Slashdot Mirror

And stolen from another comment, you moveon.org guys may want to read some far right extremist propaganda that includes *gasp* facts about the situation, not just wild speculation and what-if scenarios of the ACLU:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200 601131109.asp

The rest of the article - and it is a great one - is availible here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200 601131109.asp [nationalreview.com]

I have long agreed with Jonah Goldberg on many things but his take on this is spot-on...

"It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by much of the media and by other critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al Qaeda's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas: "certain Americans."

"Gosh," the average viewer might say, "I'm a certain American!"

If one paid only casual attention to the news these days, one would get the sense that Bush has a big stack of phone books in the Oval Office, and he and Dick Cheney spend their days thumbing through them to find "certain Americans" to wiretap.

"Joe Smith?" says Cheney, rubbing his hands together as if over a fine meal. "Man, he's gotta qualify as a certain American. Let's listen to his conversation with his wife."

At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.

Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," remains at journalistic DEFCON 1, releasing a stream of articles, editorials, and Op-Ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. (A writer for Newsweek.com raises the possibility that the NSA wiretapping is a prelude to right-wing death squads in the U.S.) James Risen, the reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book on the "secret history" of Bush's antiterrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profile in Courage, and Nobel prizes."

The rest of the article - and it is a great one - is availible here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200 601131109.asp

Are you implying that Democrats are not for sale? They are equally involved in the scandals, but the news media won't tell you that.

You might find this article interesting - it is written by one of the most reliably conservative Republicon columnists in one of America's most conservative Republicon journals. The key quote:

"[T]his is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection."

In fact, I would go even further and say that I would like to live in a world where anyone can live where ever they want and cross any border without restriction. The United States would probably see an increase in terrorism (more large buildings getting knocked down, etc.) but I would personally be willing to accept that in exchange for the freedom to travel and live anywhere in the world without government interference.

That's mighty big of you.

Would you volunteer to be in one of those buildings if I benefited and you were the one who died?

On second thought you don't need to worry about volunteering. Someone is already hard at work trying to make some choices for you..... and 3,999,999 other Americans. Of course maybe you don't need to worry too much since they are working toward their own vision of a borderless world, of sorts. Of course you might find the embrace of government they intend to be a little close for your tastes. But, hey, what can you do? Take the good with the bad, right?

It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally, so they just went ahead and did it anyway.

There are strong arguments that what the administration did was legal. You seldom see those arguments strongly presented in the media, if they are presented at all. I would be "shocked" if this had anything to do with certain historical voting patterns and the the irrational hatred of President Bush by some in Amerik^Hca.

At least the department of homaland security isn't wasteing all of thier money.

I agree. This will promote OSS and help reduce the costs of our Government. So what's the problem with what the parent said?

Let's try this instead:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/082269.as p

It explains much better than I can. The ruling is specifically about how closely related an affidavit referenced explicitly in a warrant is to the execution of the warrant. I'm really not trying to argue either side. I'd feel comfortable arguing either side, honestly, because they're both reasonable arguments. But neither is really about a little girl being strip searched. Which is what the original poster was trying imply it was.

Read the full dissent and the full ruling. They're both reasonable, nobody's crazy, and nobody's making inflammatory rulings about obvious crap like cops doing things they have no reason to think they're supposed to.

I just wish the US government still believed in finding Osama and hadn't moved the vast majority of the troops elsewhere. We dropped the ball in Afghanistan and left before destroying him, and we'll likely see another domestic terrorist attack because of our leader's failure to finish the job.

As the strict constuctionist that people of your ilk usually are, I'm sure you can point me to the words "pretty much anything" in the text of the constitution?

Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?

Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)

To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp

and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day. ...
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)

To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp

and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day. ...
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)

To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp

and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day. ...
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)

To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp

and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day. ...
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

I will add a few links for commentary by:

Lawyer & blogger John Hinderaker of Powerline blog

Former Clinton administration Associate Attorney General John Schmidt

A Justice Department response to Congress by Assistant Attorney General, William Moschella

The quick & dirty version is: There is a very strong case this was prefectly legal.

And, of course, Congress was notified of the program.

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

• Millions of Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 911.

• Millions also think that Bush is a good President and that he's "protecting" America by invoking a conventional or perpetual WWIII.

