Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Mending the Net ‘
Rachel Ehrenfeld mentions the possibility that terrorists’ Web sites, removed from American Web servers, might reemerge on servers overseas, beyond the reach of American laws prohibiting the provision of technical assistance to terror groups [“Mending the Net,” Opinion, September 13, 2004]. She gives one example: Several Palestinian Islamic Jihad Web sites tried – unsuccessfully – to buy space on Swiss Web servers after they were kicked off American servers.
My experience is less encouraging. After I cite the law to Web hosts running terror sites, the sites are promptly dismantled, but soon re-appear on servers in the Middle East and, interestingly, in Russia.
Arab and Russian Web-hosting companies have, understandably, been indifferent to my citation of American law. An international mechanism to enforce anti-terror standards on the Internet is needed. Until then, efforts to remove terrorists’ sites from American Web servers will achieve only the more limited, but still worthy goal, of preventing American companies from profiting from terrorists.
Yet another complication I have encountered is the claim by some American Web hosts that they cannot remove terror sites because the FBI asked that they remain live, as such sites constitute a valuable intelligence source.
Anti-terror litigators and policy analysts have also derived vital information on the activities and intentions of terrorists by studying these sites. This has created a conundrum for many in the battle against terror. The benefits in effacing these sites must be balanced with the costs.
ROBERT JANCU
Managing Attorney American Legal Response Team for Democracy
Forest Hills, N.Y.
www.alerted.org
‘Selecting Judges’
We have enough problems in Brooklyn’s courthouse without writers to the Sun compounding them with factual misstatements. In “Selecting Judges,” Alan Flacks states that Gerald Garson ascended to the bench with the assistance of the late Assemblyman Anthony Genovesi and the Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club [Letters, September 9, 2004].
In fact, Justice Garson ascended to the bench in 1997, the very year that Assemblyman Genovesi, the Thomas Jefferson Democrats, I and others, attempted to wrest control of the Judicial Nominating Convention and open the process.
I am also proud to let Mr. Flacks and your readers know that as a result of the movement that began in 1997, this past year the Brooklyn Democratic Party adopted a rule requiring a truly independent screening panel for all judicial nominations.
Unlike the Manhattan panel, the Brooklyn panel is binding and an “unqualified” rating may not be ignored. As the main author of that rule, I am hopeful that our new panel, in its first year, helps restore the public’s faith in our judiciary.
LEWIS A. FIDLER
New York City Councilman
46th District
Marine Park-Canarsie Democratic State Committeeman
41st Assembly District
Sheepshead Bay-East Flatbush
Brooklyn
Hong Kong Elections
The Human Rights Watch Report, which your columnist Ellen Bork’s article is based on, painted a distorted picture of the situation in Hong Kong [“Hong Kong Elections a Sham,” Foreign, September 9, 2004].
Hong Kong is one of the world’s freest societies and the Hong Kong Special Administration Region Government will not allow anything to compromise the exercise of these freedoms by our citizens.
The doubts about the commitment of the Central Authorities to implement “One Country, Two Systems” are groundless.
Since reunification, the Central Authorities have unswervingly upheld their commitment by letting Hong Kong people run Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the Basic Law.
With regard to constitutional development, it has never been intended under “One Country, Two Systems” for the Hong Kong Special Administration Region completely on its own to decide on its political structure. By constitutional design the Central Authorities have the power and responsibilities to oversee Hong Kong’s constitutional development.
In Hong Kong, our freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, of demonstration and in many other areas are constitutionally protected by the Basic Law and supported by the rule of law upheld by an independent judiciary.
Any suspected unlawful activities that threaten our freedoms will be pursued by our law enforcement agencies vigorously. Criminal intimidation cases involving the radio program hosts and other cases concerning vandalism are being investigated actively.
We will not tolerate any illegal acts that seek to influence the proper conduct of elections. Secrecy of votes is protected by law; penalties for the offense of taking photographs inside polling stations have also been increased.
We take great pride in our fair, open, and honest elections. The September election represents yet another important milestone as we move forward toward universal suffrage, which is the ultimate aim stipulated in the Basic Law.
JACQUELINE A. WILLIS
Hong Kong Commissioner, USA
Washington, D.C.
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
