Slashdot Mirror

I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten.

That is by no means certain.

It could simply mean that they are committed to their own cause, which could be anything from A-F below:

A. Truth, Justice, and the American Way
B. I don't like what's going on, and leaking is easier than filing a complaint through proper channels
C. Embarrassing Bush will help Hillary win, and I probably won't get caught
D. Bring down Bush, no matter the cost.
E. Bring down America, no matter the cost.
F. Other

There is some very interesting information about Mary McCarthy, let go for leaking at NSA. I'm holding out for B, C, or D. Probably a mix.
A map of associations
Some defenders
Is there a bigger pattern?

That's it!

The real threat isn't coming from the tens of thousands Islamist extremist terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda, in Saddam's Iraq, and their associates (minus the captured ones). No!

The 9/11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the shoe bomb attempt, the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia, the bombing in Jordan, the attacks in the Philippines, the Beslan attack, the dirty bomb plan, the plan to attack the soccer stadium in the UK, the plan to attack Heathrow, the 19 person ring just broken in Michigan, the hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the US, including the recent Hezbollah Mexican border smuggling ring broken, and the rest all show its not the terrorists that are the problem!!

The real threat is that *cough* fantasy *cough* cabal in the White House which the "insiders" on Slashnut know are secretly planning to ignore the next election with mass destraction. (How this will actually work, nobody explains. The Constitution limits the term in office and provides for succession.) Meanwhile, outside Mom's basement (or with more meds), the rest of us see them trying to detect and stop the next terrorist attack, prefereably before they can use a salvaged anthrax or chemical weapon from Saddam's discards, or maybe even start a nuclear Jihad with a little help, or simply send a suicide bomber to a crowded mall.

Lets reach over into one of the Evolution v. Creation debates and grab Occam's Razor. Which way do you think it cuts here?

I think I understand the impulse behind William F. Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. It seems to require a certain degree of sophistication to engage in certain forms of idiocy.

No connections? Perhaps you should read more.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/ 000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp?pg=1

"... Maybe instead of spending $2 Trillion on Iraq (which is creating a terrorist breeding ground that wasn't there before), we should spend a few million to bring the main US domestic police force against terrorism into this century."

you may want to read this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

the lead paragraph:

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."

but maybe you only read the WashPost and NYT, so feel you have all the facts. Was it the center of Terrorism? No, there is no center. But to say "[iraq] wasn't a terrorist breeding ground" ignores facts. Beyond what's linked above, consider:

Sadam's payouts to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Or maybe you say: "TWS, that's a righT wing mag, it must be fake" [You should 'really' be asking: 'why didn't the networks pick this up?'] - even so, check this out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunn ing/interviews/khodada.html

straight from a trainer at terrorist camps' mouth.

and if you like big pictures with your text, this one should make you happy: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

so, like it or not, saying there were no terror ties in Iraq before the 2003 invastion is now no longer a question of ignorance, just stupidity; or, if like some on the left, a blind rage in hating Bush that would drive you to ignore these facts.

Is it messy? Yes. Is it costly? Yes. But don't trumpet Gore/Kennedy/Kerry blindly and reinvent history just to have a handy cocktail party agrument to denounce the guy you didn't vote for.

Nope. Just a much higher violent crime rate. Most people seem to think this is because of the lack of protection that a person in the UK definitely doesn't have, but a person in the US may or may not have. Additional links:

US DOJ
NewsMax
The Weekly Standard

Get off your "Britain is better" high horse, because it's completely wrong.

Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns.
(Score:2)
by (arg!)Styopa (232550) on Tuesday March 07, @09:13AM

Cost of missing 6 weeks worth of ocean surface temperature, a quarter's loss of micromeasurement of ocean surface levels, or a year's worth of rainforest acreage photographs: pretty much nothing.

Cost of leaving a dictator in power: (excerpts from: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_pr eview.asp?idArticle=3889&R= [weeklystandard.com])
"Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."
(Of course, any numbers of killings do not include many thousands of cases of torture, rape, amputation, branding, and other atrocities committed by Saddam's regime that stopped short of death.)
[Furthermore,] U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers.

Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.

Yeah, what *were* we thinking? We should have saved the money and spent it on satellites!

I know it's TERRIBLY fashionable among some circles to be against the war. But I think your throwaway comment that the money was 'pissed away' is somewhat hyperbolic, if not a downright lie.

Just mod me (troll) now.

