Slashdot Mirror

Iraq bait-n-switch? You need to spend less time getting third hand information and more time finding it yourself.

Here is the Iraq war resolution. Pay special attention to the whereas lines. They lay out the official reasons we went to war and to the best of my knowledge, the only one that has turned out to be untrue was the continuing WMD programs and stockpiles. Those reasons were the ones argued going into the war by Bush and Company.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

  The problem with the WMDs was that Iraq was trying to make it appear that they had them when they didn't and purposely thwarted efforts to verify their destruction per the UN security council resolution 686 (march 2 1991) and 687 (March 3 1991) that Iraq conceded to March 5th. If you think the WMDs were made up, then ask yourself why the government would lie to get us into a war and not put WMDs in the sand somewhere to keep it's citizens trusting of it. The bottom line was that Saddam feared Iran would find it a weakness if they verified they had no WMDs so he refused to allow that to happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03saddam.html?ref=world&_r=0

You likely would have had better results if you used the Gulf of Tonkin as your example of being played REALLY badly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin

The whole story is an outright lie - to set up a desired chain of events, where striking Syria illegally will create an incident that can be trumped up as Iranian in origin, thus justifying an attack on the actual desired target.

I don't dispute this could all be a ruse. But the orders from Iran was a so called order if the US acted not something that would cause the US to act. We already know Iran feeds terrorist organizations and we already know who those organizations are. We have been able to piece the puzzles together since the mid 1980's.

In all seriousness, and I will likely be modded down for this because it's a negative on Obama. But he is a rank amateur in office who was attempting to gloat in some glory and made a statement that he is trying to wiggle out of. He drew a red line, he made a statement trying to act like the kid in class who wants to be more special or important then they are willing to be. He is the arm chair quarterback who thinks they can play the game better then those playing but when push comes to shove, refuses to suit up and get hit. So he made a statement, he is finding all sorts of opposition on it. England wants nothing to do with us on it as well as most of Europe. Russia warns us about getting involved (they are still pissed we ignored them on Libya). Russia claims the chemicals used were not weapons grade and the delivery mechanism was not military grade. They published that report with the UN. This could very well be a defining moment that restarts the cold war.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/09/05/5178949/russia-says-it-has-compiled-a.html

This release equivalence of "all hell will break loose if we bomb Syria because Iran is making sure of it" is most likely an attempt to persuade congress to deny authorization. I don't think Obama had any intent of changing his calculus in the first place and either made the statement to feel powerful at the time or in the hopes that it would completely deter any usage of the chemical weapons. Now he is backed into a corner and I think he is strongly attempting to find a way out. If congress denies his use of force, he can blame them. The so called war weary citizens will be even more vocal now that it is known that we (not just our ally Israel) will be attacked by known terrorist organizations backed and funded by Iran.

The slide deck is available.

Aside from the 'WTF is AT&T doing with over a quarter-century of phone records that would justify the cost of storing them, anyway?' angle, there are a few... concerning... elements.

1. The searches aren't "warrantless" in the strictest sense; but apparently most of them occur by the process of 'administrative subpoena', which requires no judicial oversight. The DEA has the power to get one simply by asserting that it needs one because drugs. (Sections 506 and 507 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970). Given that the features of the program include turnaround times of an hour or less, barring atypically complex queries, there is clearly very limited review going on. It isn't the DEA running raw SQL queries; but the separation between it being the 'DEA's database' and 'AT&T's database' appears to be fairly limited.

2. Pretty much everything in the section of the presentation entitled "Protecting The Program"(starts on page 8): The program is 'unclassified' but "All requestors are instructed to never refer to Hemisphere in any official document" and there are specific instructions on how to conceal Hemisphere as the source in an investigation by using it first, to guide further subpoenas, and then retroactively building a case only on the subsequent subpoenas, in order to conceal, from the court and everyone else, the role of Hemisphere. As they describe the process:

When a complete set of CDRs are subpoenaed from the carrier, then all memorialized references to relevant and pertinent calls can be attributed to the carrier’s records, thus “walling off” the information obtained from Hemisphere. In other words, Hemisphere can easily be protected if it is used as a pointer system to uncover relevant numbers.

In special cases, we realize that it might not be possible to obtain subpoenaed phone records that will “wall off” Hemisphere.

In these special circumstances, the Hemisphere analyst should be contacted immediately. The analyst will work with the investigator and request a separate subpoena to AT&T

This practice of evidence laundering would appear to be very similar to the "Parallel Construction" process described as in use by the DEA for other giant secretive data sources (with 'Parallel Construction' being the term for "recreating" a fictional chain of evidence that excludes the existence of sensitive data sources. Less friendly audiences might call this 'perjury'...)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2012-07-20/2012-17685/content-detail.html ...Which is expired on August 10th 2012.

People don't want to sign up for the armed services knowing that they're just going to be shipped off immediately to one of these middle-eastern hell holes to fight some undeclared war over some bullshit "terror" campaign to "keep us safe" from that big, evil Constitution that is making government's job so difficult.

Your entire comment is stupendously wrong.

Pilots love to fly, and most of them like their missions. Unfortunately the sequestration budget cuts mean that they are losing a lot of light time with some units being grounded completely. On top of that the Air Force in particular, and the military in general, has been ratcheting up the stifling level of political correctness and engaging in a growing number of witch hunts due to policies instituted by the current administration. In short, they are whittling away at the reason pilots are there - to fly - and filling them full of politically correct BS. Who could possibly imagine that might cause a retention problem?

