Slashdot Mirror

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/03/07/rand-pauls-filibuster-and-targeted-killings/comment-page-1/#comment-41751 This guy is the best writer and thinker on all things Drone War related, in my opinion, check him out. Good quote from him today on Rand Paul's filibuster "More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War." also sign this petition if you want https://www.change.org/petitions/international-community-united-nations-and-united-states-congress-make-targeted-killing-internationally-accountable

More like the captain of the football team keeping a wary eye on the strange loner in a trench coat that seems to keep stirring up trouble, hangs out with bad people, spends a lot of time in a private workshop, and muttering under his breath "someday you'll all be sorry."

It is pitiful that you are trying to paint Iran as an innocent victim. Most Gulf countries live in fear of Iran and its ambition of hegemony, and it drives large arms purchases.
 

If Huawei (and all equipments from all Chinese companies) are suspicious, what makes you think that equipments from Germany or Japan or Britain or Korea or Canada or USA aren't?

Hmmm . . . are there any other one party communist states with aspirations of hegemony, a long history of enmity against democratic government, free enterprise, and personal liberty, that currently have intense foreign espionage efforts directed against the West, that make direct threats against the United States while being armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons, on the list? No, China. . . make that the People's Republic of China, one of the few remaining Communist dictatorships on earth, is unique in that regard. Isn't that clear? China is reforming economically much faster than politically, although that is coming along in small fits and starts. But fundamentally, China is still a dictatorship run by the Chinese Communist Party.

Which equipment the Stuxnet virus targeted?

That was SCADA controllers made by Siemens, a German company, being used by Iran - a Shia lead theocratic government imposing Sharia law in Iran while they seek hegemony in the region. Iran is using that equipment to run centrifuges to develop highly enriched Uranium, and has been discovered to be engaged in activities applicable to only nuclear weapons development. Iran tries to intimidate its neighbors, is a state sponsor of terrorism world-wide, fund, trains, and arms Hezbollah with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to control Lebanon and attack Israel until it can make good on it barely veiled threats of genocide against Israel, and general threats against Europe and the United States. Until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran and Israel had been on good terms. It is the theocratic government in Iran that has declared them to be enemies - the conflict isn't Israel's fault - Iran was not part of the Arab-Israeli wars. And yet some people take the bankrupt position that it is Iran that needs protection from Israel. Stuxnet and its kin may be the only reason the world isn't in a shooting war in the region now.

It's easy to bash China - as China has become the poster boy for bashing orgy - from Presidential debate to this one in Slashdot - but I do expect MORE from those who come to Slashdot. Unlike the tweedledee and tweedeldum on the presidential debate, you guys do have brains. It's time you use your brain to think, rather than letting others doing the thinking for you.

Some people use their powers of reason to understand the facts above and their implications, others use their reason to rationalize away uncomfortable facts, like those above.

In much of the West, the well educated have been taught to believe that they can know nothing and that they can draw no independent conclusions about truth, unless they cite a study and "experts" have affirmed it. "Studies show" is to the modern secular college graduate what "Scripture says" is to the religious fundamentalist. -- Dennis Prager

550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.

Would we? Here are a couple of views:

The History of the U.S. – If Al Gore Became President
If Al Gore Had Won in 2000

Here are a few of mine:

Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.
If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.

Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.

Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely. Saddam used the food money to build palaces and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.

You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.

How Bad Was Saddam’s Son?

. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.

Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”

It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”

Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport

All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion

You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis.

You should probably start looking for a different quote, that one is fraudulent.

A Chameleon, Nevertheless

. . . But Morris doesn't stop here. Having stigmatized the Zionist founding fathers as quintessential European-type colonialists, he would not discard the other part of this Arab canard, which he has been peddling for decades, namely, that they were also unreconstructed ethnic cleansers "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."

I have been battling this defamation of Zionism's very essence for quite some time, showing time and again the extraordinary lengths to which Morris would go by way of fabricating Israeli history (see here, here, here, here, and here). I will therefore confine myself to one telling example of his professional misconduct.

In an October 1937 letter to his son David Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." In The Birth Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."

Tellingly, in his Hebrew language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers could check the original for themselves.)

- - -

Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").

Here is an interesting question: Why are there hostilities at all between Iran and Israel? You do know that Iran and Israel had good relations between them into the 1970s, right? You do know that Iran didn't take part in the Arab-Israeli wars and so never fought against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973, right? It was only after Iran underwent the Islamic revolution of 1979 that it declared itself to be an enemy of Israel. Israel has no reason to be an enemy of Iran other than Iran's behavior. Iran's current behavior is to train and arm Hezbollah and other terrorists with tens of thousands of artillery rockets, antitank missiles, and other weapons, to use in attacking Israel, not to mention suicide bomb attacks and assassinations. Iran itself is engaged in a world-wide series of assassination attempts against Israeli diplomats. That is before we even get into the whole, wipe Israel from the pages of history thing, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Is there no aspect of Iran's behavior, including its support of terrorism, that troubles you?

Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'?

There might be a point where it would be a reasonable suspicion when you ignore Iran's hatred of choice, aggression of choice, and terrorism of choice while painting Israel as the aggressor against Iran, in defiance of the facts, while using forged quotes.

Why do you hate Persians?

Why do you support them? Wouldn't their campaigns of terrorism and barely veiled threats of genocide be enough to make you reconsider?

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")

My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)

The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.

I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?

That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.

Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:

Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
State Sponsors: Iran

You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.

Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.

Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.

You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.

And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program, and continuing threats against the Gulf states and other neighbors, Europe, the US, and Israel. Stuxnet was the blowback, these attacks are escalation. Stuxnet wouldn't have existed without the nuclear program - you'll notice it was apparently aimed at centrifuges, not at sewage treatment. The current attacks by Iran are just a part of their pattern.

Nuclear

The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. In 2009, concerns over Tehran's nuclear program increased when Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility close to the city of Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. [7] In November 2011, tensions escalated further when the IAEA released a report with a 14-page annex outlining the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, though most activities described dated to the pre-2003 period. [8] While Iran questioned the evidence in the report and the IAEA's legal authority to investigate non-nuclear activities, the report provoked a series of new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.

UN chief to Iran: Prove nuclear program is peaceful, cease verbal attacks on Israel

UN chief Ban Ki-moon met Iran's president and supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday and urged them to take concrete steps to prove the country's nuclear program is peaceful. He also called on all states to stop supplying arms to the conflict in Syria, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said.

He told reporters in New York that in separate meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the secretary-general further said that he considered their latest verbal attacks on Israel to be offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable. . . .

"On the nuclear question ... he said that he regretted that little tangible progress has been achieved so far," Nesirky, speaking by telephone from Tehran, told reporters in New York.

"He said that Iran needed to take concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes," Nesirky said.

STAKES ARE HIGH FOR EU DIPLOMACY IN IRANIAN NUCLEAR CRISIS

In the last six months, the enduring tension between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program has escalated dangerously. Tension notched up last November with a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): the report by the UN nuclear watchdog marked a break with past findings by expressing in very stark terms, and through extensive documentation, its serious concern that Iran had previously pursued nuclear weapons work. . .

“ – The so-called E3, the U.K., France and Germany: All three are much more inclined than the U.S. to believe that Iran is seeking to weaponize its uranium stockpiles. They have more experience negotiating with Iran as well, and that experience has taught them not to allow Tehran any wiggle room. France in particular has been pushing for a hard line: a full and complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and the surrender of all of its uranium. “Even if they agree to hand over their 20% enriched uranium, some in Europe will argue to keep up the pressure – to not take down any of the sanctions — until the

293 Americans were killed by falling furniture in the United States between 2000 and 2010. Since 9/11, 238 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks.

We get it. You're a bigot and you hate Muslims. Call me when you start a war on furniture.

Nice hearing someone say it so bluntly.
Also, why link to some blog about what he said, instead of linking to the actual speech (somebody had already beaten me to it above, but just an AC, so invisible to much too many)?

The article linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, but not to the speech itself. Here's the page about the speech by Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil, and here's a transcript. There's also a video.

The article linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, but not to the speech itself. Here's the page about the speech by Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil, and here's a transcript. There's also a video.

I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained.

I'm amazed that anyone would say that they believe that.

Malaysia court orders extradition of Iranian over bomb plot
Israel says Thai bombs similar to those in India, Georgia

Good 'ole peace loving Iran.
Iran sends troops to Syria

Tehran, May 30 — Iran has sent its troops to help the regime of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fight opposition forces, a senior commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has said.

Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela

Iran is increasing its paramilitary Qods force operatives in Venezuela while covertly continuing supplies of weapons and explosives to Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Pentagon’s first report to Congress on Tehran’s military.

Iran's Quds Force: Supporting Terrorism Worldwide
Experts: Iran's Quds Force Deeply Enmeshed in Iraq

State Sponsors: Iran

Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa
Chairman of the Gulf Forum for Peace and Security Fahed Al-Shelaimi Accuses Iran of State-Sponsored Terrorism

Well..if the US government (stuxnet for example) can do it (with no declaration of war), then it mustn't be illegal right? /ironyoff

If Iran can do it without a declaration of war, then it mustn't be illegal, right? (After all, what is a string of assassinations and a little planning for genocide among friends? No doubt the Iranians are envious because they didn't think of it first.)

At least they have a clear vision for the future, one that seems remarkably free of Jews in the Middle East.

...Thing is, just recently the US stated that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. Given how targeted Stuxnet was,...

Due to the limited scope, maybe Stuxnet should be classified as a Cyber-Police-Action?

Iran, a country that has no history of aggression...

Oh please. Do you mean except for massive funding and arming of terrorist groups in other countries? The U.S. may not be completely clean on this one, but don't pretend that Iran is even close to being innocent here.

Hypocrisy. The very worst of human traits.

Exactly. Here we agree.

1.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War

2.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain

3.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

4.- http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/northern-ireland-loyalist-paramilitaries-uk-extremists/p9274

And for the support for this morons in modern times, I can only say that the current president of Mexico is the son of a cristero courier founder of a political party that in WWII was close to Nazi Germany, and also supported by a catholic extremist organization called "El Yunque", "The Anvil" with strong presence in Mexico and Spain. Their predecessors under the MURO banner made several terrorist attacks in Mexico in the late 1960's and 1970's. The movie "La Cristiada", "For Greater Glory" is only a propaganda piece that whitewashes the crimes and murders that these bastards made in 1920's with the explicit support of the Pope. Now it is used for stupid statements like this:
CRISTIADA - Film on the Brutal Liberal-Masonic Persecution Against the Faith of the Mexican People

On reality, the Cristero war had a strong religious basis but it had also a very strong economic component since it was a landowner's war against land reform, and used the ignorant masses as pawns to protect their economic interests. In their ignorance Cristero's killed protestants and jews for the crime of not being catholic and murdered or mutilated thousands of teachers and burned dozens of schools. The increasing power of the heirs of these loons in Mexico is what made me to stop attending Mass and stop calling myself a catholic.

how long? before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

You mean like seeking regional hegemony, running terrorist campaigns worldwide, threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, threaten Europe's energy supplies to freeze people, use suicide boats to attack gulf shipping, arm Hezbollah to attack Israel with and ultimate goal of destroying Israel, attack US troops, send suicide bombers to Europe and America, aid America's enemies, threaten attacks on nearby countries and cities with missiles, kill diplomats, subvert nearby countries, unleash the suicide bomb brigades (serious), and the ninjas (you decide), perhaps adding some WMDs to the attacks?