--I am just asking??? ---

Cost of missing 6 weeks worth of ocean surface temperature, a quarter's loss of micromeasurement of ocean surface levels, or a year's worth of rainforest acreage photographs: pretty much nothing.

Cost of leaving a dictator in power: (excerpts from: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_pr eview.asp?idArticle=3889&R=)
"Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."
(Of course, any numbers of killings do not include many thousands of cases of torture, rape, amputation, branding, and other atrocities committed by Saddam's regime that stopped short of death.)
[Furthermore,] U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers.

Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.

Yeah, what *were* we thinking? We should have saved the money and spent it on satellites!

I know it's TERRIBLY fashionable among some circles to be against the war. But I think your throwaway comment that the money was 'pissed away' is somewhat hyperbolic, if not a downright lie.

Just mod me (troll) now.

Mind referring to some sources to backup your accusations?

Here, for example.

The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard. And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)

Read it all...

Hey, they're online... though not exactly a respected unbiased news source, I'd be happy to read the article... don't suppose you remember the title? Still, you didn't answer my question ( and it wasn't rhetorical ), how easy do you think it should be for law enforcement to wiretap, search, or seize property ? What needs to be streamlined in FISA, and why didn't G.W. get that put into PATRIOT rather than potentially break the law with a secret program?

I don't have regular chats with foreign Al Qaeda agents! And that is what this program was targetted at.

The truth is, you don't know who this program was targeting. I could be targeting you, or democratic national party members, or anyone else, and nobody would know. Somehow, you don't see a problem with that? You trust the government that much? What did G.W. do to earn such trust?

I don't take phone calls from Al Queda ( or anyone overseas, actually ) now that you mention it... but I do care about freedom, and I do know that it's not just a slogan. It's worth dying for, though... when it's actually threatened. Right now, I'm afraid, Al Queda doesn't pose a threat to our freedom near as much as ( admittedly well-intentioned ) guys like you. Al Queda threatens the lives of some of our citizens- not our freedoms. I do think we can protect the lives of our citizens without forcing them to give up their freedoms.

Go ahead and ask me if our right to privacy is not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans; I think it is worth our lives, and from what you're saying, it's not. But I'm also thinking you believe privacy to have nothing to do with freedom... and that leaves me wondering what you think freedom is and how it comes to be...

Remember that procedural barriers designed to "protect civil liberties" absolutely prevented reading Zacarias Moussaoui's hard drive (according to http://www.courttv.com/trials/moussaoui/background .html , it was a FISA court that did so).

No, that was the fault of an incompetent investigator who thought they had a warrant which covered searches it did not cover, not the fault of "procedural barriers". But... was Moussaoui convicted, or not? Did not being able to use the information on his hard drive at trial stop him from being convicted ? Are you really trying to convince me that the FISA court stopped investigators from reading his hard drive? I'm pretty sure they just said it couldn't be used as evidence *in his trial*... let's not exaggerate the facts here. BTW, the link you posted is invalid.

When you put "civil liberties" in quotes like that... replace it instead with the word freedom and consider if that changes how you feel... because you really can't separate the two.

Your appeal to the memory of Nixon is as lame as the canonical use of Hitler or Naziism in internet debate.

No, it is directly on point. Do you want to give the executive branch the ability to tap anyone's phone, any time, for any reason? Answer that question before you acuse me so, please.

If your answer is not "yes, the government should be able to wiretap anyone, any time, and should be able to search anyone, any time, and should be able to seize any property, any time", then please elucidate what civil protections you do support. Remember, I asked, "how easy do you want it to be ?"... it wasn't a rehtorical question. Apparently FISA isn't easy enough. How easy should it be?

So what are you proposing? That we should end this program? How will that make you safer?

Has this program made anyone safer ? The program is *illegal*, it should never have been started, and those responsible should be *prosecuted* to the full extent of the law.

How would it stop evil Hillary or Tricky Dick of the future fr

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.

From this article

It's been a while since we last disagreed in a Slashdot thread. I was concerned that this time would be just a battle - but you have the dignity to care more about the serious facts than argument. I respect that.