Sequester Has Air Force Clipping Its Wings

The Pentagon says the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration could leave the U.S. with a military that is simply unprepared for the most challenging combat missions. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told Congress in April that the military is eating its seed corn. "The cuts will fall heavily on maintenance and training, which further erodes the readiness of the force and will be costly to regain in the future," he said. "As the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our readiness." The Air Force says it's in a special bind. Cuts in flying hours mean that pilots can't do the thing they need to practice most: flying. . . . "We were told to cut our flying budget roughly in half," Lt. Col. James Howard says. Because of that order, Howard says, he had to ground the 336th Fighter Squadron so that the other units on this base could keep flying. The tricky thing for Howard is that the longer his pilots remain idle, the longer it will take for them to get ready to fly again. Fighter pilots must fly and drill their skills on a regular basis, from dogfighting to helping ground troops under fire. Otherwise, they lose their certification. "All those skills are extremely perishable," Howard says. Most pilots, he says, are required to do eight to nine flights per month to maintain readiness status.

Who wouldn’t want to be a US Air Force fighter pilot?

The war against al Qaida is authorized by this law passed by Congress. It is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

"Bullshit "terror" campaigns" don't leave thousands of Americas dead. Al Qaida has managed to do that, and they keep trying to find new ways. Maybe you've heard of 9/11?

So you're troubled that they ""keep us safe" from that big, evil Constitution"? Could you be more specific? Did somebody quarter troops in your house in violation of the 3rd Amendment? Or is that just empty emoting?

Suppose we were to organize a riot against the state in protest over violations of privacy. We'd be thwarted. Suppose we try to organize over real issues such as global warming, energy shock, systemic economic collapse? We the soon powerless starving majority at home will be the enemy of state.

"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances."
-- Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, Department of Defense, April 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm
January 2013 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt

"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response."
-- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionX.html 2006

"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability."
-- Army Modernisation Strategy, Department of Defense, 2008

"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
-- Strategic Studies Institute, 2008

"Climate change would lead to increased risk of ... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable. ... A severe energy crunch is inevitable [by 2015] without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."
-- US Joint Forces Command, 2010

"climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."
-- Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of Defense, 2010

What war against al Qaida?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?

Like most people in the modern era, al Qaida members are able to travel. Many of them came to Iraq to fight, some were recruited locally. If you notice from the map, Iraq is near a number of countries with a notable extremist presence, and al Qaida problem.

Iraq was a major loss for al Qaida. They made many grand announcements that turned into nothing. Many of their leaders and technical experts were captured or killed. Many of their funding sources were found out and stopped. And the biggest problem for them was that the Arab Muslim world had a ring side seat to see how their future would-be overlords behaved. Al Qaida demonstrated themselves to be barbarians before the entire Arab Muslim word. They killed huge numbers of ordinary Muslims in massive slaughters. The Muslims in the region noticed this, and al Qaida support was badly damaged.

Eventual most of al Qaida was called out of Iraq, and guess where many of them fled? To Afghanistan. That is part of the reason that Afghanistan got so hot again as Iraq was winding down.

The Taliban were created after the Russians left Afghanistan. They were a creation of Pakistan. The Taliban were not US allies. They were allied with al Qaida.

By historical standards the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have been cheap in terms of American lives lost. For dealing with Saddam and al Qaidas state within a state and training base turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in Afghanistan, it was worth it. As to the deaths in Iraq, the Lancet study you refer to was paid for by George Soros, is bad science, and a piece of propaganda to try to mislead the public, influence an election, and derail the American war effort.

Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?

Very much so. If it had to be repeated there would need to be some fine tuning. Being as the US has been out of business of military occupation or colonial rule for a very long time it didn't have the institutional experience to make the best of the opportunities to help the Iraqi people. Part of the problem is that Saddam had diverted so many resources to building enormous palaces all over the country and to his covert rearming that the infrastructure was falling apart. What is worse is what he did to the Iraqi people, corrupting them badly. It will take them time to recover, but at least now that they are not under Saddam or his hell spawn children* Iraq has a chance. I hope they make it.

*Really, how bad are you when Saddam is the one restraining you, saying you are too cruel, as he did to at least one if not both of this sons?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting against, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. Al Qaida is, reasonably speaking, a political entity.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress after 9/11 designates the enemy for the conflict. It is well settled law in the US that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. Al Qaida made their intentions clear in 1996 with Bin Laden's Fatwa which is a declaration of war in their culture.

There are a lot of misconceptions about Guantánamo Bay. This is a couple of years old, and doesn't reflect the most current controversies. It's a big topic, and I'm not going to get into all of it right now. One thing I would say to keep in mind is that you can disagree with what the administration says, or does, but remember that al Qaida trains its members to lie about their living conditions, and many of them are highly dangerous prisoners that regularly assault the guards. The training to lie is documented in captured training materials.

The Real Gitmo

Further, the president keeps spewing this bullshit about how his "number one job" is to "protect the american people" and "keep the country safe". The FUCK it is. . . . His sole job is to preserve (not change) and protect and defend the Constitution. Period. Not to change it. Not to violate it. Not to push programs that spit in the face of it. . . . but to uphold it. Yet, I have never seen or heard one reporter or one talking head anywhere under any circumstances raise this in response to the bullshit he spews.

Looking at the Presidential oath, I show in bold below the portion of the oath that you say is the President's job.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Unfortunately you've left something out, a big something that I show below in bold

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The two sections are linked with an "AND," they are two different clauses. There are two different aspects of the President's job. Other than the court system, practically everything that the government does that an ordinary citizen would encounter falls under the purview of the Executive branch, of which the President is the head. As head of the Executive branch of government, he is responsible for seeing that the law is carried out, and that the government functions. That is a pretty big thing to leave out.

You skip over the many things specified in the text of Article II of the Constitution. These are the duties of the President of the United States, as specified in the Constitution. I will note that you claim that it isn't the President's job to "protect the American people" flies into the face of the text of the Constitution. Article II section 2 of the Constitution's first statement is that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That role makes him directly responsible for the defense, the protection, of the American people.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article II

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads
of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or eit

Then you don't understand the situation. The US is at war with the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. It is well settled law that such authorizations are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. You may not like that, but that doesn't change the legal situation.

How many times to we have to revisit this issue?

The difficulty is that a group of persons must interpret the limits expounded in their constitution, and are not doing so well at it.

Spot on, but not in the way you mean. A big part of the problem is in fact problematic interpretation of the constitution, but it tends to be from a portion of the public and commentators. They are very enthusiastic and fixated on the fourth amendment, but tend to be oblivious to Article II of the constitution and its application and jurisprudence. People overlook the fact that the US is legally at war with the perpetrators of 9/11 - not just the original people that performed the attack, but al Qaida itself. The legal basis for that war is contained in the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES passed by Congress - legally equivalent to a declaration of war in well settled law. Objections about the length of the conflict, or that it is against al Qaida are nonsense.

Many people get this pretty much entirely wrong. The NSA is performing necessary work to protect the United States and its allies and remains only a potential threat to American liberty. It is the IRS that has actually admitted to have engaged in political oppression against the political opposition to the current administration, and which is still being uncovered to be rooted out. The simple fact is that few people on Slashdot seem to be concerned about demonstrated political oppression in the United States by the IRS, but obsess about the NSA. The reality of the IRS is too boring for many to care about while the lurid fantasies about NSA can't be resisted. Squirrel!

The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well settled law.

Let's consolidate this so people aren't confused.

Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?

Sorry, that is BS. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. Hellfire missiles are not WMDs in the military context even if they are for US domestic criminal law. So, suggesting that the President is using WMDs is nonsense. It would also be nonsense domestically in the US since government has the legal authority to use lethal force with weapons not available to civilians. Second, the US isn't deliberately attacking innocent civilian populations. The terrorists do, as did the Boston bomber. Launching a Hellfire missile at a SUV of senior al Qaida or Taliban members traveling down a road isn't going to kill many people other than the intended targets. So third, the 50:1 casualty rate is fiction. If it were true, you would need to find 50,000 dead civilians in the drone attack areas of Pakistan - there would be no way to cover that up. That is obviously nonsense as noted by the Pakistani government spokesman below. That doesn't mean that attacks are never made in error, or that innocent people are never killed. But that is a different question from deliberately targeting them.

Pakistan drone strikes: 2012

Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”

He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.

From a wider angle, taking Afghanistan into account, it is the Taliban causing most of the casualties. And you would expect that since one of their key means of attack is bombs and mines placed along roads that kill whomever comes along, as well as bombings in market places, and attacks on institutions like schools. Those are mainly going to kill civilians.

Taliban Causes Most Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan, U.N. Says

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

The SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is not limited to geographic area. The US government and Pakistan have had an arrangement.

Ex-Pakistani President Musharraf admits secret deal with U.S. on drone strikes

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Ex-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on U.S. drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.

Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone program and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf's admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn't oversee the program or approve every attack.

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Thank you for playing.

You're really trying to say that killing children who weren't even fucking born on 9/11/2001 is justified?

Goddamn, we knew you were a statist, but this... this is just fucked, man. You need serious mental counselling.

No sarc.

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Thank you for playing.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title47-vol3/xml/CFR-2012-title47-vol3-sec64-1200.xml

this would be
          Title 47 - Telecommunication. CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED). SUBCHAPTER B - COMMON CARRIER SERVICES (CONTINUED). PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS. Subpart L - Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising.

[voice type="Judge Dred"] THIS IS THE LAW [/voice]

Poor analogy. Responding to an act of war with a declaration of war is far different from responding to a non-government-sanctioned act by a handful of individuals with an undeclared war.

You've got that pretty much entirely wrong.

Al Qaida was both guest in Afghanistan, and integrated into its military forces and government. Al Qaida's jihadis were organized up to brigade level and fighting along side the Taliban. Al Qaida was churning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in their training camps, with many of the dispersing to raise havoc around the world. And Bin Laden did in fact issue a recognizable declaration of war as understood in his culture, and similarly understood in the West.

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

After repeated attacks killing thousands and wounding thousands more, the US responded with its own declaration.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress after 9-11-2001 is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well settled law.

Again, poor analogy. Normal law enforcement doesn't suck down half our federal budget (not counting trust funds). If we were spending half our country's income on arresting bank robbers or rapists, then the answer would be a resounding "yes"... well, not to stop it entirely, but certainly to scale it back by several orders of magnitude.

The poster I responded was essentially arguing that the US should not be engaged in military action to defend itself as long as disease killed more people. It was a nonsense argument whether you apply it to national defense or law enforcement, which is what I was demonstrating.

Social welfare spending is about twice what the defense budget is. Defense spending will be taking a disproportionate hit from sequestration. National defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government.

Who is the US engaged in war with that he has given aid and comfort to?

The US is at war with al Qaida under the terms of Public Law 107-40 passed by the 107th Congress, which under well settled legal precedent is equivalent to a declaration of war. When Snowden exposed US national security secrets to the world, al Qaida wasn't wearing ear muffs. They found out too, so they are no doubt working on countermeasures and workarounds.

Private Manning is facing similar circumstances.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

What the NSA is doing goes well beyond the authorization of the Patriot act.

You need to read the actual text of the Patriot Act, specifically this part:
Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Sections 256-282

I regret to inform you that you don't know what you are talking about.