I doubt that many people will buy it.

But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil"

No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong there, Syria and Iran have been evil regimes for quite some time. The 1982 Hama massacre is a good taste of what the Syrian regime is capable of. It also serves as an example of what the Arab & Muslim world will tolerate in silence, but when an Israeli soldier kills one Palestinian Arab suicide bomber it is decried as a massacre and war crime. Iran has long practiced state sponsored terrorism.

There's a lot wrong with your remark. First of all, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons so attempting to research or build nuclear weapons is a direct violation of their treaty obligations.

Second, the large US stockpile is a concern, and the US is (correctly) taking steps to reduce the size of that stockpile (indeed has been for the last twenty years, in cooperation with Russia which has done the same to their stockpile). But the US weapons (in addition to being under treat compliance) are very tightly guarded and have many safeguards against accidental or malicious use. There's no such guarantee that Iranian weapons would be that way, and likely wouldn't be.

Third, your remark about Israel doesn't reflect the actual geopolitical situation. Despite Israel and Iran not even sharing a border, Iran is one of the largest funders of Hezbollah and other groups which systematically engage in attacks on Israel. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362. In that context, Israel being afraid of what Iran, or elements in the Iranian government, would do with nuclear weapons makes sense. As for sabotaging industry- it is Iran, not Israel which refuses to recognize Israel's existence. At this point, Israel has peace treaties and functional relations with Egypt and Jordan (and a decent amount of tourism between the countries and commercial exchange). Israel is not on good terms with Syria, but they've at least had limited dialogue. Iran is pretty much the only country in the region which has both continued to sponsor attacks on Israel and has never sat down at the negotiating table. While one can argue that there's a large history of hostility and menacing on both sides, the essential facts are that Israel has sat down and signed treaties with other nations in the area, and Iran has never shown any indication or willingness to ever sit down. Israel is not at all blameless in the current situation, but it is Iran's belicose government that is the essential reason that Israel is concerned, quite legitimately, over Iranian nuclear ambitions.

The CIA only -ahem- "freed" countries when it was economically advantageous to replace the established regime.

The CIA helped to support local peoples fighting to roll back Communism, such as in Poland and other places.
Was that economically advantageous in any immediate sense? What about Korea? The CIA also assisted the Kurds resist Saddam. I think you've got some bad data there.

And are you really trying to argue that America is still a force of freedom in the world?

There is no need to argue the point - I would say that overall it is an established fact. Recent example: Iraq is now a democracy, has been runing it's own affairs for some years, asked American to withdraw its combat troops - and it did. Iraq has many challenges as a country, the ultimate of which is to keep their democracy which is a challenge for every such country. ( Iraqi news )

Of course it isn't just freedom, or the CIA:

Navy sends 8 ships to provide tsunami relief (2011)
TSUNAMI DISASTER: Relief Effort (2005)

Clearly, you haven't had an American corporation step into your life and tell you how things are going to be from now.

I'm pretty sure that American corporations: 1 - Aren't the government. 2 - Aren't allowed to keep slaves and serfs

Your perception of the circumstance is about 50 years outdated, my friend.

You might be missing a few years of news and events.

Without a huge enemy, America has no choice but to bully.

Without a huge enemy, America cuts its defense spending drastically (as it did in the 90's after the Cold War ended) and tries to go about its business.

I think, my friend, that you would benefit from a wider range of news sources. Peace.

How many things actually happened in the entire history of commercial flights before the TSA existed? And why do they still exist in light of that? Sheesh.

Highjackings became a significant problem in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, although they still occur from time to time. Various militant groups, including Palestinian and Communist terrorist organizations, we commonly involved. The rate slowly considerably as airports put in metal detectors, started searching bags, sky marshals took to the air, and police forces with automatic weapons started patrolling the airports. (Sound familiar?) The occasional commando force storming a plane and killing the hijackers also helped dampen the enthusiasm for it, not the mention the famous Operation Thunderbolt - the raid on Entebbe.

That is why you don't keep seeing headlines like these so often:

Mexico Police Storm Hijacked Airplane, Free Crew

17 Killed in Airport Raids by Terrorists at Rome, Vienna : 116 Wounded in Attacks Apparently Aimed at El Al; Palestinians Blamed
December 28, 1985

ROME — Two terrorist teams firing assault rifles and throwing grenades struck minutes apart at the international airports in Rome and Vienna early Friday, leaving 17 dead, including an 11-year-old American girl and three other Americans. At least 116 people were wounded in the bloody attacks.

Officials and eyewitnesses said the attacks appeared aimed at facilities of El Al, the Israeli national airline. Meir Rosenne, Israel's ambassador to the United States, blamed the Palestine Liberation Organization for the slaughter. PLO officials in Vienna, Rome and at PLO headquarters in Tunis, Tunisia, denied responsibility and condemned the attacks.