If we're going to look at a "next level", there's no evidence to direct our gaze laterally to Democrats - though there are certainly partisan reasons to try. We need to look deeper - at the officials Abramoff bribed, who are guilty of more serious crimes than Abramoff. Although Abramoff's crimes apparently do include complicity in the murder of a casino business associate, with Abramoff's partner directly implicated. But one of Abramoff's bribed officials, David Safavian, was arrested for obstructing justice while impeding an Abramoff investigation. Safavian oversaw $300B in procurement, and further implicates Ohio Republican Congressmember Ney. These are the people we should be examining - the criminals associated with Abramoff and each other, who sell out our country for golf trips and other bribes yet to be uncovered.

You and I have our differences, but our mutual interest in uncovering these criminal gangs rotting our country is clearly more important.

I'm pretty much there with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And given the fact that currently adult stem cell research is approaching 40 different applications and embryonic stem cell research has currently found, uhm, zero , I'm okay with that.

-----
"This is not correct. The crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1993:"
-----

So what? You seem to forget what happened after Katrina and Rodney King trial. Your massaging of the data also neglects to mention by what standard your judging and why crime is decreasing. Pay close attention what countries resemble your murder rate, rapes, drug use and assults. Nothing remotely like a fully developed first world nation. (per capita)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap (
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_dru_off
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap

Not that you not trying to arrest people. For a "free" nation you seem to have BY FAR the highest incarceration rate in the world despite all the high crime stats.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_ca p&int=50

For the real badasses there is always enlightened execution to "fix" the problem. (Right up the their with China, The Republic of Congo and Iran.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_exe

"That's an interesting theory, but not proven by sources. A typical Chinese citizen lives just under 71 years, but a typical US citizen lives just under 78 years."

Hmmmm... I did read this somewhere however the balance of sources makes me think I have been misinformed on China's status.

HOWEVER----- it really doesn't dismiss the general point I was making as you seem to rank 48th in the world right below Puerto Rico (this despite massive technological leaps in the 20th century and supposedly the best medicine money can buy)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at _bir_tot_pop&int=50

Furthermore the point also made on the comment on the possibility of decreasing lifespans in the short term. This is only a theory but pay close attention to which "journal" this was published in.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/11/1 138

Of course there are plenty of things nice about America. Unfortunately your adversion to violence, greed and pollution are not among them.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fi g&int=-1

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi&in t=50

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_do n_cap

Cold war is over. No reason to not join the human race now-- that is unless you have something else in mind? Let's see what the extreme right wing in the US has to say on this?

http://groups.google.ca/group/humanities.philosoph y.objectivism?lnk=sg&hl=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_th e_United_States
http://www.weeklystandard.com/

So in the end the world is protecting it's interests. Maybe they'll stockpile a new collection WMDs as large as your own eventually. Congrats on the new philsophy that everybody take whatever you can get and don't give

Here's a good link for you in the future when you're replying to the "war for oil" conspiracy nuts: Why we went to war.

Remember, the fact that we found no weapons does not mean that the weapons weren't the reason. Unless you want to call President Clinton a Texas oil barron, saying the Iraq war was for oil makes you a conspiracy nut who is to lazy or too blind to see the facts.

--------
"Agreed. Now find me a "time of need" in this situation. All I see is a bunch of member countries who want control of the toys, and have no clear direction on why or how they need them."
--------

    Unfortunately they have extremely clear national security reasons to take it out of US hands since it seems the US has moved in the direction of unilateralism. cough cough Iraq cough.

--------
"we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses?""
--------

      "empire builders" or "warmongerers". The US? Never. Cough Neocon philosophy, cough cough Ummm. Do Americans actually read the details of what GB conservatives support? I would suggest you turn off Rupert Murdock's mindnumbing propaganda machine and start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_th e_United_States

(Here's Rupert's real opinions)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=122948

--------
"Again, the US doesn't "control" the internet. ICANN does. Check the first letter there: International"
--------

      If the Internet was completely internationalized this thread would be a non-issue. Apparently you found something important enough to bring out your flag and undermine the UN. True the UN ain't perfect (even Democratic values aren't) but here is a history lesson for you before you continue to shoot your own interests in the foot.

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

--------
"Because you may be surprised at what you find in the history of the internet's invention."
--------

      True Darpa got the ball rolling but it was a tiny propriatary network until the World Wide Web fixed things up. Berners Lee I seem to recall.

Anyhow I'm not really trying to put down the US here (you guys do lots of great stuff too). More like ignorant idiotic nationalistic flag waving (too much of that going on in the world already).

The rest of us (You know the other 5 billion or so that inhabit the rest of the world) will accept you warmly if you stop being a dick and put down your flag, fighting words and most importantly your tanks. Otherwise unfortunately balance of power theory suggests the world will engage in rearming itself to protect itself against aggressive expansionist interests (regardless the nation).

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

    Do you realy want to create another cold war--this time with America against the rest of the world? My suggestion is that continuing to gamble on unilateralism in a world of nukes is very risky. It seems more advisably and more profitable to join the rest of the human race as partners.

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

Anyway, there are several dispatches about snipers, UAVs, counter battery radar, ....

How do you "hack" the terrorist mind? The 1-24th infantry regiment created 'social engineering' traps (honeypots?) for terrorists and terrorist snipers. For example a fake IED explosion with fake US casualties and a scrap US Army vehicle created a lure for both the terrorists and the media stringers ...

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.

Mike Yon's "Ground Truth" dispatches

MilBloggers

Belmont Club's - a 30,000-foot view of what is going on

Armor Geddon - a John's Hopkins neuroscience grad (?) who gave it all up to drive tanks and blow stuff up - cool video also

Blackfive - a freak who enjoys jumping out of planes

countless others; although Hugh Hewitt gives a decent review of such here

I agree the U.N. is pitiful - but maybe it would function better if: A. the U.S. stopped underhanded tactics such as witholding money owed to the U.N.

Ok, you get Kojo Annan and friends to cough some of that oil for food money back into the UN coffers, and the US'll make a matching contribution. Then the UN can get back to preventing genocides in places like Darfur and Rwanda and Bosnia and the other important things that it doesn't do.

B. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against the proliferation of WMD re. Israel

But if we did that, what would the UN do with the 15% of its time that it devotes to Israel? The poor delegates would get bored stiff.

C. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against genocide

Vetoing? Who's vetoing? The Arab League members are the ones vetoing the resolutions about Darfur.

Oh, you probably mean the ones trying to come up with a definition of genocide. Well, those tend to be so watered down as to exclude everything that any member nation is doing (Darfur, Tibet, the Kurds, etc.), with the exception of a specific section blasting Israel. Why endorse such a silly definition?

The current incarnation of the UN is utterly powerless to stop genocide, even if it showed any desire. Ask the inhabitants of Rwanda or Srebenica how well they liked UN "protection," if you don't believe me. On the plus side, it runs some good sex rings.

And that's just for starters! Please be in no doubt - WRT the U.N. America has a track record of putting its own interests way ahead of those of the rest of the world community, and until that changes there's not much hope of the U.N. getting any better.

Still, you can be sure that when American hegemony is undermined by the rise of China the U.S. will use every means at their disposal - including the U.N. - to try and cling on a little longer...

And China will use every means at its disposal, including trying to get a piece of the internet governance under UN auspices, to make itself more powerful. And this surprises you because...?

Here's an idea: hold the bureaucrats at the UN up to the same standards of good government that you expect from your own country, and maybe they'll be able to accomplish something.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/ele c02.ga.primary.results/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/079tehyf.asp

"Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 "gift" of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to "charities outside the mayor's control," especially those that dealt with "poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol." Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America "address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack," among them "its policies in the Middle East," where "our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek." To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it. Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities......

And now they want to euthanize children.

and this
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19295

real progressive
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=progress

progress

1 a (1) : a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2) : a state procession b : a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge) c : an expedition, journey, or march through a region
2 : a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : ADVANCE
3 : gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of mankind

to quote from above post
"Funny how their radical ideas don't seem to inflict great harm on their society though."

Terri Schiavo collapsed from unknown causes in 1990 and experienced a devastating brain injury. Michael brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury that he would provide Terri with rehabilitation and care for her for the rest of his life. The jury in 1993 awarded $1.3 million in damages, approximately $750,000 of which was set aside to pay for her care and rehabilitation. But once the money was in the bank, Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab. Moreover, within months, he had a do-not-resuscitate order placed on her chart.

Had she died then, Michael would have inherited all the money. But he denies having a venal motive, claiming that the trust fund money is now exhausted. If true, this is bitterly ironic. For the past three years he has been in litigation, opposed by Terri's parents and her other relatives. Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much of it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care.

Michael's second conflict of interest is deeply personal. He is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancée, with another one on the way. The couple would like to marry, but Michael's wife, inconveniently, is still alive.

It's already been posted to this discussion at least once:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

And if you don't like the conclusion, debunk the evidence the author submits. Otherwise you're an intellectual coward.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_pr eview.asp?idArticle=5894&R=C62A29C91

This is a wonderful article from the Weekly Standard concerning Truman's choice.

The most salient fact? About 10,000 people per day were dying per day in the Pacific theatre, mostly civilians in Japanese-occupied countries. Any alternative to the bombs that would have caused a one month delay would have wound up with more dead than the bombs themselves.

Remember this before you rattle off about some alternative scheme to end the war.

there has never been any convincing proof that Iraq had any real connection to al Qaeda

Here are pages and pages and pages of information about the connection.

The rest of your post is somewhat reasonable (at least on the surface), but I fail to see how allowing terrorists a permanent base in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as their patron helps the cause against the terrorists.

If enough people complain, and it forces the government to pursue more effective policies in the fight against terrorists, I see it as worthwhile.

Monday-morning-quarterbacking the war effort doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. That's especially true when it's based on a faulty premise.

Well,... let me help you catch up on your reading about Iraq's ties to terrorists. There is plenty more that isn't hard to find if you really care to be informed.

How about this.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
The membership of the Commission on Human Rights.
Some of the members are Libya, North Korea, China, and the Sudan?
Here is one about the fraud in the Oil for food program that the UN ran http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?s tory_id=2618260
Here is one on the UN Sex Scandal. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

The UN has done some good but as far as human rights and freedom goes there track record is not great. I really do not the idea of them running the DNS. If nothing else what we have now works.

A bunch of pedophiles regulating a bunch of pedophiles.

Perfect.

The state department is wrong.

Oh yeah, and lets not forget that we could have killed al Zarqawi in the past, because we knew right where he was and we had had him cornered. This was not our agenda however, so we let him live.

Which is also why President Clinton declined to take custody of bin Laden when offered him. Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it?

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians.

A war is an armed conflict.

You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror.

Yes, you can. And yes, it does.

If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors.

That's a naive viewpoint. It's hard to terrorize your oppressors when your oppressor can gas an entire village of people and slaughter them all. If revolutions were this simple, there'd be no more dictators.

A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere).

*double take* BWUAH!? We have taken whose hopes and dreams? Al Qaeda's? Well, yeah, then good, fuck them. Iraq? How in the world have the hopes and dreams of Iraqis been dashed by the United States?

Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

Everybody loves to drag this one out. I think the power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without as much loss of life, but I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office in 1945 looking at casualty lists and projecting casualty lists of an invasion of Japan's homeland and trying to make a decision. I think that Truman really thought he was doing the right thing for America. The bomb was not dropped to "spread terror," that was an ancillary benefit.

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I don't believe the man is evil. Men like Osama bin Laden are evil. Men like Saddam Hussein are evil. It's a little disturbing how comfortably and easily you draw a moral equivilency between a regime that fed political opponents into plastic shredders and the current American president.

The state department is wrong.

Oh yeah, and lets not forget that we could have killed al Zarqawi in the past, because we knew right where he was and we had had him cornered. This was not our agenda however, so we let him live.

Which is also why President Clinton declined to take custody of bin Laden when offered him. Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it?

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians.

A war is an armed conflict.

You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror.

Yes, you can. And yes, it does.

If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors.

That's a naive viewpoint. It's hard to terrorize your oppressors when your oppressor can gas an entire village of people and slaughter them all. If revolutions were this simple, there'd be no more dictators.

A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere).

*double take* BWUAH!? We have taken whose hopes and dreams? Al Qaeda's? Well, yeah, then good, fuck them. Iraq? How in the world have the hopes and dreams of Iraqis been dashed by the United States?

Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

Everybody loves to drag this one out. I think the power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without as much loss of life, but I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office in 1945 looking at casualty lists and projecting casualty lists of an invasion of Japan's homeland and trying to make a decision. I think that Truman really thought he was doing the right thing for America. The bomb was not dropped to "spread terror," that was an ancillary benefit.

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I don't believe the man is evil. Men like Osama bin Laden are evil. Men like Saddam Hussein are evil. It's a little disturbing how comfortably and easily you draw a moral equivilency between a regime that fed political opponents into plastic shredders and the current American president.

Yeah, I'd definitely go for a group whose members have set up enforced prostition rings.

And let's not forget what they do for the children.

What, the UN that rapes children?? And you want to put them in charge of the root DNS servers? America needs to get over the KofiAddiction and how. I have never seen an International Peace organization allowed to be so frickin' filthy. I would honestly like to know what would happen if it were made public that our soldiers were raping Iraqi children. Or selling them into sex slavery. Have you been to Darfur or Bosnia and seen the conditions of the UN Refugees??? They can't live up to what their charter says they are supposed to do to facilitate peace.

No offense, but the UN needs to pull their head out of the sand, make a complete reformation and revamp the Security Council before they can have *any* more power in the World, developing or otherwise.

Since I'm living in FreeChina (aka Taiwan) a friend thought I'd think this is intertesting, and I'm thinking someone here might think it is too:

Who Lost China's Internet?

It's not easy being the father of the Chinese Internet. Children are running by, boats are paddling, the smell of roast lamb fills the air, and Michael Robinson, a young American computer engineer, sits rigidly, facing an empty cafe on the shore of Qinghai Lake, speaking in a low voice of the crackdown. "What is better? Big brother Internet? Or no Internet at all?" Michael asks.

Read more...

Note From Friend: (The article is well-written, and I have no immediate problem with it, the only warning is to keep in mind the authorship, pnac.info).

Since I'm living in FreeChina (aka Taiwan) a friend thought I'd think this is intertesting, and I'm thinking someone here might think it is too:

Who Lost China's Internet?

It's not easy being the father of the Chinese Internet. Children are running by, boats are paddling, the smell of roast lamb fills the air, and Michael Robinson, a young American computer engineer, sits rigidly, facing an empty cafe on the shore of Qinghai Lake, speaking in a low voice of the crackdown. "What is better? Big brother Internet? Or no Internet at all?" Michael asks.

Read more...

Note From Friend: (The article is well-written, and I have no immediate problem with it, the only warning is to keep in mind the authorship, pnac.info).

now that this kid has seen all from a fresh perspective, which side is he on?

is he childishly rooting for Luke and co, or has he instinctively come to appreciate the case for the empire?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp

Seriously, the film may be incredibly bad, but should we listen to people whose primary beef stems from the fact that Lucas has (probably ill-advisedly) decided to interject modern political commentary into the film? If he had created a parable in which the kindly Empire invaded Tatooine to oust the evil Hutt dictatorship and ended up fighting Sand People jihadists, the Weekly Standard crowd would be falling over themselves to praise the film.

Really. Not all that long ago, the National Review would have choked on its collective bile rather than review popular culture. My God, I miss Russell Kirk.

The parent post reminds me of this article (along a similar line of thought)by Jonathan Last (written regarding the previous installment)...

(original text found at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp )

The Case for the Empire Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong. by Jonathan V. Last 05/16/2002 12:00:00 AM

Jonathan V. Last, online editor

STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.

It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.

First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.

If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.

I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic

At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.

What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.

And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we mee

THE LAST STAR WARS
It opens next week. I saw it, and here's the thing: It's unbelievably bad. O I'm telling you this because movie critics won't. So far all the early reviews -- all of them, from Variety to the Hollywood Reporter to Time magazine -- have been favorable. Why? Because while the movie critics of my long-ago youth were middlebrow snobs suspicious of populist entertainment, today's critics have turned into toadies. They are afraid of being on an audience's bad side, afraid that a movie they will pan might really strike a chord. Since it's a foregone conclusion that the final Star Wars is going to make a jillion dollars, the safe thing for critics to do is say nice things about it. The only nice thing I can think to say about it is that it's not quite as mindspinningly wretched as its predecessor, Attack of the Clones, but it's plenty awful anyway. Even Yoda gives a rotten performance. Go see it if you must when it opens next week, but at least you got one fair warning here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062506

JAR JAR BINKS
[JAR JAR BINKS SPOILER]
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062515

Star Wars VI
THE FINAL Star Wars is, as writer-director George Lucas promised, a tragedy--but it's not the tragedy Lucas thinks it is. Ever since he began making his second set of Star Wars movies a decade ago, Lucas said that Episode III: Revenge of the Sith would be the unvarnished story of the young knight Anakin Skywalker's degeneration and conversion into the black-helmeted, black-outfitted Darth Vader, the villain of the first three films. The tale of woe it really tells is that of George Lucas himself, the final chapter in the sad degeneration of a vital, vivid, and highly amusing moviemaker into a dull, solipsistic, and humorless incompetent. Lucas had more than a quarter of a century to figure out why Anakin Skywalker went bad. And here's what he came up with: [SPOILERS FOLLOW]
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/ 000/000/005/611ajqxt.asp

