4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, June 21, 2004 Ule Lidugan latt 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 NIAMH SLEVIN Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of@ the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. In a tragic manipulation of democra- cy, the State Senate and State House, for the fourth time, approved a ban on ansabortion procedure referred to by critics as partial-birth abortion. The ban, unless struck down by a court order, will become effective in March of 2005 and cannot be vetoed by Governor Jennifer Granholm. The piece of legisla- tion is able to forego the Governor's sig- nature because it was put to the Michigan legislature through a well intentioned, but often misused, loophole in Michigan legislative system: direct democracy. The decision was celebrated by a coalition of religious and anti-abortion organizations, which collected over 400,000 signatures to initiate the legis- lation. Governor Granholm torpedoed an identical ban last year and similar bans were signed twice by former Governor John Engler but were struck down each time by a court order. Regardless of the fact that this most Grass(roots) gone wild! Abuse of direct democracy subverts women's rights recent legislation can meet the same end as the three other attempts, it exposes a weakness in the Michigan legislative system that has the potential to be seri- ously taken advantage of. This new abortion ban reveals the devious manner in which a few select members of the population can successfully enact legis- lation that affects the entire state. The direct democracy clause, although intended to increase the legiti- macy of our state government, is far from a vehicle for popular remonstra- tion. The process of collecting the required amount of necessary signatures is a large and arduous task, one that really can only be successfully under- taken by organizations with an exces- sively large bankroll. The result is that only causes backed by the funds of pow- erful elites can be put to the legislature. What ostensibly appears to be a tool designed to protect the common citizen is in fact another circuitous means of removing him from the democratic process. This true nature of direct democracy, a measure meant to increase govern- mental validity, in fact, can lessen it. The circumventing of Granholm's authority is an unnecessary step that makes a mockery of the democratic process that elected her. When a few elite members of society can subvert the authority of a democratically elected official, it is in effect an example of the larger population being disenfranchised. This abortion ban is particularly oli- garchical because it is a law that only directly affects women and an individ- ual woman's body. Previous examples of direct democra- cy initiatives have exposed these poten- tial dangers also. An organization known as Citizens for the Protection of Marriage used the same measures to cir- culate a ballot initiative to ban constitu- tional gay marriage and Ward Connerly's Michigan Civil Rights Initiative exploit- ed direct democracy in an attempt to end race-based admissions preferences. The problem of this direct democracy clause is not one rooted in its founding principle, but rests in the reality of its exe- cution and the logistical resources it requires. The procedures and provisions regulating the direct democracy clause clearly need to be revised. It is an undeni- able truth that political representation more readily comes to those with higher social standing, but hopefully a measure intended to empower the common man can be eventually crafted to actually do so. Declassified operations CIA should admit faults, disclose Senate report Tuned out RIAA taking advantage of dubious laws to prosecute cases 0 Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee finished its 400-page report criticizing the Central Intelligence Agency's pre-war intelli- gence mistakes regarding Iraq and its weapons programs. The CIA is attempting to prevent large portions of the report from being published because it claims that some of the material is too sensitive to be made public. Thirty to 40 percent of the report has been deleted by the CIA, and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee are pressuring the agency to allow the release of the full report. Though it claims that the report is being censored because it contains sensitive information, the CIA does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Until it can be proven otherwise, it should be assumed that the CIA is altering the report in order to avoid criticism and prevent backlash. The failings of the CIA need to be revealed in order to pre- vent future mistakes from being made, and the agency should not keep the material classified for the sake of self- preservation. While it is allowed by law to decide what constitutes sensitive material, the CIA should not be able to halt the release of a report that is highly critical of it. While it is possible that there is some justifiably classified material in the report, there is no way to know for sure if it will ever be released. Giving the CIA the final say in what is and is not included in a, report that is highly critical of it runs contrary to the spirit of the report and of the Senate Intelligence Committee. There is no point in criticizing the CIA if the CIA can delete any amount of the report with no oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has the option to appeal the White House, but it is highly unlikely that the Bush Administration will favor the report's release. This is the same administration that has relied heavily on intelligence gathered by the CIA in its drive for war. Revealing the CIA's failures will only put the White House in an uncomfortable position, as it will force the administration to accept the fact that is has made serious decisions based on information obtained by a faulty source. The improbability of the White House to put pressure on the CIA will make the release of the full report more difficult. Even though the information in the report will more than likely hurt the credibility of the CIA, its release will only improve it in the long run. Bringing the agency's mistakes into the spotlight will force the agency to change for the better and prevent future failures. Democratic governments rely on public scrutiny to keep them func- tioning, and there can be no improve- ment that comes with scrutiny if the government can censor criticism towards it. Organizations as secretive and as influential as the CIA need pub- lic oversight in order to ensure that serious mistakes are not made. Given the energy put into preventing the report's release as well as the recent resignations of the top two CIA offi- cials, some serious mistakes have been made that need to come to light. The intelligence community should be kept exempt from scrutiny. The University, after months of pres- sure under a federal subpoena from the Recording Industry Association of America, finally had no choice but to release the names of eight students and one staff member who have been accused of sharing music illegally. The University spent the greater part of two months reviewing the subpoenas and unfortunate- ly, in the words of the University's Assistant General Counsel Jack Bernard, found them to be "substantively valid." While it may be argued that the University could have fought more vigorously against the subpoena, the real blame and animosi- ty should rest with the RIAA. The RIAA is subverting intellectual property legislation and exploiting it beyond its original intent under the guise of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Copyrights were originally granted useful and even noble purpose of protect- ing the work of academics and artists. The RIAA is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to exercise copyright law where it was never intended. The act aims not only to outlaw electronic piracy, but also any programs which facilitate elec- tronic piracy. Corporations and organiza- tions like the RIAA are exercising their new powers to aggressively act in what they claim is. the interest of artists: the elimination of electronic file sharing. Attacking the RIAA on its enforcement of copyrights is not the most effective, or legally tenable, strategy. While the RIAA does not fully control what users do with its music, it still does, unfortunately, con- trol the intellectual property rights. Hence, the distribution of these materials without compensation to their owner - the RIAA in this case - is still technically illegal. Thus, the RIAA is entitled to protect its property, even though it is merely in the name of making money. While this may not seem just, it is unfortunately the way copyright law is designed. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, fundamentally violates the pub- lic's right to privacy in an effort to give cor- 0 porations more power. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, companies have the right to subpoena Internet service providers, and force ISPs to reveal users' personal information if they feel users are illegally sharing files. This information is often not something which users want to make public, and the RIAA should not have the legal right to simply request (and receive) it as part of a routine investigation. Furthermore, the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which outlaw the creation of technology that can facilitate digital piracy are bla- tant limitations on personal freedom. While it is illegal to shoot a person with a rifle, the rifle can still be manufac- tured. Similarly, while it may be illegal to rip DVDs and CDs into DivX and .mp3 files, the technology to do so should not be. By preemptively banning the creation of technology, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act fundamen- tally abrogates individual freedom. While the RIAA will continue to pur- sue individuals who they claim are grossly in violation of copyright statutes, it should not receive the extra help provided by the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This act, which threatens individual rights to privacy and creativity, is an unfortunate piece of legislation that substantially diminishes the liberty of individuals.