Slashdot Mirror

It is sad that the US is not closer to the top of defending privacy.

I was reading an article today on Foxnews (link as of 11.02.06 4:45 pm). On the surface it just sounds like cops doing their jobs. Until I read this line:

Those totals represent a fraction of doors knocked on, liquor store drive-bys, construction site surveillances and tips chased down by agents during the weeklong sweep.

To me, sounds very gestapo. Can't even go get a beer now without risk of being stopped by a cop. Bad news imo....

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct25/0,4670,Texa sExecution,00.html

Here's a direct link to the "newly created Pentagon unit" site in question.

"Saddam had no WMD"

That's really just not true:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

That's interesting, coz Bill Clinton did mention in that (in)famous FOX interview that the CIA was actively trying to kill Bin Laden:

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

Besides, US forces did kill Zarqawi anyway.

A little off topic, but your point about canidates trying to score points near the election triggered something I have been waiting for people to start discussing, but haven't seen.

I have been hearing lots of reports about how Bush has stated over and over that he has confidence the Republicans will maintain control of the house. He even critcised a comment made by his father, about how hard the next few years will be if the Democrates take control of the house, and Bush's response was "He shouldn't be speculating like this, because -- he should have called me ahead of time and I'd tell him they're not going to (win),"http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.a spx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-10-22T193206Z_0 1_N22305445_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-FATHER.xml. Even thou this sounds like an admission that he plans to steal the election, and I wouldn't put it past him to try, most election fraud is to swing just enough votes to win a close election, so far it doesn't look like this election is close. I think instead he is going to use Bin Laden's trial to scare people into voting Republican. I just can't see it being a coincedence that the verdict is being read 2 days before elections http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221101,00.html

I suspect they will call for an execution, probably Nov 6th or 7th. They are using a man's life to gain points in an election. This man was a US ally for many decades. Even assuming he is guilty and should be taken out of power, should his life be used as a pawn to sway the American vote.

On a similar subject, I also heard on the news that the Republicans are releasing a campaign "warning" people of more terroist attacks if they are not re-elected http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/19/gop-to-ru n-ad-warning-aga_n_32103.html. Terroism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." How does this not fall under that definition?

I was hoping that the time was drawing near for people to wake up and change the current situation in goverment, but I don't have enough faith in people anymore to think for themselves instead of believing whatever they are told by our goverment on TV.

"You have brought nothing to the table except your "world is flat" dismissals."

Nice way to change the subject from the fact that actual numbers of media voices show that there is no media consolidation.

"When you consider that Clear Channel used to own a paltry 41 before the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and has now ballooned to over 1200 stations"

How misleading when you conveniently leave out that this is a small fraction of the total number of stations.

"but there are several others who have gobbled up television and radio stations and newspapers in markets all across the U.S."

Each of which controlls far less than what Clear Channel controls. How many do all of these control between them? 30% or 40% or something like that?

"That is media consolidation whether you want to admit it or not"

How can I "admit" something that there is no evidence for?

"The trend since 1996 has been cosolidation because the FCC relaxed the rules on how many media outlets a particular company could own. This is fact. "

The fact is that the FCC has relaxed the rules, but there has been no consolidation. Looking at the definition, "to bring together (separate parts) into a single or unified whole; unite; combine: They consolidated their three companies.", it is clear that nothing like this has happened.

From Ted Turner: "When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace"

In other words, the FCC ignored the First Amendment and meddled in the media to try to dictate preferred content. Good riddance.

From Ted Turner: "They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV."

Yet, when the FCC had much tighter control, we only had ABC,NBC,CBS. With the relaxation of control, we've had more and more new voices getting added. The "forever" domination" of those few voices is over.

From Ted Turner: "They believed in the value of competition."

And there is more such competition now than ever before. Do you want me to link to other new media voices aside from the ones I linked to above? It's like Ted had no idea what he was saying, which could be summarized as "Back when the FCC encouraged competition, we only had 3 news networks. Now we have less competition and more news networks."

"The debate here is whether or not media consolidation is happening or not"

I guess that is true. It is hardly a debate since there is no evidence of media consolidation.

"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dixie Chicks(sp?) made a comment about the president back in 2003 while on tour in London. Even though they are still around and touring, this comment cost them dearly"

Cost them? How so? Do you have any idea what cost means? They ended up more popular than ever, selling more music than ever. They are more than "still around".