"HOLD ME, ANNAKIN! HOLD ME AS YOU DID BY THE LAKE ON NABOO!"
Just a little taste of what Cornerites are in for if they go to see Star Wars at midnight. Enjoy.....suckers.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_15_corner-archive.asp#063403

Jason Appuzo [Liberty Film Festival] objected to the needless insertion of politics:

[LOTS OF SPOILERS]
This is in large part what irritates me about Lucas' recent remarks. He's actually created a good storyline here, and he's publicly clouding it with nonsense about Bush and the current war. Politics has nothing to do with Anakin's turn to the Dark Side. Revenge of the Sith takes a largely dismissive view of politics, and of movements (whether Jedi or Sith) that assert deep insight into human relations. This is why Vader's late utterances about "his Empire" - a clear dig at Bush - ring so phony, so out of place. Politics are not what have been motivating Anakin for the previous 2+ hours - then, out of nowhere, he starts speechifying like an adolescent Napoleon.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=1 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp stephen hayes has done outstanding work. read his book.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=1 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp stephen hayes has done outstanding work. read his book.

Would this be the same Richard Clarke who was head of US counterterrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton, when Bil Laden built his organization and pulled off such attacks as Khobar Towers, African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack?

Or would this be the same Richard Clarke who permitted Bin Laden family members to leave the US after 9/11?

Or the same Richard Clarke who blamed Bill Clinton for not destroying terrorist training camps after the USS Cole bombing?

If Clarke is right about anything, it's only because he's like a stopped clock - right twice a day only because of coincidence.

Or worse, regurgitated corporate PR releases.

Funny, that's what I thought journalists already did.

But at least there's an army of bloggers out there, willing to brave life and limb in the world's trouble spots, telling you how it really is from their armchairs.

Absolutely. If it weren't for all the brave journalists in Iraq, and covering the last election, we would have no clue what was going on.

Yeah, after all, Democrats have no experience with double-standards or speaking out against things they later happily accept.

Come on. Your post is rather biased. "The new(?) Republican thing?" You and I both know I could post as long a list of Democrat hypocrisy as you could of Republican hypocrisy. Welcome to politics; it sucks.

Just take a look at this, which, as you'll notice, isn't getting any mention in the media, because it's GOP-bashing season right now (well, all the time really). If it was claimed to be a Democratic memo, the media would be describing it as a Republican "Rove-esque" trick. Remember the Democratic memo during the election which talked about claiming voter fraud even when there were no claims of it? CNN, CBS, and the major newspapers completely ignored it...but they jumped on this. It's funny how that works, isn't it?

One of my favorite amusements is listening to people bitch and bitch about the hypocrisy of the other side as though their side doesn't take part in the same kind of crap every single day!

Yep, looks like France is a great place to be.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp?pg=1

The interesting part is this:

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire
to "take revenge on whites."

Sometimes petty theft appeared to be the initial motivation. One or two bullies would approach a student and ask for money or a cell phone. Even if the victim complied right away, they would start beating him or her. A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days. He saw students being beaten or pulled by the hair. He stressed that assailants who stole cell phones smashed them in front of their victims: "It was a game. Hatred and fun."

Kind of like the Seattle of Europe. The cops just stand around and watch.

The rebels are terrorists.

As a bona fide news junkie, my opinion after watching this guy across many networks for the last several years is that he is most interested in his own reputation. Not by exhibiting stellar ethics or by being correct on the issues, but by gilding the facts to best deflect the personal criticism of the moment.

As far as his statements in S.F. regarding Microsoft's security practices, he has a good point. But said security practices are so bad, someone mentioning it is akin to a toddler informing me that water is wet... it doesn't take a highly developed intellect to come to the conclusion.

Considering Richard Clarke's Clintonesque respect for 'the facts', why would anyone give him a serious ear? Most especially on a topic where he isn't saying something both true and unique from what other people are saying.

The left in America (I'm sorry, the People's Republic of America) seem to love the guy, but for the open minded who desire to learn more about him I submit:
Time Magazine article from 03/2004
Security Focus from 02/2003
The Daily Standard from 03/2004

Ethical men give you the facts like a recording, beware of folks who's version of what they call 'facts' develop over time, especially when they take a self serving direction.

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq