A lot has been said and written in the past few months regarding the fate of the Iraqi civilian population in the event of a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. Many charges have been laid at the foot of the Bush administration that the White House doesn’t care about the Iraqi people, or what they think. Many of these “journalists” have argued that the Iraqi people are fine with the current regime, and are utterly opposed to a U.S.-led invasion. Oh, really?

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group has released a white paper on the results of anonymous, on-the-street interviews conducted with Iraqi citizens in Baghdad, Mosul and Najaf. And I, quite happily, quote:

"A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it."

and

"Few Iraqis opposed an invasion for patriotic reasons or fear that an attack would lead to heavy civilian casualties."

Granted, and understandably so:

"It should not be assumed from this that such support as might exist for a U.S. operation is unconditional. It appears to be premised on the belief both that any such military action would be quick and clean and that it would be followed by a robust international reconstruction effort. Should either of these prove untrue--if the war proved to be bloody and protracted or if Iraq lacked sufficient assistance afterwards--the support in question may well not be very long sustained."

Now, everybody sing! “All the world over, so easy to see; people everywhere, just want to be free. . .”

ABC News has conducted an exclusive interview with two FBI agents, who said they were repeatedly warned off of the cases they were working on. Beginning in the mid-1990s, “the two Chicago-based agents were assigned to track a connection to Chicago, a suspected terrorist cell that would later lead them to a link with Osama bin Laden. Wright says that when he pressed for authorization to open a criminal investigation into the money trail, his supervisor stopped him.”

They were ordered to stop investigations into the suspected terror cell linked to al Qaeda, which would eventually perpetuate the Sept. 11 attacks. One of the individuals they were tracking was “a powerful Saudi Arabian businessman, Yassin al-Kadi. Al-Kadi is one of 12 Saudi businessmen suspected of funneling millions of dollars to al Qaeda…” After September 11th, Al-Kadi was confirmed as one of bin Laden’s financiers.

Way to go, Bill.

In case you missed it, and I know you did since I did, too, Sunday, 15 December, marked the 211th anniversary of the adoption of our Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

"Many of the Founders objected to listing the Bill of Rights as 'amendments' because it might be construed that such rights were subject to change. The Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights and an explication of constraints upon the central government." --The Federalist, 02-51 Brief

Monday, the 16th, marked the 229th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

All I can say is, Ben Stein FREAKING rocks! Thanks, Dan!

Michael links to Tim O'Reilly's treatment of piracy and online distribution. This is in the vein of fair use and copyright noted yesterday with Dan Knight's article. As an author, content provider, and publisher, Tim's views reflect the concerns of all sides, and offers common-sense solutions for the music industry in particular, and other content providers/publishers in general.

So I’m a little behind in my LEM reading, but Dan Knight published an outstanding article on copyright and fair use. If you ever needed a simple overview of the issue, this is it. Dan also offers some common sense changes to current copyright law that would continue to benefit copyright holders as well as the public good.

My only suggestion would be that Dan’s recommendations for length of the copyright is too long, even with the suggested registration fees. As a copyright holder myself, and an aspiring author, this is an area of great interest to me. I am, however, a consumer as well, and therefore would like to see less restrictive copyright lengths. My own proposal would be an initial copyright of 25 years, with a maximum renewal of another 25.

Think of this; with that kind of copyright time length, Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October, and Red Storm Rising, considered seminal fiction works of the Cold War, would enter the public domain in 2034 and 2036, respectively. Clancy will have more than made enough money off of those two tomes (which seem to get republished every time he releases another book) to pass on to his progeny. He would be 87 when the copyright on Red October would run out.

If I published a book right now, I would be 82 when the copyright, under my proposed rules, runs out in 2052. I think that’s long enough for me to make some dough off my work, don’t you?