In Spain, a caller claiming to belong to the "Abu Nidal group," a breakaway faction of the PLO blamed for many earlier terrorist assaults in Europe, telephoned a radio station in Malaga, claiming responsibility for the attacks in the name of his group. There was no way to confirm the claim.

Abu Nidal has been described as a bitter opponent of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who he is said to consider to be overly moderate in the Arab-Israeli conflict. . . . more

The terrorist I knew - Christopher Hitchens sheds no tears for Abu Nidal, but admits to a small twinge of nostalgia.

The official story - that he had shot himself several times in the head . . .

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), aka Fatah Revolutionary Council, the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, or the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims

Belgium: Murders committed for Abu Nidal

They'll just spam public internet services to suppress what they view as dissent, ramp up coordinated cyber attacks, make their lawyers swear oath to the Communist Party, force real name registration on internet services, continue censorship of social networks when deemed necessary, and continue to massively build out CNO and espionage capabilities, all while on track to exceed even the United States' defense spending by 2025.

But yeah, no big deal.

Er, there's a bit wrong with your statement here. Most obviously, the axis of evil speech occurred in January of 2002, not 2003. That helps your case a bit, because a lot of the more serious failures of cooperation by Iran and North Korea occurred towards the end of 2002.. However, in both cases, there were serious failures to cooperate with international inspections before the speech. The entire James Kelly visit to North Korea was over evidence of non-cooperation that had been building up since the late Clinton years. Similarly, in the case of Iran, Iran had likely begun building new nuclear sites since before the speech http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/517/exiles-and-iran-intel. You can make an argument that Iran and North Korea may have accelerated their programs due to the Axis of Evil speech, and that's a more nuanced and viable argument, but that's a much weaker statement.

Moving on from there, there are other factual problems with your remarks. You claimed that

Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense

Right, so funding Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad isn't at all evidence of a "particularly hostile" or "irrational" attitude. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362. Iran doesn't even share a direct border with Israel but they are one of the largest supporters of attacks on Israel. That doesn't exactly scream peaceful to me.

There are enough factual problems as pointed out above, that your four point proposal simply doesn't make sense.

Yet, they haven't shot at anyone.

Unlike certain free country which is pillaging and burning things around the world, both militarily and politically.

Stop that fucking nonsense, ok?

Since what you wrote is false, how about you first?

State Sponsors: Iran

Iranians 'targeted Israeli diplomats' - Published: 15/02/2012 at 04:35 PM

Thai authorities charged two Iranians on Wednesday over an alleged bomb plot against Israeli diplomats, officials said, piling pressure on Teheran over accusations of a terror campaign against the Jewish state.

Authorities said they had laid criminal charges against two Iranian suspects accused of involvement in the three blasts in central Bangkok yesterday.

One of the men -- named as 28-year-old Saeid Morati -- lost both legs after he hurled an explosive device at police while fleeing an earlier blast at a house in the capital. The satchel containing the bomb, which he threw at a police vehicle, bounced off another vehicle and exploded at his feet.

A second Iranian suspect, Mohammad Hazaei, was detained trying to board a flight out of the country at Suvarnabhumi airport. A third Iranian suspect is believed to have fled to Malaysia, officials said.

"These three Iranian men are an assassination team and their targets were Israeli diplomats including the ambassador," a senior Thai intelligence official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Their plan was to attach bombs to diplomats' cars." . . . .

Israel accused Iran of orchestrating attacks on Israeli embassy staff in India and Georgia on Monday.

An Israeli diplomat in New Delhi suffered grave shrapnel wounds when a motorbike assailant attached a bomb to her car on Monday.

Experts: Iran's Quds Force Deeply Enmeshed in Iraq

U.S. blames Iran for new bombs in Iraq

Iran’s Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq

Iran's Quds Force: Supporting Terrorism Worldwide

Leader of Iran’s Al-Quds Forces Says Iraq and Southern Lebanon Are Under His Control

Iran threatens to close Strait of Hormuz over EU oil sanctions

Iranian weapons seized in Afghanistan

One more, then I'm going to stop since this could easily turn into a seemingly never-ending story. I've hardly touched on Iran's activities around the world. I've hardly even scratched the surface of Iran's involvement in Lebanon, and with Hezbollah, and the massive amount of arms that they've been providing. You do know that Hezbollah, aiming at the desturction of Israel, has 50,000 rockets now, right?

Simon Wiesenthal Center: Iranian Calls to Destroy Jewish People Unparalleled Since Nazi Germany

Frankly, I'm baffled by how people miss this. I guess it doesn't come up at the "anti-Zionist" meeting

It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
If it landed intact why hide it?

You must remember this is Iran. Although in English, the word drone is neuter, I believe that in Farsi, the word for drone is feminine, so the drone is considered female. As such it must be properly draped so as to be modest. Also, the old paint job done by the American manufacturers, in the eyes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made the drone look like a whore. And as far as the widely rumored Revolutionary Guards rubber tire fetish.... let's not go there. The Revolutionary Guards did what they could so that they would not have to stone the drone, although they were apparently forced to flog it.

In truth, the drone probably broke into pieces due to not executing a controlled landing on a runway. The Iranians pieced it back together and repainted it. The drapes were probably to hide further damage or missing pieces.

The only thing crazier than my joke (not the mention dangerous) is the actual government of Iran.