• 2.(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. [My emphasis]

• There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties. However, there's no draft, no wage and price controls, no concentration camps. We should count our blessings that all we have to put up with is some wiretapping and data mining.
  
  
• You can't fight a war with just the tools of criminal justice. (Well, you can, but you'll probably lose.)
  
  
• It should be clear to everyone that war with international bands of terrorists who hide as civilians is a new kind of war. Of necessity, it is fought largely in the shadows, which means sneaking and spying. I'm not happy with it, but it seems undeniable.
  
  
• Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country. (And yes, if Clinton or Kerry or Gore were President and doing the same thing, I'd still say so.) I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets. If he's ever shown to have done any of that, I'll join the chorus of condemnation. Until then, though, I'm a bit tired of all the hysteria of the supposedly descending night of totalitarianism in the U.S., which I've heard has been just around the corner since the late '60s.
  

• There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties. However, there's no draft, no wage and price controls, no concentration camps. We should count our blessings that all we have to put up with is some wiretapping and data mining.
  
  
• You can't fight a war with just the tools of criminal justice. (Well, you can, but you'll probably lose.)
  
  
• It should be clear to everyone that war with international bands of terrorists who hide as civilians is a new kind of war. Of necessity, it is fought largely in the shadows, which means sneaking and spying. I'm not happy with it, but it seems undeniable.
  
  
• Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country. (And yes, if Clinton or Kerry or Gore were President and doing the same thing, I'd still say so.) I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets. If he's ever shown to have done any of that, I'll join the chorus of condemnation. Until then, though, I'm a bit tired of all the hysteria of the supposedly descending night of totalitarianism in the U.S., which I've heard has been just around the corner since the late '60s.
  

• There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties. However, there's no draft, no wage and price controls, no concentration camps. We should count our blessings that all we have to put up with is some wiretapping and data mining.
  
  
• You can't fight a war with just the tools of criminal justice. (Well, you can, but you'll probably lose.)
  
  
• It should be clear to everyone that war with international bands of terrorists who hide as civilians is a new kind of war. Of necessity, it is fought largely in the shadows, which means sneaking and spying. I'm not happy with it, but it seems undeniable.
  
  
• Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country. (And yes, if Clinton or Kerry or Gore were President and doing the same thing, I'd still say so.) I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets. If he's ever shown to have done any of that, I'll join the chorus of condemnation. Until then, though, I'm a bit tired of all the hysteria of the supposedly descending night of totalitarianism in the U.S., which I've heard has been just around the corner since the late '60s.
  

• There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties. However, there's no draft, no wage and price controls, no concentration camps. We should count our blessings that all we have to put up with is some wiretapping and data mining.
  
  
• You can't fight a war with just the tools of criminal justice. (Well, you can, but you'll probably lose.)
  
  
• It should be clear to everyone that war with international bands of terrorists who hide as civilians is a new kind of war. Of necessity, it is fought largely in the shadows, which means sneaking and spying. I'm not happy with it, but it seems undeniable.
  
  
• Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country. (And yes, if Clinton or Kerry or Gore were President and doing the same thing, I'd still say so.) I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets. If he's ever shown to have done any of that, I'll join the chorus of condemnation. Until then, though, I'm a bit tired of all the hysteria of the supposedly descending night of totalitarianism in the U.S., which I've heard has been just around the corner since the late '60s.
  

Attn all you consipriacy groupthink nutjobs:
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

*FYI, Ms. Gorelick is now one of the many dishonorable surrendercrats speaking out against this latest bogus press-created non-scanal. Quite a bit of nerve to be such a hypocrite.

That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented.

And I did indicate that it was a recommendation.

Let's talk, then, about Canadian freedom from politically incorrect speech.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200 312020910.asp
http://www.zerointelligence.net/archives/000565.ph p
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/battles/vancouve r/doug_collins.html

Some informative commentary:

Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping.

-- Mark Levin at NRO.

It really is a good idea to get out of the echo chamber on occasion and read some of what the "other side" has to say. The NYT isn't exactly notorious for giving you the full story, nor is the BBC who simply summarized the NYT article.

FTFA: The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.

Additionally as a result of the NSA program, buried down in the 11th paragraph, we learn that the terrorist plot involving convicted al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris was uncovered--possibly saving untold lives, not to mention New York bridges and possibly Washington, D.C. trains.