In their mind, Al Qaida is fighting on behalf of, and to reestablish, the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman empire. The nonsense about "never been chosen to represent a nation of people" would make the silly claim that any modern insurgency to overthrow a government by violent means isn't really a war.

The "War on Terror" is symbolic language, just like the "War on Fascism" in WW2. It is ridiculous that supposedly educated people can't figure that out. The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

You can tell al Qaida and the Taliban are not ordinary criminals since they actually ran the country of Afghanistan, and have been trying to overthrow several others. The 9/11 attack is the only time that the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has been invoked following an attack. NATO aircraft flew over American cities to protect them. The Taliban and al Qaida use heavy weapons and have been organized at the brigade level. They are regularly engaged by the US Air Force which is targeting them with missiles and dropping large bombs upon them. This isn't a problem with traffic stops gone bad, or a gang of bank robbers, or even the Crips and the Bloods.

Bin Laden was an utter failure. He made the classic mistake of dictators and would-be dictators in attacking the United States. The additional cost of the war is a pittance in the total federal budget. His organization is very badly damaged. There has been little if any genuine loss of real freedom, and modest impositions on privacy. The true threats in terms of spending come from the enormous growth in social welfare programs, and the damaged economy which is exacerbated by the current administrations over-regulation.

You've got things almost entirely wrong. It doesn't help that you get your news and views from fringe sites. Maybe you should try a few different ones.

National Review
The Weekly Standard
PJ Media

Now now, don't confuse Senator Obama with President Obama. They're entirely different people...

(I'm not sure to what extent I'm joking...)

In a sense they are. It's easy to make big sweeping claims when you're uninformed about the threats out there, on unfamiliar legal ground, and not the one responsible for national security. One election takes care of the question of who is responsible. A couple of daily presidential intelligence briefings will start to take care of the uninformed part. Some briefings by the Justice and Defense departments on the Law of War and national security law will firm up the legal ground. The world is going to start looking different at this point.

When you're President of the United States, you own whatever happens on your watch. President Obama already owns at least two successful terrorist attacks, and two attempted attacks, ignoring the ones that were intercepted. He probably doesn't want to own any more. It's bad for the party at the polls, bad for his record as president, and bad for America, let alone the victims. Also note that he hasn't asked Congress to rescind the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed after 9/11, and legally the same as a declaration of war.

If you're responsible and assumed that there were no terrorist threats before becoming informed, you might have a change of view as well. And if he hadn't, or wavers in the future, and that results in more successful terrorist attacks, the Congress would likely become a Republican congress within an election or two, and at that point they would help the President along.

2013 Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.

2010 Attempted bombing of Times Square in New York City by the Taliban - Attack failed, car bomb could have been mass casualty event.

2009 The "Underwear" bomber - Attack failed, potentially could have brought down aircraft with death of all aboard

2009 Fort Hood massacre - 13 dead, 30 wounded

Just a few weekly arrest reports from the FBI during President Obama's term:

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

There might be an answer for that.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That document was issued after this series of events:

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - 224 dead, est. 4,000 injured, both embassies heavily damaged

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video USS Cole - 17 dead, 39 injured, major damage to destroyer

2001 9/11 attacks - 2,973 dead. Two skyscraper towers destroyed, heavy damage to Pentagon.
Estimated damage to US economy: ~ $100,000,000.

that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree.

For it is the doom of men that they forget. -- Merlin, Excalibur

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

By their deeds you shall know them.

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video: 2000: USS Cole Attack in Yemen

2001 9-11

2002 Bali terror attack

2004 Madrid train attacks

2005 London 7/7 Terrorist Attacks

2009 Now classified as "workplace violence" - Nidal Hasan Admitted Jihadist Motive, Ft. Hood Victims’ Attorneys Say

2013 Boston Marathon Bombing

Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia betwe

First, your post has a couple charts of numbers that have no bearing on my claim. Second, I stopped reading after the third time Mr Bartlett used the phrase "percent of G.D.P.", because I made no reference to GDP in my argument.

The rate of revenue growth was higher than the rate of budget growth after the tax cuts that Bush enacted. I don't remember the interactive chart I used a couple years ago to show it, but I have found a list of PDF files on gpo.gov that show the trend. Here is the link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=ECONI&browsePath=2006%2F09%2F6&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true&ycord=371

I have tried this in both Firefox and IE8, and it brought me to a page with the Federal Finance section of September 2006 opened. The pdf link there is a single page chart of "receipts and outlays" for the previous few years.

It shows the receipts dramatically dropping in 2000, and not rising until 2003, which is when Bush's second round of tax cuts were passed. It also shows the lines converging into late 2006.

Go down to a chart from 2007, and you will see the result of the real estate bubble bursting in 2006, causing the economic freefall in 2008. Bush warned about the real estate bubble, and was shouted down by Democrats such as Barney Frank claiming there was no problem at all in the market.

You may have your own interpretation of Bush's actions, I have no issue with that. But the historical record as to tax revenue supports the interpretation that Bush's tax cuts brought the economy out of a depression/recession and back on the road to recovery. The real estate bubble itself, and its effect on the world economy when it popped, is not part of that argument. But if it was, Bush warned about it and tried to resolve the issue before it came to such a dramatic end.

You completely misinterpret this section of the law. This section requires health care providers (companies) to provide information on the TYPE of coverage they provide when the plan they provide is the absolute minimum one. Section 6055 does NOT state that only name, address, TIN, and "policy information". That is your own incorrect interpretation as well. Section 6055 is not a section that deals with medical records on individuals at all, but in fact just requires companies that provide plans to provide information on those plans to the government.

If you don't believe me, look at the law.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Just search for "6055" on the page and read it yourself. Whenever I see chopped up references cut and pasted I get suspicious that some important points have been left out to suit the writer's own agenda. In this case the suspicion was justified.

Really now?...

Where in the legislation does it say they could seize the 60 million records they are accused of taking, "despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant?"
Where in the legislation does it say they can target specific political affiliations to deny/delay tax exempt status or use special scrutiny as a bullying tactic?

If these aren't bright enough red flags for you:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Sec. 1502-IN GENERAL.-Part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after subpart c the following new subpart:
SEC. 6055. REPORTING OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURN
(1)
(B)
(iv) such other information as the Secretary may require

Where 'Secretary' refers to the Secretary of the Treasury. This section describes what is to be reported to the IRS. Sections (i) through (iii) specify name, address, tax id number and policy information. Section (iv) is completely open ended.

Buy the way, any change you make would have to be certified by the FCC as being compliant and that can be expensive.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. I recently read a tech topic blog on the FCC site that states,

WLAN was originally designed and developed as a home networking technology for nomadic users to wirelessly extend an Ethernet equivalent local area network (LAN) using shared communications media among a group of users through a wireless connection that operates at relatively short distances. WLAN uses license-exempt spectrum bands regulated by FCC rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 15.2 The FCC originally conceived the license-exempt bands to provide a no-cost slice of public access spectrum with only two provisions. First, the transmitter could cause no harmful interference to any nearby licensed services, and secondly, any receiver in this band must be able to accept any interference that may be present. Subsequently, the first wireless LAN was developed by the IEEE 802.11 standards committee (widely known as Wireless Fidelity or 'Wi-Fi' and 'Radio LAN') in 1997. Interestingly, the Wi-Fi standards were a response on the part of industry to the relatively restriction free use of the license-exempt spectrum allocation and rules.

2: See http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr15_07.html for the Part 15 rules. Note that the letter versions of the standards are not chronologically consistent since version (b) actually came before (a)!

But, even if you were right, it's important to know that you don't have to hack alone. You can work with others. Let's say you are worried some change you want to make could lead to some malfunction which would boost the signal. You could file a feature request to the project and see if someone else will make the change and test it. Or, if you make the change in code and are worried about installing it yourself, submit the patch upstream and see if others can review the code and test it for you. Just because things could potentially go wrong doesn't mean we should live in fear and abstain from using, fixing, or customizing our software.

Control your hardware, don't let it control you. =]

If you want to complain about borrowed money being misused.. and political mumbo-jumbo..

The FAA needed to cut 50 MILLION dollars.. if you ask a republican newcaster.. they would stress the word MILLION and then throw Obamacare into the conversation somehow.. saying how it is his fault..

A Democrate, on the other hand, would say that the sequester should never have happened, and the only reason it did happen is because republicans wanted to make a statement.. They would throw in an accusation that the tea party is trying to push barrels full of expired government-dependents stuffed into barrels off the dock and into the port's waters.

If you're an independent watching all this.. you see a ____ ton of complaining and bickering... Children playing around with amounts to monopoly money to them... and on one hand both sides have a public opinion.. and on the other, both sides are slipping $5 million to their brother's or sister's company to build a childrens playground in Washington state, as part of a transportation bill in florida.

In the end, no one ever wants to look at the numbers and see how both sides are throwing feces at each other because the parties are polarized, and every media organization is owned by someone who is a member of one party or the other.

My point is, depending on which side of the argument you look at, both of them are fallocies designed to over-hype an issue into some massive full-blown socialists-are-in-the-white-house or republicans-are-destrying-our-country propaganda.. and no one looks at the actual numbers:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET

Recent:
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2013: $16,747,000,000
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2012: $16,894,000,000
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2011: $15,842,000,000

A jump back in history:
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2003: $12,721,000,000

Attempted cost savings w/ Furlough: 50,000,000

God that's too many zero's... it just makes things seem so confusing dont they...
16,747 ... 000,000
-.....50 ... 000,000
16,697 .. 000,000

or still 4,000 ... 000,000 more then it's budget a decade ago...

Out of all that budget growth and bloat.. they ONLY place they could substantially cut "In the name of safety" is $50 for air traffic controllers? They had $17 billion to play with

Please tell me where this allows insider trading:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s716cps/pdf/BILLS-113s716cps.pdf

Schneier isn't all that.

None of the Massachusetts delegation voted on the bill. Here is the roll call.

Why didn't any of the 9 representatives from the state vote? Because the President was in Massachusetts following a terrorist bombing earlier in the week.

The bill has been in Congress in some form since 2011. If the sponsors and supporters of the bill truly believe that this bill is necessary to enable "integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from" threats to security, wouldn't it make sense to schedule a vote on passage of the bill for a day when at least some representatives of the state most recently victimized by a terrorist attack could vote? Is there any opportunism at work here, given that the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill the last time it was up for passage?

It's worth reading the full text of the bill. It contains statements such as "The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

Those in the job wouldn't even be able to report illegal or dubious activity occurring under the act due to all work being classified (See PFC Manning / Wikileaks issue)

Here's the bill, as approved by the House of the Representatives: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3523eh.pdf

Boredom alert!

Taking the challenge...to agree with you :}

I did give it a try to follow what was allowed to be reported
to other entires or those without a security Clearance.
It comes down to the Freedom of Information Act

USC section 552 of title 5,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

----

-> There is a list of information sources. These alone
-> are addressed as to restrictions for their release.

(4) PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL
DOCUMENTS.—The Federal Government may not
use the following information, containing informa-
tion that identifies a person, shared with the Federal
Government in accordance with subsection (b)

‘‘(A) Library circulation records.
‘‘(B) Library patron lists.
‘‘(C) Book sales records.
‘‘(D) Book customer lists.
‘‘(E) Firearms sales records.
‘‘(F) Tax return records.
‘‘(G) Educational records.
‘‘(H) Medical records.

-> subsection (b) pertains to having a security Clearance.

Then it starting getting too deep and being referenced elsewhere
(USC statues). Not that exciting to continue page flipping for the yell of it.

But yes, Only those with a security clearance
can access and share the information obtained. The list above (4)
requiring "Identifiable information" to be removed. Making it
pretty much statistical.

The exception of requiring a security clearance being found in USC section 552 of title 5
Yet it will also require "Identifiable information" to be removed.

I found it interesting in the protection for minors that was included, and hope that part is successful.

I'm with you on that. Those in the job wouldn't even be able to report illegal or dubious activity occurring under the act due to all work being classified (See PFC Manning / Wikileaks issue) Here's the bill, as approved by the House of the Representatives: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3523eh.pdf

(Disclaimer, IANAL). OK, let's dig deeper. The IRS link is an interpretation. Here's a copy of the law

I don't see anything in the actual law that says you have to be remote. The phrase "convenience" isn't defined there. Perhaps it's defined elsewhere. Perhaps it will eventually be ruled out as unconstitutionally vague.

Here's an interesting case involving this section and lodging. Discuss.

This is the latest HIPAA regulatory effort (Jan 2013), it aggregates a long string of legislation and policy across several departments (Omnibus Rule). I believe you will agree after reading it ... this belongs in your general fund of knowledge. And I think you will also agree this is quite serious...leading me to suggest a broad policy review...and broad educational effort. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf Quite long, but invaluable in your effort to end speculation...

People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.

From the Federal Register:

A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if— (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

So they had to get the FAA waiver, because it's not for hobby/recreational use.

The argument for going into Iraq 3 years later came down to 3 points (which Bush laid out in his national address 2 weeks before going into Iraq).

Of course, his national addresses are online.

1. 30 million people living in Iraq were in danger. Saddam had begun cutting off shipments of food to cities, shutting off water, etc. He had bombed Kurds and chased them out of their homes, forcing them to hide in caves.

Nope, this claim doesn't appear in the transcript.Or in any of the other statements or speeches that I can find from this time period. He does make the references to 'freeing the Iraqi people' using various phrasings, but not nearly as much as he talks about WMD.

2. The cease fire from 1991 was based on Iraq's compliance. The UN Security council then passed 75 resolutions over the next 10 years citing that Iraq was refusing to comply and waving their fist. Bush contended that Iraq had refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire, so the initial authorization for military conflict in 1991 stood. Some say this is cheap logic, but at the same time, if you never once follow through on an ultimatum, then the UN Security Council becomes a paper tiger (if they aren't already).

Nobody on the Security Council except the US and UK believed that individual members were allowed to take any action they wanted in response to any breaches of UN Security Council resolutions. And the many Middle Eastern countries that are in breach of resolutions but happen to be 'friends' of the US never face any consequences whatsoever. The Security Council has never been allowed to pass any resolutions on Israel.

3. He said the CIA had presented evidence that Iraq had been pursuing WMD. This is the biggest point of contention. I know Powell despises war, but argued for war because he believed the intel as well. In retrospect, I guess some of the intel was flawed. And the term WMD is so vague, that the American public perceived this as ICBMs where Iraq could nuke the US, which is absurd.

Gosh, why would people think that Iraq was going to use WMD against American cities. Could it be because GWB told them this:

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses [note - not 'had been pursuing'] weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

Anyway...

Bush also screwed up big time by asking the UN permission to invade in advance (tipping off Iraq) and then announcing on national TV he was going to invade two weeks later. Then famously, we saw a huge caravan leave Iraq and head into Syria. Powell then noted we'd likely never find the smoking gun on WMD evidence as we gave them warning to move it out of country.

We did find training manuals, storage facilities, missiles with sarin gas, etc. but not a huge smoking gun of lots of really dangerous WMD. Maybe they had more, and maybe they didn't. I guess we'll never know.

If only there had been an investigation.

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war.... Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judge

Dude, I'll see your PL 112-95 and raise you HR 658. :) Make sure you check out section 332. This bill has already passed, btw -- it's the law of the land. The FAA has until 2015 to come up with rules to integrate civil drone use into US airspace. Until the FAA does that and publishes them, the commercial use of drones can't be characterized as illegal or legal. But that's okay, when it comes to liability torts -- liability can be established independently of the legality of the act that caused the damage. It doesn't matter if the driver that ran over your roses had a license or not -- he still ran over your roses and you can litigate them for compensation.

I'll refer you to Public Law 112-95 - note the bold section.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

• (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
  • (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
  • (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
  • (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
  • (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
  • (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
• (b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
• (c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
  • (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
  • (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
  • (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Don't live with the delusion that the Supreme Court is a WYSIWYG entity. They are just a shill for the Repubmocrat Tyranny, redefining Constitutional black as Constitutional white for the last century or so. Read the Constitution, then read the SCOTUS interpretation of it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf
You can see it is entirely for the convenience of the government and bears little likeness to the plain english document written "for the people"
Not asking for a tin foil hat here, just asking you to adjust your horribly misplaced faith.

Howard Coble stated that the Copyright Term Extension act (which retroactively extended copyright's terms by 20 years) was good for consumers: "It is also good for consumers. When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit. That, in turn, brings the work to the consumer who may enjoy it at a movie theater, at a home, in a car, or in a retail establishment. Without that exploitation, a work may lie dormant, never to be discovered or enjoyed." (Congressional Record, Volume 144, 1998, H1458 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation.result.CREC.action?congressionalRecord.volume=144&congressionalRecord.pagePrefix=H&congressionalRecord.pageNumber=1458&publication=CREC )

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The DHS was created by an Act of Congress, it enforces many laws Congress passes, particularly customs laws.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have long held that a customs agent is allowed to search and seize private property at international borders or ports without a warrant or probable cause, pursuant to Title 19 USC.

The DHS merely is the parent of the US Customs Service, to which Arrington's alleged "jack-booted thug" belonged. The US Customs Service has existed since 1789, was enacted by the very first US congress and signed into law by George Washington.

The filing fee is about 1/4 of the size of the issue fee. Once you file, you commit the Patent Office to an expensive process. This process costs the Patent Office more than the filing fee.

The Patent Office admits this issue at page 37 of their proposed 2013 budget: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf

They say: "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities."

They also include a workflow diagram at the end of their budget. It looks like the Patent Office MUST grant about 1/4th of all filed patent applications to survive.

Since the Patent Office is currently committed to a Cost Recovery model, a patent lawyer can blackmail the Patent Office into granting a poor quality patent, simply by filing lots of poor quality applications.

The simplest and most reliable reform would be to eliminate and unify the Patent office fees into a single, large filing fee. This fee would provide no guarantee of receiving a patent, only a guarantee that your patent would be considered. This would free the Patent Office to be able to deny poor patents.

Miles

> CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) ...
> the problem was economically solved for the most part.

Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp

HCFC Phaseout Schedule | Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory ...
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html
To learn more about the HCFC phaseout, including frequently asked questions, please visit this link.

Producing HCFC-22 also produces, as a byproduct, HCF-23.

Oops. oversight in the initial protocol? Or clever loophole-drafting?
China gets paid for destroying HCF-23.
And it hasn't been against the rules to produce more, to get paid more to destroy more of the stuff.
So they ramped up HCFC-22 production instead of going with alternatives that didn't make money quite so fast.

"China is, in fact, gaming the system today as we speak by
producing harmful HCFC-22 for the sole reason of destroying
HCF-23 by-product ..."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg44428/html/CHRG-110hhrg44428.htm

China was very happy with that situation, but is quite unhappy with the next step, stopping the production completely:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-09/17/content_15761265.htm
read down the text beyond the self-congratulations to the part where they say the next step is, well, very, very difficult.

Yeah, giving up free money is always hard. Read the fine print -- more carefully ....

I'm unable to find the definition of "border" anywhere on dhs.gov. Does it include the coasts? Does it include airport international arrival terminals? In both cases, is there a radius, such as the oft-touted 100-mile radius?

Based on some Googling just now, my guess is that the 100-mile border range including coasts -- popularized by the ACLU in 2008 -- comes not from DHS or Executive Order, but rather from proposed-but-not-passed Congressional bills, such as 2011 HR 1505 (and other bills stretching back to 2008). But I also guess that now that DHS has decided this, Congress will just pass a bill that expansively defines the border.

Cutting the Gordian knot by abolition is probably the only way to fix it. But reform is possible. The problem is, we would have to admit mistakes.

• 1) Running the US Patent Office as a cost-recovery operation is a mistake.

  The US Patent Office is a very small, but critical component of the US economy. It's purpose is "..to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.." (US Constitution Article One, Section 8(8).) But, once the USPTO became cost recovery, the primary goal became overshadowed by the more pressing goal of securing funding via patent fees. The primary effect of cost recovery is to guarantee continued regulatory capture by the patent industry.

  The patent industry want's patents. Lots of them. They don't care about quality. In fact, most of the patent industry prefers to have vague, sweeping patents. Currently, patent filings are up. Patent quality is down. Lawsuits are up. This is a desired outcome for the patent industry. But, what is good for the patent industry is not good for the rest of the country.

  Reform is painful, but simple. Admit cost recovery is a failed experiment. Revert the funding model to the model used 30 years ago. The USPTO must be centrally funded by the US government. Any collected fees should be returned to the US Government.

• 2) It is a mistake to organize the US Patent Office to create economic incentives to grant poor patents.

  Currently most of the revenue of the US Patent Office comes from GRANTING patents. See the USPTO FY 2013 President's Budget page 37: www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities."

  Also, if you examine the fee structure in Public Law 112 - 29 - Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, you see that patent application fees are 1/3 or less that the Issue fee. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ29/content-detail.html

  This means that, regardless of merit, about 1/3 of all patent applications must be granted in order to fund the US Patent Office. This economy creates unavoidable pressure to grant many patents that should not otherwise be considered. It also creates economic pressure that greatly decreases the time that can be devoted to examination.

  Reform could come in many forms, but the simplest and most reliable would be to eliminate and unify the Patent office fees into a single filing fee. This fee would provide no guarantee of receiving a patent, only a guarantee that your patent would be considered. This would free the Patent Office to be able to deny poor patents.

• 3) Granting too many Patents is a mistake.

  Currently, we expand the number of patent examiners based on demand. See the USPTO FY 2013 President's Budget, page 60, Gap Assessment: "Meeting this commitment assumes efficiency improvements brought about by reengineering many USPTO management and operational processes (e.g., the patent examination process) and systems, and hiring about 3,000 patent examiners in the two-year period FY 2012 and FY 2013 (including examiners for Three-Track Examination)."

  Again, the assumption is, more patents are better, even if it means decreasing examination, and increasing the number of untrained examiners. Poor quality is an inevitable result of this patent process.

  The resulting flood of patents creates patent thickets. These thickets eliminate competition and stagnate markets.

  Reform would require somehow limiting the number of granted patents in a field. This could be accomplished several ways. The easiest would be to restrict the number of Patent examiners. If you eliminate the idea of cost recovery, then the natural process of limited congressional funding would probably suffice to limit the examination staff. Patent quotas would also work, but an PTO quota would be subject to regula

I did a load of background reading on this yesterday so here's some interesting related material. One interesting source is the NASA guidelines for li-ion use in space :
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090023862_2009023573.pdf

Now NASA I think have a pretty good track record of thinking technologies through carefully... (By the by, did you know that GS Yuasa also have a contract to supply their li-ion batteries to NASA for use in the ISS?)

Also, did you know that prior to the 787 the Cessna CJ4 was the first civili aircraft to utilise li-ion batteries (supplied by a123). In 2011 there was a fire onboard one whilst it was connected to a ground power unit. As a result the FAA ordered all 42 in operation to be changed to conventional ni-cd or lead acid.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-01/html/2011-27596.htm

This is interesting as it's similar i.e. on the ground. This of course *could* be coincidental.

Next up are lots of interesting pictures from the NTSB investigation. Much as I HATE to link to the Daily Mail (normally a pretty retarded publication) I couldn't find any other pic sources. Bizarre :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268152/Boeing-787-Dreamliners-burnt-battery-spewed-molten-electrolytes-reveal-investigators.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And some great source material from the NTSB themselves :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/boeing_787.html

And the NTSB update on the investigation (including some samples of their cell CT scans) :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/JAL_B-787_1-24-13.pdf

NTSB Primer on li-ion battery tech :
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/Primer_LIB_Technology.pdf

One of the theories being talked about are the fact that the li-ion batteries that Boieng (via Thales) decided on are based on a lithium cobalt oxide cathode which is old tech and regarded as not exactly the safest variant of li-ion technology out there :
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=257987
and via a translation :
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu.no%2Findustri%2F2013%2F01%2F17%2Fher-er-dreamliner-problemet

This EEtimes article has some interesting comments :
http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4405441/787-Dreamliner-investigation-probes-battery-charging-electronic

And some info from GS Yuasa :
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf

All interesting stuff. Personally I think they shouldn't have been allowed to 'trial' li-ion on such a big aircraft especially after the cessna incident. Trying so many new tricks at once isn't wise - as engineers always say, just change one thing at a time...

They're not solely owned by the collector (at least in the case of medical data), though. There are laws such as HIPAA which restrict the collector both in their ability to dispense information to third parties and in their ability to deny you access. See, for example, Title 45: Section 164.524 - Access of individuals to protected health information.

In the case of eyecare there are federal and state rules requiring the provider to give you your eyeglass prescription and/or your contact lens specification.

You have rights.

The "wiped off the map" quote is not correct. It would help your argument if you didn't repeat nonsense.

Here's the exact quote from a senate resolution against President Ahmadinejad:

The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map

Iran has made many other public statements that have been only slightly less blatant over the last decade, that you think it isn't true must mean you have your head stuck waaaaaay deep in the sand.

The heart of the US Patent problems are both conceptual and economic. But the problems are easy to understand.

First, we have adopted the idea that more patents are better than fewer patents. This idea has been proven false. We believed that US Patents were a license to create. But, this is not true. US Patents are nothing more than a license to hire lawyers and sue a competitor. They don't guarantee creation or progress. They only guarantee legal action. A little legal action is necessary, but a lot destroys economies.

Since we believed that more Patents were better, in the last couple decades we have 'reformed' the US patent process to maximize the creation of patents.

We need to a admit we are wrong. Once we have managed to do that, reform is fairly easy. Reform should address:

• 1) Running the US Patent Office as a cost-recovery operation is a mistake.

  Currently most of the revenue of the US Patent Office comes from GRANTING patents. See the USPTO FY 2013 President's Budget page 37: www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities."

  Also, if you examine the fee structure in Public Law 112 - 29 - Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, you see that patent application fees are 1/3 or less that the Issue fee. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ29/content-detail.html

  This means that, regardless of merit, about 1/3 of all patent applications must be granted in order to fund the US Patent Office. This economy creates unavoidable pressure to grant many patents that should not otherwise be considered. It also creates economic pressure that greatly decreases the time that can be devoted to examination.

  Reform could come in many forms, but the simplest and most reliable would be to eliminate and unify the Patent office fees into a single filing fee. This fee would provide no guarantee of receiving a patent, only a guarantee that your patent would be considered. This would free the Patent Office to be able to deny poor patents.

• 2) Granting too many Patents is a mistake.

  Currently, we expand the number of patent examiners based on demand. See the USPTO FY 2013 President's Budget, page 60, Gap Assessment: "Meeting this commitment assumes efficiency improvements brought about by reengineering many USPTO management and operational processes (e.g., the patent examination process) and systems, and hiring about 3,000 patent examiners in the two-year period FY 2012 and FY 2013 (including examiners for Three-Track Examination)."

  Again, the assumption is, more patents are better, even if it means decreasing examination, and increasing the number of untrained examiners. Poor quality is an inevitable result of this patent process.

  The resulting flood of patents creates patent thickets. These thickets eliminate competition and stagnate markets.

  Reform would require somehow limiting the number of granted patents in a field. This could be accomplished several ways. The easiest would be to restrict the number of Patent examiners. If you eliminate the idea of cost recovery, then the natural process of limited congressional funding would probably suffice to limit the examination staff. Patent quotas would also work, but an PTO quota would be subject to regulatory capture. Patent Quotas would work best if they were set by Congressional Act.

• 3) It is a mistake to grant all patents that meet minimum standards.

  A review of recent Patent Law will reveal that the minimum standard for granting a patent has consistently shifted downwards during the past few decades. We must abandon the idea that any patent that meets minimum standards is granted. Over time, the standard always de