From 2010: Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions*

The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

"Iran sits on 50 percent of the world’s energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold," Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.

Iran is in possession of roughly 16 percent of the world’s natural gas and is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil. In addition, Iran borders the Strait of Hormuz (Persian Gulf), through which much of the world’s oil supply passes.

Salami also mentioned Iran’s missiles. The country has recently tested long-range missiles, and announced just weeks ago that it had launched a satellite-capable rocket.

"Our missiles are now able to target any spot which the conspirators are in," he said.

Western powers have been discussing the possibility of sanctions on Iran in the United Nations security council. Israel has lobbied for tough sanctions, while Russia and China continue to oppose harsh measures. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plans to discuss Iran’s nuclear program next week.

* A couple of years ago this story was available from more news outlets - I guess it just isn't popular to remember it.

Truly this is horrible. This will definitely sour the relations between the parties. What with the whole hostage thingie, the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map, nuclear weaponry ambition. Lawyers everywhere, SUIT UP! Iran is going to court.

I hope this gets settled in record time just like SCO v IBM.

The only court I'm aware of where venue and jurisdiction for Iran to "air their innocent grievance" are just and proper is currently the one I'm sitting on.
Iran is welcome to kiss it.

E

Besides keeping people who have no self control in check, there are safety concerns.. the "illegal" trade already comes up with concoctions that have things like battery acid and all sorts of other things that are unpleasant and deadly.

It sounds like you are saying we need to keep drugs illegal because illegal drugs are less safe than legal drugs. Your argument against medical marijuana is similar. The problems you point out would disappear if marijuana were legalized because there would be no need for people to abuse the medical marijuana system.

Your only potentially viable point is that we need to keep drugs illegal in order to protect some poor souls from themselves. This is a matter of opinion and I strongly disagree with yours even though I'm not a libertarian. The idea that people turn to drugs merely because they lack self control is naive and over simplistic.

If removing the profit motive doesn't reduce drug use to acceptable levels then maybe we can use the $44 billion per year we waste on the war on drugs to instead improve social conditions for the segments of society that are most vulnerable. Or we could use the $33 billion in tax revenues on legalized drugs to fund the program and reduce the budget deficit by $44 billion dollars.

For goodness sake, even the Council on Foreign Relations (pdf) has admitted that the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure:

A state-driven, supply-side, and penalty-based approach has failed to curb market production, distribution, and consumption of drugs. The assumption that punishing suppliers and users can effectively combat a large market for illicit drugs has proven to be utterly false. Rather, prohibition bestows enormous profits on traffickers, criminalizes otherwise law-abiding users and addicts, and imposes enormous costs on society. Meanwhile, there has been no real effect on the availability of drugs or their consumption, and three-quarters of U.S. citizens believe that the war on drugs has failed.

... While far from being a failed state, Mexico's current trajectory is dire, and doing nothing will ensure the perpetuation of greater violence and instability. The danger of recent strategies is that they have greatly exacerbated extreme violence among DTOs for the near term, and -- even if successful in the long run -- will merely cause them to relocate to neighboring countries such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica that are less prepared to respond to the challenge.

... To allow policy experimentation, the federal government should permit states to legalize the production, sale, taxation, and consumption of marijuana.

"This is asinine."

But sadly, true. For a related example:
"Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance" by Mike Moore
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-War-Folly-Space-Dominance/dp/1598130188
"Moore warns of the dire consequences of the U.S. drive toward the military dominance of space. Twilight War is an indispensable resource for anyone looking to get smart on a possible new cold war in space. Wide-ranging research and an elegant writing style make for an easy tutorial. This is a marvelous book." (Joseph Cirincione, vice president for national security, Center for American Progress)"

Or;
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/toward-american-space-dominance/p12179
"The Pentagon has avoided specifics about the report, but soon afterward the Bush administration released an unclassified version of its new U.S. National Space Policy, which goes far beyond previous policies in asserting America’s right to respond forcefully to such threats. Bill Martel, a space policy expert at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, tells CFR.org in this podcast that the new space policy “sounds like a precursor to the weaponization of space.” Supporters readily concede the point. “Space supremacy is now the official policy of the U.S. government,” writes Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard."

Thanks for your other comments. Personally, I would not like to be president. :-) I feel sorry in general for politicians etc.

As I quoted Alfie Kohn here from "No Contest: The Case Against Competition":
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html#Moving_beyond_competitiveness_towards_cooperation_at_PU
"If competitiveness is inherently compensatory, if it is an effort to prove oneself and stave off feelings of worthlessness, it follows that the healthier the individual (in the sense of having a more solid, unconditional sense of self-esteem), the less need there is to compete. ... I do not want to shy away from the incendiary implications of all of this. To suggest in effect that many of our heroes (entrepreneurs and athletes, movie stars and politicians) may be motivated by low self-esteem, to argue that our "state religion" is a sign of psychological ill-health -- this will not sit well with many people.(Page 103)"

That said, one can learn a lot by playing games and being challenged. So, how to interpret all that in daily life for the rest of us is open to question. Also, it is compounded by this fact:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/07/health/la-he-mean-girls-20110208
"Faris and a colleague studied the relationships among 3,722 middle and high school students over the course of an academic year and found that the teenagers' propensity toward aggression rose along with their social status. Aggressive behavior peaked when students hit the 98th percentile for popularity, suggesting that they were working hard to claw their way to the very top. However, those who were in the top 2% of a school's social hierarchy generally didn't harass their fellow students. At that point, they may have had little left to gain by being mean, and picking on others only made them seem insecure, Faris said."

I agree with you on reflectiveness, and thanks for saying that in such an interesting way about quality. In any case though, if I take credit for anything, it is mostly reading and learning about the ideas of many, many others who have gone before me (including people like Leon Shenandoah).

We need better tools for community-powered reflectiveness IMHO, as I su

Suggesting it "failed" suggests that there is only one possible outcome, and it's the one you want. And that's not diplomacy.

Suggesting it "failed" means there is an outcome agreed upon by many nations as being unacceptable that at this point still seems almost inevitable. It is the outcome that they want to avoid, and have offered many alternatives and incentives to avoid. It is still diplomacy until shooting starts - thats how you tell the difference.

State Sponsors: Iran

Hassan Nasrallah in the Late 1980s: Lebanon Should Become Part of the Greater Islamic Republic Ruled by Leader of Iran, Who Should Appoint all Islamic Rulers

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit Warns That a Nuclear Iran Would Force the Arabs to Join the Nuclear Race

Hassan Rahimpour Azghadi of the Iranian Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution: By 2022 - Maybe Much Earlier - Israel Will Be Annihilated

Former Senior IAEA Official Yousri Abu Shadi: Iran Is Capable of Producing Nuclear Bombs in Less Than Two Years

Al-Siyassa: Iran Will Have Three Nuclear Bombs by 2013; One Will Go to Hizbullah

Iranian TV: Swine Flu - A Zionist/American Conspiracy

General Commander of the Iranian Army Ataollah Salehi: It Will Take Us 11 Days "to Wipe Israel Out of Existence"

French Comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala tells Iranian TV about His New Children's Song "Holocaust Pineapple" and States: Most Slave Traders Were Jews; More Freedom of Speech in Iran Than in France

EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?
Intelligence Officials Say Weapons Responsible for Increasing U.S. Deaths in Iraq

U.S. Says It Will Release Nine Of 20 Iranians Captured in Iraq - Wednesday, November 7, 2007

All 20 detainees are known or suspected members of Iran's elite Quds Force, the arm of the Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for Iran's foreign operations and recently sanctioned by the Bush administration as a supporter of terrorism, the officials said. ...

In Baghdad, the U.S. military also briefed reporters on about 5,300 weapons caches discovered by U.S. and Iraqi forces this year -- twice the number found in all of 2006 and much of the material from Iran, Smith said. The caches include roadside bomb components, rockets, mortars, C4 explosives, land mines and rocket-propelled grenades.

Here,
here annnd here

Not quite the same as banana republics, but still diplomacy for the purpose of controlling the production of foreign raw materials.

>>It seems to be that the US government has no credibility left with the whole WMD fiasco

You might want to read this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23556/hbo_history_makers_series_with_condoleezza_rice.html

Thanks for prodding on this, I was working off a weak memory and had to look it up, but it actually supports my argument more than I care to admit.

Obama did issue an executive order to close Guantanamo on his second day in office.

A key provision:

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Congress has to appropriate funds to move the detainees, house them somewhere, and ultimately properly close down Guantanamo. Congress decided against doing this, leaving Obama in a weak position.

He's a little article outlining roadblocks to closing Guantanamo.

or is it "law" in a different sense?

Its broader - think of it as 'how to live life in harmony with god." Some of it is social contract enforced by the state - like prohibition against murder and its redress, some of it is private 'contract' with god - like praying five times a day. The more extremist the interpretation the more harsh the punishments and the more of the private contract stuff is deemed to be enforced by the state rather than god taking care of it, similar to the way anti-gay marriage laws have been put on the books recently by religious extremists in the US and adultery laws were previously.

Here's a part of a transcript where Feisal Rauf, the "ground zero imam," describes sharia in the context of american law:

QUESTIONER: Peter Fedynsky, Voice of America. At a recent demonstration near Ground Zero opposing the Islamic center, there was a banner behind the (the state ?) that said "stop shari'a law before it stops you." And I would venture to say that many of the concerns of those present were not only the planes slamming into the Twin Towers, but minor things like women refusing to unveil themselves for a driver's license and then major things like news of stonings, of honor killings. And -- or -- and then some people would say that the Cordoba -- Cordoba in history was a place of Muslim conquest. So this -- the question is, what is the compatibility of shari'a law with American constitutional law?

MR. RAUF: Absolutely consistent, first of all. And I've written about it and have lectured about it.

The fundamental rights of -- the opening lines of Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" -- the equality of human creation is a fundamental principle of the Abrahamic faiths -- "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" -- the fact the creator gave these rights to us, not any government or man-made agency, is a religious concept among which our life, life and property, then changed to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Seven centuries before these words were penned by Thomas Jefferson, Muslim jurists said all of shari'a law, all of Islamic law is intended to uphold six fundamental objectives: the protection of life, of human dignity, which relate to liberty, to religion, to family, to property and the intellect. And what do we do (after ?) life to pursue our happiness? We get married to our loved ones, we seek material well being, we seek our intellectual pursuits and we seek to practice our faith religions.

