Slashdot Mirror

I'm glad they managed to uncover this secret which has gone largely unnoticed in the wake of their recent nuclear ambitions... Though it has been public knowledge that nK has been working on both Biological and Chemical weapons since the 1960s!

Note:
South Korea: Monthly on DPRK Weapons of Mass Destruction : FBIS-EAS-98-325 : 21 Nov 1998

Or don't even bother with the South Koreans and let's see what the official US government stance on this issue is:

"As we have indicated before, it is our assessment that North Korea has an active biological weapons program and is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/15114.htm
Released on November 13, 2002

I know a secret as well, don't tell anyone, but the Soviet Union fell!

USA has declared Status of National Emergency in 4th of march 1933 but never undeclared. And under a National Emergency the jurisduction of the constitution is not enforced.

I know that's a favorite of conspiracy theorists, but there is no mechanism in the Constitution to declare a "National Emergency" under which it does not apply. The National Emergencies Act is a way for the Congress to temporarily delgate some of its power to the President to allow for quick action; we can argue whether that act is Constitutional or a good idea, but all it does is shift the power balance of the federal government around between the executive and the legistlative branches, it does not suspend the Constitution. See here for details.

Certainly the government has, and continues to, ignore the Constitution. But that has fsck all to do with some declaration by Roosevelt, it's just politics and government as usual.

While the average drug cost's between .8 and 2 billion dollars to develop. The cost are pretty simular I would say.

Most of the money in actual development is caused by the amount of care taken in developing the drug, There is a definite wish not to kill people. Now if we could only reduce the cost of advertising.

How much US debt are they buying?
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_ch art_of_wh.html
They don't even show up on the list.

According to the US State Dept, US exports to Russia $3 Billion, imports $11.8 billion.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm

In comparison South Korea had $309 and $325 billion in imports and exports with the US.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_b usiness/181520.html

The US as far as economy and trade does not NEED Russia now, if the energy supply becomes a crisis down the road that might change. In the recent past Russia has leaned a lot on the US while making its transition to a market economy.

What the US would like to see from Russia is its continuing down the free market/democratic path. Russia has the potential with population and resources for the US to need them, but that has not happened yet.

Now China, that's a different story.

I was just issued my new passport, and while it feels different than the old one, it doesn't have the new logo. As long as I don't lose my passport, I should be good and electronic free until 2016. Hopefully by then, they would have worked through any of those nasty security problems.

Since passports have such a long expiration date, most people won't have to worry about this for many years.

Breach of contract is a civil matter.

Ordinarly, yes, but the contracts you sign to gain access to classified materials also come under special legislation

-jcr

1. Why M$ have to do it itself then? You have FBI which is good in this kind of business.

2. allofmp3.com style, I presume.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifi ndex.html - sorry, no extradition treaty with Russia.

Aye. As creepy and (in my opinion ) anti-Christian as it is, by removing this game from the shelves, we set a president not for religious equality, but complete intolerance of any religion whatsoever (See: 'Happy Holidays'). As far as my beliefs go, I believe that 'Religion' and 'Faith' are not even close to being the same thing. Religion, in fact, kinda creeps me out. I do, however, have Faith that God (Note: I don't mean the "Christian god", I mean that guy that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship) is good, forgiving, and gave me a hell of a lot more than I deserve. In fact, taking this game off the shelves, in my interpretation (ianal), would be unconstitutional. I quote from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs /billeng.htm - "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". I see nothing in there about "Congress shall make laws forbidding establishment of religion". For fucks sake people, Wal-Mart is NOT the Government. Some guy wishes you a Merry Christmas at a store, it does NOT mean that the government is growing to favor Christianity.

Ok, so bit of a rant, but honestly - let people what they want to believe. Some guy wants to make a game (serious or not) about fundamentalist religious groups, he has the right to do that and is protected (both in religion and speech) by the first amendment. Get over it. Nobody's making you play it.

