Slashdot Mirror

What IS appalling is the fact that the Mexicans, Thais or Uzbeks (Fuck you, Assholes!)

Bigoted racists are the number one assholes, dimwit. You are among them...

Indeed, it is true we have birth rights, and they're called the Bill of Rights.

And the King of England had His birthright to rule us... But the Bill of Rights says nothing about our right to a job — any job — much less one, that's better-paying than a Thai's...

Brainwashed, here's the source document. I realize how hard it is for non-critical minds to understand. I meant contemporary to the Sept 02 speech Bush gave that I referenced in the original post. Duh.

Well, this is certainly a good brute-force approach. The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of vulnerable places.

the art of war by sun tzu is pretty much a handbook on guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare (which is all that terrorism is) can be summed up in two quotes from the art of war: 1) when the enemy is of superior strength, evade him and 2) those skillful in offense attack points which cannot be defended, those skillful in defense present points which cannot be attacked.

the point is that you cannot fight an enemy that won't fight you back (like the US learned in vietnam) so force of arms alone is rarely sufficient against guerilla tactics. you also can't devote tons of resources to policing a handful of radicals (like every taskforce ever assembled to catch a serial killer) because the cost is too great for the benefit achieved. because they will only hit what is not protected, you will never be able to mount an effective defense against terrorists. because they will not confront you in the open, you can never mount an effective offense against terrorists. once you close the hole they exploited last time, they will simply find another hole that you didn't know existed. all you can hope to do in that situation is take steps to minimize the damage done and speed and simplify recovery.

Is that really the best way to improve security? I can think of a lot of ways other than spending a trillion dollars on 'well trained guards in [all] vulnerable places'.

a group that is sufficiently clever and sufficiently motivated will hit some weak point that cannot be conceived of with conventional thinking, the US will then react by fixing the vulnerability and enacting newer and more restrictive policies. the group will then locate a new vulnerability and the process will repeat itself. much like the cat and mouse game played by makers of copy protection and the breakers of copy protection, the problem with such a scenario is that the enemy is working with infinite resources (cleverness and time) and the good guys are working with finite resources (money).

so, rather than take a pervasively defensive posture against terrorism, we should realize that this is insurgency rather than terrorism, and our responses should be counter-insurgent rather than counter-terrorist. the problem of course is that counter insurgency measures are very unpleasant and are probably political suicide for the leaders who invoke them.

You are aware of what was happening in 1941 right? I mean, I know ignorant opinionated drivel like yours can be lazy, but I would assume you have at least been through the basic history of the whole WWI/WWII/Cold War progression.

Beyond that, you are yet another one of those fools that blames the military for any of this crap. The military does what it is told to do by civilian authority, just like the constitution says. The civilians say they can't do something, and that means they can't do it. You want to fix this, quit bitching and trying to screw over the men that serve their nation, and go fix the men that serve themselves (politicians). Further, while not paying politicians sounds very attractive, it would just further the whole lobbyist problem. When the military DOESN'T do what the civilians tell them, you have a military coop, and I am reasonably certain you would rather have the military continue to follow bullshit directives from idiot civilians that you can replace democratically than have to deal with a military coop (which by the way would probably rather quick once you opted to quit paying them).

The idea that you could fight and win in modern warfare just by grabbing a bunch of untrained people and not paying them is just unbelievably ignorant of what the military does. Beyond that, I seriously doubt you are aware of or give a damn about what the military does that ISN'T part of our idiot politicians agendas. The US military is usually one of the first responders to natural disasters globally, and other humanitarian things. Here, this is why we should definitely quit paying them.

Can you imagine CNN reporting thus: "Today President Bush attempted to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein - this is a lie aimed at persuading Americans to support a war for oil/strategic dominance/etc."?

Yes, I can imagine that, because that "Bush lied" about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the dominant media meme.

Can you imagine that the whatever links exist between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was not an invention of President Bush?

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

-U.S. Indictment of Osama Bin Laden, 1998

"National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan's intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Byron Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that 'Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.'"