As to the legallity, its murky. Though, Mark Levin offers this: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

This has been something that's been tried for about 30 years now in the States. By politicans Republican and Democrat it's looked down upon as Pork Barrel politics. Everyone from the Dakotas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, and anywhere else with soy and corn production are in favor of it, everyone in the House and Senate from all the other states hate it.

It's been in the farm and energy bills pretty much constantly since the mid 70s, but it's not popular.

Example of a Republican take on it
"Senator Jim Talent, the Missouri Republican, is one of the senators we admire most. That's why we're saddened to see him backing a costly and fruitless giveaway to special interests. Yesterday, Talent proposed -- and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources passed -- an amendment to the Senate energy bill that would mandate eight billion gallons per year in ethanol production. That puts Talent -- at least on this issue -- in the company of ex-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who got a five-billion-gallon mandate in last year's bill."

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 505260854.asp

The notion that the Catholic church shut down Galileo has been debunked long ago. Among many other places you can read about it in Nisbet's Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary (see here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067470066X/002-28 75384-3978402?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance/).

You can get an overview here http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052 499.html

In short, Galileo's Aristotelean peers caused him far more trouble for challenging the scientific theories of the day, than the Church did. That's not to say that this is the case today, but the invocation of Galileo as a symbol of religious oppression of scientific inquiry shows that you put as much independent thought into this as those you deride.

Typo, my bad.
The BBC reporter crying when Arafat died is merely one example.

You may be right. Serves me right for depending on Internet news:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21 /205139.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.as p

Unfortunately for your rant, Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited as a hack and a liar.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan were libtards? I seem to remember 'Just Say No' being a favorite saying of one Nancy Reagan.

I guess that depends on what you consider 'conservative'.

I don't consider using the goverment to force people into treatment to be a 'conservative' value.

If you are looking for the *conservative* view of prohibition, just read a selection of works by a *real* conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr.

How can we possibly be safe without the UN controlling the Internet?

The media has been proven to be biased, it's not just an accusation. When the vast majority of what they report is negative about 1 candidate and positive about another it's a clear case of bias.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/graham200411 040834.asp

The news media is more than welcome to report on candidates, the more we know about them the better. But when they start putting their own political spin on it and start creating news as much as reporting on it then we have a problem. Are we supposed to expect the voters to ignore ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/FOX and somehow do their own research, or should be hold the media to a high standard of honest un-biased reporting in the first place?

I'm surprised anybody in Zimbabwe has time to perform music, what with their ongoing genocide against white people and all.

Well, on Soyuz. On a man-rated Soyuz, which hasn't had an accident in a long time.

Yes, and was developed a long time ago too, and flies often because it has a lot in common with the unmanned Molniya.

Cynically, a rocket developed in a non-commercially oriented socialist environment beats them all on market these days.

Actually, NASA has been called the most socialist agency in the US government (see e.g. here, here, or here).

One could say that a socialist centrally-planned development plan is more efficient in the short run (and NASA's goal was to beat the Russians fast) but much worse on the long run (and NASA is struggling to do as well as in the 1960s, while the Russian space agency has become much more aggressive, capitalist-like, and operates on a shoestring budget...)

But let's look at the facts. This article clearly shows that NASA's budget has decreased under Clinton, while under Bush, their budget has INCREASED.

So how much more would you think NASA's budget would have been without the wars? Bush has fully funded NASA for everything they ask for.

So I've completely destroyed your ill-informed and wrongheaded post out of the water with real facts. Too bad there isn't a mod option of WRONG! But I know this is slashdot where facts are irrelevant.

One example:

Young women killed for dating. Limbs amputated for petty theft. Makeshift courts deciding the fates of members of local Muslim communities. The Western world has grown accustomed to hearing about the brutalities of Islamic law. However, these primitive practices are no longer limited to the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or oppressive, mullah-dominated Iran. Today, thanks in large part to a massive flow of immigration from Muslim countries, sharia law and medieval customs are becoming increasingly common in the heart of Christian Europe.

And another:

Noor Khan awoke one morning last September to a knock on her bedroom door. Several people, most of them strangers, stood clustered outside. It was Noor's wedding day, and she was the last to know.

A relative visiting from Amsterdam pushed forward in introduction her son, a pleasant-faced young man named Munir (like Noor's, his and other names have been changed to protect Noor's identity). This was Noor's husband-to-be. Noor's brother Ali embraced her, squeezing so tightly it hurt. "Don't embarrass me," he whispered. But when Noor, then 17, objected, he exploded. "I'll kill you. I'll do it right now, I don't care," Noor says he shouted. Munir and his companions went downstairs and Noor began sobbing uncontrollably.

ATTN: SUPERDOME RESIDENTS [Jonah Goldberg]
I think it's time to face facts. That place is going to be a Mad Max/thunderdome Waterworld/Lord of the Flies horror show within the next few hours. My advice is to prepare yourself now. Hoard weapons, grow gills and learn to communicate with serpents. While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless. Gather young fighters around you and tell the womenfolk you will feed and protect any female who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth with a race of gilled-supermen. It's never too soon to be prepared.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins20050 9020719.asp

HA! The National Review Online. HA!

If you understand the philosphy of their mentor, Leo Strauss, their objective is to create myths of good and evil they can use to unite disaffected Westerners behind an easily understood cause of good versus evil.

Thank you, Ms. Drury. This is, as is typical of most folks who set out to comment on Leo Strauss, indicative of someone who has either A) not read Strauss at all, and has instead substituted someone else's absurd caricature for actual reading and critical thought, or; B) has read Strauss, and yet purposefully misrepresents his writings because he makes a convenient boogeyman with which to tar people whose politics differ from your own. For those interested in the man and his actual writings, as opposed to the deep role he apparently plays in the fantasy lives of some, I commend unto you a relatively even-handed Wikipedia overview. For those who also don't follow the "Ms. Drury" crack, mash here for a somewhat less even-handed (but no less accurate) explanation.

The necons need Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahri in the wild to demonize and terrify Americans to make Americans easier to control and manipulate....The neocons needed a new boogie man when the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam filled the bill but badly and now he is in jail so is a write off.

And now we delve into the self-contradictory mess that is the typical crackpot spin on current events. We are presented with a conspiracy of sorts, one that is alternately composed of evil geniuses bent on some mad plan, yet who make stunningly bone-headed moves from time to time - depending, of course, on which is more convenient to the storyteller at the time. So how, pray tell, did Saddam wind up in jail? Did he miracle himself in there? If the plan was to use him as a demon to terrorize the sheep at home, doesn't actually capturing him sort of constitute blowing a big hole in your own foot? Why bother capturing him if he's so very valuable out there in the wild?

Team B took the same data the CIA had which said the Soviet Union wasn't that much of a threat, and was crumbling from within...

Jeezus fucking Christ. Who fed you this junk, the CIA? Back during the Reagan years, the CIA was most assuredly not saying any such thing about the Soviets - as late as 1985, the CIA was saying that per-capita income in the USSR was on a par with that of the United States. In fact, we now know that it was less than one-third that of the US at the time, but at the time, they sure didn't know it. It's actually hard to think of a less reliable source for info on the USSR during the Cold War than the CIA - they repeatedly and consistently gave out bad information regarding the threat capabilities of the Soviets, virtually uniformly over-estimating the long-term threat they posed. In hindsight, the collapse of the Soviet Union may well have been inevitable, but you sure wouldn't have gotten that impression if you'd been listening to the CIA during the early- to mid-1980's. I'm sure the staff revisionists at the CIA would like you to believe otherwise - and in the Reagan administration, but nevermind that - but it really just ain't so.

William Casey was a big subscriber of the Soviet Union leading a global terror network. People of the CIA tried to point out to him it was untrue, because in fact it was black propaganda the CIA itself had started.

Excuse me? The links between the Soviet Union and international terrorism are both extensive and well-documented - mash here and here for just a small taste, and please note that the author of those two pieces is a former head of Romanian Intelligence, so spare us "explanations" of how this is more evidence of CIA nefariousness.

This

Yeah, gotta watch out for those Nazi book burners. Next thing you know they'll take your guns away and then the real trouble begins. Oh, wait...

You do know that Nazi is short for National Socialist Workers' Party, right?

Geeze, get a grip. If this really were a Nazi police state, would you have the cajones to say anything about it in public? Would the gutless wonders in Hollywood invest $millions producing a movie that you think matches the voices in your head?

I'm surprised this thinking is just now beginning to take off... but given yesterday's revelation by the Times that Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife's role in his being selected for the Niger trip, and the fact that Rove had apparently already gotten wind of this from other media sources, the notion that Wilson is the ultimate source himself becomes increasingly plausible.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827. asp/

Although, one thing that stands out to me is that Novak attributed his source to a high-up administration official. But it seems clear that Novak did not know that Plame had any sort of 'covert' status himself. So... perhaps Novak's source was someone else in the administration besides Rove, who got the Plame info (sans covert info maybe) and passed it on to Novak. Which means there could be a lot of interesting source circles going on.... possibly leading ultimately back to Judy Miller, Joe Wilson, and/or Valery Plame/Wilson! Craziness....

Actually, a case can be made that Wilson ratted out his own wife. Whoops.

- Can casting a blind eye be delibrate? Sure... just look at Pearl Harbor - its been suggested that the US leadership knew it was coming and supressed knowledge (never proven). Could this have been the same thing? Yes - and no. No in the sense that the US government didn't know this specific attack was coming. That is well documented...but on the other hand you could argue Yes in the sense that the US govt knew some kind of attack would come eventually. But even the worst possible kind of anti-terrorist neglect (spending resources elsewhere with the hope some kind of an attack will happen - and thus justify some sort of policy shift) though is very very far away from organizing, planning, and carrying out the attacks. And again - the information and money trail all leads back to Al Qaeda. Besides that - there was no reason for the US govt to help Al Qaeda - they were doing just fine on their own... The Millenium bombings were stopped by dumb luck - not skill on the US's part. It was just a matter of time once Al Qaeda decided to target the US mainland - and good luck can only defend against terrorism for so long...

- The article you suggest to read is incomplete - while puts and calls are used to bet against/for stock price changes, it completely ignores what they are most famously used for today - Hedges. The concept is simple - spending a few million on a stock (going long)? Hedge your bet by buying some put options as well (go short). It lowers profit, but also reduces downside. The National Review investigated, and were able to identify the source: some firms hedging against large purchases of stock, and an investing newsletter that was bearish on AMR:
http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose20040726070 0.asp

- First off this last point may smell fishy - but like the passport, its a side show. There is nothing in the flight data except for curiosities... passengers called in all the info authorities needed to ID the hijackers, the flight path was well determined from the ground, so all thats missing is the cockpit conversations - and do to their lack of training in communications equipment - even some of that was captured anyway.

But besides that - I'll note that just because something 'survives' a crash, doesn't mean it does so in any shape we would call 'good'. Its also important to note that their is a big difference between an airliner crashing into the ocean, or a field, or a row of houses - and crashing into 3 of the worlds largest office buildings... office buildings full of electronics in casings - even brightly colored ones (I know some companies like bright colors on routers, power junctions, and other high priority electronics). The flight data recorders were just another group of banged up electronics boxes, in the worlds largest pile of scrap... considering that I'm not sure why anyone ever expected them to be found at ground zero anyway...

This is a weird thing to say, because conservatives ARE making a huge fuss about it. Go to, for example, nationalreview.com, or better yet, their group blog, The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/print/) and that's all you hear about: Kelo, Kelo, Kelo. But the fact is there's nothing they can do.

Also, note that the conservatives on the court (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) and the generally conservative (O'Connor) voted *against* Kelo. It was the liberals on the court who issued the majority ruling.

- AJ

I can hope we get another David Souter.

How can you hope for another David Souter after his recent ruling on eminent domain??? People don't seem to understand that both the Democrats and Republicans are now statist parties. Just b/c the Democrats oppose the Republicans doesn't mean they're suddenly libertarian good guys.

And to set the record straight, it was the conservative, Republican-appointed judges who opposed this decision - three of Reagan's four judges (Rehnquist, Scalia, Connor, but not Kennedy) and one of Bush Sr's two judges (Thomas, but not Souter) opposed the ruling[pdf]. Furthermore, it is Congressional Republicans introducing legislation to mitigate its damage, while Congressional Democrats state both their opposition to that legislation and support of the Kelo decision. Of course, there are plenty of examples of people on both sides of political spectrum opposing this, even socialists, so it's much more complex than the typical dumbed-down Democrat-vs-Republican football match. So enough of the uninformed, knee-jerk reactions please, and we'll take two more Rehnquists President Bush, thank you very much.