Declare the Geneva Convention obsolete. Bug the UN. Split NATO. Overthrow a stable military dictatorship and disband the Army the now unemployed members of which will go on to form the future insurgent organisations . Watch the country descend into total civil war, a magnet for every disaffected youth in the middle east. Watch helplessly as the country is infiltrated by insurgents from Iran, Siria and Jordan. Then announce victory and withdraw. Repeat same in Afghanistan. Give legal sanction to torture. Declare victory for democracy.

http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&Cli entType=Printable
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956, 1157547,00.html
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/8688.htm

I was going to write a post critizing the Russian government's ability to mug, steal, kill and rob at will.

But really, Russia is no worse than the USA, thanks to global hegemony induced TRIPS.

My experience concurs with this observation. The US murder rate is the lowest it has been since 1965, violent crime rate lowest since 1974, rate of rape lowest since 1978. Yet most people seem to think that crime is at some astronomical historical high. If I wanted a bottle of pop when I was a kid I got on my bike and rode nearly two miles to the gas station. How did we ever survive?

Crime Rates in U.S. Remain at 30-Year Lows

There's a headline you rarely[never] see on cable news.

I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?

The number of lawyers in the United States has increased steadily over the past half century and is currently estimated at more than 950,000. Where do all the attorneys in the United States find work?

Says who [that the security implications of plutonium breeding make it unsuitable as a solution]?

Says Israel, for one; says the U.S., for another.

A solution that only certain nations are allowed to implement, under threat of military action, is no solution.

And even if the Earth's supply of uranium isn't enough, what about the rest of the solar system?

Stuff we can't get to is pretty useless. If we're going to go to space, orbital photovoltaic makes much more sense. (Maybe eventually lunar He3 for fusion, too.)

What about fusion? If we make fusion economically viable then it would seem likely to displace fission.

Um, yes. If you carefully read my post you'll see I noted fusion, and subcritical reactors with thorium, as more promising potential power sources than uranium or plutonium fission. We ought to be devoting resources to developing these, not building uranium fission plants.

What would you purpose as a stop-gap until that happens?

Efficiency improvements (tax credits for ground-source heatpumps!), waste biomass to energy, inter-tied photovoltaics on every roof, wind, OTECs, tidal and geothermal where applicable.

The US Navy has operated reactors for five decades without any accidents.

Not correct. This list of military nuclear accidents shows several incidents in which U.S. vessels had accidents resulting in the release of radioactive material.

Oh yes they most certainly do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.

http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/burden_of_proof.htm
Legal Burden of Proof - Civil Cases

The general rule is that "he who asserts must prove", i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff (the party bringing the action).

The exceptions to this rule include an allegation of frustration where a plaintiff sues for breach of contract. In this situation a defendant would have the legal burden of proving that he was unable to complete the contract due to the fault of another person, or another act, e.g., fire etc.

http://www.ogc.umich.edu/faq_judicial.htm
The plaintiff goes first because the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, often characterized by attorneys as merely 51%.

And finally;
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/u.s._legal_s ystem/civil_cases.html
The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial. Instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" -- the criminal standard -- jurors or judges render a verdict on the basis of the "preponderance of the evidence."

Still, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Although most civil defendants present evidence, a defendant has the option of simply arguing that the plaintiff did not meet the required burden of proof. (emphasis mine)
------------------

So the defendant in this case is essentially saying, "Prove this number is valid." instead of rolling over and paying the RIAA their extortion money. It is the RIAA's responsibility to PROVE their case is worth it.

>the government already has the language skills it needs even without a whizbang translation machine.

> I am in strong support of a tax deduction for voting

In Belgium we've compulsory voting. You don't get tax deductions but get fined if you don't :-) . You've the right to cast a "blank" vote but whatever you do, you must show up and cast a vote. You're actually getting an offical invitation and your identity is being registered while you cast your vote. There's a reasonable chance you get called upon to assist and check the actual voting. If you're unable to physicaly attend for a good reason, you can fill in some paper to give someone permission to show up in your place.