-"Boogie to Baghdad"

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

-CNN, February 13 1999

And since the title of this thread is "An important debating point," here's a summary for both sides:

http://qando.net/archives/003279.htm

This Slashdot story about "235 patents in free software" reminds me of 205 communists in the State Department: "... in February 1950, an undistinguished, first-term Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, burst into national prominence when, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. McCarthy never produced documentation for a single one of his charges, but for the next four years he exploited an issue that he realized had touched a nerve in the American public."

Microsoft is to software what McCarthy was to politics?

This all depends on your viewpoint.

I'll bite. Sure, if you think that having a deluded or completely obscured viewpoint means you have a valid viewpoint.

I would challenge most politicians to walk through South Central LA without adequate precautions.

Relevancy? I'm tempted to ask you if you've had the chance to compare first hand the differences between daily life in post-invasion Iraq and daily life in present-day SC LA. My bet would be no, but suffice to say that you're not going to find prominent politicians going anywhere in most of this country without some sort of security escort. It's stupid not to in a lot of areas and trivial to boot, but that's not to say you can compare a civil war with urban crime.

Some nut job in Iraq blows up 30 people and it's a civil war. Some nut job in VA kills 30 people and it's a nut job.

I really didn't think that the concept of motivation was something so difficult to grasp. The reason a nut job in VA is labeled a nut job for killing 30 people and not the beginnings (we're way past beginnings though) of a civil war is because we don't have nut jobs in VA killing 30 people a day for reasons like a holy war. It's a civil war because the factions and peoples of the area are *gasp* in open, armed conflict with each other.

For the most part the large majority of Iraqi territory is doing very well thank you. You don't hear about that on the evening news (see previous comments on this topic).

The large majority of the Iraqi territory is doing very well? Ah, well, that's good to know, but it would seem that their population centers are taking the full force of all this sectarian violence going on. This document says "Almost 75% of Iraq's population live in the flat, alluvial plain stretching southeast from Baghdad and Basrah to the Persian Gulf." Unless I'm mistaken that sounds just about right for where the news reports of violence are coming in from. The reason you don't hear your tidbit there on the evening news is because it fails to take into account that the violence is happening where the people are.

Yes, there is violence. But it is being perpetrated by a minority of the populace. The VAST majority just want to be left alone. But Islamofacists need to be in control, have everyone toe their line, so they kill to terrorize.

You pretty much described most armed conflicts in human history. When has there ever not been a power struggle, especially between the Biblical religions and their peoples? The fact of the matter, however, is that with our dropping the ball with Iraq after removing Saddam from power we made the situation much more grim and basically created a great divide at home between the people who want the troops home, the people who want Iraq to become America Jr, and the people who lament that this truly is a situation with no quick fix.

I'll pass on the chance of observing anymore childish comments from your history here at Slashdot in search of "previous comments on this topic", though, thanks. What I did see in my quick glance looks pretty close to the rantings of Michael Savage or Ann Coulter, both of whom are people I've had quite enough of for one lifetime. "Oh F**K Off", quite.

Actually the "one-sided" part is that we won't extradite people for accusations that are politically motivated or for activities that are not illegal under civilian law (e.g. desertion). You can read a complete synopsis of the new treaty at the link below. Article 4 relates to the "controversial" portion:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm

... my "kidnap me I'm an American Citizen!" broadcasting passport is arriving any day now.

See http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw _2190.html and understand that Tagum City (where the two American children were kidnapped) is the nearest city from my permanent home and where my son is.

Yes, and you were using that quotation to make or validate your statement " Unfortunately, that's an all-too-common attitude among the higher ranks, who have a tendency to forget that their soldiers are citizens, not slaves. which means you were siding with it's belief.

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Seriously, look it up. Here, I will help you with an actual link. Freedom and Democracy aren't synonymous. Even though people incorrectly try to use it that way.

Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1 097.html

There are no prohibitions for travel from Canada to Cuba. Canadian citizens are free to travel to Cuba on vacation.

I wonder how he managed to visit Cuba without violating the federal law that prohibits US citizens from trading with our enemies.

There are several exceptions to the restrictions on travel to Cuba.

I would imagine that RMS went there for a conference on free software. This would fall under an exception which doesn't require special permission from the State Department.

One notable example is your passport: a photo ID is required to get a passport.

A photo ID is not required to get a US Passport. In fact, it is surprising how little documentation you need to get a US Passport. All you need is a certified Birth Certificate, (or official letter of No Record), and a person who has known you for at least two years and is willing to vouch for your. Ref: .

I know this because my son lost his wallet and all his ID. It was easier to get a US Passport than a new state driver's license. We took his birth certificate to the post office and I signed the voucher as his father. When the Passport arrived we used that, his birth certificate and statement from his bank account to get his driver's license.

Many people don't know, but the US exerts complete juristication and control over exports. I would have thought MS-Vista falls under the "publicly available" software exemption, but this wouldn't cover ITAR rules on munitions (incl encryption).

The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country. Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.

I disagree for two reasons. First, the US and their allies certainly did rely on UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687. Here is an op-ed by a State Department ambassador laying out the exact same case. You can find the same rational from Australia, The UK, and even the National Security Council, among others.

Second, UNSEC #1441 specifically recalled and reaffirmed UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687 which gave authorization to use force, and deplored the fact that Iraq was in "material breach" of the requirements in UNSEC #687.

You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred?

Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. The fact that it took a carrier group parked on their doorstep in the Gulf to make this declaration is hardly comforting.

I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.

This information is directly pulled from the 2004 Duelfer report:
Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).

My apologies about the mis-information on the range, however 1300km is still well above the 150km limit.

Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim repor

You've already gotten tons of responses, and it's totally irrelevant to the top story, but that's never stopped a slashdotter!

I own five guns. Even though I might make jokes about being a "gun totin' redneck" in my profile and elsewhere that's not really true. Here's a breakdown: I own a pellet gun which is customarily given to boys in the interior US around about the age of 10-12 in lieu of an actual .22, nearly the smallest but one of the most common calibres of firearms in existence for the last 100 years or so. I got mine for Christmas when I was 12. I also own a pair of .22 calibre rifles, the one I bought is a Marlin model 60, a very common beginner's rifle. The other is a 90-year old Steven's Favorite rifle I inherited when my Grandpa died. Both the .22 rifles are a lot of good, cheap fun at the rifle range, the expensive ammo's about $6 for 100 shots. I also have a bolt action .30-06, which is for big game--that calibre's killed a lot of deer and elk in the 100 years its been around. Ammo's pretty expensive so I usually take one of the .22's to the rifle range to keep in practice for hunting season until it's late summer when I switch over to the big boy. Rounding out the bunch is a 12 gauge shotgun. The 12 gauge is the most common size of shotgun and is typically used on duck, quail, geese, grouse, and other game birds (all extremely tasty). I, like a great many other American gun owners, store my firearms unloaded, partially disassembled, and with trigger locks. About the only time I'm ever actually handling them (again like most American firearms owners) is when I'm out hunting, at the gun range, or cleaning them at home.

I've also lived in...dodgey parts of town. The last place I lived my next door neighbor for a few months was a meth addict who kept an axe on his living room windowsill. At night I kept my shotgun loaded under my bed just in case he went apeshit. I didn't sleep well, but I did at least manage to sleep a little. If he got into the place and I didn't have that shotgun, I'd be dead--simple as that. Which brings us to self-protection. Sometimes you can't count on the police. My next door neighbor might have decided that I was responsible for whatever the fuck he was hallucinating and the cops would have taken about fifteen minutes longer than it would have taken for him to dismember my corpse. An area I hunted in was as well known for massive elk as it was notorious for drugs (meth, pot, and futher to the South poppies). The locals got pissed off about the illegal activites and formed a militia. The nearest police were 45 minutes away, assuming they immediately started off once called, in daylight, in good weather, and above all else the roads were relatively intact.

You live in Jersey. I almost took a job at UMDNJ about a year and a half ago, but ultimately couldn't. I'm pretty well-traveled, but NJ is by an order of magnitude the ugliest country I've seen in the states--it beats out Stockton, Fresno, East St. Louis, and the most impoverished Indian reservation by fucking miles. That combined with anti-gun laws that could only be described as tyrannical prevented me from taking the position. In essence, if you owned so much as a pellet gun (firing a single shot that might actually break the skin, from manually compressed air taking ~10 seconds/shot) you had to go down to the local police station and get fingerprinted like a common criminal in blatant violation of both the 2nd and 4th amendments of the US Constitution. You can be evicted from your apartment in NJ for owning a gun just on the cop's say so. The legal gun owners there are too scared to EVER be seen

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

• 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
  
• 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
  
• 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
  
• 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
  
• 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
  
• 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)

You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.

If you really believe that the war on terror requires the US to invade the worlds largest sponsors of terrorism, I assume you are lobbying your representatives for an immediate invasion of Iran, Syria, and IMHO, Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps because both China and India have a huge population? In fact, if anything, Chinese and Indians are facing more stringent caps than people from other countries. Take a look here: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulleti n_3169.html Pay particular attention to Employment-Based (2nd) catagory, in which most Chinese and Indians fall into. So for typically H1B Chinese/Indians, it will take 3-4 years to get their green cards, if they got lucky!

*sigh*. This one has been so thouroughly debunked that I wonder why you mention it.

• Claiming that we justified the war because Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa is patently absurd. Here are the three major public speeches that were given right before the war explaining the reasons for it. You will notice that none of them even mention Iraq's attempts to procure uranium: 1, 2, 3.
• The conclusion that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium in Niger had nothing to do with the forgeries found in Italy. In fact, multiple sources had already confirmed Iraq's uranium efforts in Africa before the forgeries even existed (again, I refer you to the Butler report).
• Saddam's attempts to buy uranium in Africa are documented fact, confirmed by multiple sources including Joe Wilson himself. I don't know how you can claim that it has been "debunked".

Yeah, world leaders spouted lies - some unknowingly.

Do you understand how it is different from zoning laws?

• "they authorize the president to fire US Attorneys"- The President has been authorized to fire US Attorneys since 1789 when the position was created. 28 USC 541(c): US Attorneys are "subject to removal" by the President.
• "secretly arrest citizens" - Pure fiction. Just what section do you think authorizes this? The closest I can think of is section 412 that mandates the arrest and detainment of non-citizens that are engaging in terrorism, with an explicit right to petition for habeas corpus and continued judicial review (in other words, nothing like what you said).
• "secretly try them in a secret jail with secret evidence for secret crimes" - Again, this is pure fantasy. The PATRIOT act authorizes nothing like that. Not even close.

This is an outright lie. To wit:

Over a million killed worldwide on the roads! I believe it's around 40k/year just in the USA.

How many die in plane crashes each year? I expect it's in the hundreds on average. Similar for trains.

I think the news programmes should announce road death statistics regularly to give people some perspective on which is the most dangerous form of transport. I'm certainly more scared when driving than when flying even though I appreciate that a motoring accident is generally more survivable.

Read some Schneier for some sanity.

I mean really. $40 for this über cool license that doubles as a border crossing card? How long is this good for? Four years? Five years? That is a ripoff! For that kind of money, you can get a NEXUS card, and bypass the long queues at the border. Alternatively, for $45 you can get your hands on the upcoming PASS card, and that'll last you 10 years just like the passport.

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_222 3.html

They're talking about doing this in my state too, and I for one am not opting in to this little scam when it comes. I already have a NEXUS card right now and in the meantime, I'm waiting on my passport as well.

BS.

1. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly don't know anyone here that never leaves the state, and many of us here make the trip to BC a lot more often than Oregon or Eastern Washington.
2. Passports applications require proof of citizenship, nothing more. ( http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.htm l ). Same as the new "enhanced" licenses.
4. The fees are about equal, given how often each needs to be renewed.
5. What does this have to do with crossing into Canada. Do you think bouncers in a foreign country are more likely to trust a Washington state driver's license, or a US passport?
6. But no one has an enhanced license yet, and seeing as they will be optional and more expensive, this argument of convenience doesn't make sense.
8. Driver's licenses (in Washington state) need to be renewed twice as often as passports.