"There was a corporate mandate "from on high" that dictated that none of the stations would play thier music after their comment."

Worked so WELL, didn't it? I'd never heard them on the radio before. After the Bush comment flap, I started to hear them on the radio.

" That is the kind of power media consolidation gives corporations. I'm sorry you can't understand this, but it's right there in front of your face"

What, the power to make musical artists like the Dixie Chicks more popular and more rich?

"Apparently you aren't aware of what happened to Pacifica during the 90's."

I followed this as it happened. Does not change the fact that Pacifica is a corporation.

I take strong offense to that comment about "how mexicans are treated back in the US". Its an entirley different situation. You started out by saying "if you have good IT skills"... well that implies a great deal. Maybe you need to ask them to give you an economics class and not just IT classes.

Amsterdam doesn't have a third world coutnry to its south with millions of poeple trying to get in to use its "free" services. Its not that the US doesn't want to help... it costs lots of money. Frankly we have serious problems of our own, like the baby boomers about to retire and the medicare costs associated with that... projected to be into the trillions!

Mexicans that follow the imigration process in the US are welcomed, just like everyone else. Becasue we are the top nation in the world, have many of the best schools, etc. lots of people around the world want to come here. Not everyone can at once.

The mexican problem the US faces is that there is to many uneducated poverty stricken people who don't speak the language are trying to come in at once. Many of the mexicans who enter the US illegally head straight for the social services and hospitals. Well guess what, someone has to pay for that. They are getting it free, while americans pick up a pretty hefty tab. Even with our tax dollars being drained to those services, hospitals around the border are going under left and right becasue of it. The US (while its a nice thought) can't afford to take care of every sick person in mexico. I iwsh we could, but we can't. Its not because we are greedy either, we give more money to poor nations in the world than anyone other country.

Even the former preseident of mexico (Vicente Fox) had trouble coming up with reasons why mexicans want to stay in mexico. He listed "tacos" as the first reason to stay in mexico durring an interview a couple of years ago. "They like tacos, they like their families, they like their community, they like Mexico. ".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108050,00.html

We simply can't afford to swallow whole an entire nation like that. If we opened up our boarders to mexico tens of millions of poverty stricken people would flood the nation and cripple our economy. Amsterdam just isn't an applicable analogy. Frankly, Amsterdam doesn't welcome poverty stricken people like you imply anyways... you are just being anti-american... a trendy position, but not really a good one.

Look, its nothing against individual mexicans. I was fortunate enought to be born here not there. luck. That doesn't change the reality of the situation though.

Venezuela Offers $1M, Oil, Food and Equipment for U.S. Victims of Hurricane Katrina Thursday, Sep 01, 2005

Rice: All Foreign Aid Offers Will Be Accepted Thursday, September 01, 2005

so venezuela offers, and condoleeza rice says all offers will be accepted. how much proof do you need? receipts?

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée." - Ann Coulter - January 27, 2006

If that ain't terrorist threat I don't know what is. He is sick. If someone from the "blue" side of the scales said that I wonder what would happen? IMO not a free ride.

Same goes for "Drug 'Rush'" Limbaugh. If he was black and from New York he'd be living at USP Florence hoping his roomie doesn't shiv him in his sleep tonight for the thousands and thousands of tabs he moved interstate. No justice.

Welcome to amerika. Please leave your freedoms and common sense to the border.

Personally I have seen enough examples to believe Democrats routinely steal enough votes to gain a 1 or 2 point advantage in any national election and substantially more in certain local races. But we Republicans simply spot em the handicap and go on to win elections.

You need to read more. There are plenty of cases of Republicans doing shifty things.