As a result the political landscape is completly different. There are typical between 4 and 10 reasonable big parties and there's a bigger chance you find a party which matches better your opinion. Governing is also more different and maybe more difficult I think . Decissions are far often more compromises. It allows however also for
smaller parties to actually get some of their action points through legislation.

http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2874.htm

Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. But without the lifeblood of citizen action, democracy will begin to weaken. Citizens of democratic societies have the opportunity to join a host of private organizations, associations, and volunteer groups. Many of these are concerned with issues of public policy, yet few are controlled or financed by the government. The right of individuals to associate freely and to organize themselves into different sorts of nongovernmental groups is fundamental to democracy. When people of common interests band together, their voices can be heard and their chances of influencing the political debate increased. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th-century French political observer, wrote, "There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted."

. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties.

That should be: In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands fewer dead than if Saddam was still in power.

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

I would invite anyone curious about this to go to the source of the data used in the charts you link to. When you look at the data, you find, surprise, surprise, that Iraq was where most Americans who died from terrorism in 2005 actually died. Hopefully that isn't a shock. I also seem to recall that the reporting standards changed in some aspect.

We wouldn't want to see anyone mislead, would we?

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

I would invite anyone curious about this to go to the source of the data used in the charts you link to. When you look at the data, you find, surprise, surprise, that Iraq was where most Americans who died from terrorism in 2005 actually died. Hopefully that isn't a shock. I also seem to recall that the reporting standards changed in some aspect.

We wouldn't want to see anyone mislead, would we?

Every time the US or the UK government use "the T word" in relation to Iraq, the are deliberately (and maliciously) making a connection between the events of 9/11 and their invasion of Iraq. That is absolutely discraceful and anyone who lost anyone they knew in 9/11 should be livid about it.

Iraq was a long time state sponsor of terrorism, giving aid and support to terrorists that killed Americans. No connection to 9/11 was needed to use the "T word" with them.

Saddam Hussein and six others face new charges over a campaign of killings, arrests, deportation and property destruction known as the Anfal.

Human rights groups say 180,000 civilians died in the campaign.

Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves.

Saddam is due to appear for a routine hearing on Tuesday of his second trial, for genocide against ethnic Kurds in 1988. In the meantime, he is held by the U.S. military at Camp Cropper, part of the U.S. base at Baghdad airport. The five judges in the Dujail case are expected also to publish the detailed, unanimous ruling, running to some 200 to 300 pages. It is eagerly awaited by international jurists keen to judge how the court performed.

....everyone knows you can't get a fair trial in your homeland when the people and families you are accused of committing acts against are the ones charged with carrying out your trial! He should have been brought to the ICC. This verdict carries no weight with me whatsoever. His execution will be a travesty... think of the treasure trove of information we could get from him about our own crooks and their past crimes!

Oh the humanity! Saddam being tried and hung by the survivors of the atrocities he ordered, and it doesn't meet your approval! Where is the justice!? Why!? Why do those peasants put their 20 year thirst for justice for the mass murder, mutilation, and rape ahead of your political axe? Why does your approval matter so little to them!!?? That is so unfair!

I know what you mean about spending too. After all, spending $419.3 billion on defense out of a budget of $2.57 trillion seems so "reckless", especially since defense is a federal responsibility under the Constitution, as opposed to education and social security.

Well, at least your body count is, well..... founded.... or somthing.....

Remember that the US provides almost $2B USD in aid to Egypt each year, almost as much as Israel, but I suspect Egypt has a much higher population than Israel. Also, Jordan receives about $500M USD per year. The numbers are in the congressional report here (PDF). Although, I imagine Isreal receives much more private foreign aid than what the federal US Govt provides.

For a while, a passport was not required for Mexico and Canada. Before, a birth certificate was good enough.

Or a drivers license (which I've used to get in) or even just a social security card (someone I was travelling with didn't have his license on him, but had his social security card - his interview lasted longer than ours but they let him back in - he was born in Puerto Rico and the interview was conducted partly in Spanish, the last question he had to answer was what is the puerto rican slang for "snow cone").

This is a bit of a nitpick but you do not require a passport to leave any country. You need a passport to enter a country.

Not the US, and probably not for the foreseeable future in the US (as it would likely be unconstitutional). "As early as January 1, 2008, ALL persons, including 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 passport or other documents as determined by the Department of Homeland Security." http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml

As long as you can prove that you were born here, and they can't prove that you intentionally lost your citizenship, they probably have to let you back in.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so if you want to do something stupid like leave the country without a passport don't assume I have any clue what I'm talking about. You probably don't want to deal with the long hard court battle anyway.

The reason for this question is because entering the services of the military hostile to the US may cause a loss of citizenship. See here.

I believe that that is about to change. I remember seeing something to the effect that after date xx/xx/xx you will have to have a passport to enter or leave the US, even to "friendly" destinations like Canada or the caribbean. I'll try to dig up the reference... ah, here we are:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml
(scroll down a bit)

Hmm, I wonder if this story is a misinterpretation of that policy change? The dates are in January...

While this has nothing to do with the actual story, it reminded me of this:

Whenever some international news happened, you used to be able to see a summary of foreign news coverage at http://usinfo.state.gov/products/medreac.htm, under the name of "US Dept of State, International Information Programs : foreign commentary".
Unfortunately, you now get a 404 error page, mentioning that the page may have been moved. Does anybody know if it is still available somewhere else?

The U.S. Department of State is recruiting IT people RIGHT NOW
to work in the Foreign Service and support the work of our diplomatic
corps at embassies and consulates overseas. The recruitment period
ends on 11/3/06 - less than 10 days from now.

Working at a US Embassy has some major perks. When you work for the
government overseas they pay all of your housing and utilities. Embassy
housing ain't like Army housing. Think mansion in the 3rd world and
downtown apartments in the first world. Cost of living pay to help
afford life in London, danger pay for Kabul or Baghdad, hardship pay
for subsaharan Africa. Uncle Sam takes care of his own.

Sure the work is boring, the coworkers are annoying, and people
like to blow up your workplace. On the plus side, you move every
2-4 years, sometimes to very very nice places. You get USA and
local country holidays off (15-20 holidays per year) plus vacation
and benefits like every other USG employee.

Besides, how cool would it be to have a Diplomatic (Black) Passport?

Check the Department of State recruitment page here:
http://www.careers.state.gov/specialist/opportunit ies/infomanage.html

The pay band quotes on the page doesn't seem too high, but remember
that the pay listed doesn't include all the freebies like housing,
utilities, cost-of-living, hardship, etc - many of which are tax-free.
I'd pay the numbers by $30,000 to get a real approximation of the value
of overseas benefits paid by Uncle Sam.

The problem with the WTO and American law is that treaties are considered "the supreme law of the land" in the USA. Indeed, if a statutory law conflicts with treaty obligations, the treaty wins out and is what gets enforced by U.S. courts.

This is only true if the treaty is "self-enacting". In any case, the US has not bound itself to the WTO via treaty, it has bound itself via "congressional-executive agreement" (see http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/35430. pdf).

Ansari: I think where he really crossed the line where the domestic audience is concerned is when he said a green aura was coming out of his head during his speech to the United Nations. This conversation got filmed, and people can watch it on DVD. Ahmadinejad came home from his speech and told an ayatollah that everyone at the General Assembly -- all these world leaders -- didn't even blink for thirty minutes (out of awe). Lots of people have seen this in Iran, and it makes him seem a bit too superstitious.

But for South Korea, a more immediate danger may be North Korea's artillery.

The capital Seoul, only 60 km (37 miles) south of the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone that has divided the peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953, has long been within range of one of the world's most powerful artillery batteries.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the North had amassed more than 13,000 pieces of artillery and multiple rocket launchers, much of it aimed at Seoul.

Jane's International Defense Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area -- home to about half the country's 48.5 million people.

The biggest are 170-mm self-propelled artillery guns and 240-mm multiple rocket launchers. It also has hundreds of Scud missiles that could hit any part of South Korea.

"We have reason to believe that the chemical weapons are with the forward artillery units that are targeting Seoul. If we don't get those early, we end up with chemicals on Seoul." North Korea: The War Game

When negotiators were hammering out the 1994 accord - over similar concerns about North Korea's nuclear intentions - Pyongyang also warned that it would turn the South Korean capital of Seoul into a "sea of fire".

SEOUL, South Korea -- In an unusually explicit threat to its neighbor yesterday, North Korea warned that Japan would be immersed in a "nuclear sea of fire" if the United States were to attack the North.

Speaking to the BBC's Mike Thompson in Pyongyang, Mr Ri said his government was becoming increasingly alarmed at signs that Washington planned to send more aircraft carriers, bombers and troops to the region.

He said such actions would mean that the US was either planning to invade the North or launch attacks against it.

In response, he insisted, Pyongyang would not just sit and wait, and might decide to strike first if necessary.

The country currently has a standing army of more than one million soldiers. The US has about 37,000 troops based in South Korea.

Libel is libel, and while you can defend yourself by demonstrating that your statements are true, you better have some decent evidence if you are goiing to call someone who runs a buisness a crook, theif, and con-artist.

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

Not long ago, the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.

Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."

Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?

Look at the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The clause most obviously relevant here is Article IV (no WMDs in space; space is only for "peaceful purposes"), but what interests me more is Article II:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

No property rights in space? Is this a misguided attempt to close off any economic incentive to explore beyond Earth, or should it be understood as limiting ownership to private entities?

I think you should focus on the preferred and likely method for illegal immigrants to enter the US. Its not by airplane from Europe, its walking across the border from Mexico/Canada. Like I said in my previous post its not very likely that you will find illegal immigrants flying from Europe - because they will not be allowed to board the plane without valid visas or citizenship.

A person with a valid visa going to the US is probably screened already for both terrorism connections and immigration status. A European citizen is unlikely to emigrate illegally this way - and could fly in on a tourist visa no questions asked anyway. You do know most Europeans dont need visas to go to the US?

So maybe for other parts of the world it would make more sense to screen for illegal immigrants - but thats not really what the data exchange is meant to solve. It is for security and fighting terrorism. We have had terrorism in Europe since the 50s, and we know how to handle it. We have successfully eliminated and solved several conflicts without taking away basic human rights and laws meant to protect the population. So do not acuse Europe of not doing enough - we just find it is better to fight terrorism without giving up our rights!

I find Americans are very protective and patriotic about not giving away any of your constitutional rights in other contexts - but you fully expect Europeans to simply let go of ours? No, thank you. Even if it would stop all and any attacks!

I dont think the US should be allowed any more information than absolutely necessary because I simply dont trust your government to keep it safe and not abuse it. I appreciate having better protection and regulation here in Europe - and believe you should fight to improve yours instead! Then again we might also have use for more information on people going here - especially from Muslim countries.

Here's a report on Chile

Certainly there is a question here between "liberty" and "essential liberty"

Well, you can actually "win" a green card from a lottery, the US government holds one every year. And it's about to start for this year.

'though, entering it is free, no charges attached, and nobody can increase your chances by even a hair. Actually, my guess would be that your chances are better if you fill out the form yourself, that way you can be sure to actually participate and not end up in /dev/null. Since, after all, how do you want to check whether those ripoffs actually enter you?

While implementing RFID does add a layer of forgery protection, it is only a matter of time until someone finds a way to exploit the security features. Currently, if someone forges a passport, they only need to incorporate their picture into it. Once cracked, a forged or hacked RFID chip can simply be incorporated into a forged passport.

Although I'm not too keen about passports containing RFID chips, I'm pleasantly surprised that the gov't actually considered public feedback and did a decent job of implementing security features. The problem, however, is that people tend to become overly confident and reliant in such technology. Image the possibilities if (when) the ability to alter the RFID chip is realized. One scenario that's not often considered is one in which a hacker could cause an unsuspecting victim to be scrutinized by authorities by modifying the RFID data to differ from the printed info. Although this example may not be as dangerous as those involving forgery, it sure could provide an advantage to an unscrupulous business competitor.

Check out the over-the-top patriotic imagery in the new "e-passports"

http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2501.ht ml

Is this some kind of reverse psychology?