Permanent Residents have a Permanent Resident Card (A.K.A. a Green Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card) which is already encoded with all sorts of information, so they don't need any other I.D.. Not even a passport.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml

Okay, but that's not what I said.

I said Carter had banned reprocessing. His administration did so out of fear of proliferation. Some have attributed it to the Ford administration, which is fine. However, Carter, being a nuclear engineer himself, should have promoted the technology rather than abolish its future in the face of oil crises.

You really misread the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. US citizens (and non-citizens) will be required to present a passport (or other acceptable documentation) to ENTER the USA, not to leave.

No, it goes well beyond that. Read the actual Federal Register regulations:

• As a result of this final rule, with limited exceptions discussed below, beginning January 23, 2007, all United States citizens and nonimmigrant aliens from Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico departing from or entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at air ports-of-entry will be required to present a valid passport.
• Comment Two commenters asked if non-U.S. citizens would be allowed to depart the United States without a passport, regardless of their intent to return to the United States.

  Response Currently, if an individual is not required to present a passport upon entry to the United States, that individual does not need to present a passport upon exit. Under this final rule, however, if an individual must present a passport upon entry, then that individual will also need to bear one upon exit. In the event that non-U.S. citizens' passports are lost or stolen, those individuals would need to contact their nearest consular office to have the documents replaced prior to departing the United States.
  (Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 226 / Friday, November 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations, pages 68412-68415)

That's the "air phase", currently in effect. The "land and sea phase", originally scheduled for 2008, seems to be in a more ambiguous status.

The U. S. Department of State says this:

The United States government does not have exit controls at the border. There is no way to stop someone with valid travel documents at the United States border. The U.S. government does not check the names or the documents of travelers leaving the United States. Many foreign countries do not require a passport for entry. A birth certificate is sufficient to enter some foreign countries.

But that's now obsolete. Now there's the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:

• Beginning January 23, 2007, U.S. citizens traveling by air between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda are required to present a valid U.S. passport, Air NEXUS card, or U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Document.
• As early as January 1, 2008, U.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda by land or sea (including ferries), may be required to present a valid U.S. passport or other documents as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here's the Federal Register reference. The first phase (the "air phase") is already in place; the second phase (the "sea and land phase") may require further Congressional approval.

The U. S. Department of State says this:

The United States government does not have exit controls at the border. There is no way to stop someone with valid travel documents at the United States border. The U.S. government does not check the names or the documents of travelers leaving the United States. Many foreign countries do not require a passport for entry. A birth certificate is sufficient to enter some foreign countries.

But that's now obsolete. Now there's the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:

• Beginning January 23, 2007, U.S. citizens traveling by air between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda are required to present a valid U.S. passport, Air NEXUS card, or U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Document.
• As early as January 1, 2008, U.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda by land or sea (including ferries), may be required to present a valid U.S. passport or other documents as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here's the Federal Register reference. The first phase (the "air phase") is already in place; the second phase (the "sea and land phase") may require further Congressional approval.

The U. S. Department of State says this:

The United States government does not have exit controls at the border. There is no way to stop someone with valid travel documents at the United States border. The U.S. government does not check the names or the documents of travelers leaving the United States. Many foreign countries do not require a passport for entry. A birth certificate is sufficient to enter some foreign countries.

But that's now obsolete. Now there's the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:

• Beginning January 23, 2007, U.S. citizens traveling by air between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda are required to present a valid U.S. passport, Air NEXUS card, or U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Document.
• As early as January 1, 2008, U.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda by land or sea (including ferries), may be required to present a valid U.S. passport or other documents as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here's the Federal Register reference. The first phase (the "air phase") is already in place; the second phase (the "sea and land phase") may require further Congressional approval.

Not sure about the effects on a UK passport holder, but you can still use a U.S. passport if the RFID is disabled. The only advantage of having one seems to be shorter lines at Immigration. (Which isn't true yet, at least at LAX as of two weeks ago. They're probably waiting for more people to get the new passports before they set up the equipment.)

Since we're picking the nits, CIA was still the one financing Osama and others in the war, though they did so through middle men to get deniability: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24- 318760.html

And it seems USA is now in the process of financing more Bin Ladins into this world:
"US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vie wArticle&code=20070225&articleId=4931

It would be nice if there was a reasonable way to do so legally

I do not agree...at all.

Certainly, we are not without sin, but the current rift is more complex than you portray. At the very least, it is due in part to a clash of cultures and religions that are almost diametrically opposed to one another. Freedom of speech, expression and, yes, religion are basic tenets of American society. We have grown so used to these basic freedoms that we assume that they are universally true...and they are not...regardless of how much we (or others) would like them to be.

I am not attempting to flame, but I think that it is fair to say that some societies (especially some of those in the Mid-East) hold a specific religious dogma to be of principal importance to their society. All other laws and rules of behavior flow from that religious dogma...or, at the very least, cannot conflict with it. I think that it is also fair to say that the level of tolerance for conflicting beliefs is fairly low. Doubt it? Try carrying a stack of bibles into Saudi Arabia and see how far you get through customs. I'll tell you how far - to the line that leads to jail:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE2300220 00
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1 012.html

In America, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I worked in Japan for some time and realized that a somewhat similar Japanese phrase crystallizes the difference between our two cultures - the nail that sticks up gets hit. The clash of philosophies between Islam and the West make the differences between the US and Japan look trivial.

Effectively 'Rewritten' (that is to say, very 'creatively interpreted'), or openly disregarded, in many instances, yes.

The Bill of Rights was too inconvenient for the Shrubinator, so thanks to Patriot, and other absurdly dangerous legislation, they have systematically attempted to create a 'new, convenient, streamlined legislative environment' free of such cumbersome restrictions, all, they would have it, in the name of 'national security'.

To be very clear, I agree with the quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Who's been paying attention? Let's take a quick inventory to see where we stand.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble
This now appears to apply only if you're in a 'designated free-speech *zone*' far away from the Shrub, or other government officials.

Similar aggressive tactics have been employed when confronted with any public opposition to administration positions. Steven Howards was arrested for simply voicing disagreement with Administration polices during a chance meeting with Cheney during a mall photo-op. Howards was taking his son to a piano lesson, and took the time to voice his opinion.

Another example is of the peaceful protesters ejected and threatened with arrest at the Ohio State commencement where Dubya spoke, simply because they attempted to peacfully and non-disruptively express disagreement with the Shrub and his his policies.

Still another is when two women, one the wife of a Congressman, were ejected from the Capitol building, simply for wearing T-Shirts with anti-Bush slogans into the Congressional Gallery. (The article references numerous other examples, as well.)

Freedom of the Press
Mostly, journalism from major news outlets in the US appears to be in significant danger from numerous sources. While it is still possible to find information if you dig for it, many of the significant stories never make major headlines, if they even see the light of day.

The Shrub has significantly reduced press events, and when holding them, has required journalists to submit questions in advance, selecting only those questions he chooses to answer, and calling only upon reporters who agree to 'stick to script'. Rather than challenge these policies, reporters have agreed to these stipulations, resulting in chilling effect, effectively self-censorship, rather than ask questions the President didn't like, at the risk of press room access.

Concurrently, starting in 2001, regulations limiting the scope of ownership of media outlets, designed to maintain diversity of opinion, so as to prevent control of too much of the media by a small number of individuals have been systematically attacked and dismantled. The result is that now most major media outlets in the US are owned by a small number of conservatives. (This has bee

Not only am I calm but I disagree with your assertion that I'm not rational. It's only natural to try and protect the ones you love.

Right, but the way in which you choose to protect them should be rational, otherwise you're simply going to fail to protect them, and in this case, make their lives worse in other ways.

You're talking about implanting chips in millions of other people -- there were 40 million foreign visitors to the U.S. in 2003, extremely few of whom pose any threat to you. As I pointed out, implanting them all with chips isn't likely to be very effective as a technique for anything but plunging the U.S. further into fascism. Foreign visits to the U.S. dropped by 10 million people between 2000 (source). That's bad for the U.S. economy (the linked page claims the loss cost about $20 billion), and bad for relations with the rest of the world. Many of those 10 million people tried to get U.S. visas but were refused, not because they were thought to be terrorists, but because the requirements for entry have been significantly tightened, so that many students and less wealthy people can't easily come here as tourists or even business visitors, because they're considered a risk for illegal overstay. Do you really think that this is effective at keeping terrorists out? How far do you plan to support the tightening of that net? Until the U.S. gets effectively no tourist dollars, and many fewer visiting foreign businessmen? Implanting chips in visitors is a sure way to hasten that process.

I think you may be wrong about propaganda not having affected the way you think. For a start, the idea that the source of all danger is foreign nationals is clearly false: one of the deadliest terrorist attacks ever on American soil was by Timothy McVeigh, an American, and millions of people are mugged, raped, murdered etc. every year by other Americans. So to keep your family safe, you're going to need to widen your net. Unfortunately, criminals don't come with a convenient label on their foreheads, so it's hard to know who to implant chips into in advance. Here are some popular suggestions which might appeal to you, or hopefully, help you see where your logic is going astray: you could put chips in all black people, since they commit the most crimes in the U.S. (unless they've been overtaken by Hispanics now, in which case, let's chip them too); or to avoid being racist, you could put chips in poor people, since they're much more likely to be a direct and obvious threat than wealthier people; or you could chip everyone who goes to prison, all the better to track them after they come out (doing away with the notion of rehabilitation in the process). All of these groups are at least as dangerous to your family, in practice and backed up by statistics, as foreign nationals are. So why do you want to target the foreign nationals specifically?

BTW, I'm a foreign national living in the U.S. I'm a partner in a software company that employs other Americans, and software I developed is used by American companies and by local and state governments. When you take action against all foreign nationals, you're taking action against me. Essentially, you're making me and tens of millions of other people like me your enemy, because you've somehow come to the conclusion that there's some similarity between us and terrorists. You say you're rational, but that's not how it looks from where I stand. You readily seem to equate "foreigner" with "threat". The word for that is "jingoism", and it's not rational.

There is no doubt that the Americans' losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouth-watering targets for the believers. But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.

Without Real ID Congress will never authorize replacing Passports with Driver's Licenses. In most some instances now and within the next year no-one will be able to enter the US without a passport, at at $80-$100 per person, this pretty much blocks low income folks from leaving the country even for Mexico/Canada/Cruise Ship visits.

This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models.

Actually, according to the 1972 ABM treaty, there are certain types of guidance systems that we're not allowed to use.

Congratulations, even in an article that has little to do with the US government, you succeeded in somehow making it the focus of evil in this world. DRKP is a 5th world country because it's run by a little tin-horned dictator who rules with such an iron fist, that you could never even imagine living under it. Do you know that the DRKP still, to this day, tell it's citizens that food given as humanitarian relief are war reparations?

Boy, yeah... if it weren't for those sanctions, the DRKP would be a utopia of the far east!

And ofcourse according to the Bush administration those people didn't have any freedom and couldn't enjoy the things we had here. Amazing how much of the official stories turn into pure falsified information whenever you're coming into contact with information residing from someone who actually lives in the region itself...

Well said. As many on Slashdot know, there are few things more important, or a greater demonstration of freedom, than playing games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, unless it is playing soccer or other sports. It is difficult to call Iraq during Saddam's rule anything but a "paradise" for everyone, from children to those of privilege, and even to Saddam's own family, like son-in-law Hussein Kamel . I don't know why everyone on Slashdot doesn't understand that. Maybe with a bit more education....

Actually, USians on the run from the law are MORE likely to go to Brazil. Brazil has strong protections regarding extradition. While naturalized citizens can be deported, Brazil will actually make the US go through some sort of due process before they ship them off.