model I know and in many cases start-up capital is negligible, and in other cases, not much labor is required but as a general rule to create the supply of widgets that are in demand money is needed to set up the factory, buy the equipment, land, supply of raw material, etc. And labor is needed to design the widget, test it, and run the machines or equipment that does the actual manufacturing.
After the sale of the widgets, some of the created wealth goes to the labor as salary and the rest to the suppliers of capital. Who gets what percentage is determined by the labor market or capital market and whether one side needs the other more than vice versa.
Even for service companies, various forms of capital are needed. As a young associate in a law firm, money is needed to rent offices, pay the utilities, pay paralegals and secretaries, fund a library, get access to research materials and many other things that help a firm run.
In addition, the very nature of the firm is that the partners by their expertise and experience have built up a store of intangible capital that allows them to charge a premium for their services. But there is only so much work one person can do, so the partners hires young lawyers to associate themselves with the firm who can under the supervision of the partner, produce many times the work product that one person alone could turn out. A premium is still paid because this work is supposedly still based on the partners’ expertise. The partner benefits by applying his reputation to a larger body of work for which he still charges high fees and the younger lawyer benefits both from the paid salary and the opportunity to gain experience and expertise that he may one day be able to turn into capital.
Monetary Capital that is left stagnant and is not put to use teamed up with labor to create wealth actually loses value if there is any inflationary forces in effect at the time. The old saying “it takes money to make money” is a pretty accurate description of the economy of the globe.
Some people find themselves with a supply of capital, while others find they only have a supply of labor. The trend of the past few centuries was to create institutions that allowed the free movement of capital throughout the world while at the same time restricting the movement of labor to certain regions or countries. This perpetuated existing inequities. Wealthy people with a supply of capital were able to find opportunities wherever they existed. If wealth could be generated by building factories in Malaysia, or the Congo they could bring their capital to wherever it was needed. But a person living in Malaysia that only had his labor/skills to create wealth was restricted from bringing them to the place with the most opportunity to capture their value, places like the U.S. or Europe where labor is paid at a higher rate. That the labor was trapped in Malaysia only made their situation worse because the suppliers of capital knew that even though the labor may fetch a higher price in the U.S., getting there was not an option for most Malaysians and they were forced to take as compensation the amount accepted by the lowest market makers who were all trapped in the same place.
[There were some countries that restricted the amount of wealth that could be used by their citizens as capital outside the country, but this forced holders of capital to let their money stagnate or put the money into higher risk ventures just hoping they could get some sort of return.]
The U.S. prospered under this system because it allowed capital to enter from anywhere and had natural resources and a skillful labor supply that turned that capital into even greater wealth. Labor was restricted from freely entering the country, protecting/inflating the value of those already in the U.S., and as a bonus, people could move anywhere within the U.S. which allowed that labor to find the best market for its skill among a vast a growing territory, not restricting it to a small, poor, area.
So those with capital could go anywhere to use it, but those with labor were only as lucky as their country of origin and potential points of emigration allowed them to be.
Technology, is now equalizing some of these inequities, not by freely moving labor like we freely move capital, but by bringing the jobs to where the labor has been traditionally trapped.
The irony is that the leveling of inequity takes place almost exclusively within the labor market as those lucky laborers in the U.S. no longer have a protected market but must compete with laborers in poorer countries willing to work for less. Assuming their work is the same quality of work done in the U.S., those with the capital once again make out better that expected, because instead of finding skilled workers in the high-priced market where the resources are, they can use technology to find the cheapest supply of quality of labor. The only way they suffer is if enough markets are created that reward highly skilled labor, so that they will no longer find “cheaper markets” that really could supply outside labor.
This means that as long as technology’s advantages are applied to only selected parts of the world, suppliers of skill/labor will only compete with each other and the supplier of capital’s share gets bigger. But if we are able to use technology to give us virtually a free movement of labor market in every region of the globe, labor can begin to reclaim a portion of the wealth it helps generate for the suppliers of capital.


::: posted by Ari at 1:32 PM


 
“We are all Jews”

The time has come to see if Europe has learned the lessons of its history. As in the not-so-distant past, the rhetoric of Anti-Semitism creeps forth from officials in Germany describing Jews as “a race of perpetrators” of mass killings and genocide. That same hateful language is then publicly proclaimed before the government of Greece by a “noted” artist who insists “the Jews are the root of evil,” without a word of protest from those leaders present. Words of hate are given a standing ovation at the conclusion of a speech in which the President of a U.N. member country declares that “the Jews run the world by proxy… they get others to fight and die for them.” Prime time specials are broadcast during the holy month of Ramadan on Arabic satellite channels, spreading across the globe the worst of the traditional blood-libels and Jewish conspiracy theories.

One can see, even without a degree in Sociology, that this growing respectability for those expressing such hatred surely fosters an environment that leads to violence against the Jews. The ultimate demonstration of this contempt for the Jewish people took place this weekend when two synagogues were targeted in country that is soon to join the European Union, and on the Jewish Sabbath during services. This same contempt leads to the burning of a school for Jewish children and attacks on people easily identified as Jews in the countryside and streets of France.

As the home of the largest Jewish community in Europe, the people of France should be ashamed that the Chief Rabbi must call on Jews to hide their identity, to no longer wear the traditional yarmulke or skullcap in public and to cover their heads with a baseball cap which allows them to keep the tradition of a head covering without providing a target. A few decades after the world vowed to “Never Forget” their inaction as Jews were targeted on the streets of Europe, it finds that forgetting is not an option when the same circumstances repeat themselves. Will France, once a collaborator in genocide, remember the lesson taught by the brave Danish King who proudly wore the yellow Star of David, and encouraged his people to do the same to prevent the Nazis from singling out Jews for persecution?

As an American, I remember the strong feeling of goodwill when on the day after the country and city I live in was attacked, the people of France, our longtime ally, stood by our side, observed the horror that took place and empathized with us saying “We are All Americans.” The same people should realize the horrible consequences of the hate taking over portions of their country. A Jew should not have to walk in fear because of his religion or ethnicity in any civilized portion of this planet. Instead of watching as Jews hide their skullcaps, the people of good will should wear them in solidarity with the one minority in France that is under physical assault. And in this way say to the haters, “We are all Jews.”


::: posted by Ari at 12:19 PM



Thursday, May 08, 2003 :::
 
Responding to what argument Eugene Volokh fears he is missing about the Privacy Debate

Being a very recent grad of law school and in hearing many debates on these privacy issues, I think that it's important to realize that poeple have certain expectations concerning places they feel should be private. (I'll leave out the argument over Katz and whether these expectations are taken into account by the law or shaped by the law and thus are changeable for now.)
His P.I. example is a great one. I think people understand that its probably legal to follow someone clandestinely (without harassment obviously) and observe what stores in the mall they enter. It could be Macy's, the Gap, Victoria's Secret, or an Adult shop, the fact that people are venturing out into a public place removes some of their privacy expectations and so if others care enough to follow them and note where they make purchases or who they meet, they understand being in a public place means losing some privacy. On the other hand, as he mentioned, taking a telephoto lens to the interior of someone's house would be seen as an invasion of privacy. This is the ultimate place of privacy secured by a right in the highest law of the land. People feel like whatever they do in their home should be their private business.
Sitting alone at night in front of a computer at home and looking at a web site or making an online purchase certainly does not feel like one is entering a "public space." It feels like one is doing something in the privacy of one's home for which there is a great expectation that the law protects that privacy. If instead of using that telephoto lens to peer into the bedroom the P.I. used it in the den to check out which websites a person visited and what online purchases they made, it would probably still be tortious! Yet by typing a few commands into their PC at home the person causes computers all over the world to respond.


::: posted by Ari at 12:52 PM


 
Response to Volokh Part II

So we have these two notions, a person is doing actions that can be traced outside the home, but from a place where there is the highest expectation of privacy. I have followed some of the what I call "emanation" cases, such as the case where the heat from lamps used to grow marijuana were detectable from outside the house and used as probable cause. They cops did not enter the house, they just measured using new technology, the heat emanating into the public space, (This case most closely followed the Katz doctrine because similarly, the microphone was not inside the phone booth, but outside taped to the top and simply recorded whatever sound emanated into the public space.) Technology should not be used to catch emanations if the actions take place in a zone of protected privacy.
Now cyberspace is different, its not just emanations into the public sphere, but commands for computers in the public sphere to act, and so maybe those actions taking place in public can be recordable? Well, I think an argument can be made that actions in a private zone should not be subject to the use of technology to record those actions without violating a right to privacy. A privacy that would force the governement to get a warrant.

::: posted by Ari at 12:50 PM



Wednesday, February 05, 2003 :::
 
From Powell's remarks in Davos

MR. SCHWAB: Mr. Secretary, instead of making a conclusion I would like to use the rest of the time to ask you a personal question. How did 9/11 impact on your life? Did it really change you as a person? Having seen so much in your life, when this event happened, this tragedy, how did it change you?

SECRETARY POWELL: I served for 35 years as a soldier and I’ve been in combat, I fought in Vietnam for two years and was responsible for military operations in Panama, military operations in the Gulf during the early 90s and for many years I was part of the Cold War deterrence force in Korea and in Europe, especially in Germany. So I know about war. And on that morning I was in Peru talking peace, I was talking about democratic values. I didn’t go there with hard power, I went to Peru that morning with soft power. (Applause.)

We were in Peru for a meeting of the Organization of American States and we were going to sign a charter that said if you wanted to be a member in good standing of this community of democracies you have to adhere to certain basic principles, certain basic values. That’s what I was there for. And I was with President Toledo for breakfast and we were talking about trade issues. Not building up his army or anything that we were doing with our military. We were talking about trade, we were talking about textile quotas. And a note came in that said there had been an attack of some kind. It wasn’t clear. A plane had hit the World Trade Center.

It wasn’t immediately clear until the second note saying there were two planes. It made it clear it couldn’t be an accident. And as the realization of this overwhelmed me I asked my assistant to get a plane ready to return to the United States, without knowing any more. I knew I had to go home. It suddenly dawned on me what might have happened. And then more reports came in with respect to the level of damage at the World Trade Center and then the word came in that the Pentagon had been hit, and there were other planes in the air and we didn’t know where they were going. My own department, the State Department, was at risk, the White House was at risk, all of our nation’s institutions were at risk.

Before 11:00, as a plane was being readied, I went into a meeting hall. All the foreign ministers of the Americas, the OAS, 34 of the 35, assembled and expressed their solidarity with the United States and expressed their condolences for the lives lost. And by acclamation they all stood up and adopted that charter.




::: posted by Ari at 2:06 PM


 
Powell Pt. II

It took me seven hours to fly home. And during that time the thought overwhelmed me that I was back at war again. This time it was not against the Russian army on the north German plain, it wasn’t going to be along the 38th parallel in Korea. It was going to be against an enemy that had no borders, no territory, an enemy that was going to be difficult to fight, but an enemy we had to fight, not just that day but for a long period of time until we prevailed. It was going to be an enemy that was not just threatening the United States, it was threatening every civilized nation on earth. And every civilized nation on earth was going to have to come together to fight this enemy.

So for me this was a new war. And I’d be doing it not as a soldier but as Secretary of State. I had to help President Bush bring together a powerful coalition and not be afraid of what was ahead. To deal with individuals who are terrorists, to deal with terrorist organizations, but also--we recognized early on--to deal with those states that harbor terrorism, those states that were developing capabilities, horrible capabilities, that if they fell into the hands of terrorists, would do more damage than those planes did on 9/11.

And President Bush dedicated himself, his administration, and I think every international organization in the world came together, to dedicate themselves to the proposition that in this new century with the Cold War behind us, with fascism and communism and Hitlerism all in the dustbin of history, this new enemy was just as real and we knew it would be difficult and we knew there would be days when our anxieties would well up and our fears would well up and we would be afraid to take the next step.

But we knew we would have to take that next step. And we are probably approaching one such moment now where we will have to take that next step. And history will judge us as to whether or not we have the strength and fortitude and the willingness to take that next step.


::: posted by Ari at 2:05 PM



Wednesday, November 20, 2002 :::
 
The following is a copy of a letter sent by the Finnish Ambassador to another Jewish organization.
I am writing to you with reference to your concerns as expressed in a conversation with my Political Counselor Mr. Syrjala. I really appreciate your willingness to take the time and check the facts with us before making any judgment in this case.
First, I want to remind you that Finland was among the first countries to recognize the State of Israel and has always recognized her right to defend herself. We have continued to issue licenses for export of defensive technology to Israel. For example, 10.000 NBC gas masks as late as November last year
I would like to remind you, Mr. Ambassador, which country fought on the side of the Nazis in WWII. And so you have recognized Israel's right to defend herself as long as no one actually gets hurt. But, God forbid the Jews ever really fight back and you'll be the first to cry out for her to stop from your bankrupt position of moral authority.

::: posted by Ari at 5:33 PM


 
Even this time around, we did not refuse to sell defensive technology to Israel in quantities that would make any difference in terms of Israel´s ability to protect her six million citizens. We were asked by Israel for two (2) hand-held, latest-model gas detectors for testing purposes. This was the third time over the years that Israel had asked for gas detectors designed and made by the same Finnish firm, each time when a new model appeared on the market, each time for two of them, and each time for testing purposes only. The licenses were issued on both previous occasions but no subsequent purchase by Israel took place on either occasion.
In order to detect the use of chemical weapons and to protect large numbers of civilians, hundreds if not thousands of such detectors are required. So, it is not fair to say that our decision weakens Israel´s ability to protect her citizens.


The Finnish Foreign Ministry at times tried to down play their ban by saying "It's Only 2 units," but that is exactly what Israel wants and needs for testing at this time before they decide whether to make a larger purchase. The language they have been using also seems to suggest that Israel wants these units as a free sample, when in fact, the intention was to purchase these multi-thousand-dollar units from the beginning. If Israel is not allowed to purchase the samples for testing, they will be unable to determine if they should purchase more units and Israelis of all religions would be denied the use of potentially life saving technology.

::: posted by Ari at 5:26 PM


 
Israel purchased samples twice before without subsequently submitting a large order. If the code did in fact prohibit such sales, Finland would never have allowed the earlier purchase of samples to proceed. The Finnish Foreign Ministry has used the claim that they permitted such sales in the past to show they are unbiased but do not explain why this time differs so drastically. They claim to have questions about the need to only purchase two samples each time, and wonder why they should expect that Israel might order more detectors now when they haven't done so in the past. In every case Israel has asked to purchase samples of the latest generation detectors. The Chempro 100, current model differs greatly from previous attempts to create portable chemical detectors. Perhaps Israel wants to see if the latest product is worth spending their scarce resources on. Perhaps, now that Israel is facing what looks to be like an imminent non-conventional attack if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq will make them think seriously about spending more money on detectors. The possible explanations are obvious and numerous. If Finland claims they haven't recievd a satisfactory answer as to why selling two samples now might be different, it is because there is no answer that will satisfy them.


::: posted by Ari at 5:25 PM


 
There are two articles you might find useful here. The Jerusalem Post today (November 13, 2002) wrote about the gas detector deal. The second article (Tadiran deal with Finland - the start of a beautiful friendship) demonstrates that, for us, Israel is a normal partner, and not under any embargo as many people have inferred during these last few days.

I hope that this explanation of what actually was the content and context of our decision will allay your concerns.

Yours Sincerely,

Jukka Valtasaari

Ambassador



Well Mr. Ambassador, the claim these articles have been responding with most often is a derivative of the above issue. They point to the fact that Israel only wants two detectors as a way to suggest that Israel is going to steal the technology. This is the most troubling response because it seems the least truthful. The Finnish government has no financial stake in the technology in question. As we explained below, Environics owns all proprietary rights to the detctors. It is Environics which stands to lose millions if Israel steals their technology or worse yet, sells it to others. Yet Environics had agreed to the sale an applied for the export license to send its detectors to Israel. Why would the Finnish government get involved when the company, which stands to millions has said it is willing to sell Israel these samples.

At this time when Israel is the country most likely to be the target of a non-conventional attack, Finland's actions leave the impression that they were done solely to express displeasure with Israel. We continue to be concerned that this is the impression that Finland is conveying to Israelis, Arabs and people around the world. At a time when a chemical attack is looking more likely every day, God forbid, we continue to wonder why Finland has deviated from its previous policy of allowing the export of these defensive technology to Israel and we urge the Finnish Government to reconsider their decision. This is especially in light of Environics clear willingness to go along with the proposed sale only to have the Finnish governement stop them.





::: posted by Ari at 5:22 PM



Monday, November 18, 2002 :::
 
Call-In Day to Finland's Embassies on 11/20
A coalition my gf works for is organizing and action day to mobilize American Jews to call the various embassies and consulates of Finland after their latest anti-Israel decision puts millions of lives at unecessary risk.

The coalition includes 11 major jewish women's organization of all religious and political backgrounds including: American Jewish Congress Commission for Women’s Equality, AMIT, Hadassah:The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Jewish Women International, JOFA: The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, NA’AMAT USA, National Council of Jewish Women, Women of Reform Judaism, Women’s American ORT, Women’s Branch of the Orthodox Union, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism.

See their website www.onevoice4israel.org for more info about the coalition. And read the posts below to learn how you can participate.


::: posted by Ari at 5:01 PM


 
Why call the Finnish Government?
A Finnish company named Environics is the sole producer of Chempro 100, a chemical warfare alarm agent. Israel ordered this product from the company and while Environics agreed to sell two sample units for testing, the Finnish government banned its export to Israel. In the event that a war between the United States and Iraq breaks out, Israeli citizens – Jews, Muslims and Christians – will likely be targets of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Chempro 100 is needed to help defend Israeli civilians. The Finnish government has offered a number of excuses to explain what is a purely anti-Israel decision including fears of industrial espionage. But , Environics, sole owner of the patents and in position to lose millions if Israel steals the technology, agreed to the sale, and currently, no European Union regulation prohibits the sale of this type of technology. Ask the Finnish government to reverse their decision and allow for the export of Chempro 100 to Israel. (Plus, Finland fought with the Nazis the last time poison gas was used against millions of Jews.)


::: posted by Ari at 4:51 PM


 
What You Can Do
Call representatives of Finland’s government in the United States at the Consulate General of Finland in New York at (212) 750-4400, Los Angeles at (310) 203-9903 and Ambassador Jukka Valtasaari at the Embassy of Finland at (202) 298-5800. Corresponding email address can be found at www.Finland.org. Please leave (or paraphrase) the following message:
“Hello. This is (your name) calling from (city,state).
· I am deeply concerned about the Finnish government’s ban on exporting gas detectors, for solely defensive purposes, to Israel.
· In the event that a war between the United States and Iraq breaks out, Israeli citizens – Jews, Muslims and Christians – will likely be targets of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
· I am confident that the Finnish government would do everything in its power to prevent the loss of innocent civilian lives, as Finland is a country that aims to promote human rights in all parts of the world.
· Today, I urge the Finnish government to reconsider its ban on exporting gas detectors, for solely defensive purposes, to Israel.
And I would add the following line: We, the children of survivors can never forget that Finland fought with the Nazis the last time Poison Gas was used on millions of Jews. Your morality means nothing to us.


::: posted by Ari at 4:50 PM



Thursday, November 14, 2002 :::
 
The Consequences of Hating Jews

At times I wonder if the hate is too overwhelming. When a murderer can deliberately shoot children hiding in their beds, when a system of beliefs teaches him that such an action is praiseworthy, I wonder about the capacity we have to lose our humanity. When the Europeans don't even try to end the killing of Jews, but instead try to come up with when and where it would be permissible, like a sovereign determing the rules for a species' hunting season in a forest, I wonder about our capacity to literally de-humanize others. And when we put the two together, we see that by denying another group's humanity you turn yourself into a truly despicable animalisitic creature.

"And he who blesses you shall be blessed, and he that curses you shall be cursed" in the exact way he cursed you. And so it is, as one of God's first promises to Abraham demonstrates, all about being Jewish

::: posted by Ari at 6:08 PM

ARCHIVES :::

I just need to get this stuff out, or else I'll be pounding my fist into a bloody pulp.