LAS VEGAS -- Elections officials have rebuffed an attempt by a former GOP operative to purge about 17,000 Democrats from the voter rolls in the battleground state of Nevada, where the two presidential candidates are in a dead heat. Dan Burdish, former head of the state Republican Party, filed a challenge last week claiming the Democrats should be removed from the rolls because they were inactive voters. When asked why he did it Burdish told the press, "I am looking to take Democrats off the voter rolls." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135334,00.html

2004: The State of Florida compiled a list of 47,000+ felons to be barred from voting. Jeb Bush struggled to keep this list secret. After a lawsuit to make the list public, it was discovered that African American felons (who tend to vote Democrat) made-up 50% of the list, including a number of African-Americans who had regained the right to vote, while hispanics (who tend to vote Republican) made up only 61 of the 47,000 felons on the list. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida. elections/ http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2004/07/27/3244/

Clint Curtis testifies under oath that Florida Representative Tom Feeney asked him to create a voting machine that could secretly switch the vote to whomever is pre-chosen to win an election. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/09/video_testimo ny_of_v.html

2002: In New Hampshire, Democrats setup a phone line where disabled or elderly voters can call to get a ride to the polls. On election day, they are mysteriously jammed with calls from people hanging up. Legitimate voters can't get through. After some investigation, they trace the calls back to "GOP Marketplace" in Virginia. Republicans are convicted and admit that they did it to stop Democrats from getting to the polls. James Tobin, New England regional director of the Republican National Committee is convicted. http://bigbrassballs.wordpress.com/tag/gop-scandal s/phone-jamming/ http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/17/wednesd ay/index.html?eref=sitesearch

-Eric

The modern version of this "salami-slicing" progression with regards to installation of surveillance technology:

1) We're installing cameras in selected areas for limited purposes, eg. at street intersections to catch speeders. Don't be paranoid; we'd never link 'em up into an all-purpose surveillance system.

2) We're expanding the camera network to pedestrian areas to fight crime and, if you're in the UK, "anti-social behavio(u)r" (shudder). Don't be paranoid; it's not like we're trying to track you everywhere you go.

3) We're linking up the cameras into a region-wide surveillance system. How can you complain? You already accepted the monitoring itself, and now we're just coordinating our law-enforcement efforts among various places and agencies. It'll help us protect you better.

4) We're adding new software capabilities to the surveillance network, such as automatic license-plate reading, identification of "suspicious behavior," and cameras that bark orders. What's wrong? You already agreed to be watched everywhere you go; now we're simply going to look a little more closely.

5) We, who rule you, hereby exempt ourselves from monitoring. Transparency is for our side of the glass.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.

And, as noted in the unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004:

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

Bush claimed that Saddam had an active program and was continuing to stockpile. This is false, and continues to be false.

Saddam did have active programs involving banned research into WMDs, and research, development, and manufacturing of missile technology, among others. He also retained banned materials. See David Kay's report on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as excerpted below:

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

- A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

- New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

- A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

- Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

- Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

No relevent devices have been found to this day.

Plenty of banned programs, research, and equipment have been found, just no newly manufactured weapons filled with chemical or biological agents. That hardly vindicates Saddam, especia

here is the url

whoops, I guess _you_ were being funny ;^)

And who cares about MySpace anyhow?

Actually, employers have started checking out prospective job candidates via MySpace, Google and other online resources to see if there is anything that may stand out as a conflict with the company. Read about it here.Now, sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory however if other information was posted such as someone bragging about the $3000 they stole from X company while they weren't looking could cost someone a potential job.

So, obviously someone does care about MySpace.

this is what he's talking about. And it looks like a fixed wing, not rotary wing crash. Speculation will be held until further data is revealed.

This story has "Greta" written all over it.

You go Girl!

Nina . . . the next Lacy Peterson.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html I guess this is wrong too....

The "Bush Administration Official" quoted by Fox probably a former Fox employee.

We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.

New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact and despite the fact that Washington is a signatory to the NPT, Washington has agreed to give nuclear technology to India. (New Delhi refused to support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy unless Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) greatly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.)

How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions? The point of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to any and all nations, irrespective of their form of government.

here. Fox News apparently got the tip first.

I know 1 owner who has figured out how to read Linksys router logs ... and employees there should be worried if he sees you HAVEN'T got your fix of FOX or RUSH today.

Nobody follows the many written rules but everyone knows those little unwritten ones.

No-registration-required article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217021,00.html

Posting as AC because:
Linking to foxnews equals automatic Troll/Flamebait/Offtopic.

> > Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
> Bullshit. This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American.

No, it is about the elections. From a recent Bill Clinton interview worth reading:

Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue. In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror.

And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn't pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it. They just ran that out.

This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there. And, as it turned out, there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and had some of their own ideas about how best to fight terror.