And by the way, Islamic jurists have said from the earliest of times -- because Muslim communities lived as minorities first in Abyssinia, in Ethiopia, at the time of the prophet -- and they said that wherever Muslims are a minority, they are required to follow the laws of the land. It is a requirement of shari'a to follow the laws of the land. There is much more I can say about this, but I think this covers the ground for the time being.
In many respects, yes, there are aspects of shari'a law which we ourselves have trouble with. But in many respects we practice shari'a already when we practice when we adhere to our dietary laws, we are practicing shari'a law. When we bequeath our estates to our children in accordance with the dictates of shari'a, we are consistent with American law and consistent with Islamic law. And when we pray, these are all commandments of shari'a law. So 90 percent of shari'a law is fully compatible, and not only compatible, is consistent or compatible with American constitutional law and American laws. The areas of difference are small and minor.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22940/conversation_with_feisal_abdul_rauf.html

Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...".

It turns out the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank pretty much agrees with that assessment.

So they will say, if you go to Korea or you go to France, you can get a faster Internet connection. Okay? That could be true in some companies -- in some countries. The facts are that, in the U.S., there is greater household penetration of access to the Internet than any country in Europe.

In Japan, where everybody looks at Japan as being so far ahead, they may have faster speeds, but we have higher utilization of people using the Internet. So our view is, whenever you look at these issues, you have to be very careful to look at what the market wants, not what government says is the most important issue.

Conclusion: the market wants slow internet! The market is a bit confused about data plans, but that seems...excessive. He actually segues into saying that what the market wants is their cellphone service, maintaining a semblance of credibility. Still, I think everyone should read the whole transcript. Seidenberg is a good speaker, and he comments somewhat candidly on Verizon policy and strategy (the obliquely, the rest of his industry). One must keep in mind his opening joke, however:

SEIDENBERG: You want me to hang myself on this one -- (laughter). You realize there are three people from the White House in the ceiling -- (laughter) -- listening to what I have to say.

The summary and the page the summary links to are VERY misleading and most of the rants posted above are all based on incorrect assumptions. If you want the real picture, read the actual interview. I'll try to clarify some of these issues as objectively as possible. Not arguing one way or another here, but some of the ranters need to chill out.

1. Verizon is "hunting down" heavy users of it's 3G broadband (i.e. Verizon Wireless) NOT it's FIOS or DSL. It is also important to note that Verizon Wireless does NOT offer unlimited data usage in its data plans (I'm a subscriber). The unlimited Verizon plans refer specifically to voice and text. So anyone screaming bloody murder about punishing users for using what they paid for can STFU. You aren't paying for unlimited, so you won't get unlimited.

2. The iPad. The summary and the linked article really spin this one into something it's not. According to the actual interview, Verizon (as a company) had several people stand in line for iPads because Verizon is interested in the device (as they should be) and want some to play/experiment/develop/whatever with. The CEO did not dispatch a personal assistant to stand in line so he could have his own iPad without the need to stand in line with those filthy "commoners". The summary and linked article puts its own spin in order to imply the latter, but nothing in the actual interview suggests this at all.

3. US #1 in broadband? This guy defines being #1 in broadband a little differently than the FCC and most people. While the FCC is looking at broadband speed, he looks more at broadband penetration and utilization. Now I don't know the exact numbers, and no sources were really cited in the actual interview, so this is still pretty debatable. However, I think he brings up a good point in how we rank broadband. If a country has the highest speeds available in the world, but only a select few can actually get access to it, then are they really #1 in broadband? I would argue that being the best would be a combination of speed, availability, reliability, and even cost. Again, though, some fact-checking needs to be done on this one.

In summary, Slashdot has once again gone for sensationalism, and the linked article is probably worse. I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't spark all of these threads making arguments about things that were never said or even implied by the person in question. This is supposed to be a site for intellectuals, yet we can't seem to have an intellectual debate over the issues, because the real issues have been so clouded. I urge everyone to read the actual interview, even though it is quite lengthy. There is a lot of good stuff in there and it gives some good insights into how one of the largest companies in the country feels about issues from net neutrality to health-care. The real answers are not quite as evil as you might think.

SEIDENBERG: -- they want, when they do it. (Laughter.)
But, on balance, they're good for the industry. They create -- if you don't mind, I'll just -- let me extend to the iPad --

MURRAY: Yeah, sure --

SEIDENBERG: -- just to give you a -- (inaudible) -- everybody's familiar with this. So, like everybody else, you know, we're interested in it. So we had our -- some of our technology people go out and buy a couple of devices --

MURRAY: You didn't stand in line on Saturday?

SEIDENBERG: No, I had somebody else stand in line. (Laughter.) But we had people standing in line.

Heres the actual link to to the interview. Its worth reading

http://www.cfr.org/publication/21840/conversation_with_ivan_seidenberg.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Ftranscript

"'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention" The term is actually quite well defined...by others than myself, though usually distinguishing between 'lawful' and 'unlawful'. In the posts above, I have been using the 'unlawful' definition. Relevant links: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html The 4th Geneva Convention, as far as I know, applied further protections to civilians, but not to military forces that are not 'lawful' enemy combatants. Of course, it is now confused even more since the public outcry regarding treatment of Taliban prisoners and such (and technically didn't fall under any "strict" definition as the definitions stupidly specified "uniformed" military...as though there would never be any other kind...), and the USSC's subsequent caving on the issue which served only to further muddy an already vague classification.

Shamelessly stolen from The Council on Foreign Relations

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Detainee Rights

All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.

Given the nature of their military equipment, I'd say there's plenty they don't have yet. No need to hand it to them on a platter.

Without the loans we would have had an economic meltdown. So the loans saved us for the moment. If they will save us in the long run, and what the total losses will be on the loan is not yet clear. But what is pretty much clear is that the loans were needed and prevented several major American institutions from going into bankruptcy due to liquidity and trust issues. And some of them are already paying back the money.

That graph is showing just a very small part of the picture. PCE is closely related to inflation (it's often used to predict inflation). So what you can read out of the graph is that we can expect deflation, which is bad but not a disaster, unless the US get caught like Japan was during the lost decade.

You will have to put it in perspective by also showing the graphs for income and savings (which are closely related). When you are looking at all three you will see that Americans are not earning much less. Instead Americans are spending their money on repaying debts, which can be considered healthy after the last few decades of borrowing.

What you want in this situation is that the government should make up for the increased saving by increasing spending. This is the time when bailout money will do the most good. The economy is slowing down quickly, which means that there is a lot of resources to be had for a limited cost, which will let the government buy more than normally. American workers have not suddenly stopped being able to work just because there is nobody who wants to risk the cost of hiring them. Preferably the stimulus money should be invested in things like infrastructure that will serve the US in the future. Tax cuts are not nearly as efficient (as they will simply be used to repay debt).

Be very vary of people who claims that the stimuli has failed. It takes time to work, and the current stimuli package is way too small for the American economy. Obama will have to get a lot more money into the system if the economy is not to go through a sharp slowdown.

A government as large as the US does not play by the same economic rules as a family or a company. Debt is not always a bad thing. In the long run it's obviously a good thing to pay off national debt, but in the short run it's the worst thing the US can do. To have an idea of how the combination of personal and government debt developed you can have a look at

http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2009/06/12/offsetting-borrowing/

What is hurting here is not the large spending the last couple of months... But the long term deficits during 74-97 and 01-07. Running deficit when the economy is doing alright is a bad thing. But the current debt is still considerably lower than the debt was after the Second World War.

The parent has best post I've read about GMO risks. The US focuses on the food risks, but the new risks are the ones to watch out for. Current regulation is about testing for GMO food safety. We have *lots* of regulations in place already about food safety. GMO foods are pretty safe to eat in the short term, I'm pretty certain. But the main risk of GMO foods is not the food safety, but regulations focus mainly on the product of a genetically modified organism, not on it's effects on the ecology.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8688/regulation_of_gmos_in_europe_and_the_united_states.html

The risk of releasing a "programmed" organism out into the wild, where the genetic material cannot be withdrawn once it gets out, is a new risk, and regulation has just not yet caught up, especially in the US. The long term effect of a GMO on the ecology is not tested much before release... and with a GMO, you can't withdraw the experiment! Once it's out it's out. If a GMO plant kills all the honeybees, for instance, well, what can you do to put the genie back in the bottle? Destroy all the pollen?

All it takes is one company to skimp on testing in the short term and release a GM organism that in some way destroys the food ecology. Then we're toast. At least require some sort of enclosed biodome for testing or something.

and I thought these guys did it. :-)

Nobody said the MSM is perfect or even good, only that it's better than the alternative. Sort of like Democracy, which is terrible, but is still the best option.

However, the "MSM" covers a very large number of media sources, all over the world, in every town, and in every format (newspaper, magazine, TV, web, etc.). I've found many of those things you wish for, including in-depth policy analysis and well researched coverage that represents both sides. There is plenty of media that doesn't provide those things (I think because most of the public doesn't demand it), including Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann too. I ignore them and read the quality stuff. Here are a few great MSM resources you might like:
  * ProPublica - Investigative reporting covering the U.S.
  * Council on Foreign Relations - International issues, especially try their Backgrounders, which are very well done.
  * The Economist - Economics and finance, as well as international news and analysis.

I support open source software, I contribute my time and money to many projects and have five FOSS applications open right now, but I think the Ubuntu story was pretty good; imperfect, but reasonable. I don't think Ubuntu is suitable for most end-users, due to the basic compatibility issues she described. I wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't change the news.

Nobody said the MSM is perfect or even good, only that it's better than the alternative. Sort of like Democracy, which is terrible, but is still the best option.

However, the "MSM" covers a very large number of media sources, all over the world, in every town, and in every format (newspaper, magazine, TV, web, etc.). I've found many of those things you wish for, including in-depth policy analysis and well researched coverage that represents both sides. There is plenty of media that doesn't provide those things (I think because most of the public doesn't demand it), including Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann too. I ignore them and read the quality stuff. Here are a few great MSM resources you might like:
  * ProPublica - Investigative reporting covering the U.S.
  * Council on Foreign Relations - International issues, especially try their Backgrounders, which are very well done.
  * The Economist - Economics and finance, as well as international news and analysis.

I support open source software, I contribute my time and money to many projects and have five FOSS applications open right now, but I think the Ubuntu story was pretty good; imperfect, but reasonable. I don't think Ubuntu is suitable for most end-users, due to the basic compatibility issues she described. I wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't change the news.

Not to mention the US now has an agreement allowing the US to trade nuclear material with India even though India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/

No, but mindlessly parroting what you hear on a scrolling news channel is not a mark of independent thought or intelligence, be it MSNBC, CNN or FoxNews. I am sick of hearing debates framed in talking points that people overheard on the boob tube. Especially when they attempt to feign ownership of thoughts that have been already twice or thrice regurgitated. Are Americans so lazy that they do not have time to read a single periodical of note during this election? The Economist and the CFR should be at the top of anybody's reading list because it is where much of the more well-researched scrolling news and talking head speech is cribbed from. Read the two long enough and you will see where those talk shows get some of their more poignant guests.

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Ch

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Ch