So basically the two parties are in a race of who can be more crass than the other in "security" politics. The Republicans are jaded enough to sacrifice your privacy in order to make Democrats look bad before the election. And the Democrats couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to save your privacy. The ignorant and scared populace would just whack them if they did. I dare say America is paying a very high price for allowing itself to be kept ignorant and scared.

And yes, there is the equivalent, many equivalents, of Room 101.

But we don't have telescreens in every room that can listen and watch us

...no one, even Coulter, is saying you should be tortured for doing it.

you don't have to guard your facial expression for fear of being tortured in Room 101

f you use up all your superlatives now, if you shout "tyranny" now, what words will you use when it gets worse?

where the fuck is our War on Candy Bars and Whoppers, huh?

It's already here.

Thank you for reinforcing the vapid California stereotype.

All Schwarznazi's ballot initiatives go down in flames, except the one putting the state into a lot more debt. Not only do you ignore how all his other policies were rejected. You also ignore how he lied about fixing the budget, got elected by lying about how giant the debt is, then "fixed" it by creating a lot more debt. And your fellow Californians sucked it right down.

Next up, you pretend Californians don't vote for Schwarznazi because he's a Hollywood star. You justify this by saying that Davis wasn't Hollywood - but he got thrown out, you clown. Somehow voting for nonstars other times means you skindeepers didn't vote for actors in Reagan and Schwarznazi. You cite two other potential candidates whose resume consists of... being Hollywood stars, though not big enough to be as popular as Schwarznazi. Ringing the "duh" bell as hard as you can.

Schwarznazi campaigned for Bush, even outside California, which he said he wouldn't do, because Bush was so unpopular in California, though popular elsewhere. You're a gang of liars, you California Schwarznazi boosters. Like the lie you're trying that I said Bush is unpopular because of his deficits. Which I didn't say - I just said he's as unpopular as his deficits are high. Worth noting because not only are Schwarznazi's deficits high, including that new debt you're crowing about, but Bush's debt is is somewhere between 45 and 65 $TRILLION, so high the country can't pay it back. Which also figures into his unpopularity, along with Iraq, among people who can count that high. You can't - 45 is clearly out of your reach. But about a quarter of voters surveyed last month said the economy was more important than even Iraq. Your boys are blowing both, and worshippers like you don't even care.

Sure, you're not a Republican. Noone's a Republican anymore, right? You're an "independent", of course. So you vote for Republicans, and pretend you don't. And if you believe that Hollywood is "liberal", you're wearing a mouse suit in Disneyland.

I might have thought up the nickname "Schwarznazi", but I'm not unique. He's a nazi, just like he said, no matter what other arguments about Schwarznazi you want to lose with me. All my points are meaningful, backed by facts. I don't need some Lalaland liar like you to call me clever. Or spew lies while calling me on the facts.

Now turn your glowing eyeballs back to your TV. I'm sure there's something good on, like a California Republican pretending they're got the state's trains running on time, if only those damn secular Hollywood liberals would just lie down on the tracks, or at least get into the cattlecars.

They were banned in several school districts. Maybe not by the whole country but these books have been banned before in different parts of the USA.

I wonder if it was a disgruntled avatar that caused the security breach

Is there anyway to ask a judge to throw out cases when the RIAA's lawsuits become unbelievably ridiculous?

I mean, who is going to chase after these lawsuits and counter sue? What repurcussions can a counter suit have on the RIAA? And, if they do successfully counter sue, how much does that slow down the RIAA?

When will this end? Could there be an epic counter suit that would make the RIAA stop with law suits?

Somebody didn't get the memo. Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were just "forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint" last week. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210645,00.html

Actually, it was a guy by the name of Richard Armitage who leaked the information. Who BTW was agains the Iraq invasion as well. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212317,00.html

You grossly oversimplify; actually, the situation was a lot more complex than that. Saddam was selling oil way too cheap, in euros, to the French. So we didn't like him.

Right.... and the reason that Enron's executives are liable for repaying $183 million, and probably jail time, is that their stock "under-performed" the market.

Saddam used the wholly corrupt "Oil for Food" program to bribe all manner of foreign officials, buy influence in the Security Council, undermine UN sanctions, buy weapons, and fund terrorists, all the while skimming billions of dollars off the top. Even UN Secretary General Koffi Annan's son took bribes, and the Deputy Secretary General was eye deep as well. So, it was that, his refusal to fully and voluntarily comply with the weapons inspections, his record of genocide, aggression against pretty much every country around him, the abysmal human rights record, his military regularly fired on US aircraft (act of war), his support for international terrorists, well.... you get the picture, .... that is why we "didn't like him".

Personally, I think you want to let President Saddam "I grind my opponents alive, and my sons are worse" Hussein off the hook a little too easily.

You grossly oversimplify; actually, the situation was a lot more complex than that. Saddam was selling oil way too cheap, in euros, to the French. So we didn't like him.

Right.... and the reason that Enron's executives are liable for repaying $183 million, and probably jail time, is that their stock "under-performed" the market.

Saddam used the wholly corrupt "Oil for Food" program to bribe all manner of foreign officials, buy influence in the Security Council, undermine UN sanctions, buy weapons, and fund terrorists, all the while skimming billions of dollars off the top. Even UN Secretary General Koffi Annan's son took bribes, and the Deputy Secretary General was eye deep as well. So, it was that, his refusal to fully and voluntarily comply with the weapons inspections, his record of genocide, aggression against pretty much every country around him, the abysmal human rights record, his military regularly fired on US aircraft (act of war), his support for international terrorists, well.... you get the picture, .... that is why we "didn't like him".

Personally, I think you want to let President Saddam "I grind my opponents alive, and my sons are worse" Hussein off the hook a little too easily.

Why does my story keep getting rejected about the Endangered Polar Bears in Greenland? This is getting really frustrating. Somebody please RTFA and care a little bit.

That's a good question. A company that produces faulty machines with all sorts of blunders and glitches in the past and present - since this is a free market surely market pressure should eradicate this company. Yet it seems the government that should look into such irregularities (especially since free market is (supposed to be) one of the pillars of the GOP) apparently has no interest in doing so.. Could it be because Diebold not only supported the Bush campaign financially, but not only had the ability, but also the intention to to deliver the victory to their crony buddies? - Noo, that would be too outlandish and could never happen; the vigilant public would easily find out about it.

The Romans had a saying: Bis peccare in bello non licet. To blunder twice is not allowed in war. Thank god big business isn't warfare or after all these blunders heads would be a'rollin (and piling up).

in the last couple of decades traditionally poor people have been moving up through economic levels thanks to anti-discriminatory laws, expanding economies, urban renewal, social programs, etc.

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks (search), and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

First of all, the "jihadis" to whom you're referring are just people buying large numbers of cell phones for resale.

Second, even if some wackjobs are calling their buddies in Waziristan to chat about blowing stuff up, I'd rather the government miss those calls than listen in on mine.

Third, you know what works? FISA warrants. Even your buddy Bill O'Reilly knows it, and he's every bit the wingnut you are.

"nothing of the kind"

Actually she did.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209042,00.html

West Virginia Airport Terminal Evacuated After Water Bottle Tests Positive for Explosives
Thursday, August 17, 2006

PHOTOS VIDEO PHOTO ESSAYS

Click image to enlarge
Photo Essays:

London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot
STORIES

London-to-D.C. Flight Diverted to Boston After Passenger Disturbance

Sen. Schumer: UK Terror Plot Shows Weaknesses in U.S. Security

Attorney General Gonzales Praises International Effort to Disrupt UK Terror Plot

Jetliner Terror Suspects to Stay in Jail in London

TSA Says Shoe X-Rays at Airports Can Detect Explosives, Despite Security Report

DHS Lowers Terror Alert Level From Red to Orange for Inbound Flights From UK to U.S.
CEREDO, West Virginia -- A West Virginia airport terminal was evacuated Thursday after a female passenger's water bottle twice tested positive for explosives, a Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman said.

"The bomb squad is on site and the woman is being interviewed by the FBI," Amy von Walter said.

Security checkpoint screeners got a positive test on a machine that uses swabs to find traces of explosives, von Walter said. A bomb-sniffing dog also reacted to the water bottle.

A screener noticed the bottle in a woman's carryon bag as she prepared to board a flight to Charlotte, N.C., said Tri-State Airport authority President Jim Booton.

Commercial airline service was temporarily suspended, and about 100 passengers and airport employees were ordered to leave the terminal, Booton said.

At least one flight was diverted to Charleston's Yeager Airport, about 60 miles away.

Note: I live in the Tri-State area, this is right now local news, hasn't broken national yet.

DETROIT -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

Click here to read the judge's opinion (pdf).

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

(Story continues below)

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS > STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BACK TO TOP

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL

You wanted it, so here goes:

1. From the FOX News Website: Is the ACLU Bin Laden's Best Ally?

Quote from the same: "If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the Al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration."

2. From Wikiquote

"I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda." (2 June 2004)

"Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." (19 January 2005)

Corporations have long been treating consumers like sheep. It's a small wonder that they haven't started publishing fake newspapers yet.

Newspapers are old school, no they jumped right to cable.

Well, my showers aren't ALL that long... it doesn't really give me much extra time.

But now with the new Homeland Security policy and the TSA's help, I won't have to brush my teeth or style my mop while on the road either! (Not that Fox News is a great source, but it was in the mighty Slashdot post about the terrorism event... so it must be true... or canonically wrong.)

I can pack lighter AND have more time too!

TTFN

Couple months away from an election in the US, so here we go again. Guess this story didn't have enough of an impact so we need a bigger scare, mm?

/ Learned to stop asking "Are people really this stupid?" a long time ago...

In case anyone is still interested, Reuters has pulled all 920 photos by this photographer. Only two have been proven faked but they are not taking any chances. The question remains though, how did they get through Reuters' editorial process? Here are a few links to the story:

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060807/2006-08- 07T162044Z_01_L06301298_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-REU TERS-DC.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/reuters. photog.reut/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207352,00.html

I am proud to say that I watch foxnews religously. And of all the other news outlets out there they all fail to compare to fox. Noone comes close when it comes to late breaking news, accuracy, integrity, truthfulness, and fair and balanced as foxnews is. Hell, if it weren't for fox, I probably wouldn't watch or pay much attention to what is going on in the world. Sure Israel is bombing the shit out of Lebanon. And yeah, Lebaonon is getting the raw end of the deal. And IMHO, this is one example of tyranny by a small minority. The people in Hezbollah need to meet their maker. Cause of Hezbollah a whole country has to suffer the wrath of another country who's aim is to live in peace. Is what Israel doing justifiable? That's a good question.? I think it is the tragedy and reality of terrorism. And such groups such as Hezbollah should be dealt with before things like this happen instead of letting them exist and breed hate. For this is a prime example of what can happen when people have had enough.

AFAIK, every ER in America is legally obliged to help you if you need emergency care.

Which is why many hospitals are simply shutting down their ERs. Yay capitalism!

If you eat yourself (or drink yourself, or dope yourself, or sloth yourself, etc) to death, that's a completely preventable situation, and I'm admittedly not very sympathetic to this "plight".

I see you completely missed my point. The guy eating himself to death raises his health risk, and causes *everyone's* insurance premiums to rise. This is the way insurance works. If a large percentage of people in your insurance pool are high risk, but you're not, *you* still pay higher rates to cover their risk.

Second, you ignore the fact that many people without healthcare insurance are in that situation out of choice.

a) this isn't a "fact". This is an opinion. b) it's a non-sequitor. The point is that rates will rise and put healthcare out of reach of people who can currently afford it. It will also, BTW, make it unaffordable for small business, which (as you rightly point out) often (though, less and less, thanks to... rising insurance costs) help cover the healthcare costs for their employees, meaning even *more* people could go without insurance.

Third, insurance rates probably would go up. But the problem with insurance rates is largely the fact that for most people, insurance is an employer-provided benefit. ... When people's unhealthy habits hit them in the pocketbook, they'll adjust. And if they don't, they deserve what they get.

Again, you're completely missing the point. This isn't about an unhealthy person paying a higher rate because of their habits. This is about *you* paying a higher rate because of their habits, because the overall risk in the insured group is higher.

Then again, maybe you just don't understand how insurance actually works...

Well, you are spewing bullshit. None of the attacks were against 'innocent civilians'. Israel does not target innocent civilians, they target Hezbollah terrorists, they fire at rocket launcher sites. Civilians and the UN happen to be there, sure.

Read this. This is from a Canadian UN soldier who got killed by the way.

And this: U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees