Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Hawash, Monomania, Rocketships

Tonight's Slashback arrives with updates on disappeared Intel contractor Mike Hawash, free Baen books, a new link for comparing space ship sizes, and more. Read on below for the details.

Yes, charges are nice after six weeks of unexplained incarceration. purdue_thor writes "The various news agencies (CNN, FoxNews) are reporting that after being held for six weeks, software engineer Mike Hawash has finally been charged. His detainment as a material witness and subsequent incarceration without formal charges was discussed previously on /. Friends of Mike Hawash have created a website to publicize his case and have released a statement regarding the charges."

Randolpho adds "The Free Mike Hawash website has released the following affidavit (PDF file) received from the Federal Terrorism Task Force. The affidavit states that Hawash traveled to China in 2001 with several co-conspirators 'in an attempt to enter Afghanistan to fight against United States forces.'"

This just in from the cork-topped bottle. danny writes "One of the disadvantages of living in Australia is that my review copies arrive late. But my review of Google Hacks may be of interest, even after honestpuck's earlier review."

Free as in books. Author John F.X. Sundman writes: "PDFs of the complete Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices are available for free download from wetmachine.com under the Creative Commons license."

And Robotech_Master writes "Remember the Honor Harrington CD-ROM, which Baen packaged with its most recent Honor Harrington book? The one that included over three dozen e-books and came with explicit permission to copy and share but not sell?

Well, Baen's done it again. The new CD comes with the fourth book in John Ringo's Aldenata trilogy, Hell's Faire . It includes still more free e-books, mp3s, and even a D20 Aldenata roleplaying game in electronic form. The book hits the stands this month, and the ISO is already available on-line. (Scarywater guy, please take note. :) Download it, burn it, give it to your friends...or buy the book and support one of the most Internet-clueful publishers out there today."

Free as in "you pay money." An anonymous reader submits "The original Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, was first a book, then a radio series. Adams edited both. All 7 hrs and 30 minutes of the Radio series have been released by the BBC in MP3 CD format. If you only caught the TV series this is a must."

I wish more audio books would arrive like this (compressed, so as to occupy fewer disks), though I'd choose a better method of audio compression ;) If you want to hear the HHGttG, though, a few minutes on Google will probably turn up some fan sites with recordings from the BBC broadcasts. (innocent whistling)

Yeah, but there's no Epcot Center. Sacarino writes "Las Vegas is *almost* on par with Disney now. The regularly-updated Monorail Society website has tons of pictures of the progress. Vegas' monorails are the same type as Disney's (Bombardier Mark VI), only with inwardly opening doors... slick! Also mentions the old MGM-Bally's monorail that's getting absorbed into the new automated network."

Is this what Microsoft thinks of viral licensing? Vagary writes "One of my friends just got a Microsoft router and asked me to check the security features for it. The ping denial doesn't work, which is good because a port scan found some pretty interesting things, including this string in the TCP/IP fingerprint: 'i586-pc-linux-gnu'. Does that mean Microsoft must provide Linux source to purchasers of this product?"

Can anyone confirm, deny or explain this interesting claim?

Click here to discuss the size of a fictional spacecraft ... photozz writes "The infamously slashdotted site comparing the relative sizes of several hundred starships from various Sci-Fi series has been mirrored to a somewhat more robust server. So cool. It's in draggable format, so you can put King Kong on top of Deep Space 9 and re-create a dream I had last night......."

483 comments

  1. Don't call him "disappeared" by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are doing a disservice to those who live with real memories of what being "disappeared" really meant. This guy is being held, and charged, on really indisputable evidence, and it is a matter of public record. The fact that he worked in your beloved computer industry does not change these facts. Take your whining elsewhere.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    1. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. While I have serious problems with Hawash being held without charges, his family knew he was being held, and he was at least peripherally assocaited with people who were al-Qaeda wannabes. And as some of the articles I've read state he had recently become more seriously orthodox Muslim, which unfortunately has a high correlation with militancy.

    2. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I take it from your postage you are most disinformed. "Disappeared" has many meanings, some obscure and others more potent. Take this meaning of disappeared: "being assraped in a shower stall of a prison". Whatever his crime was and whatever his motive rest assured the "john" not at the end of this raping was doing a disservice as well. And as for whining, leave it to "him" to fullfil all our needs of it.

    3. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cranos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was held for weeks if not months without charge. That is a breach of due process and a breach of his rights. As for indisputable evidence that is for a court, a civilian court to decide.

      The fact that he worked/works in the IT sector has got nothing to do with the fact that the government is increasingly moving towards a totalitarian ideal and is not worried about following those rules which mean the west can boast an independant judicial system, free from harrasement and influence from the executive.

      If you cannot see this then I suggest you remove your rose-coloured glasses and take a real good look at what is happening.

    4. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by renehollan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are doing a disservice to those who live with real memories of what being "disappeared" really meant.

      This kind of complaint really sickens me.

      "How dare you complain he was murdered... at least he wasn't tortured first!"

      "How dare you complain you were raped... at least you weren't murdered."

      "How dare you complain you were financially cheated... at least you weren't physically hurt."

      In other words, "How dare you complain about your lot... it could be worse." To me that sounds like either an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavour, or a threat.

      More importantly, if we tolerate the little injustices, we just embolden those who would have us suffer bigger ones. While it it wise to pick one's battles, and not fight every little harm, this does not mean that we find them acceptable because of the possibility of worse ones.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    5. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was held without charges for six weeks and now he's been charged.
      Interesting that you know the evidence is "indisputable"... I thought that's what the courts were for... but then, In Bush's Amerika, we don't need no stinking courts... we just lock up enemies of the state and throw away the key.

    6. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your examples aren't at all like what the parent poster meant. It's more like saying someone was murdered when they were only slapped. This guy didn't disappear and was being held legally (based on court rulings going back decades) and on top of that he's now been charged with a crime.

    7. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This guy didn't disappear and was being held legally (based on court rulings going back decades)

      Citations please?

      Or, has due process gone the way of the dodo bird for longer than I thought?

      This certainly ranks as an injustice worth making a stink over.

      Even Timothy McVeigh was better served by justice when certain irregularities in his prosecution were discovered -- and he certainly qualified as a terrorist, though I'm sure many were disappointed that he wasn't Muslim.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    8. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "The disappeared" has a specific meaning it acquired in Argentina and has since referred to those captured and subsequently permanently removed with no record or comment, ever.

      It is a much different thing than someone being held as a material witness as a matter of public record, and later charged. We will know of the happenings with Mr. Hawash. Call it being held without charges, call it a suspension of habeas corpus (though again you'd be wrong for other reasons), but don't him one of the disappeared. I wasn't saying simply that it could be worse, I was saying that the terminology was being applied incorrectly for emotional effect.

      As Orwell would probably say, the dilution of language that comes from overstatement and misuse is a bigger danger, and I'm not suggesting "tolerating" the little injustices, just keeping them in a proper sense of scale.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    9. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      How can anyone read the parent post and think that it says 'At least he wasn't murdered'.

      It's quite obviously a complaint against the inappropriate use of 'disappeared' in relation to someone who has been in plain sight over the whole time he was in custody. "Disappeared" refers to someone who just disappears, is never seen or heard from again and who invariably turns out to have been murdered by extra-judicial death squads.

      If anyone from South America is reading the initial post they might have different ideas of how appropriate it is to describe what happened here as 'disappeared'.

      As far as the whining complaint is concerned, I tend to agree that this guy is no Skylarov and the case is probably not really /. material. That doesn't mean I agree with what happened to him.

    10. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He was held as a material witness. Nice and legal. And let's not mince words, people here are interested in him because he works in "our" industry. It's inconcievable that an IT worker, (and an American citizen, no less!) would want to answer the call to jihad. Nope, he makes money in computers, so he must be innocent. Note the deafening silence regarding his conspirators.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      As Orwell would probably say, the dilution of language that comes from overstatement and misuse is a bigger danger, and I'm not suggesting "tolerating" the little injustices, just keeping them in a proper sense of scale.

      The irony inherent in your statement nearly bowled me over with laughter. After all, completely ignoring the man's Constitutional rights for six weeks can't amount to much more than a 'little injustice', can it? Hey, can I have some freedom fries with that?

      Let's see what you think when the government comes and kidnaps *you*, then holds you incommunicado without due process for a month and a half. Bet you change your tune right quick.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    12. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Not legal. It is a fiction made up by the "Partriot Act". There is no Consitutional basis for such patently absurd incarcerations. This will be a nice test case, though none really is needed, once these bogus "associating with alleged terrorists" charges get thrown out. Note the deafening silence of your brain trying to operate on a menial level.

    13. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cyril3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      completely ignoring the man's Constitutional rights for six weeks

      vs

      kidnapped by death squads and tortured for no reason other than infliction of pain then executed in secret, body dumped in secret mass grave, no information ever given to family.

      that's scale. Even you could pick the 'little injustice' involved here as distinct from the grossly illegal activity of state sponsored terrorists.

      And how could he change his tune if he already is "not suggesting "tolerating" the little injustices. In case you don't understand plain english that means he doesn't agree with what happened here.

      You wouldn't understand irony if you read the definition.

    14. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cranos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm not being an American I may be wrong about this, but doesn't the constitution garauntee against exactly this sort of thing? I thought government wasn't allowed to detain citizens without pretty good evidence that they had actually committed a crime. Also doesn't it allow something called freedom of association?

      Oh I get it, it's alright to hang out with Fundamentalist Christian Militias but not with Fundamentalist Islamic Militias (if in fact that is what he did, nothing has been proved yet).

    15. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While everything you said is true-enough, I'm not sure how it is a reply to the grandparent's argument. The grandparent didn't say this wasn't "a breach of due process" or "a breach of his rights" or even that our government isn't "increasingly moving towards a totalitarian ideal ", they just said this wasn't a case of being "disappeared". If someone says "disappeared" to me, I think kidnapped by the government without a trace. This is a case of being kidnapped by the government in front of everyone with a really weak excuse. Clearly he'd be in deeper shit if people weren't watching what was happening to him and saying he was "disappeared" is an attempt to falsely sensationalize this situation. I think the situation is sensational enough as it is and we shouldn't need to be deceptive about it.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    16. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by geekee · · Score: 1

      You completely missed the point. Saying this guy was disappeared because he was held six weeks before being charged instead of the normal limit belittles the experience of those who have really been disappeared,i.e. sent to jail for years or even executed because of speaking out about their views. This guy did more than speak out, according to the govt., and he is being charged and tried. Basically, quit insulting our intelligence by trying to put the US govt. actions on the level of totalitarian states, and quit using the slippery slope logical fallicy to claim the govt's actions in these case will lead us to such a totalitarian state.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    17. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be sure to let us know when he testifies in that trial he was supposed to be a material witness in, won't you?

    18. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      It's not a Patriot Act invention, it's been around, but they usually used it for the War on Drugs and the War on the Mob instead of the War on Terror. It's for forcing people who have firsthand evidence of a crime to testify. Like if a guy sees a hit but won't come in due to threats to his family, or whatever. Of course, using it to suck people up before they come up with something to charge them with is a newer interpretation.

    19. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And, had the nerds not noticed, would he have disappeared without a peep from the intel boys or the media? Something tells me the world would have gotten the usual "they don't need to know, so why tell them" treatment.

      Hey, but at least they aren't performing public executions of dissenters.

      Yet.

    20. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared, and it's inappropriate to distill the meaning lest we forget what being disappeared really means.

      Reminds me of PETA a few months back likening pictures of animals being slaughtered to jews in concentration camps during Nazi germany (they showed the photos side-by-side with some comments about how it was just as bad). The worst part of it is that the local news (I'm around Norfolk) interviewed the president of PETA and she really didn't understand the problem, giving some off-the-cuff (i.e. poorly thought out) answer about how she thought it was a good comparison.

      The fact that he worked in a computer related field does in fact have a lot to do with this. A lot of computer professionals are very left-leaning. Worse yet, many are young and naive. While most liberals are not young and naive, it seems the majority of young and naive people are liberals.

      The really sad part is that both the liberal and conservative camps have their fair share of good ideas, but hard-liners are too opposed to different thinking and instead are just looking for a fight.

      You see it on Slashdot every day. Irrational discussion does not bode well for the represntative democracy that we have. It takes compromise. Furthermore, it takes a well-informed (not well-brainwashed) public.

      Making statements about how our country is rapidly heading towards totalitarianism does not bode well with the general public. Statements likening holding someone with public knowledge to holding someone without public knowledge do not fare well either. Nobody wants to hear this crap. It makes people feel helpless. It makes people feel like there's nothing they can do. It is that feeling that is really driving this country towards totalitarianism.

      Reminds me of a great Beatles song: "You say you want a revolution, well you know we'd all love to see the plan." ... "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!"

    21. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understood, his friends and family were not allowed to visit, nor told where he was. This is akin to somebody taking your mother, telling you that they have her, and not letting you see her or verify that she is alright. Kind of like, ummmm, KIDNAPPING!

    22. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by renehollan · · Score: 1
      ...quit using the slippery slope logical fallicy to claim the govt's actions in these case will lead us to such a totalitarian state.

      When this totalitarian state is reached, and I'd have nothing to lose, I expect I would be sorely tempted to seek the likes of you out, and cleave your head open with an ax, just to satisfy a desire to "tell you so!". For it is the inaction of people like you (i.e. generally "good" people doing nothing) that, more than anything else, leads to such totalitarian states precisely because of the mistaken belief that it won't.

      On the other hand, until those events come to pass, you are free to nay say all you want, and I shall peacefully tolerate your right to do so.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    23. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason they knew where he was was because his wife got the lawyers hunting for him right away! They "intended" to "disappear" him is just like he "intended" to help the taliban. The fact that the lawyers didn't allow it is of no significance.

      Besides, who's to say that he wouldn't have been put with a violent murderer and attacked or killed? The net effect is the same.

      If they now have charges, why weren't they presented 6 weeks ago? The latest of the info is better than a year old! They classified him wrongly as a "material witness". That could [and should] be considered purgery because now that they are called for it, they are presenting charges! Also you have different rights as a MW in that you can't incriminate yourself because you aren't charged with a crime. That's why they needed a seperate law to lock you up! They clearly have broken that rule also.

      Like many other posters have said, this is the beginning of a bad thing! As you can see from "patriot", the "justice" department will rewrite the rules when everybody is doing it. So, yes, it's a big deal! Most of the executive branch [prez, fbi, cia, local cops] have no intention of following the Constitution as it applies to our rights. I have heard Law enforcement at all levels say that the Constitution "gets in the way" of enforcement. It needs to be stopped now!

    24. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when is a little injustice alright? When it saves the lives of 25 million people? One million? Five thousand? One hundred? One?

      The government is guilty of causing an injustice. Not a little injustice, not a great injustice, an injustice. The government isn't going after this man because he's a little bit of a terrorist.

      And you wouldn't understand 'a little' if you looked at your dick!

    25. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "He was held as a material witness. Nice and legal."

      Anyone who makes a statement like that needs to spend some time learning United States history and exactly what the purpose of the Constitution is. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, supersedes all other laws that conflict with it. The constitution makes no provision for lenghty imprisonment without charges on grounds that the person imprisoned is a material witness. It does on the other hand contain items specifically stating that such action on the part of the government is illegal. Just because Congress passed some legislation saying it was legal does not actually make it so, any more than passing a law to make it legal to kill all U.S. citizens found to be of Islamic descent in a gas chamber would make such action legal.

    26. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL BICUG:

      here's one article that mentions the material witness statute being enacted in 1984.

      This certainly ranks as an injustice worth making a stink over.

      No shit, I don't think that they were implying that this is by any means OK, but it's certainly not an unjustice worth lying about. Let the truth speak for itself.

    27. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As long as we're all clear that "legal" is very different than Constitutional, my jack booted friend.

    28. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      ummmmmm, I said kidnapping in both cases. Maybe you missed it because I didn't use all caps and exclamation points.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    29. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by renehollan · · Score: 1
      From the article you reference: The material witness statute was enacted in 1984. It provides that "prosecutors may seek an arrest warrant if a potential witness's testimony is "material" to a criminal proceeding and the individual is likely to flee. A judge must approve the warrant, and the witness is entitled to a bond hearing and a court-appointed attorney."

      Harumph.

      1. Still sounds unconstitutional to me (unconstitutional laws, once found unconstitutional, act as if they never existed).

      2. Looks like right to counsel is also being usurped here.

      Of course, IANAL either, but I would prefer an accusation of being mistaken in the face of potential ignorance of the law, rather than one of being deliberately deceitful (which I am not).

      --
      You could've hired me.
    30. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Randolpho · · Score: 4, Insightful
      completely ignoring the man's Constitutional rights for six weeks

      vs

      kidnapped by death squads and tortured for no reason other than infliction of pain then executed in secret, body dumped in secret mass grave, no information ever given to family.
      You know... that's quite unfair. It *starts* at your first part, with minor inconveniences, and ends with the second, with major injustice and pain. In the words of Martin Niemoller:

      First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

      I, for one, would like to head the Nazis off at the pass.
      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    31. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by fliplap · · Score: 1

      Ah, so now they've told him what he was a witness to.
      "Sir, we believe you're a witness to a crime"

      ...A month and a half later...

      "We believe YOU commited that crime, and therefore are a witness. See, totally legal. So we just held you here, in solitary, until we figured out what we wanted to charge you with. No, you may not see a copy of the consitution"

    32. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like "disappearing", but don't tell that to the troll at the top of this thread or his apologists.

    33. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by pseudonymouse · · Score: 1
      "How dare you complain he was murdered... at least he wasn't tortured first!"

      This style of argument is common enough (and as objectionable as you suggest), but I gather the original poster was saying something different -- he was complaining about extending the definition of the term 'disappeared'.

      My understanding of the term agrees with his, i.e. that it refers to people being taken away and never heard from again. You don't know where they were taken, if they are dead or alive, and you can't find out because no one will answer your questions (and if you push too hard, you may be 'disappeared' yourself). This has been a common procedure in many places, from ancient history into modern times, and this isn't what happened to Hawash.

      What did happen is that he was very publicly taken to prison, but not charged with anything for six weeks. I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a violation of the sixth amendment (right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, etc.). Violating constitutional rights is serious, and trying to establish it as normal policy is more serious, but to be 'disappeared' is a different thing.

      Using the term 'disappeared' is hyperbolic rhetoric, like calling the release of a virus 'terrorism' (a term that's supposed to refer to the attempt to dominate or control people by acts inducing fear and intimidation), or calling violation of copyright 'piracy' or 'theft' (the latter's traditional use refers to "feloniously removing personal property with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of same").

      --
      In a free society you are who you say you are. -- Mumford
    34. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      And you wouldn't understand 'a little' if you looked at your dick!

      No, but you would.

      So when is a little injustice alright?

      Are you suggesting that somewhere in my post I gave someone the impression that I believed that a little injustice is alright. Can I just state clearly right here then that the ends do not justify the means. OK. Do you understand that.

      I am talking about the propensity of some people to inflate language in the way described by Orwell.

      The government is guilty of causing an injustice Yes

      The geek was 'disappeared' No.

      It seems to me that you are the one who has difficulty in telling the difference between small and large. If you can't see any difference between the two situations I outlined then we have nowhere to go with this conversation.

    35. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      WOW. It is becuase of thoughts like this that I support the ACLU. There are times where I wonder what in the world the ACLU is thinking, but at times like this, I am happy that they are around to fight such things.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    36. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Two of the links of papers on your resumé you've written are to Slashdot features. Dude, that's just sick.

    37. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      It *starts* at your first part, with minor inconveniences, and ends with the second, with major injustice and pain.

      Yes I'm sorry, I totally forgot that every time throughout history where a state has falsely arrested someone there inevitably followed the brutal repression of the general population and the uncontrolled reign of para-military death squads intent on liquidation of dissenters and unworthy minorities based on race, creed, colour and/or sexual preference without forgetting those with physical or mental disabilities including age and general infirmity.

      I, for one, would like to head the Nazis off at the pass.

      So, you support the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq then. Which brutal fascist dictatorship do you think the coalition should go after next. Syria? Saudi Arabia? North Korea?

    38. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      It's for forcing people who have firsthand evidence of a crime to testify.

      That or for protecting them from the real kind of "disappearing", courtesy of the Mafia or Al-Qaeda.

      ABW

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    39. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      What, the thought that just because a man changes his citizenship, he becomes incapable of jihad?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    40. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but you would.

      He would understand little if he looked at your dick?

    41. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Jimithing DMB:

      While most liberals are not young and naive, it seems the majority of young and naive people are liberals.

      Where do you live and do they allow immigration?

      Seriously, where I live the ``young and naive'' are so far to the right it's scary. My university had pro-war rallies, and recently had a big creationism shindig. Most students seem to think the current U.S. administration is ``moderate.'' They're so far from left they can't even recognize it when they see it; anti-establishment isn't Ché Guevara, it's Jesse Ventura.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    42. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about G.W.Bush?

      It seems to me, that lots of people are afraid. Some people are afraid of terrorists. These people support wars in other countries, in the hope that they will stop terrorism. Other people are afraid of the erosion of our rights. These people are starting to speak up.

      So, what are you afraid of?

    43. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Take this meaning of disappeared: "being assraped in a shower stall of a prison".

      That's a silly abuse of the language. If you know where he is he hasn't been "disappeared". For that matter, if he's known to be alive, he certainly isn't.

      the disappeared plural noun
      people who have been killed by a government or army, usually for political reasons, and whose bodies have not been found
      Cambridge Dictionary
      One would hope that people concerned with precision of expression (eg those who write computer code, as most do here) would be more careful with how they use words.
    44. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      What has that got to do with defending the right of every US citizen to due process? So maybe he is guilty; you are saying that we should throw out everybody's rights now, because violating one person's rights actually caught a real criminal in this case? I recommend you go read up on the principles on which your country was founded.

    45. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by mark2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh course why not just arrest all orthodox muslims? There must be tens of millions of them worldwide, of which 15 flew planes into the WTC. That is not a particulalry high correlation of militancy is it?

      Why not arrest orthodox Jews as well as there is also a "high" correlation between them and shootings of small children by settlers in the West Bank.

    46. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, this used to be true. After 9-11 if the word "terrorist" was used, people felt safe that our government was doing the right thing, regardless of if it infringed upon our basic rights as citizens of the USA. Of note, these changes were never a matter of public election by those that it would affect the most.

    47. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Orwellian sense of language inflation was taking something that seemed innocuous to represent something that was not. So something like "doubleplusungood" could mean anything, but it *sounded* innocent.

      In this case, "disappearing" already has a bad connotation. Using it does not make someone think that it's suddenly OK, in fact it has the exact opposite effect that Orwell's inflation did.

    48. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      How about the unelected junta that supports para-military death squads intent on liquidation of dissenters if the dissenters happen to be leftwing, and that same unelected junta that cares nothing about the rights of women, gays, minorities, the poor, or even people who like to be able to breathe clean air or drink clea water.

      Crawl back in your FOX "news" hole.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    49. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by (void*) · · Score: 1

      Yes, young and naive means they picked put the dogma from their mother's womb.

    50. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      First of all, we're not talking necessarily about false arrest, but about wrongful imprisonment. Hawash spent more than a month in jail before he was even *arraigned*, something that's *supposed* to happen within 3 days in most states. And he would have been there longer if it weren't for the higher-ups at Intel backing the Free Mike Hawash campaign, IMO.

      *That's* what I'm talking about. Not a false arrest, but an arrest that never has the chance to be shown as false or true! An arrest where the government merely says "We think he's guilty, and you'll just have to believe. No, you're not going to get your proof, now just go back to watching you reality TV and leave the real world to us."

      That's where oppression starts, when the people turn a blind eye to minor things the government does.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    51. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Only the pilots knew where the planes were going, we do not know the number of willing participants (the goons were sent over just before the attacks).
      2. Someone whining about defense from rock throwers is someone who has never been hit by a rock. (If a computer is all you know, search for "Goliath", but you probably can find someone willing to throw a rock or baseball at you...)
    52. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homos.

    53. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Maybe this will make it very clear for all the fuckwits who seem to have some sort of mental block.

      He WAS disappeared. He is no longer, because now his location is a matter of public record, etc, etc.

      Even in Argentina, some of the dissapeared were eventually found, alive and (sort of) well. Are you going to tell them they weren't dissappeared either?
      Or, more likely, is this some sort of emotional reaction to the idea that "disappearing" people is something that can't possibly happen in this country, so you come up with tons of explanations why it's not as bad?

      He wasn't "publically" taken to prison. He was abducted from the parking lot at his place of employment. The people holding him would not admit to having taken him, nor to holding him, nor to his location for several weeks.

      This is not functionally different from anything that happened in Argentina save that this has a happy ending, while dissapearences there did not.

      Are Argentinian death squads worse? Yes. Does that matter relevent to this discussion? No.

    54. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Where did I say that?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    55. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by blackbear · · Score: 1

      doesn't the constitution garauntee against exactly this sort of thing?

      You are correct on both counts, except that the US Constitution garauntees nothing. It is a blueprint for the restraint of, and operation of, a government. The problem is that government will not restrain itself. It is up to the people to do that. The founding documents of the U.S. even tell us that we (American Citizens) have the God given right and responsibility to overthrow our government if it becomes tyranical.

      Of course there are many other safegards for correcting infringments on liberty short of overthrow. I think that it was, and is, hoped that it will never come to that.

      The people, however, must have the will to live free. The Constitution, therefore, does not garauntee freedom. It simply reminds us (U.S. Citizen or not) that we all have a right to take what belongs to us; by force if necessary.

      Sic Semper Tyrannis - but only if we take the risk

    56. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by TooTallFourThinking · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think that computer code is not quite as ambigious as the English language.

    57. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by dvk · · Score: 1

      Probably lives in New York State, like me.
      Yes, you can not only immigrate, but if you're left-wing enough, and have lots of money and powerful friends, you'll be elected Senator in less than a year.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    58. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit dvk:

      Probably lives in New York State, like me.

      That's the same New York with a Republican governor and a Republican mayor in its largest city, right? Sounds pretty lefty.

      if you're left-wing enough, and have lots of money and powerful friends, you'll be elected Senator in less than a year.

      What a sad commentary it is that you can refer to a Clinton as `left wing'... Center-right is more like it. Making a big show out of being pro-choice and gay-friendly does not qualify someone as a leftist, only a talk-the-talk cultural liberal. Or was there a genuinely leftist senator you were referring to?

      You show me someone who is actually willing to talk unhysterically about state ownership of the means of production and who is willing actively to pursue redistribution of wealth, and I'll show you a leftist. AFAIK there aren't any in national politics.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    59. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was just trying to follow the general thread of reasoning here. You first posted essentially saying that we shouldn't complain he was held without due process because he is (or could be) guilty. (The "material witness" point is really just a bit of a lame technicality -> one need only consider the underlying REASON why American citizens have 'due process' in the first place to realise that it ONLY makes sense if there AREN'T technical workarounds to it. American citizens have right to due process - period. There is no "if this yes, if that no", if that was the case, then you might as well throw due process out totally). Humans (and that includes the judge) WILL abuse the system if it is closed - you CANNOT just trust a small handful of people to not abuse the system, if you look at history, you'd realise that would be stupid.

      So, WindBourne thought your thoughts were dangerous (dangerous in that if enough people thought the same, US society would be in trouble). So he says thats why he still supports the ACLU, i.e. to protect against these dangerous thoughts.

      So your response was to counter that we shouldn't defend this man because he is capable of jihad, apparently thinking that WindBourne was making the mistake of thinking that he must be innocent, in other words thinking that WindBourne was defending *Hawash* and not Hawash's *general rights* (to due process). So what I'm saying is, whether or not Hawash is guilty has nothing to do with WindBourne's point, that Hawash (and EVERY US citizen) still has rights to due process.

    60. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by dvk · · Score: 1

      Umm... must be a breezy day in Hell... someone actually thoughtfully responded to my right-wing post instead of modding down :)
      Well, let's go through the points:

      1) "That's the same New York with a Republican governor and a Republican mayor in its largest city, right?"

      Sadly, registering on the ballot as a Republican does not a Republican make. As Mike Bloomberg clearly demonstrates. He seems to have managed to tick off EVERYONE - left, right (me included :), his former employees (lots of people I know work[ed] for Bloomberg LLP), and probably everyone else too :)
      The guy is pro-high-taxes and rather to the left socially (he seems to be, like Rudy, pro-gay-rights, for example). NOT a poster boy for Grand Old Party.
      Oh, and the only reason he got elected at all, as opposed to his very left-wing opponent, was Rudy's post-9/11 influence. You should have seen the polls before Rudy started to endorse him.

      2) "Sounds pretty lefty."
      A city whose legislature includes former "Black Panthers" and other people of similar ideological persuasion? A State with 2 Democratic Senators?
      A borough where in the last election all but 2 local choices were between Democrat and Liberal party? I'd call it pretty lefty. Although probably not compared to my last place of rsidence (hint: its name had 4 letters and it ain't on the map anymore :)

      3) "You show me someone who is actually willing to talk unhysterically about state ownership of the means of production and who is willing actively to pursue redistribution of wealth, and I'll show you a leftist."

      Desire to tax me to death to pay off her "disenfranchised" (read: lazy bums who don't want to work as hard as I do, even if I don't know how to spell the word) voter is precisely what "redistribution of wealth" is.
      Oh, and her health care stuff plus "let's steal the child from parents and raise it with a village" very nearly falls into the "state ownership of the means of production" category. After all, in USA, health care and education are rather important sectors of life and economy.

      4) Although I have to agree, "talk-the-talk cultural liberal" is a great label for her.

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    61. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I'd like to think that computer code is not quite as ambigious as the English language.

      That was my point.

    62. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Local cops are not part of the executive branch. Hence the fact that they're *local*. There are federal cops of various sorts, like the national park ranger who pulled me over outside DC for speeding 37mph over the limit. He gave me a ticket that required I go to federal district court to have the fine levied by a federal judge. Creepily, that same court would later be the court used to try the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh. Also, it's not really the Constitution that gets in the way of the government, since the constitution is what outlines how the government will be 'constituted.' It's really the Bill of Rights that gets in the way, as Rights are really just restrictions on what the government can and cannot do. Which is obviously why all this 'rights' crap gets in the way so often. Sorry to nitpick.

    63. Re:Don't call him "disappeared" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      In your case, you were on feds juristiction [DC is directly a fed "territory", and the court was federal. But that doesn't really matter. [other than you need to follow the rules! In my state, they'd have towed your car just to make you walk & pay $$ to get it back for that stunt!]

      All police are "executive" branch of whatever locality [US] that you're in; They "execute" the points of the law. The Prosecutor/DA is also an executive branch appointee [sometimes elected]...But anyway, that's not the point...

      My point is that anti-BOR comments have been made and documented publicly by "all levels" of law enforcement in just about "all" 50 states. It's a huge problem. They manapulate the courts and the laws to use "justice" as a punishment al by itself. They don't feel the need to follow the laws we already have! And we keep wanting to give theses guys "more" power?

  2. The New American Gulag Archipelago by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Troll

    "The Free Mike Hawash website has released the following affidavit (PDF file) received from the Federal Terrorism Task Force. The affidavit states that Hawash traveled to China in 2001 with several co-cospirators 'in an attempt to enter Afghanistan to fight against United States forces.'"

    Oh, so he is An Offical Enemy of the State, I say send him to Guantanamo and lock him up for life - due process? Pfth, who needs it.

    1. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Xerithane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, so he is An Offical Enemy of the State, I say send him to Guantanamo and lock him up for life - due process? Pfth, who needs it.

      Considering he went to Hong Kong and associated with 5 people who were trying to fight with the Taliban, it doesn't look to good for him.

      Moral of the story, don't help terrorists!

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      If he is not a U.S. citizen and/or is committing acts that demomonstrate a lack of allegiance to the U.S., I don't see why he should be treated as such.

      He isn't merely a criminal; he is a combatant and a threat to U.S. national security. The nature of his crimes are an entirely different beast than stealing, rape or murder. There are, hard as it may be to fathom, much worse things. The issue is much bigger, and much more complicated, than simply charging and trying a simple criminal.

    3. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by arcturus21 · · Score: 1


      First off, he has been, in fact, a citizen of the United States for over 10 years.

      Second, I disagree that it is an entirely different crime. Allegedly, he held the intent to kill or injure someone in Afghanistan (presumably US soldiers, although I didn't see it specified). While this is clearly a horrible and heinous crime, it is murder (and treason).

      More importantly, if the government is allowed to hold citizens with only vague public statements and no evidence in treason cases, where do we draw the line? Without saying anything to the public, there is nothing to stop them from holding those they have no evidence against. We can only hope those at every level have good intentions. As we have learned time and time again, maybe implicitly trusting everyone isn't a great idea.

    4. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      Not only is he a US citizen and hence entitled to all rights under the US constitution but he hasn't even been tried yet.

      Shit has everyone forgotten the concept of innocent until proven otherwise? It's the major foundation of the justice system, the idea that arbitrary judgements cannot be made until ALL the evidence has been presented.

      As for your claim that being a combatant against the US is worse than a murderer or rapist, go talk to a rape victim or the family of a murder victim and ask them which is worse.

      Ah right wingers you gotta love em, scream and rant and rave when the government decides to get involved with social work like health care but can't wait to throw away concepts such as basic human rights when its someone they don't like.

    5. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by hpa · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" Ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

    6. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free association. Look it up. In the Constitution.

      You do forget to use the world alleged in your posting. You may want to next time.

    7. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      He's getting a trial. He's been charged with a crime. RTFA.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't 'terrorists' until September 11th. Before then, I thought it would be useful to go there and do a thorough and impartial study of a young fundamentalist society for my graduate degree and I'm a white Catholic. Does interest show support?
      I've talked to and lent money to friends who are in jail now for murder, did I want to help a murderer?

    9. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just thought I'd let you know Shitgas, since it seems you're one of the more ignorant folks I've run across in the comments here. The Taliban were the religious leaders of Afghanistan..al-Qaeda were the terrorists. Yes, they weren't very -good- leaders, but there's a difference between the two groups.

      Now I'm sure to a redneck like yourself all those "brown" people are the same anyway, but if you don't want to embarrass yourself any further, I'd suggest you read a book. Or watch the news. Or just shoot yourself in the empty head and get it over with.

    10. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA, he was held without charge for six weeks. If they were going to charge him with treason or whatever they should have done so at the beginning not six weeks later. It's all about due process and the rule of law. The concept of being held without charge is wrong and not only makes a mockery of the justice system but seriosly affects the accused's human rights - the right to presumend innocence.

    11. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by bobbozzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your rights are belong to U.S.!
      -- John Ashcroft

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    12. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      Associated? Good Lord, what a heinous crime! We must execute him at once! Everyone knows that associating with criminals turns you into one!

      There's some very good reasons the phrase 'guilt by association' has such negative connotations. Help terrorists? According to you, it's a crime just to be in the same coffee shop with them.

      This trend towards preemptive law enforcement has really got me worried. Bad enough that there's so many laws there's not a single person in the US who isn't guilty of at least one felony, but we have to contend with 'you _could_ be a criminal' justice as well?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    13. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      And here I thought he was just some random "non-white" guy the feds picked up because we're in a police state. He was just minding his business, coding for Intel. Uh huh.

    14. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by silentbozo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically, from what I can glean from the news sources, this guy was the perfect example of an immigrant who "made it" and became an exemplary American citizen. He's married to an American (a Christian, according to the WSJ), owns a house, has kids, and is a trusted member of his company (Intel) and is preety much an ideal upscale, upstanding citizen.

      Basically, there was a bunch of disgruntled outcasts in the local area who wanted to "go fight the US on behalf of the Taliban", the FBI nabbed them, then nabbed him too because he employed one of these miscreants, and because he traveled to China. Then, it looks like they held him for 6 weeks without charges until they could dig up something to charge him with. Understandably, this whole process has pissed off many of his friends, and scared his family senseless (having an armed squad of guys descending on your house to grab everything after the head of the household has been carted off to jail is not a fun experience.)

      Is he innocent? Is he guilty? Well, that remains to be seen. But clearly, he's not another wanna-be Taliban drifter like John Walker Lindh or Richard Reid, or a short-term agent like Mohammed Atta. On the face of it, it smells like another witchunt, like what happened with the Chinese guy (Wen Ho Lee) that worked at Los Alamos until they decided to charge him with treason...

    15. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind Faux News does not count.

    16. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good consumer. Thats a good boy. Yes, the CIA always tells the truth. They are not an institution of spying and information manipulation. They do not practice misinformation. Thats a good little consumer.

      Just keep driving your SUV, eating your grease burger, and agree with everything the tee vee box tells you. Thats a good boy! You've been such a good boy I think I'll give you gas for only $1.829 a gallon instead of $1.849 and give you a $5 a year tax cut. You are such a good boy. Yes you are!

    17. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how the affidavit relies on multiple unnamed paid informants ("sources") as evidence of Hawash associating with other people. Even with all this hand-waving, the PDF still fails to make even a basic case under any reasonable manner of scrutiny. The horror is a judge read this affidavit and decided to allow things to proceed. I am reminded of Waco, Texas, in terms of an insufficient affidavit being the basis for government action against its citizens.

    18. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Randolpho · · Score: 4, Funny
      Associated? Good Lord, what a heinous crime! We must execute him at once! Everyone knows that associating with criminals turns you into one!
      You know... every one of his neighbors is a terrorist co-conspirator. Don't forget his coworkers. They've all associated with him.

      And it's only a few steps until Kevin Bacon is locked up.
      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    19. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      First: get a fucking clue you dolt-level morons, I said "and/or." I can't edit my post, so the original text is there. Hire a fucking tutor if you need help understanding what I said.

      Now, back to the program, kids:

      No, this person is NOT a simple criminal.

      If some random country decided to conquer the U.S., what would we do, hold trials for those leaders who ordered their troops into combat? Hold trials for the soldiers? No, because they're not simple criminals. A spy or terrorist working against the U.S. is no different than a general ordering their troops into combat, or even the troops themselves; both seek to dismantle the very mechanisms under which you feel they should be tried.

      Those mechanisms are for rape, murder, theft, corporate espionage, etc., committed in the U.S. which were not a direct threat to national security. When national security is threatened, we react differently. We activate armies, bomb targets and hold individuals NOT as simple criminals, but as combatants.

      Imagine having to let prisoners of war go because they were not given arraignment within a reasonable period of time, and those soldiers go straight home and pick up their weapons get right back into combat against.

      Now, imagine this terrorist is held as a simple criminal, and they don't have enough proof to charge him right away. Or, the proof they have is sort of lightweight and he gets bail, posts it and walks away. He gets to go home and detonate the bomb he just finished building which wipes out all of Washington D.C.?

      This is the level of crime we are talking about; a threat to our security as an entire nation.

      Paranoid? Uh, sure...as if something like WTC couldn't happen. It can and it does happen, especially if you're so busy worry about people farting in your daisies that you go limp-wristed and are terrified to shoot spies.

      You people are idiots, the lot of you.

    20. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      "associated with"?

      Maybe they mean "had dinner with", "had sex with", "watched a movie with".

      Chances are that you have probably and unknowingly had dinner with someone carrying a traffickable amount of a prohibited substance. Wouldn't it just be a shame if that person happened to be implicated in a major felony soon after that dinner, perhaps involving another "associate".

      Feel free to reflect on your ability to choose your associates while we hold you for 6 weeks without charge...

    21. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You're another one who doesn't get the "and/or" joined conjunction. So much for the state of public education these days.

      Aside from that, I don't agree with you. They are treasonous, sure, but this guy is also a combatant. He was treated like a combatant, and when they are sure that he has been de-fanged, they'll bring him out of the hole and then try him, as usual, for treason.

    22. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      He was held because he was a combatant. He is no different than a soldier fighting against the U.S.. You cannot simply arraign him and allow him to post bail. Only when he is deemed no longer a threat to national security can he be let out and then tried.

      I'm sorry if you vagina gets chaffed by this, but this is how it is.

      Rob a liquor store: arraignment and bail. Rape the neighbor: arraignment and bail. Plot to destroy the United States: the fucking hole for as long as it takes to be sure you can't do us any harm.

      Oh fucking well.

    23. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Alright, Perry Mason, riddle me this:

      An Iraqi is sitting in a small fenced-off area outside Baghdad, held by American forces. Why? What is he being charged with? The rumor is, a private saw him with a gun, but no one can name the private and there is no written documentation about the circumstances under which he was apprehended.

      How can this be!?!? Oh no! What evil forces are at work here!?!?

      It's called combat, and the guy is considered a combatant. They don't have to prove or present ANYTHING so long as they feel he poses a danger to national security. They can't do this indefinitely, but they can do it. It's how you keep guys you've caught trying to kill from getting away and killing you. It's smart, not stupid. Anyone who wishes it were otherwise should maybe go start another country and calling themselves Dumbassland. Or France.

    24. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by error0x100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't confuse defending the man's rights with defending the man. Maybe he is guilty, but that doesn't make the lack of due process any less noxious. Remember, the rights to due process are your rights too, and that of every other US citizen. You want to excuse this incident because he is guilty? Fine, just don't complain next time its you held without due process for something you didn't do.

    25. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by elmegil · · Score: 1

      And of course we all know the government never makes false claims against people. (for the record, that was the first one I found that fit my chosen example; since I'm not a professional government whistleblower and don't have access to Lexis Nexis I am not in a position to cite every case ever where the government has admitted to using false evidence)

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    26. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Here's an even better example of the extent of our government's duplicity. And you don't think these guys would make mistakes (to be generous) about someone? Too bad that once you're an "enemy combatant" no mistakes can be corrected.....

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    27. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      You want to excuse this incident because he is guilty? Fine, just don't complain next time its you held without due process for something you didn't do.

      My post was actually tongue-in-cheek for the charges. It seems the complaint is rather weak.

      As for being held... If I am held as a material witness, with a judges orders, chances are there is a damn good reason why I am there. I will also know why I am being held, just ordered to not reveal that to other people. Material Witness is a different realm, and has been going on for years, and years. It's one of those.. hrmm.. pinnacles, so to speak, of the judicial system.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    28. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      Sorry when did the US get invaded I must have missed that part. Was this guy part of an armed force violating American borders and claiming part of the US for himself and his people? I don't think so.

      Dumbassland: The country that believes that just because they say so the world has to jump through hoops.

    29. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Considering he went to Hong Kong and associated with 5 people who were trying to fight with the Taliban, it doesn't look to good for him.

      Allegedly.

      Or is it no longer important that he hasn't been convicted by a jury of his peers, because he's being accused of associating with terrorists? The Constitution be damned, let him burn.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    30. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      If he's here threatening national security, wouldn't that make him an invader? I'm afraid I can't tell the difference between the soldier lobbing a grenade and me and a fellow citizen planting a live grenade under my sleeping bag.

      I guess, one I can shoot, the other I have to try in court?

    31. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Except that you are expressly permitted under the US Constitution to "associate" with whoever you damn well feel like, as long as you don't commit a crime yourself.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    32. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      That's sort of the point of being categorized "enemy combatant." We can drop a nuke on you once you place yourself into that category. Sucks to be anyone plotting against the U.S.

      If this Hawash fellow is innocent, he will be found not guilty and set free. It's not unheard of for prosecutors to "invent" evidence, but I don't believe Hawash is a victim of this. He's simply being held as a combatant, and when he's been certified "de-fanged" he will brought to trial and all the real evidence against him will shown. If it's circumstantial or just plain crap, he'll go free.

      And that's how it is. Real life here, suck it up.

    33. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      Thats right. It's called rule of law, which gets suspended during times of war and thats it. It's what stops governments from deciding to do whatever the hell they like.

    34. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by elmegil · · Score: 1
      If it's circumstantial or just plain crap, he'll go free.

      After having his life more or less destroyed. I feel so comforted, especially knowing that the government got to terrorize his family for 6 weeks with no indication of why.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    35. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Thank-you. Why has this simple concept disappeared in the USA in the last 24 months? %Insert-oft-quoted-liberty-for-security-quote-here %

    36. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by arkanes · · Score: 1
      You know, your post betrays a thought process that I see more and more in America today, and it scares me.

      It's the idea that anything that's done is justified, because there has to be a good reason for it.

      The fact that this DOESN'T work is why we have that whole due process thing. And the FOIA. And all the other checks and balances that attempt to ensure the openness and accountability of government power.

      It's essential to a free society. The removal of that openness and accountability is a sign of a totalitarian, facist government (Side note: Why is it that whenever someone talks about a policy as facist, there's a hundred people who will make scathing comments about slippery slope, but those same people have no problem with whitewashed comments about "liberals" and "Democrats"?)

      I don't care if you're a serial murderer who's Bin Ladens fraternal twin and Saddam Husseins mistress. You're guaranteed a right to due process. And, even more importantly, _I_ am guaranteed the right to know who my government is prosecuting and why. I, and every other American citizen, have a right to see the the judical process in action and KNOW that it's fair. Taking it on faith is not an option - it's a betray of everything about the system.

    37. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Okay, now you're just being fucking stupid. When you've actually PASSED a high school social studies class, maybe then you'll be qualified to talk about Constitutional law, states of emergency, and the rules of war.

      Here's a REALLY BIG FUCKING HINT: There's no fucking state of war, and certainly not WITHIN the US, which is where this guy is.

      Re-reading your post, I've decided that you're the first Slashdot poster I've ever actually wanted to physically beat. I can't understand how you're managed to turn such a lack of knowledge into a virtue.

    38. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      It's the idea that anything that's done is justified, because there has to be a good reason for it.

      My post was tongue in cheek. It wasn't meant to be a serious post, and I suppose I could have added allegedly in there, or perhaps some more less subtle jibes. I think it's rather lacking that the evidence provided cites he is being nailed with 3 counts of aiding terrorism by associating with "The Portland 6" ... I love that term, it's being touted all over here now (Portland, OR)

      The thing that raises flags for me is his $10K donation towards a charity that is being investigated for terrorism support. I'd like to see a stronger case presented by the government, and I think it's likely he'll be let go. Still sucks spending a few months in custody though.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    39. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but under the Six Degrees of Separation Anti-Terrorism Act, you are associated with a terrorist. Take him away!

    40. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Come try it asswipe. I believe you can contact me privately, I'm sure we can arrange something. I would be more than happy to let you try.

      Speaking of needing a big fucking hint: we don't have to declare war to protect ourselves from combatants. What crack-smoking school teachers have YOU been listening to?

      Where you do fucking deep-dish morons get these assumptions? Has someone promised you a safe, happy life in cushyland or something and now that reality is slapping you around, you're shocked and dismayed?

      Back under your rock, fuckwad.

    41. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      So, you think that we can only do this to soldiers and only when our congress has declared war against the country of the soldier in question.

      Let's roll back a little. First of all, this treatment is not something that is contitutionally guaranteed. Perhaps this *used* to be the way the U.S. did things, but that was a simple matter of policy, not a right. The policy has changed.

    42. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Oh fucking well! The alternative is...people who represent a threat to national security get a weekend on the pokie while prosecutors figure out what to charge him with? Come monday, he's free to be picked up by foreign agents and whisked to safety, or perhaps back into hiding to complete his mission?

      What a warm, fuzzy world this is.

    43. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by zemkai · · Score: 1
      And it's only a few steps until Kevin Bacon is locked up.

      Well, that will give the people who plastered their cars with "Free Kevin" bumper stickers a renewed purpose...

    44. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by elmegil · · Score: 1
      'cos you know, we've had planes crashing into skyscrapers every other week for the last two years.....

      I'm sorry but I can't buy the whole "national security" argument that the feds have to be able to break all the rules for some people, when those "some people" haven't made very many successful attacks (as opposed to, say all the gangland killings that go on; that's terrorizing inner city neighborhoods where people don't have the money to run away and live somewhere else, but are we giving it much attention? Hell no. Oh, and those folks get locked up under standard rules of due process too, woohoo!).

      Beyond that, I'm amazed that you can sit there and claim that Mike Hawash was a clear and present danger to the US that deserved being locked up, based on such flimsy accusations. I don't like Jose Pedillo being locked up either, but at least I can acknowledge there looks to be a serious threat from him. "Mike Hawash went to China and couldn't get into Afghanistan". Whooooo I'm scared.

      We'll see if you're saying "oh fucking well" when it's your rights being violated next.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    45. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Ah...back to the warm and fuzzy world of American Life, the old "nothing can touch me" syndrome?

      Change things then, if you want your neck drawn back constantly. I'm betting there aren't enough like you around to make it happen.

    46. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      What happened to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? What also happened to the constitutionally set down right to freedom of association, or maybe the right to not be arrested with out due cause, which I am pretty damn sure is set down in the constitution.

    47. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      It still applies to people who commit murder, rape and child molestation, no worries. You can still do all those things knowing they have to prove you guilty before they can lock you away. Just don't make any attempts to bring down the U.S. itself.

    48. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? I'm not saying "nothing can touch me" I'm saying the government is out to touch people they have no business touching. Possibly me. Possibly you. The government is a much more clear and present danger to me than any terrorist, because they've demonstrated their ability to break the rules and destroy lives many time over the terrorists, regardless of innocence. If being able and willing to destroy innocent lives with complete disregard is a criterion for being a terrorist, I think it's clear that our government shoudl be on its own lists.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    49. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      Ah it's good to see intelligent discourse alive and well on ./.

      Lets get something straight nimrod, he has not been convicted of any crime, nada nothing, zero. At this moment in time he has been accused of a crime, he is entitled to a fair trial (so anywhere that isn't part of the US would be a good idea). What really gives me the shits is all you pussies who can't wait to throw away what made your country great, the concept that each man is equal under the law. You took the British concept of the rule of law and said, every man, woman and child shall get equal treatment. Now after one incident count that, one you throw it all away and try to emulate the raging success that was East Germany. You ask me? The coward is the man who throws away his convictions at the first sign of danger.

      You have issues with what I say, fine go ahead, I don't give a rats arse, I am sick and tired of trying to show people the shit they are swimming in. Remember this, next time it could be you hauled away for six weeks without anyone knowing where you are and no recourse to legal counsel.

    50. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      So tell me, has this man been convicted of a crime? Or is the accusation enough to damn him in your eyes.

      The whole basis of the Justice system is innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around. Other wise we may as well have the Mcarthy era and the Spanish Inquisition back in one fell swoop.

    51. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      The accusation is enough; the crime is that serious.

    52. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You're saying, you are more afraid of the U.S. government than, say, a nuclear bomb detonated by a terrorist group in the middle of your home town?

      I wish I could be so complacent that my own government was the largest fear I had. Must be nice.

    53. Re:The New American Gulag Archipelago by cranos · · Score: 1

      And this is the reason we have laws which say "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". It's like burning old women at the stake because some one called Witch on them.

  3. First a radio series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    HH was a radio series first, then a book.

    I recommend "Don't Panic" for the whole story...

    1. Re:First a radio series by Kevinv · · Score: 2, Informative

      thank you. i didn't think that was going to get corrected. and it was actually 2 radio series before the books.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/metaguide/

      And Don't Panic was written by kick ass comic book author Neil Gaiman.

    2. Re:First a radio series by Hitch · · Score: 2, Informative

      he was probably a US guy - in America, we call a second year of the same show a new "season" of the same "series". Ergo, in the UK, it was two series and then the book, and then in the US it would have been called one series two seasons long and then the book(s).

      --
      You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
      http://propheteer.org
    3. Re:First a radio series by dapprman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close

      Radio Series
      X-Mas special radio episode
      Records (2 twin LP/tape sets)
      Book 1
      Book 2
      Radio Series
      Towel (? - never sure if he was joking in his interviews about it or not.)
      TV Series
      Book 3
      Computer game
      Book 4
      Book 5

    4. Re:First a radio series by Zwack · · Score: 1

      Towel (? - never sure if he was joking in his interviews about it or not.)

      Nope, he wasn't joking. I've seen the towel and remember it as being very expensive for what it was.

      Z.

      --
      -- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
  4. Such as...? by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    on really indisputable evidence, and it is a matter of public record

    Great. Glad to hear that you know so much about the case. Could you perhaps share with the rest of us this "indisputable" evidence?

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Such as...? by murr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could you perhaps share with the rest of us this "indisputable" evidence?

      "indisputable" in this context probably means that those trying to dispute the evidence risk sharing a cell with Mr. Hawash soon thereafter.

  5. Show Baen some love. by Leareth · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've always agreed to the concept of voting with my wallet. If I don't the a company I don't buy their products.

    The reverse of that is of course, companies that have a clue(tm) get my hard earned cash.

    I picked up the new John Ringo book this Sunday and wrote John Baen a thank you e-mail on Monday.

    As a matter of minor irony, if they hadn't had the CD in the latest Honor Harrington, I wouldn't have read the first John Ringo book, and wouldn't had subsquently dropped $25 for the latest. But, so far the e-book thing is working well for me. Ten of the last fifteen books I've purchased have been electronic versions from Baen online bookstore.

    --
    *A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.*
    1. Re:Show Baen some love. by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      After the last time Baen was on slashdot I read every single book in their free online library, I've since then signed up for webscriptions and purchased a new ebook every 2-3 days. >:)

      I do what I can to support Baen because they publish David Weber and David Drake, my two favorite living Sci-Fi authors.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    2. Re:Show Baen some love. by HeghmoH · · Score: 2

      Buying one of their books because you read a prequel on their free CD isn't ironic, it's exactly what they're trying for! Their entire point is that giving away books in free electronic format doesn't really hurt, because reading books in electronic format is generally inconvenient anyway, and it helps out by acting as advertising and producing more sales.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:Show Baen some love. by random_static · · Score: 1
      if you don't mind me asking a stupid question...

      what titles are on the Hell's Faire CD? i'd like to know because if it's mostly the same books i already got on my War of Honor CD, then i'll wait for the paperback, but if i can get a dozen or so new books by splurging for the hardcover, i'll do that instead.

      (sorry to bother /. with stupid FAQs like that, but the baen.com site doesn't seem to have a "ls -lr" of the damn thing anywhere. and no, i won't be downloading the blasted ISO over a 56k modem...)

    4. Re:Show Baen some love. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what titles are on the Hell's Faire CD? i'd like to know because if it's mostly the same books i already got on my War of Honor CD, then i'll wait for the paperback, but if i can get a dozen or so new books by splurging for the hardcover, i'll do that instead.
      A quick look at my copy finds the following books that are not on the Honorverse CDROM.
      -John Ringo's "Hells Fair" in both E-Texts and MP3 of course.
      -John Dalmas's "Soldier's" and "The Puppet Master".
      -David Drake's "Killer", "Paying the Piper", "Grimmer Than Hell", and "Seas of Venus".
      -Eric Flint's Mother of Demons", "The Philosophical Strangler", "Forward the Mage", and "Pyramid Scheme"
      -Keith Laumer's "A Plague of Demons"
      And finaly
      "The Service of the Sword" which is the new Honor Harrington universe short story collection with stories by David Weber, Eric Flint, Timothy Zahn, John Ringo (two stories actually, both also in MP3), and Jane Lindskold.

      Thomas Price
      aka The Bookworm
    5. Re:Show Baen some love. by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      The hell? It's out already??? OMG, gotta get to the damn bookstore... *sounds of running, then door slamming*

    6. Re:Show Baen some love. by tjgrant · · Score: 1

      My wife got me the latest Honor Harrington book for Christmas. I had never read any of the books in the series, so I broke out the CD and read much of book one on my notebook. I then finished it from a print copy I got from the library. I read all of book two off the CD. My wife read the one from the library, but decided she couldn't read online, and purchased copies of books two, three, four and five of the series.

      Baen's cluefulness opened up a whole new world to me (as I have never been much of a science fiction fan). I support them with my dollars because they have done such a good job on such a cool thing as their CD's.

      --

      Stand Fast,
      tjg.

    7. Re:Show Baen some love. by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that explains why the last 10 books I have read were Baen eBooks. Palm m515, very readable.

    8. Re:Show Baen some love. by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Ya betcha was bugging Barns & Noble about Hells Faire since I finished "The Devil Dances" $25.00 well spent {dont't let rednecks play with anti-matter}

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    9. Re:Show Baen some love. by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      I also puchased the last book. Unfortunately, being the geek that I am I have not popped out the CD yet ;-) But since I already had all of the Honor novels, I didn't really need to read them from the CD.

      When I heard that Baen planned to release the entire series I was astounded. What marketing genius!

      Can we compare MP3s and subsequent CD purchases to Baen's actions and the susequent increase in their book sales?

      To me, it seems quite likely.

      IMHO, the RIAA rant about billions in sales lost is actually a complaint that people didn't spend $18 to buy a CD based on a single song from the radio for a CD/group they ended up not liking.

      I would be interested to see how many CDs were sold on the basis of hearing an MP3 rip beforehand.

      Doesn't this show that people want to make certain that they like something before they buy it?

      Thank goodness Ford, GM, et al. don't sue you for renting cars for a weekend just to _really_ check it out before buying.

    10. Re:Show Baen some love. by peitao · · Score: 1

      Yes, free prequels sell the new books, but the basis of these sales is the fact that Baen picks great authors. The free ebooks generate exposure, but if the books sucked, nobody would buy the new books no matter how much exposure it gets. Witness the music industry -- how many of us have bought the latest Britney Spears or Celine Dion trash? That crap gets way more exposure than a few Baen ebooks, but if it's crap, then nobody will buy it anyways. (If you happen to _like_ those singers, well, flame away ;-). Heck why even bother pirating crap like that? BTW, if you haven't yet, read the articles from Baen author Eric Flint regarding the free library and how he came up with the idea, as well as the remifications on his royalties from his books: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver_index.htm

    11. Re:Show Baen some love. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unfortunately, being the geek that I am I have not popped out the CD yet ;-)

      why do you think it's geeky not to open your packaging? it's anal; it's fastidious; obsessive-compulsive, sure. but it's not geeky.

  6. Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think we all will agree that detaining people without presenting a case and ignoring the requirements of due process is generally a bad thing. The Patriot Act and similar pieces of legislation overextend the powers of the executive branch, and deny fundamental rights that we all expect and demand.


    Nonetheless, I'm going to withhold judgement on the Mike Hawash case, because at this point, assuming the evidence is as presented in the articles I have read, there certainly sounds like enough, that with some dotted I's and crossed T's, adds up to at least probable cause. I just wish our government would abide by its own rules in the way it prosecutes cases like this, and just show the evidence that lead them to make a detention in the first place. If the guy is really a flight risk, or potential danger to others, and there isn't enough to hold him on, then they could have him followed and monitored until the evidence is available, the same as is done with other criminals and potential criminals. I worry about all the exceptions that are made for terrorism, when increasingly, membership in certain non-terrorist organizations, or computer crimes, or other "mysterious" or "destructive" behavior seems to get bunched in with terrorism.


    I'll be the first person to tell you that terrorism is never legitimate, and always criminal, and that we should arrest and prosecute and punish terrorists and attempted terrorists to the fullest extent of the law, and Americans who travel to fight in illegal combat with other terrorists get no sympathy from me. But how can we use different standards of evidence and prosecutorial conduct for cases that we don't _know_ are terrorism until they have gone through the courts? Due process doesn't mean due process when we feel like it - it applies to all citizens and residents, and even others within our borders.

    1. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your post however with regards to the concept of Terrorism and Terrorists, remember this "One Mans Terrorist is anothers Freedom Fighter".

    2. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Probable cause is the evidentiary basis for arrest, not extended detention. Now that charges have formally been filed (much, much later than acceptable in violation of Consitutional Due Process), the question is on what basis of factual evidence is Hawash alleged to have broken a United States law. So far the evidence, provided by an extended illegal detention, points to a complete lack of basis in reality for this charge. I highly doubt the affidavit will do anything to change this, as one person's word is very unlikely to satisfy the evidentiary challenge required to convict Hawash of the current charge. That the only evidence comes from the same institution which has illegally detained him calls into question the validity of said evidence even more.

      At this point, this has nothing to do with terrorism unless you are talking about the U.S. government using tactics attributable to terrorists (extended illegal detention) to obstensibly enforce its laws.

    3. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by labratuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and Americans who travel to fight in illegal combat with other terrorists get no sympathy from me.

      Oh, you mean members of the U.S. Army?

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    4. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says on page 11 of the charges that "open source" helped in building the case against Hawash.

    5. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War does not have to be sanctioned by the UN to be "legal".

    6. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      At the bare minimum, a Freedom Fighter targets military forces and makes at least an effort to avoid civilian casualties whereas a terrorist actively targets civilians and does not differentiate between the two. Generally to be a "freedom fighter" you also have to be challenging some oppressive force that is preventing you from having freedom. If your concept of freedom is Islamic fundamentalism or totalitarianism, there's nothing to say but "you are wrong" (thank you ladies and gentlemen, I'm fighting my one-man battle against moral relativism here).

    7. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't really think you understand that international law doesn't mean a whole lot, aside from treaties signed by nations that they pledge to abide by - which affect their reputation and perception by other nations. The UN doesn't really define a governing body of international law per se, more a consensus building and negotiating mechanism for foreign policy, and a way of allowing nations to interact on a slightly more equal footing than their wealth or geography alone would allow.


      I don't believe the US signed a treaty saying it won't go to war with anybody without UN approval. Thus it's not an illegal war. It may very well be an immoral war, and that's a meaningful discussion to have, which can take place on the level of the justifications presented by the US administration, as well as on the real justifications used for the war (which are of course very different).

    8. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      So in your view would Hamas and the PLO be terrorists or freedom fighters, what about the IRA or Protestant forces. How about the Free Aceh movement, or the West Papuan Independance movement, all of these groups have been declared terrorist organisations and yet proclaim themselves to be freedom fighters.

      As to your argument about Islamic Fundamentalism being a different case, why? Is it different from Christian Fundamentalists?

    9. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guess what? We are not in a position to tell other countries what form of government to take. If the majority of Iraqis want some form of Islamic government, for us to interfere in that shows what great liars we are when we say we want Iraqis to determine their own fate. This is no surprise to anyone paying attention, but liberation doesn't mean "liberation as long as you do what we tell you to".

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    10. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, neither the US nor Al Qaeda signed a treaty that you can't fly planes into someone's buildings. So what makes the war of Al Qaeda against the US illegal?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    11. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      I don't know enough of the specifics to answer all your questions, but certainly Hamas acts as a terrorist group, though as I understand it, the PLO and Palestinian Authority no longer support targeting civilians. IRA and Protestant militias in Ireland have both been guilty of committing terrorist acts in the past, as I understand it - placing bombs on crowded city streets in trashcans is undoubtedly terrorism since it doesn't even make a semblance of an effort to distinguish targets.


      Islamic Fundementalism and Christian Fundamentalism aren't that different, I just don't know of any governments these days that are run as Christian Fundamentalist states. I certainly wouldn't consider people living in any religious fundamentalist nation-state to be free.

    12. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      For your Christian Fundamentalist states there is at least one, and it is pretty damn obvious - Vatican City, and it's not like the US Christian Right hasn't been trying for years to enforce their own brand of christian fundamentalism on the country.

    13. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I don't know that I said it was illegal in an international law sense. I said it was terrorism. And if it's supported by a nation that is a terrorist-supporting nation. Is that illegal? Well, it will likely get the scorn of the world, and they will get their asses kicked. There isn't really a legal authority governing these interactions, merely a general concept of moral acceptability and accepted rules and practices of warfare. Or you could argue that warfare conducted outside of the bounds of the Geneva Conventions is fundamentally outside of the bounds of "international law". It's not so much illegal as it is alegal.

    14. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      And such it is always with tyrants - what you describe is tyranny of the majority. The majority do not always make morally correct decisions. Hitler was initially elected in Germany as well. I suggest you read some Plato and get a clue before you spew such stuff.


      In short, yes, Iraqis should be able to determine their own fate, within the bounds of a system that guarantees protection of minorities and guarantees that Iraq will not seek to support terrorism or the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. Saying everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, including establish a tyrannical regime, is pure anarchism, and rejects any concept of morality. Again, morally relativist bullshit (dare I say it, Chomskyite bullshit - flame away).

    15. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Come on, I think it's sort of hard to take that too seriously. I mean, I agree in principal that the existance of Vatican City as a separate national entity rules by Christian Fundamentalism is problematic, however in practice, as far as I know, the only people who really live there are Catholic priests and maybe the Vatican guards, and as far as I know, any real legal issues would still be dealt with by Italian authorities.


      I agree that there are Christian Fundamentalists in this country. I don't think I ever expressed any sympathy or support for those nutjobs. The only weapon against such people is ultimately a strong, liberal (in the sense of open-minded and questioning, not in the modern political sense) educational system. This same principle, I believe, applies to fighting fundamentalism in all its forms.

    16. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by glebfrank · · Score: 1

      See, that's wrong. Because besides the majority faction there are also the minorities. If a Shiite islamic theocracy is established in Iraq, what's going to happen to Sunni Muslims? Kurds? Christians? Only a form of government that will protect the minorities' rights is acceptable.

    17. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Acceptable TO YOU.

      Luckily, you don't have to live there. And quite honestly, I have to say that the USA's record of "protecting the minorities' rights" is pretty damn abysmal for us to go dictating to other countries how to do it.

      Basically you're saying that your moral judgement of what is right matters more than the moral judgement of those who actually have to live there. And that's insane, not to mention arrogant, colonialist, and wrong.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    18. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by RocketScientist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a little gripe here.

      "We are not in a position to tell other countries what form of government to take"

      Yeah, actually, the US is in a position to do that. Militarily and economically, the US is in a position to do exactly that. That's been proven over the last few weeks, just in case you weren't watching the news. Whether it's a good or bad thing to do, that's an entirely different argument to make, but saying the US is not in a position to do it is just dumb and shows a complete either a lack of understanding of coherent arguments or a lack of understanding of current events. The US is in a position to change the form of government of just about any other country on the globe right now.

      Is there moral justification for changing another government? Dunno. That's a different question.

    19. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Basically you're saying that your moral judgement of what is right matters more than the moral judgement of those who actually have to live there. And that's insane, not to mention arrogant, colonialist, and wrong."

      Your statement is a proclamation of moral relativism, basically saying that everyone has the right to believe what they want, regardless of objective truth. This is complete bs. A rational mind can determine an objective morality, and to allow a govt. to be based on something other than reason, such as mysticism, would be just as bad as not having done anything in the 1st place.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    20. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Moral relativism? You mean like "it's ok to kill people if it's for their own good, but not if it's for YOUR own good"? To be more clear: it is morally relativist to say that killing for one purpose is ok and for another purpose is not.

      It seems to me that we have every right to ENCOURAGE the Iraqis to use the aspects of our government that we believe work better than totalitarian variations, but we do not have any right whatsoever to DEMAND or FORCE a particular form of government. To do so is directly in opposition to our claims that we want them to determine their own fate, and proves that when we say that, we're lying. In fact, doing so will only inflame and encourage those who believe we are being colonialist and those who want to kill americans because we are destroying their ability to make their own moral choices, and so blow up in our faces by making things worse rather than better. Rome already proved you can't go about forcing the rest of the world to your model forever.

      If you want to talk philosophy, perhaps you should go read some of the writings about how a forced "moral choice" is no moral choice at all, because choice was not involved. Free will means nothing without the freedom to make the wrong choice.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    21. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by geekee · · Score: 1

      If you need to ask suck a question, you need to sit down and think about the difference between objective morality and moral relativism, and the consequence of accepting either system.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    22. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Pardon the inprecision of language. Last time I checked, we weren't trying to argue that "might makes right". If might doesn't make right, then we are not in the position, morally, to dictate the course of the Iraqis' future.

      Of course if someone wants to argue that might after all does make right (I've heard some things suspiciously like that come out of Rumsfeld's mouth), then we have a different situation. Of course that means the government is always right, right? As are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    23. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by PD · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the definition of "freedom fighter" but a terrorist is different than a soldier, which is the basic argument that is going on here. The difference is that soldiers fight according to a code of conduct (code of honor) and within the rules of lawful warfare.

      See The Law of Land Warfare and other sources from Google searches.

      Soldiers are required to fight legally and that means giving quarter to the enemy when they are surrendering, avoiding the deaths of civilians if at all possible, fighting in uniform, etc. When soldiers break these rules, they can and are tried for war crimes. They can serve time in jail. And, they suffer loss of honor, and are not considered to be honorable soldiers by their families and countrymen. They are given dishonorable discharges from the service.

      A terrorist follows none of these rules. They target civilians. They kill unnecessarily and without regard to the combatant status. They are actively using any means necessary to destroy targets, and they do not live and die by a code of honor. They do not fight in uniforms, but use the civilians around them as protection and subterfuge.

      All sorts of guerilla movements are terrorist movements, and calling them freedom fighters doesn't distinguish them properly. The question to be asking is are they terrorists or soldiers?

      Hamas and the PLO: terrorists. They target civilians.
      IRA or Protestant forces: terrorists. They target civilians.
      Free Aceh: terrorists. They target civilians.
      Indonesian Army: also terrorist. They have targeted non-combatants.
      United States Continental Army: soldiers. They targeted Redcoats, not civilians.

    24. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm getting real tired of "Patriot act is the end of all civil rights ever". That's crap.

      Kevin Mitnick was held for 4 and a half --count 'em--4 and a half years, no bail hearing, no charges pressed, well before 9/11 (February 1995 to be precise).

      In case you hadn't noticed, the US government has lots of guns and people that can use them. Holding this Mike individual without a trial is precedented, if unconstitutional and morally wrong.

      The only way I can even think this could be justified is if the US decided he wasn't entitled to due process because he was attempting treason from outside the country.

      Umm..none of this is to say, of course, that this jackass (errr...alleged jackass) doesn't deserve what's coming to him.

    25. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by glebfrank · · Score: 1
      Acceptable TO YOU.

      No, acceptable to the Iraqi minorities.
      Luckily, you don't have to live there. And quite honestly, I have to say that the USA's record of "protecting the minorities' rights" is pretty damn abysmal for us to go dictating to other countries how to do it.

      USA's human rights record is bad? You should try and visit a few other countries sometimes. I have lived in a country with a bad human rights record, and I know what I am talking about. You don't.
      Basically you're saying that your moral judgement of what is right matters more than the moral judgement of those who actually have to live there.

      Have you even read my post? Sunni Muslims, Kurds and Christians do live there, what gives you the right to disregard their moral judgement?
      And that's insane, not to mention arrogant, colonialist, and wrong.

      Yawn... labels, labels. Try and find some real arguments next time.
    26. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      With regards to the US Army what would you call their actions during the Indian Wars? Legal or acts of terrorism?

    27. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by glebfrank · · Score: 1
      Of course that means the government is always right, right? As are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al.
      :) I find the attempt to gather some popular support by mentioning RIAA and MPAA especially amusing.
    28. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      There is no such thing as objective moral truth. A rational mind can decide that their perception of truth is "the right one" and try to claim that somehow they have reached some objective, disinterested plane of reality where all things have a fixed scale, but that doesn't mean that mind is right. Everyone is biased to see things only from their own perspective, and no amount of pretense of "rationality" can change that. Hell, if science can't even ascertain a fixed frame of reference for facts and numbers, how can you find one for fuzzy concepts like moral judgement? The scale most often used in such arguments usually comes down to "if it agrees with what I've already decided, then it's right, and if it doesn't, it's wrong." If science were done that way, we'd still be searching for the philosopher's stone.

      If I may, I will assume that you are a conservative, and very likely a Christian. If I am wrong, I still challenge you to make it clear to me how your position that we should dictate the Iraqi form of government is different from what I'm about to describe. Frequently such people take the position that it is their right to teach their children that God waved his hand and we all came into being, and that evolution, despite decades of science corroborating it, is wrong and moreso SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT to their children. They rail that the government, in mandating certain standards for education, is trampling their rights.

      How precicsely can you reconcile the idea that you should have control over your children and families and communities and prevent the teaching "objectively wrong things" like evolution and acceptance of homosexuality and sex education, but we should be able to dictate to the Iraqis how they should be governed for their own good? It seems clear to me that if moral absolutism was actually viable, everyone who was "rational" would stand up in rank against all three of these things, when the reality is some people reject all three, but other people (who also claim to be moral absolutists) only reject one or two of those three items (with evolution being the most commonly accepted of the three).

      But of course I have no real hope of convincing you of anything. Moral Absolutists, as a general rule, have decided that they think right, everyone else thinks wrong, and there is no example of the inherent contradictions in their "absolute" position (which seems to vary from one absolutist to another!) that I've ever found that gets through the wall of "I Am Right".

      In that sense, they're very much like Islamic Fundamentalists.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    29. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the case isn't public doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why do we feel that we must know the details and we must decide justice? Isn't this a job for a judge? Mike's case was taken to a judge BEFORE his arrest and detainment. That court found what it thought was cause for this action. Now that we have seen the seriousness of the charges, I am glad they acted. But the outrage seems to be directed at the 'secret' nature of the actions. I also think this is for the best. for 2 reasons. 1)If Mike is innocent, then charges like this shouldn't be paraded in the public arena. 2)In crimes of conspiracy (like these terrorism charges) the authorities need to exercise discretion in revealing what they know (and don't know). They also need to limit the access the conspirator has to the outside world.
      Who decides if this is reasonable? The public! I certainly hope not. A judge sounds right to me.

    30. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      USA's human rights record is bad? You should try and visit a few other countries sometimes. I have lived in a country with a bad human rights record, and I know what I am talking about. You don't.

      Last time I checked, "two wrongs don't make a right." I don't recall saying there were no places worse than the USA. But I think our history of lynchings and the near-genocide of the natives of the north american continent (just to name two examples) make it clear that "our form of government" is hardly a guarantee that minority rights will be protected.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    31. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1

      If "might makes right" then it shouldn't matter what group is exercising that right, right? It's not a matter of gathering popular support, it's an attempt to point out the inherent hypocrisy of arguing that in one arena might makes right, but in another, it doesn't.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    32. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Anarchy is the default. We got rid of their government, didn't replace it, so it's anarchy. It's not a moral judgement to say that the majority rules, it's a practical one.

      Morally, the Bill of Rights shouldn't exist if law enforcement were perfect. The world's not perfect, so you try and create the most moral framework possible within the limits you have.

      Morally, we should just run a benevolent dictatorship, but we can't do that. We don't know what's best for them, and even if we did, we don't have the capacity nor the inclination to occupy like that.

      Morality is great, but the world doesn't work that way. We have limits. Fighting tooth and nail for centuries trying to supress an Islamic fundamentalist movement isn't going to work. The majority is rarely right, but trying to opress a majority for their own good doesn't help anybody. It makes the stupid majority mad, it gets you killed, and they'll still have to fuck it all up and discover their own idiocy at some point anyway.

    33. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      Tell me what is this objective morality? Is it christian? Is it Islam? Is it Budhism? Or maybe Confucism? or even maybe Atheism?

      What right do you have to say what I believe is right and fuck the rest of you?

      God knows I have my opinions on things (just read some of my posts) but I do not deny a persons right to believe what they want to believe. I just deny their right to try and force me to believe what they want.

    34. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      War's a bit tricky.

      Al Qaeda isn't a country. At least not on the map I've got. They aren't even qualified as a government-in-exile, which has some precedent for declaring war and such. Nope, pretty much that just qualifies them as a group of people that the US doesn't want to exist anymore. Since the country they were hiding in, Afghanistan, wouldn't see clear to extradite them, the US invaded and destroyed that country's government, and in the meantime took care of hunting down and arresting as many of the members of that group as they could find.

    35. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Your comments about free will are off base. A people as a group don't make a moral choice, individuals make moral choices. We were talking about boundaries for a form of government - namely that a form of government that respects the rights of its citizens is one that allows moral choices for its own citizens (within the boundaries of laws and social customs). A society based on totalitarianism, such as that of Saddam Hussein's Baath party doesn't allow for much in the way of moral choice at all.


      As the victor of a war, we have the _ability_ to force anything we want. We have the _moral obligation_ and certainly the right to force a government that respects rights. In this country, our forefathers wisely set up a Constitution that specifically does not allow us to vote away our rights (well, we can amend the Constitution over time, but it's been made intentionally difficult to do so).


      Turkey is a fine example of a country that is relatively democratic, but only by force. This is required in cases like this, where Islamic fundamentalism rejects democracy, and seeks to use democracy to vote away democratic rights by electing fundamentalists. The military and Turkish constitution prevent this from happening. Though there are arguably things wrong with Turkey, the use of force majeure to "enforce" democracy and basic rights is a moral good. This doesn't mean that Iraqis don't get to determine their own fates, in fact it means that we are ensuring that a vocal component of the Shi'a majority don't hijack the civil rights of other members of Iraqi society. This is not colonialism, this is called preventing the replacement of one totalitarian regime with another.

    36. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      See now here we agree, fundamentalism should be fought with education and knowledge, a more educated population should lead to a more educated government - well that's the theory anyway.

    37. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      I agree with you that the local morality of what we do in Iraq has to be balanced with practical concerns for our national security, reputation with other countries and inclination to continue risking our own troops lives, vs. the long term benefits/consequences for Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the word if things get FUBAR again in Iraq.


      I think decisions should always be moral ones, but preserving your own life and your own fellow citizens lives so you can live to do more good for the world at a later date is also a moral good - so I'm not sure that morality is factored out entirely, just that you have to use a broader measuring stick and look at the longer term horizon when making moral decisions, you can't just make them in a vacuum.


      Generally, I agree that they need to fuck it up and discover their own idiocy at some point - that's why I was always a big proponent of beating Iraq the same way we've already pretty much beaten Iran - kill them with McDonald's and the Gap. Say what you will about schlocky Western commercial goods, they tend to bring with them an affinity for Western culture, which accompanies with it a desire among the youth for secular learning and an aversion to fundamentalism. But now that we've won, we might as well make sure they set up a reasonable government - just leaving them in Anarchy to figure it out for themselves, or to let the loudest people with the most Kalashnikov's determine what the next government should look like won't exactly endear us to much of the world either (though the left-wing moral relativism squad seems to feel all warm and fuzzy when "different cultures" set up their happy little true-to-their-culture totalitarian regimes).

    38. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm..none of this is to say, of course, that this jackass (errr...alleged jackass) doesn't deserve what's coming to him.

      Like, errr, due process.

    39. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Ozan · · Score: 1

      No, the majority of german citizens was not nazi, they were just frightened by them. Furtermore Hilter was not elected by the majority of the people.

      Hitlers party, the NSDAP, got about 33% of the parliaments seats, when a series of terrorist incidents as for example the Reichstagsbrand and assassinations and arrests of members of the parliament led the parliament to abandon the seperation of powers and declare Hitler as the Führer by enacting the Ermächtigungsgesetz which eventually led to the events known as the Third Reich and WWII.

      This is what even professors of history never understood completely, the metamorphosis of a democratic nation to a dictatorship that was officialy legitimated by the parliament.

    40. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us distinguish between absolutism, the view that there are some universally true moral precepts, and infalliblism, the view that one cannot be wrong about one's moral judgments. The former has been smeared with the latter for far too long. Most people who espouse relativism seem to be really inveighing in favor of some principle of tolerance (but y'know, if it's not right for you to be tolerant, well, then ...).


    41. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by PD · · Score: 1

      Obviously terrorism by today's standards, and some thought the same even back then, but not enough. The law of warfare and our social values have increased a lot since then.

      But, I detect that you were just trolling me. Did you expect me to answer differently? Strangely enough, I get confused either as a hyper-liberal at some times, and as a neoconservative at other times. I'm just wondering what you guessed I might be, that's all.

    42. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I propose a new rule for slashdot discussions, similar to the Nazi rule on Usenet: The first party to mention the MPAA or RIAA in a discussion not about copyright loses by default.

    43. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      I disagree - the Vatican is not a Christian Fundamentalist state; it is instead a Catholic state. The primary difference is that Christian Fundamentalism is an offshoot of the Protestant Reformation. Fundamentalist Christians follow a different hierarchy completely and do not recognize the Pope as their leader.

      While fundamentalist Catholics may think that mainstream Catholicism is a libertine farce and may believe that the person in the office of the Pope is a completely immoral person, they still recognize The Pope as the head of the Catholic church.

      NOTE: I'm not saying that the Pope IS an immoral person, just that from what I know of Catholic fundamentalism, they probably would. We are talking about people who are just as fervent in their beliefs about the Catholic church as Fundamentalist Christians are about whatever it is they believe in.

      As for the bit about the Christian Right, I totally agree and we have reached a point where the President is prone to caving in to those on the far right of Christian thought.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    44. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      A society based on totalitarianism, such as that of Saddam Hussein's Baath party doesn't allow for much in the way of moral choice at all.

      An obvious strawman, since I don't recall arguing that it did.

      Our forefathers SET UP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. Had France come over and tried to impose one, I don't think it would have gotten very far.

      As for colonialism, there are plenty of people who see your argument as apology for causing the replacement of one totalitarian regime with one that is beholden to the US rather than the Iraqi people. I fail to see us doing much of anything that contradicts that (feel free to offer citations, but quotes from Rummy et. al. don't cut it). We've already proposed "saving" the Iraqis the trouble of running their own oil fields and letting our corporations do the job for them. If we propose to be the key decision makers in their new government, it only extends the colonial appearance.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    45. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1

      And just to be clear, I meant key decision makers in the FORMATION of their new government, obviously we can't maintain an obvious role in the government itself (though I'd be amazed to hear we didn't have a covert one).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    46. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      An A/C writes:

      Some of us distinguish between absolutism, the view that there are some universally true moral precepts, and infalliblism, the view that one cannot be wrong about one's moral judgments. The former has been smeared with the latter for far too long. Most people who espouse relativism seem to be really inveighing in favor of some principle of tolerance (but y'know, if it's not right for you to be tolerant, well, then ...).

      Good point. I'm curious though, how it is that one can state unequivocally that Islamic Fundamentalism (in particular when used as a basis for government) is wrong in an absolutist sense without having full confidence in the infallability of one's judgement. After all, if one reads the Koran, one sees a lot of moral judgements that are very similar in character to those of Judaism and Christianity, and it is only in the very very far fringes and some particularly specific details that they differ. Jihad, for one example, has been explained to me by a more moderate muslim as being "the war against one's own bad impulses" and so seems quite analogous to what is sung about in "Onward Christian Soldier"--hardly different from Christianity at all. It is only those who take things to the extreme who seem to argue otherwise, and if you think there aren't extremist Christians who argue for "holy war" against the unbelievers, you've got your head in the sand.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    47. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Not a strawman. You seemed to be suggesting that Iraqis should have the right to "vote in" (or have foisted upon them by a violent and vocal group) an Islamic fundamentalist regime, which I was pointing out is a totalitarian regime in its own right, and thus one that disallows moral choice on the part of individuals. Are we really serving the interests of the Iraqi people by letting them run back into the embrace of a different kind of nice simplistic totalitarianism? What these people need is education and awareness of alternatives, and they need to have a military force keeping democratic institutions intact (clearly, this won't be our military after we leave, it will be their own). It's not really that different from what Ataturk did in Turkey.


      It's true that our forefathers set up their own government. Our forefathers were also well educated intellectuals. Religious fundamentalists had no place in our government. Furthermore, our forefathers were NOT unabashed majority-rule democracy fans. That's why there are so many checks and balances on raw democracy in an American-style Republic - the unwashed masses really don't always know what's best for them, and that's with a real secular public education system (admittedly a very sucky one).


      I certainly think the Iraqis should set up their own government (and I don't think I ever said otherwise). The question is which Iraqis are part of that process - the educated intellectuals, or the people who run around waving AK-47s at the behest of their Mullah? Because the latter have no problem using fear and intimidation and groupthink to prevent the masses from voting for the former. Letting the strongest win in Iraq without a thought as to how to build a sustainable democracy that represents the people's will while protecting the minority from the majority (i.e. protecting everyone's rights) is hardly an example of colonialism or imperialism. Saying the Iraqis can't set it up entirely by themselves is not patronizing, it just recognizes honestly the condition of an ill-educated populace combined with the anarchic aftermath from the collapse of years of totalitarian rule.


      I said nothing about being beholden to the US. Would you say the Japanese government is beholden to the US? What about Germany? We forced the disarmament and democratization of these countries after they lost WWII. It's our right to prevent them from threatening us and the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean installing puppet governments, it means setting bounds. And it's our responsibility to ensure that for the first several years at least, democracy gets a reasonable chance in Iraq.


      I know nothing about forcing American management onto Iraqi oil fields - obviously, I don't support that. I never defended George Bush et. al. in terms of original motivations, since I think it's a rather complex issue, and there are clearly quite a mix of motivations, and they vary from individual to individual (I certainly don't think you can talk about the administration as having monolithically "good" or "bad" motivations for this war). But the colonialism stuff is getting quite tiresome. Let's save it for the actually bad stuff the US government does, not for trying to ensure that Iraqi democracy gets a fair shake.

    48. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      U.S. troops have been asked to fight for freedom and democracy - protecting our freedom and democracy at home, but also helping to give freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. However, when the USA Patriot Act was passed, Congress gave the executive branch sweeping new powers that undermined our Bill of Rights. What are the rights that are being threatened? They are:

      o First Amendment - Freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press. (New attorney general guidelines allow FBI spying on religious and political organizations and individuals without having evidence of wrongdoing)

      o Fourth Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, library, video, and student records with minimal judicial oversight.)

      o Fifth Amendment - No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Allows FBI agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for "intelligence purposes.")

      o Sixth Amendment - Right to a speedy public trail by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel. (8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background, not because of actual wrongdoing; American citizens suspected of terrorism are being held indefinitely in military custody without being charged and without access to lawyers.)

      o Eighth Amendment - No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment shall be imposed. (Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin, have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without any charges filed against them. The government has refused to publish their names and whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.)

      o Fourteenth Amendment - All persons (citizens and non-citizens) within the U.S. are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws. (The press and the public have been barred from immigration court hearings of those detained after 9/11 and the courts are ordered to keep secret even that the hearings are taking place.)

    49. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting neither,but you have proved my point, social values change, not only over time but over geography, going back to my initial statement, you may claim that the Free Aceh movement is a terrorist organisation but the Acehnese might have a different view. Just as now we look back on the attrocities commited by the US Cavalry against the Indian Nations and condemn them so future generations may do the same to us.

    50. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your attempts to deliberately misunderstand the point are just as amusing.

    51. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by flink · · Score: 1

      No, but they do have to be sactioned by Congress.

    52. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Religious fundamentalists had no place in our government.

      You really need to be telling GWB that. :-)

      Aside from that, I have to concede that I see some of your points. However, I am still deeply suspicious that what will actually be done is more along the lines of what I fear: we will set up a puppet state, which will backfire in all sorts of ways. You state a good case, but I am cynical about that being the case actually pursued by GWB and crew.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    53. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      If the guy is a flight risk, but you don't have enough evidence to hold him, guess what? You should _not_ have him followed, and you should not prevent him from leaving.

      Innocent until proven guilty, remember.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    54. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      "Americans who travel to fight in illegal combat with other terrorists get no sympathy from me"

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    55. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by davecb · · Score: 1
      There are laws of war that the U.S. generally obeys: the best-known ones are the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

      However, the exact same rules apply to countries as people: your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose, unless I just hit me in the snozz.

      It is genuinely unusual for the U.S. to break this one: it was carefull to justify its entry into Afganistan, in hot persuit of the people who attaced it. The justification for Iran is less clear.

      The U.N. and its security council was created by a widely signed treaty, heavily supported by the U.S. It debates and defines issues of international lay, subject to the treaty and the consent of its members.

      The security council serves as a suitable body to debate justification, and in cases of imminant peril, speaks with the authority of its forming nations in demanding obedience to international law and in asking its members for military force to prevent breaches of that law.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    56. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Having read the affadavit, it looks to me like they have no solid evidence of any sort against Hawash - the charges at best amount to aiding and abetting. It's interesting to note that his name actually appears very little in the document, it's mainly focused on the other people, who were actually arrested.

    57. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Forgetting international law, it's illegal under OUR laws. Although it's a technicality that pretty much everyone feels free to ignore.

      Additionally, your definition of international law more or less also defines domestic law. Just because we don't feel like complying with it doesn't make it not illegal. It's like saying that, say, toxic dumping isn't illegal because companies pay fines for it.

    58. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by PD · · Score: 1

      It seems that a lot of people are not aware of the distinction between a terrorist and a soldier. It doesn't have much to do with how they are regarded back home. If the Free Aceh movement targets civilians specifically and do not fight according to a code of honor, they are terrorists.

      I don't see how I could have proved your viewpoint, since it was originally very wishy-washy "are they terrorists and freedom fighters?" You're still wishy-washy, because you rely on the fact that the code of honor changes over time.

      Future generations are NOT likely to look back at the current US Army as a terrorist group, because they meet none of the definitions of terrorism. The distinction between a terrorist and a soldier does not rest on a historical viewpoint at all, but on distict criteria that can be answered with yes or no questions.

      We may be condemned in the future for our actions today, but it will not be because we were terrorists.

    59. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by n8_f · · Score: 1

      I think it was obvious from the context that "position" referred to "moral position", not "military position." I don't think anyone would argue that we couldn't significantly alter the government of any other nation if we didn't care about the consequences (many of them would require nukes).

    60. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Ya know what... I am really tired of all this BS about civilians being innocent. We (citizens of countries with representative government) are ultimately responsible for the actions of our military.

      I think the real moral relativism is that you think it is OK to attack solders, but not the members of the body responsible for the solders actions.

      We 'elected' a christian fundamentalist, why should they not be able to elect an islamic fundamentalist?

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    61. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say it's just "aiding and abetting" like it's nothing. but, aiding and abetting is a crime, and aiding and abetting after 9/11: we're talking about genuine wickedness here.

    62. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by cranos · · Score: 1

      How can you say that future generations will not look on the US Army as terrorists? Can you look a hundred years in the future and say it will be the same then as it is now?

      At the time of the US War of Independance the Brits certainly thought of the Colonialists of Rebels and terrorists and yet now you claim they were in the right? Why? Could it be history has changed the way we percieve an event that happened a couple of hundred years ago?

      As for the Wishy Washy statement? WTF is that about? It was a valid point. Not everyone on this planet shares the same viewpoint about events that occure, christ you just have to look at this site to see that.

    63. Re:Mike Hawash's Detention by PD · · Score: 1

      How can you say that future generations will not look on the US Army as terrorists? Can you look a hundred years in the future and say it will be the same then as it is now?

      Because a terrorist has a certain definition that the current US military does not meet. They may consider us many things, and they may disapprove of things we did, but they will not have a basis for calling us terrorists.

      At the time of the US War of Independance the Brits certainly thought of the Colonialists of Rebels and terrorists and yet now you claim they were in the right?

      Do you have a source for this? The Brits definitely thought bad things about us. We fought in an unconventional style. Certain renegade bands dumped tea in a harbor. But the Continental Army fought in uniform, gave quarter to the enemy, and did not attack civilians.

      As for the Wishy Washy statement? WTF is that about?

      It's wishy-washy because your claims rely on a notion that terrorist is undefined and indistinguishable from soldier. Anything can be proven if definitions are as fluid as you think they are.

      Please note: I am not saying that the US military will escape all criticism. I am saying that criticising them as terrorists is wrong, past present or future. There are other criticisms that might apply.

      This is not an emotional argument for me. Don't take anything I am saying as an attack. I am merely providing and clarifying a definition, and pointing out how it applies in various historical contexts.

  7. I call Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing about Hawash sounds like about the most half-baked allegation I have heard in a long time. Come on, Feds. When you fuck up, admit it and free the man. (Do a Google search on FBI Perez affidavit to find out how much credibity these things have. Read the same used to justify the Waco, TX, invasion. That particular affidavit makes you wonder what basis for balancing allegations over evidence some of our nation's judges use. Little to about none when they grant these things.)

  8. Re:Geek Criminals Are More Important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called circling the wagons. There's enough illegal activity boasted about and promoted on this site to put the fear of arrest into these script kiddies.

    By making a big deal out of this would-be terrorist, Slashbots are sending a signal to each other to be more careful in their lawbreaking.

  9. The parent is NOT flamebait by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 1

    I don't know who moded the parent as flamebait, but he raises a legitmate issue.

    1. Re:The parent is NOT flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. The evidence has not even been presented. The unpresented, non-public evidence is in dispute. Disappeared is exactly defined by the people being disappeared by their government extra-judicially, exactly as happened here. Not being charged within 48 hours (MAXIMUM) is prima facia proof of a violation of Mike Hawash's Consitution Rights. There is no question, Hawash was disappeared. You, and apparently the parent post, are severely mis-taken.

  10. New server for space ships by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    We'll just see how robust a server it is!

    --
    I do security
  11. Security features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    One of my friends just got a Microsoft router and asked me to check the security features for it.

    Hey, just post the ip here on slashdot, and we can give it a REAL security check for you :-).

    1. Re:Security features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh huh. yeah!

    2. Re:Security features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      209.8.166.202

      Have fun.

    3. Re:Security features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that ip doesn't exist

    4. Re:Security features by DrInequality · · Score: 1

      127.0.0.1

    5. Re:Security features by nytes · · Score: 1

      Damn that thing's fast.

      And it's running... Windows 2000 and Outlook?

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    6. Re:Security features by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I see Win98 from here. I 0wn3z that box, crappy security! I'm still having no joy probing 0.0.0.0 which is the home server of the Cabal [tinc].

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:Security features by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Couldn't be. Besides resolving to colo110a.ash01.pccwbtn.net, that IP address was probably on the CD some spammer offered me which had "over 30 million" IP addresses on it. (For the slow at brain, that was IP addresses, not email addresses. 4 bytes, do the math.)

      Dear [0.0.0.1] I am contacting you with a confidential offer...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  12. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Informative

    If he is not a U.S. citizen and/or is committing acts that demomonstrate a lack of allegiance to the U.S., I don't see why he should be treated as such.

    He is a U.S. Citizen, idiot.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Huh? by Cranx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There was an "and/or" in my post, idiot.

      You should be more concerned with policing up the public education system that belched you forth and less concerned with cases of international espionage. Unless, that is, you're perfectly happy making an ass of yourself while calling other people idiots.

    2. Re:Huh? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even so, that should not matter. The constitution was set forth to protect people. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Offer not valid for non-U.S. residents. Void where prohibited.

      The constitution is a basic set of guaranteed rights. Failure to extend that to anyone within your borders only cheapens the document.

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Amendment V

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      It says person, not citizen. Multiple times.
      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more, the SCOTUS has already previosuly ruled that non-citizens cannot be denied the Bill of Rights in U.S. criminal proceedings. But the original poster apparently cares not for these things (his "ass" post makes this apparent).

    4. Re:Huh? by DASHSL0T · · Score: 1
      If he is not a U.S. citizen and/or is committing acts that demomonstrate a lack of allegiance to the U.S., I don't see why he should be treated as such.
      He is a U.S. Citizen, idiot.
      I guess you missed the part where the OP wrote and/or. Would you like a definition of the word or, Mr. I Call People Idiots.
      --
      Freedom Is Universal
      Linux-Universe
    5. Re:Huh? by Cranx · · Score: 1

      So, where is the justification for prisoners of war then?

      One part of the constitution does not rule out others. A spy or terrorist is a combatant; a soldier, for all intents and purposes, allied to a foreign nation.

      Think about that. It means the 4th and 5th amendments do not apply here. You see? Great you can cut-and-paste Abby, but it doesn't apply here.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those provisions are made for during wartime, for people in direct conflict with the state. And the constitution is still supposed to protect their rights. Whether it does or not is a different matter.

    7. Re:Huh? by arkanes · · Score: 1
      You're actually incorrect, and the parent is correct, although at various times we've ignored it. The constitution certainly does apply to prisoners of war, and it's illegal to deny them those rights.

      I'm not sure why you think "one part of the Constitution does not rule out others", since a) they most certiainly do and b) it's hardly relevent, since there's nothing in there granting either state or federal governments the right to ignore any part of the Constitution, under any circumstances.

    8. Re:Huh? by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You know, at this point it's apparently you've all been tit-fed off of some limp-wristed, frightened professor who's more worried about whether "the man" is going to hassle him at the airport than whether another WTC is right around the corner. So many of you are "wishing" applications into the constitution, because of passages you focus on, which you think then excludes our government from making policies which you *think* contradicts the constitution, but which actually doesn't.

      Debate all you want, but two things are not going to change. One, you won't be making me feel like you folks are anything but scared, soft-bellied vaginas with mouths. Two, when someone represents a serious threat to national security, you won't be changing how they're handled.

      So, cry all you want about it.

  13. Draggable? by zzzmarcus · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'll find you can't drag the buildings/ships/monsters in the browser who was forced to change their logo at the request of a certain GODZILLA who just happens to appear in the comparison.

    Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

  14. Special case because he's a software engineer? by Daniel+Quinlan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It strikes me as odd how certain people are willing to leap to the defense of someone just because they're a coworker or share a profession. I can understand a mother defending a son, it must be hard to admit that your son didn't turn out so well, but a coworker? Please.

    I'm not defending the six weeks of "unexplained incarceration" (nice objective terminology there, there was an explanation, he was being held as a material witness which is not a new practice -- okay, maybe I am defending it a little bit), but if the guy was trying to wage war against his country's military, then in *any* country, you'd expect him to be arrested and charged. (Note: in China or Cuba, you're lucky if you are only sent to jail for speaking out against your government. Some people just get shot.)

    I don't see why he should be entitled to special protection just because he's a software engineer or for any other reason. I don't care if he has friends!

    This reminds me a lot of the Randal Schwartz trial (although let me be clear that I'm not saying Randal committed treason! I'm just talking about popular software types being charged with crimes). While I don't know all of the facts, it always seemed like people are especially ready to jump to the defense of someone, even without all of the facts, just because of their professional standing. This seems particularly true of people in the computer industry. (Maybe that's just because I tend to read technically-oriented forums like Slashdot.)

    Anyway, treason is treason, alleged crimes are alleged crimes. It shouldn't matter if the guy was a software engineer or a shoe salesman.

    1. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by cranos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry I must have missed the part where he has been convicted of a crime. I also must have missed the part where incarceration without charge was declared to be A Good Thing

      What happened to Innocent until Proven Guilty? This is a concept that has worked in the past but hey if you want to throw that away then be my guest, just ask China and Cuba how the other way works.

    2. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by arcturus21 · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct. People who commit treason should be immediately arrested and CHARGED. charged immediately, not in a few months, or when a judge forces them to.

    3. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Pendersempai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note: in China or Cuba, you're lucky if you are only sent to jail for speaking out against your government. Some people just get shot.

      Okay, this is BAD LOGIC. There have always been nations and people with little to no regard for human rights. There will probably be nations and people with no regard for human rights far into the future. This is not an excuse to be abusive ourselves.

    4. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hell I'd want the guy out too, before he ratted me out for raiding the supply closet for the terrorist secretary movements.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding!?! China and especially Cuba are models of a working socialist system! Sure, they have some dissent from people who want to undo the fruits of the Revolution. But they know the fate of all enemies of the state. Counter-revolutionaries are harshly dealt with under socialism.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by cranos · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell whether you are being sarcastic or not so I'll take your statement on face value. Define counter-revolutionary, are you perhaps talking about the students who protested in Tianemen Square? Or maybe the members of the Falun Gong movement.

      China is no longer a communist state except in name only. They have made that many changes that they are now a one party state with a growing market economy dominated by capitalists. Cuba on the other hand is only hanging in there as a communist country because people are more pissed off at the US for the forty odd year block aid than anything else.

    7. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by elmegil · · Score: 1
      you're lucky if you are only sent to jail for speaking out against your government.

      As opposed to here in the U.S.A.? Nope, nobody here gets arrested for speaking out. No way. just keep your head in the sand and you'll be safe.....

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    8. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Material witnesses can be held for extended periods of time if it is believed that they pose a flight risk, or if they may be in danger by being without constant protection. There isn't any shady bullshit going on here, material witnesses are held all the time. Learn how the legal system works, THEN post.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    9. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by elmegil · · Score: 2
      alleged crimes are alleged crimes.

      Too bad it took them 6 weeks to figure out what crime to allege, huh?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    10. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      No longer communist? You mean I can demonstrate against the government now, like people can in America?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Incarceration without charge appears in normal criminal proceedings any time a judge deems to set bail at an unatainable level or at all. "Held without bail" is a common thing when people are thought to be a flight risk, a danger to themselves or others or show a propensity to commit additional violence.

      The idea that this is somehow a new thing baffles me.

      I do agree however, that the prosecutor better get their ducks in a row and charge him with something; however they are NOT obligated to give any evidence to anybody before the trial or before he is charged. Nobody questions the need for secret case details in the Laci Peterson case, why would this be any different? Non-public evidence is crucial for some cases.

      This is not a place where anybody needs trial by media. It sucks to have to wait for the whole process to go through, but it is not a place where things should be rushed.

    12. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Not true at all. See this link for example. Also see this informative page. Normally a person can only be held without bail or have a bail set after they have been indicted by a grand jury, and the charges have been announced in an open court (i.e. it is publically announced what the person is charged with and that a grand jury has indicted them).


      In any case, 5 weeks with no word, no announcement of charges definitely runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution with respect to the right to a speedy trial.

    13. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the "material witness" thing. This has become more and more abused recently. The fact is that this was never intended to give free reign to the government to circumvent the right of the accused to speedy trial and to public announcement of charges.

    14. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, shady? Guess what... THE DAY THEY CHARGED HIM, material witness status was rescinded. If you care to make further of your claim of "isn't any shady bullshit", then you have established your level of discourse.

    15. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by cranos · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this but Communist is not the only totalitarian form of government out there, facism is pretty hot to trot as well as is Theocracies, Autocracies, Despotism and one party states.

    16. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, I can speak as one of his "coworkers."

      Having read the 40+-page aviddavit, I can see that while they are able to match him up with some coincidental pairings with other alleged terrorists, they have yet to provide much direct proof of his immediate involvement. Notice how out of 40+ pages of evidence, only 5-8 pages or so related to Hawash.

      As someone who knows Hawash quite well personally, it is bordering on comical the descriptions that the US Justice Dept has given him - they're basically saying that this pudgy family man who favors Costco hot dogs and likes to play soccer with his kids and coworkers will travel to the far reaches of China, and then crawl through minefields into Afghanistan, Rambo-style, to kill American troops. Please. This is pure and simple propaganda by the American gov't as an attempt to convict him in the eyes of the public, using the media as its instrument.

    17. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by geekee · · Score: 1

      You might consider finding less biased sources rather than picking and choosing articles that back your agenda. A lot more people should have been arrested in the US, not for speaking freely, but for infringing on the rights of people to live their lives. Civil disobedience my ass. They didn't think twice about taking away other people's rights to get some media attention. Who are the real criminals?

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    18. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I was looking for a particular case I'd read about in the mainstream press that was very similar to the one I cited. Unfortunately, not being a subscriber to Lexis-Nexis, I was unable to find it in the 15 minutes I felt was reasonable to spend responding. The fact is, we have had many cases of PEACEFUL protestors being rounded up and arrested, despite there not being any disruptions, blockage of traffic, damage to property, etc. People being disruptive should by all means be arrested for breaking whatever laws they're disrupting.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    19. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nice refutation.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    20. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by maladroit · · Score: 1
      Probably not the exact story you trying to find, but this recent article in the NY Times does address some recent abusive police actions.

      At the same time, the article in your original post is still a good one - it's not some 'I heard/he said' diatribe, it is a reasoned, detailed, first-person account of police going too far.

    21. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by cranos · · Score: 1

      Thankyou, I do try :)

    22. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 1

      "Material witnesses can be held for extended periods of time if it is believed that they pose a flight risk, or if they may be in danger by being without constant protection. There isn't any shady bullshit going on here, material witnesses are held all the time. Learn how the legal system works, THEN post."

      This guy, an American citizen married to an American citizen with children who are American citizens and an upper middle-class job in America is clearly NOT a flight risk. Where the hell would he go?

      This is very clearly a case of "shady bullshit." There's no reason in the world to expect that he would have left the country or even the state during the six weeks he was held without being charged. Since he was not a flight risk, and did not require constant protection, it was, as a matter of law, inappropriate to hold him as a material witness. Perhaps you should study up before posting.

      Steve

    23. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point. You didn't refute me at all. If anything, you validated my position. Thanks!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    24. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by cranos · · Score: 1

      Your right I must have missed something because it seemed to me that you were saying "They can't protest therefore the government must be communist". Once more for the slow of thinking, Communism as practiced by the Soviets and Cuba is not the only form of totalitariasm out there. Do some reading, research your subject matter, use google for fucks sake.

    25. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Mike Hawash is in such a prominent industry merely allowed his case to be publicized more broadly.

      Everyone should be shocked at the way he was held regardless of his profession.

      He is just an example of a broader phenomenon of the US government more easily permitting people to be held for extended periods of time without charges, which is the problem - not this individual case.

    26. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/materi alwitness.html

      This page explains a lot. If the proper warrants were obtained, if the person is believe to be a flight risk, then they can be held. Why you might not perceive him as a flight risk, it is obvious to me that IF IN FACT HE IS GUILTY WITH THE CRIMES HE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH he poses a serious flight risk. You CAN NOT assume such a thing in a case of this nature. From the article:

      As a practical matter, persons held as material witnesses are rarely released unless the government is ready to release them. If the detainee challenges their detention, the government has other options, such as filing criminal charges against the detainee. This strategy was used against Terry Nichols. Nichols was originally detained as a material witness in connection with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Nichols objected to his detention, arguing that there was no evidence that he would flee or otherwise be unavailable. The government then filed criminal charges against Nichols, making it irrelevant whether he would flee as a material witness, and kept him in jail as a criminal suspect.

      You know where that lead. I am not sitting here saying whether this man is guilty or not guilty, only that the goverment was well within their legal bounds on this one. There are much worse thing with the legal system than someone being held for 6 weeks, then charged with a crime. That's all I'm saying.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    27. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by arkanes · · Score: 1

      In addition, communism doesn't neccesarily have to limit human rights, either (although, if it were idealogically pure communism, there wouldn't be any need to protest for your human rights, because they'd be protected by the State... kinda like how it works in the US. Heh.)

    28. Re:Special case because he's a software engineer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Under the Six Degrees of Seperation Anti-terrorism Act, you know a person who knows some people who might be terrorists. You may be charged someday. Take him away!

      Wait, were those the Costco all-beef hotdogs, or the "mostly pig" ones? Probably really buys them from Al Dybaalah, no pork involved, never mind. Continue. Next!

  15. Hawash. by /dev/trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Victory! Isn't that what every one wanted, for Mike to be charged or released? So now he's charged. And he's in some deep shit too.

    1. Re:Hawash. by EDA+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Well put /dev/trash! Mike's coworkers at Intel now have their answer to the "material witness" claim.

      They can sleep well tonight with the knowledge that he flew to China, joined up with five alleged terrorists and attempted to join Al Qaeda and the Telaban in their fight against US soldiers in Afghanistan.

      I wish I had engineers with that level of dedication on my design team!

    2. Re:Hawash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent until proved guilty. This offer void in China, the former Iraq, and now the once-great United States. Fucking great.

    3. Re:Hawash. by Rude-Boy · · Score: 1

      I guess the ends justify the means...

    4. Re:Hawash. by elmegil · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They can sleep well tonight with the knowledge that he flew to China, joined up with five alleged terrorists and attempted to join Al Qaeda and the Telaban in their fight against US soldiers in Afghanistan.

      'Cos you know, if the gummint says it's so, it must be so.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    5. Re:Hawash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the point is that it should've happened sooner.

      Of course it could've been worse, he could've been held for much longer before he was charged - it's disturbing that a provision exists to allow people to be held for arbitrary amounts of time.

      Such provisions violate universal (international as well as US constitutional) concepts of human rights.

    6. Re:Hawash. by rpg25 · · Score: 1
      Innocent until proved guilty. This offer void in China, the former Iraq, and now the once-great United States. Fucking great.

      No, that's bunk.

      It sounds like fun to talk like Tom aine about this but, in fact, Hawash is innocent until proven guilty.

      Furthermore, if you read the judge's papers and the affidavit, the judge said that the material witness test relies on concern for flight. At the time of the first hearing, the information about that was closed and only the judge saw it. But now you can read the FBI agent's affidavit and, if you ask me, the concern for flight in Hawash's case was not unreasonable.

      I don't want to be a pollyanna and say that there are no problems with erosion of civil liberties nowadays. But the Hawash case is not a good example of this.

      BTW, for what it's worth, so far Bush and company (even Ashcroft) have a better wartime track record than Lincoln or (more recently) FDR.

    7. Re:Hawash. by dvk · · Score: 1
      'Cos you know, if the gummint says it's so, it must be so.

      Nope... but just because the United States government (you DO know how to spell, don't you) says it's so, it doesn't automatically make it not so either.
      They (US government) are not exactly PolitBureau/Saddam's Minitry of Propaganda. And unless you lived in a communist country like I did, you're not qualified to dispute this statement, BTW. They may lie sometimes. They may fuck up sometimes, in words, thoughts or even in deeds. But they aren't set all out to center their lives on lying to you about some Joe Blow. So you can hang up that tinfoil hat.

      Oh, and just because some web site run by a bunch of guy's friends - and half of SlashHerd - says he is an angel, doesn't mean he is.

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    8. Re:Hawash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the government lies and fucks up, but aren't lying or fucking up now? Right?

  16. Spaceship comparisons by angle_slam · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Just a few comments about the link to the mirror of the spaceship site.
    • No Death Star? No Imperial Battle Cruiser? No Borg Cube? Those are kind of obvious ships and it is surprising that they were left out.
    • There are several places where it says "click here" (e.g., the smaller Star Trek ships and Star Wars ships) but those links are not up.
    1. Re:Spaceship comparisons by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      On the original site there were links that had comparisons of the ships you mentioned. However, given the scale of the link they posted it would have been fairly dumb to put a borg cube in there and take up half of the page, which i might add is already fairly large.
      a bugg

    2. Re:Spaceship comparisons by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two observations:

      1. If the Romulans have a ship twice the length and about 10x the mass of the biggest Federation ships, then how come the Romulans are also-rans to the Federation?

      2. They show one Kazon ship (the ships Voyager kept tangling with in the first year or two.) Assuming this is the same one (the 109 meeter one, and they're not missing the giant one) then this seems wrong. The Kazon ship was truly gigantic, showing that just because the technology was more primitive didn't mean they couldn't build a huge ship to give the Federation's latest more than a run for its money. Unless I'm missing something, I kept getting the impression that Voyager, no small ship itself, was tiny by comparison.

      3. How about the Nostromo (ok, would be on the very, very large page, the one that a borg cube appears as a dot on, roughly the same page as the giant multi-lightbulb ship from ToS) and the Sulaco?

      4. Red Dwarf and the giant ship/vacuum cleaning lady transformer in Spaceballs?

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    3. Re:Spaceship comparisons by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Because those would be awfully big images.

      The death star has a diameter of 120km (our moon, for reference, is 3500km). Do you REALLY want to download a 120,000 x 120,000 (14.4 gigapixel) image?

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    4. Re:Spaceship comparisons by Scutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      our moon, for reference, is 3500km

      That's not a moon, it's a space station.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    5. Re:Spaceship comparisons by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      If the Romulans have a ship twice the length and about 10x the mass of the biggest Federation ships, then how come the Romulans are also-rans to the Federation?

      [Yoda]
      Size matters not....
      [/Yoda]

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    6. Re:Spaceship comparisons by crapulent · · Score: 1

      Just a note about that page: no wonder it suffered a slashdot-induced meltdown:

      Total images: 130
      Total bytes: 2196527

      Image loading will take about:
      1350.92 seconds @ 14.4
      675.46 seconds @ 28.8
      347.74 seconds @ 56K

      130 images on one page is a heck of a lot... it means each page load takes 130 connections and 130 http GETs (ignoring http pipelining and keep-alive which no doubt helps tremendously.) The load of a near-instantaneous swarm of tens of thousands of visitors each trying to launch a bazillion connections for all those images must really tax a server. Also consider that if 10,000 people load the page, that's about 22GB of traffic right there.

    7. Re:Spaceship comparisons by cookd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what about Red Dwarf? And definitely the Millenium Falcon. And a bus full of penguins, gotta have the penguins. And how big is a Beowulf cluster of those? And yes, I'd like to Super-Size that.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    8. Re:Spaceship comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You incompetent clod!

      Click the different zoom links and you'll see different ships, such as the Death Star, Imperial Battle Cruiser, and Borg Cube.

    9. Re:Spaceship comparisons by zdavek · · Score: 1

      It not really our moon, that was destroyed many years ago and replaced by Dahak ;)
      See the Baen free library.
      http://www.baen.com/library/0671720856/0 671720856. htm

    10. Re:Spaceship comparisons by dvk · · Score: 1

      Did they have any of the Honorverse spaceships?

      FYI, 1/2 of the relevance of the comment is that Honorvers by David Weber is part of the above-mentioned Baen CD :)

      The books had decent dimention descriptiosn, and the CD included schematics/drawings.

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
  17. spaceship size comparisons by pangu · · Score: 1

    And it does include an American football field for comparison, but not the end to end length of a LOC...

  18. Very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael and Timothy hate that slashdot isn't more like K5 because they have political agendas that they want to promote. So any piece of news that conforms with their political agenda and might have a programmer involved is immediately pushed up the queue.

  19. You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprint by Rain · · Score: 4, Informative

    > The ping denial doesn't work, which is good because a port scan found some pretty interesting things, including this string in the TCP/IP fingerprint: 'i586-pc-linux-gnu'. Does that mean Microsoft must provide Linux source to purchasers of this product?

    Answer: No.
    I'm 99% certain that you've misinterpreted nmap's output. When nmap doesn't find a matching fingerprint, it displays the parameters in a parsable format used in nmap-os-fingerprints. More recently (i.e. not originally, but it's been this way for some time), nmap also prints out the OS it was compiled on (presumably to weed out any OSs that mangle the data and prevent bad fingerprints from being distributed with nmap.) This information is printed out in a line like:

    SInfo(V=3.20%P=i586-pc-linux-gnu%D=4/29%Time=3EAF1 974%O=-1%C=80)

    I'm guessing that this was seen and the submitter jumped to conclusions... At any rate, I believe they'd be required to give source (if they changed it) to anyone per the GPL.

  20. Nota Bene on Baen ISO by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

    Between the time I submitted the story and the time it was run, the website hosting the ISO went offline, undoubtedly due to bandwidth issues. However, Scarywater did pick it up, and has quite a few people torrenting it now. I hardly think I need to remind people to leave their BitTorrent clients open for a while after their own download finishes, do I? :)

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  21. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    At any rate, I believe they'd be required to give source (if they changed it) to anyone per the GPL.

    Slightly wrong. They don't have to change it one bit to be required to give away the source.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  22. John Baen? by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2, Informative

    ITYM "Jim".

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:John Baen? by Leareth · · Score: 1

      Ooops.

      Well... he only lets his really close anonymous fans call him John. It's a stalker thing, you wouldn't understand.

      That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

      --
      *A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.*
  23. yes, those ships are big and all... by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

    but what about SpaceBall One (They've gone to plaid!)

    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  24. pdf converter needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not release these "books" as a text document so weasel reader and all the other e-book readers can read them?

    Why is it that we need to free the books that are supposedly free?

    anyone able to convert PDF to standard ASCII text without markup?

  25. Innocent until proven guilty? by Tony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are criminals who happen to be techies now lesser criminals or better humans because of this?

    Dude, he's not necessarily a criminal. He's a *suspect*. And the constitution has clauses that protect people from being improperly incarcerated; the big deal is this: the US is being fucked over by our own government. We are losing our constitionally-guaranteed rights to a bunch of morons who courted Saddam Hussein 20 years ago (while he was gassing Iranians), and now are suddenly outraged because he *might* have chemical weapons?!?!?

    No fucking way! We stand up for our rights, right here, right now. We tell them they will not take another one of us without due process.

    We take our country back.

    If Hawash is guilty, let it be proven in a court of law, the old-fashioned way.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by johny_qst · · Score: 1

      I wish more people shared this sentiment in the US. I have been getting off my ass and out to protest the wasteful killing of iraqis over the past few months. We need to each start taking a personal stand for what we know is the good fight. Just sitting back letting the news drone you into fearful consumerism isn't right. I think that Andrew Jackson was right. When the time comes where businesses can influence either directly or indirectly the functioning of our 'democratic state' there will be need of a revolution.

      --
      Fnord.sig
    2. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      People have been held as material witnesses for decades. It's nothing new. The only difference here is that he's a techie. End of story. None of you would give two shits about him if he was some random fry cook at McDonalds.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    3. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What court was the crime he was a "material witness" to tried in?

    4. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      When the time comes where businesses can influence either directly or indirectly the functioning of our 'democratic state' there will be need of a revolution

      How very, very true. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.. (With all due apologies to Queensryche)... I hear a "revolution calling..."

      Or if not an out and out armed revolution (which won't even be possible if we keep sitting back and letting the govt. ass-rape the 2nd Amendment), at least some SERIOUS FUCKING REFORM OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT.

      This kind of shit is why I Vote Libertarian. At least there is one political party dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    5. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      Aristotle somplace is said to have defined democracy a government by and for (for lack of a proper term) a middle class - i.e. not the rich or the poor, but the folks who own something, some property.

      Looks like this has been changing recently.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    6. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are saying its "because hes muslim" or "because hes arab" or "they're saying guilty until proven innocent." This is what makes it different.

      When the mob was big, they didnt randomly arrest Italians, but now they detained 8,000 arabs and muslims in the US with no evidence.

  26. New reader question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hi,

    I'm new to Slashdot. I find the articles to be very interesting and thought provoking. This is my first post by the way!! Which brings me to my question... Do you think that the following post is appropriate for this story?


    Homomania!! Finally, good old timothy is figuring out what Slashdot is really all about.


    It seems like at least half of the posts for most articles are like this, and the half deal with some sort of "goatse" what that is or "FP" posts, whatever they are. I just want to fit in here. Can someone please tell if the above post is okey-dokey?

    Spanks!
    Tom Blue
    blue@mail.tristate.edu
  27. First of all by Apreche · · Score: 2, Interesting

    King Kong is not smaller than a B2 bomber. I remember clearly that in Godzilla vs. King Kong it was an even fight in height and weight.

    Also, there are too many Star Trek ships on that chart. Star Trek sux. There are some Star Wars ships, but where's the death star? Where's the star destroyers? Did I miss them?

    Also the SDF-1 Macross is still missing. I am of the opinion that in a 1 on 1 fight the Macross can beat any other single starship of any category. The Valkyries will dominate!

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:First of all by daeley · · Score: 1

      Depends on which Kong you're talking about. The original 1933 version was that size. Here's an illustration of the original versus what he looked like in this one from King Kong versus Godzilla.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you missed it. Try the size tabs at the top to see the really big stuff.

    3. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the -10x, -100x, and -2000x links in the upper panel of the frameset for ships of greater scale. There is some overlap.

      Also, don't forget you can scroll in two directions.

      And there are so many Star Trek ships shown because Star Trek has lots and lots of different ships, whereas Star Wars has less variety.

  28. Re:Geek Criminals Are More Important? by Boy+Jenius · · Score: 1

    First, bear in mind that I've not been following the Hawash case. I don't think that "Geek Criminals Are More Important". However, people are more likely to right an injustice against someone they can identify with than otherwise, all other things being equal. Hawash is being discussed on "geek sites" not because it's something that geeks enjoy, it's because it's about injustice that affects a fellow geek.

  29. Wing Commander by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

    Why can't we have the ships from the Wing Commander series on there? Espcially the alien ships from Prophecy, as I recall, length of the final battleship was measured in miles. Flying around required a fair bit of time or a lot of afterburner fuel. That, and it had to whole squid looking thing going for it. And it was a very fun game, shame it doesn't get along with Win2K.

    1. Re:Wing Commander by Osty · · Score: 1

      You should try the Freespace series of games. They're getting a little long in the tooth these days, but they work perfectly well under Win2K and XP. As well, they really take up the slack where Wing Commander III dropped the ball -- screw the FMV, Mark Hamill, 5 minutes of gameplay for 30 minutes of movie crap. The Freespace series has a decent story (not groundbreaking, but still good for what it is) but more importantly great action and lots of it. You won't spend your gaming time watching poorly acted or rendered video sequences. You'll spend it in the cockpit of your fighter, blowing away aliens and fighting massive capital ships.


      Of course, the Freespace games are a couple years old now, and it'll probably be pretty difficult to find them in stores. Your best bet is to hit EBay and see what you can find.

    2. Re:Wing Commander by jnik · · Score: 1

      Wing Commander is very, very inconsistent. The quoted size of a ship, the size it is based on flytime at a certain speed, and the size it is based on how many of another ship you can line up next to it are almost always three very different numbers. Makes it pretty hard to do a meaningful comparison.

  30. Microsoft MN-100 firmware information by lgftsa · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can download an updated firmware for the MN-100 from Microsoft. Go to the page and select the MN-100 from the second pulldown box and download the self-extracting exe.

    Other than the readme.html, there's a MN100_runtime_v1.08.003.dlf file. DLF is a downloadable firmware format used by several embedded device manufacturers, but I can't find any info on it's format.

    There's no visible strings, so I assume it's compressed, but neither file(1) or I have any idea.

    Could someone with some file format skills please have a look at it and post instructions for extracting the image?

    1. Re:Microsoft MN-100 firmware information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Looked at the header sections of two different .dlf files (Belkin and MS). Not even close. Didn't see any "magic numbers" (like, header size or header offset) that matched up. Both files did contain a tiny bit of ASCII at the front end, but that's where the similarity ended (the Belkin file was worth a chuckle, actually).

      Is it compressed? Sure looks like it. Is it Linux? Not likely. My bet would be that it's a Belkin product in disguise running something like an i960 CPU, maybe with some stripped down little RTOS. But that's just a guess.

  31. Free Baen Books by ChrisKnight · · Score: 1

    I've had one of the Baen Books CDs available on-line for a while. My GF received it in a copy of War of Honor, and according to the license I can redistribute it electronically as long as I don't charge... Being the geek that I am, the first thing that I did was put it on-line. :)

    http://honorverse.ghostwheel.com/

    Enjoy!

    -Chris

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    1. Re:Free Baen Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! I've been looking for this!

    2. Re:Free Baen Books by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Your missing lots of books that were on the CD but not included in the index.

      See http://www.tigershaunt.com/baen/baen.html for a complete list. The files aren't linked, so visitors will have to figure out how to download them, or ask for an e-mail copy.

    3. Re:Free Baen Books by ChrisKnight · · Score: 1

      Rashkae says...
      > Your missing lots of books that were on the CD but
      > not included in the index.

      No, they are there. You just didn't click on the "Friends of Honor" link in the menu on the right side:

      http://honorverse.ghostwheel.com/friends.htm

      -Chris

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    4. Re:Free Baen Books by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Well damned, your right... Thanks for that :)

  32. Psshaw, Hawash by scrod · · Score: 2, Funny

    An AMD engineer would never have done anything like that.

    1. Re:Psshaw, Hawash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, an AMD engineer would copy the Intel engineer, get held for a shorter time, then claim that because he was ass-raped more often than the Intel engineer that his prison experience was more fulfilling.

    2. Re:Psshaw, Hawash by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      Maybe an AMD engineer would, but they would only need 2 alleged conspirators to cause the same amount of damage.

      (I know, bad me)

  33. fighting back against bad law? by JDizzy · · Score: 1

    Couldn't Mr. Hawash write a letter to the Supreme Court asking for relief? Or at least to the Attorney general's office! I mean, there is no instructions available as to what a person should do if held under those circumstances. Are they even allowed to send letters to friends/family? Isn't it easy to overturn these kinds of draconian laws if your done wrong by them, sort of like the Gideon Vs Wainwright (1963) case? IT might take time, and Mr. Hawash may have to spend a great deal more time in prison without due process, or being party to his lawyer, and lack of "innocent until proven guilty", as set forth in the bill of rights. Indeed the founders wanted to prevent this type of maneuver by the British at the time of the revolution. It is utterly sad that we have come full circle to become the tyrants we once spilt blood to reject. I guess 300 hundred years does that to the collective memory of a nation. A person should have the right to travel where they want, associate with anybody they wish, and conduct themselves in a militia if they so choose. These are the things that the Bill of rights initially sough to protect. Would Benjamin Franklin have been arrested as a terrorist if he were alive today! Still, I have a hard time believing this Mr. Hawash was even participating in the alleged activities he is believed to be held for. Indeed, the government is keeping this a big secret! If this were in a public court we could all know the truth, but the secret police doesn't have to obey the laws. Oh wait, that's right! WE allowed them to have the law changed in the knee-jerk reaction of a law known as the "Patriot Act", signed by the Retard... err... president of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush! Like Mr. Bush suggested/insinuated to the Iraqi' public durring one of his televised speeches to them, the situation of a tyranical leader could be solved with one bullet. I leave that last sentence to your own interpretation. I feel sorry for him being the guy that was in office durring the 9/11 fiasco, and I feel even sadder for the people under his rule, including myself. If this keeps going, the Chinies might endup having more freedom that the folks inthe USA.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:fighting back against bad law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MLA manual. Look into it.

    2. Re:fighting back against bad law? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ben Franklin was indeed a traitor to a European dictatorship, and would have been executed if caught.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:fighting back against bad law? by black+mariah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would Benjamin Franklin have been arrested as a terrorist if he were alive today!

      No, he'd have moved to another country like the pilgrims did. Duh.

      If this keeps going, the Chinies might endup having more freedom that the folks inthe USA.

      I severely fucking doubt it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  34. Hardly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The New American Gulag Archipelago."

    That shows an ignorance of history and the crimes of the Soviet system.

    In the 19th century the Czarist Russian government deported around 1.2 million prisoners to Siberia.

    After the Revolution the labour camps in Siberia were closed down. These were later reopened by Joseph Stalin and opponents of the regime were sent to what became known as Glavnoye Upravleniye Lagere (Gulag).

    Large numbers of people living along the western frontier of the Soviet Union (Georgian, Ukranian, Baltic) and Chinese and Koreans who lived along the eastern border were deported to Gulags in the interior just before the outbreak of WW2.

    Others were sent to labour camps because of their religious beliefs including Catholics, Baptists and members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

    It is estimated that around 50 million perished in Soviet gulags between 1930 and 1950.

    I know it's fun to consider the United States as bad as the Soviet system.

    But it's not at all accurate.

    All of the people killed in all the wars with the United States since 1776 don't add up to the number of citizens killed by the Soviet Union.

    If the United States had a "Gulag Archipelago" then there would not have been a 9-11 or Oklahoma City bombing. All of the fringe people in the US that might do something like that would in in a chain of prisons in Alaska, dying by the millions. Or maybe they'd be in prison being tortured with psychiatry like Communist systems are so fond of. Or maybe they'd have thier hearts and livers sold to the highest bidder.

    1. Re:Hardly by elmegil · · Score: 1
      I know it's fun to consider the United States as bad as the Soviet system. But it's not at all accurate.

      Some of us want to stop it before it gets that bad, rather than waiting until it is accurate.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Hardly by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      I know it's fun to consider the United States as bad as the Soviet system. But it's not at all accurate.

      Give it time - Communist Russia and the USSR didnt start as a Fascist dictatorship either... it took time.

  35. Why we use 'different standards' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    'Due process' does not apply on a battlefield - anyone who appears near a military force wearing the uniform of the other side is going to get popped. Anyone who argues against that is living in another universe.

    Likewise you can't just plug someone walking in front of your house because he's wearing an old World War II German helmet.

    In between there is no black and white line that separates 'combat' from 'peacetime'. If you think there is, please tell me what's the current situation in Iraq. Is it war? Is it peace?

    And the 'Patriot Act' has nothing to do with this continuum. In the Civil War US citizens were routinely incarcerated without due process - if someone got caught by Union troops wearing a Confederate uniform the person caught wasn't going to get a trial and access to a lawyer - he was going to a POW camp, unless he was deemed a 'spy' and sent to a military tribunal or a civilian court - pretty depending on what who caught the "spy" desired.

    Same thing in WWII - a US citizen was executed by a military tribunal as an enemy combatant for aiding German spys/saboteurs in the US. The Supreme Court upheld the execution.

    Probably the best analogy to Al Qaeda from history is the Barbary Pirates - that was pretty much state-sponsored terrorism against Mediterranean shipping in the early 1800s. But that's not really accurate enough because Al Qaeda is an organization the by its declarations and actions is at war with the US - thus making a member of Al Qaeda a military target and not only subject to civil or criminal actions such as arrest, prosecution, and jail but also to military tribunals and direct and not necessarily announced military action - like those schlubs driving across the Yemeni desert that a Hellfire missile sent to meet their 72 virgins.

    The simple fact is that governments have always had this power, and have always used it - getting labelled an "enemy combatant" by a sovereign government has pretty much been a death sentence since Hammurabi's day, and I don't see any government ever giving up that power. Heck, even the French manage to kill a few Germans in the twice-a-century march to Paris.

    1. Re:Why we use 'different standards' by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Okay, I agree with most of what you say, but how the hell do we _know_ when somebody is a member of Al Qaeda or is a terrorist? Our social contract with our government says that the only way we _know_ things in a legal sense to be true is by using our court process. I'm not holding the same standard to enemy combatants caught on the battlefield as I am to people picked up within the US, of course, and they are clearly very different things. If your military catches somebody armed on the battlefield, it's reasonable that they will be presumed to be a POW, and are not subject to the same rights (though they still have some rights).


      I am not claiming there is a black and white delineation between peacetime and wartime, but there is a black and white delineation between a suspect picked up on US soil and a guy with a gun picked up in the Afghan mountains. If somebody is determined a "spy" or enemy combatant on US soil, I believe that determination should be made using our courts and due process, not summarily made behind closed doors, allowing the military to dispose of them as they please. I don't give a fuck if the Supreme Court upheld doing it once in WWII, it's still wrong. If the person is so clearly a spy, we should be able to prove that in court, THEN execute them.

    2. Re:Why we use 'different standards' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If your military catches somebody armed on the
      > battlefield, it's reasonable that they will be presumed
      > to be a POW, and are not subject to the same rights
      > (though they still have some rights).

      Go tell that to the guys holding 'enemy combattants' on Cuba, will you? They don't seem to have grasped that idea yet.

    3. Re:Why we use 'different standards' by rpg25 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The material witness statute is intended to cover people important to an investigation who represent a substantial flight risk. If you have read the affidavit (I did), you will see that Hawash put all his goods and possessions in the hands of his wife and prepared for her a power of attorney. This certainly suggests that he was more of a risk of flight than an ordinary married man with children. Furthermore, the material in the affidavit discusses a trip to China, allegedly with anti-U.S. co-conspiritors. Again, reason for concern about flight.

      Though Hawash was held for a while as a material witness, he has now been charged, as required by the law. I have a somewhat icky feeling about the material witness laws, but as far as I can tell, this is a case where the system worked. The government had to present evidence to indict him, and is doing so. Hawash will have his day in court, which is what he's entitled to.

  36. UN didn't approve of Bosnia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    But they did 'approve' of what happened in Rwanda and Srebrenicia. Their "peacekeepers" just stood around and watched

    Real fucking useful that!

    Explain to me how the UN isn't utterly useless in dealing with the likes of Saddam or North Korea. Remember that 1994 agreement with Bill Clinton where they stopped their nuclear program? Yeah right.

  37. Monorail! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny
    [Barney] What about us braindead slobs?
    [Lyle] You'll be given cushy jobs!
    ...
    [Crowd] Monorail! Monorail!

    --Simpsons episode 9F10

    1. Re:Monorail! by x136 · · Score: 1

      Homer: Mono-- D'OH!

      --
      SIGFEH
  38. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny
    Even if they did, you could sue them, and win, and you still wouldn't get anything. MS lost against the U.S. government, for Chrissake, and didn't suffer one bit.

    Since the U.S. defeated Iraq, and MS defeated the U.S., I think we can safely draw the conclusion that Microsoft is a tougher, more ruthless enemy than Saddam Hussein.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  39. Every journey by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    I know it's fun to consider the United States as bad as the Soviet system.

    But it's not at all accurate.

    No one is seriously saying that the US is presently as bad as the soviet system became (the closest thing, I've seen is a few people pointing out similarities between our present foreign policy and that of early nazi germany).

    But consider: the soviets didn't just get up one morning, send all those people off and kill them in one fell swoop before lunch. They sent one person, and then another, and then another, and then another...the MO of a state that does not respect the rights of its citizens is much more like that of a serial killer than of a suicide bomber.

    The big problem is, just like with serial killers, once they've done it a few times, it gets easier and easier for them to justify (at least to themselves). You violate a handful of people's rights here, a few dozen there, maybe take a few liberties with the rights of a few hundred more for standing up for the first lot...and pretty soon you're talking about a serious human rights problem. That is the reason for the outrage.

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Every journey by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "I've seen is a few people pointing out similarities between our present foreign policy and that of early nazi germany."

      Wow.

      I'd not seen that the United States was looking to take over other countries to send American Peoples there to settle and have 16 kids a family and out-breed the "Untermensch".

      I've yet to see anyone involved in US foreign policy claim a dolchestossiegend for Vietnam or Korea or anywhere the US didn't get exactly what it wanted.

    2. Re:Every journey by geekee · · Score: 1

      "But consider: the soviets didn't just get up one morning, send all those people off and kill them in one fell swoop before lunch. They sent one person, and then another, and then another, and then another...the MO of a state that does not respect the rights of its citizens is much more like that of a serial killer than of a suicide bomber."

      What are you talking about? After the the reds siezed power, they executed a large number of people they felt were enemies of their new state. And let's not for get Stalin. He'd have to rule a hell of a long time to kill millions of people one at a time.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    3. Re:Every journey by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What are you talking about? After the the reds siezed power, they executed a large number of people they felt were enemies of their new state. And let's not for get Stalin. He'd have to rule a hell of a long time to kill millions of people one at a time. "

      You are intentionally missing the point. A common tactic.

      The point is that things start small, with fascism such as we are experiencing. Every "victory" over the 20th century that Ashcroft scores emboldens and justifies what he will do next.

      Pointing out the horrors of an unrelated social movement is another diversionary tactic. Yes, the Soviet Union was bad, wicked bad. It is also dead. The Mongols were bad. Nazis were bad. McVeigh was bad.

      But the present bad, the Fascist takeover of the U.S., is something we can do something about. They are, as someone mentioned, repealing the 20th century in its entirety -- civil rights, control over corporate power, ecologically sane policies... Racism and religious hate has become de rigeur as a not-so hidden justification for what we are doing now. Father Coughlin would be applauding.

      Just because we have not killed millions -- yet -- does not mean we will not. Remember (or rather we DON'T) that the U.S. killed two million in Vietnam. We do have a record of ideologically justified slaughter. We just butchered thousands of soldiers in Iraq based on a set of outright lies created outright by Bush's Project for a New American Century thinktankers.

      It just depends on who's getting killed. And who cares about them. If a white man from a nice town blows up a Federal building, the members of his ideological movement (militias, christian and otherwise) are not arrested en masse and sent to Cuba. Nothing happens to those loons at all.

      But if members of a brown people worshipping a different god blow up a building, the Constitution is ignored, due process is shut down, and we invade countries ('cause they LOOK like the bad guys, all brown, mustached, and worshipping Satan). And we cheer this on, 'cause we must trust our leaders, who have out best interests at heart.

      Unless they are a Democrat. Then, during wartime, say when the President is trying to find and destroy the enemy with no friendly media coverage, the Governent is EVIL, and the President can be harrassed with lawsuits, calls for his assassination (shout out to G. Gordon) are ignored by the FBI, and an impeachment can be ginned up on a denial-of-blowjob charge.

      Back to point. Big evils can start small, and this, what Ashcroft is doing, is evil on a scale that can compare with any fascist takeover in history, from Caesar to Mussolini. The manner of the change is completely different from case to case. History never repeats itself.

      But methodologies do repeat. What we have is, in no particular order:

      - identification of an exterior enemy. whether the threat is real or faked up is irrelevant.

      - the insistence that previously held rights be surrendered for the safety of all. logic has no sway -- fear is the trigger. well-fanned fear.

      - identification of the leader with the heroism of the armed forces.

      - elimination of any oversight over the actions of the executive.

      - elimination of all public records of the actions of the executive.

      - insistence on obediance in the smallest things from members of the elected legislature.

      - establishment of government control of the major media. in the present case, it isn't necessary, because the rightist press has become loudspeakers for the executive.

      - elimination by whatever means of alternative press, by physical or other means. marketing is one of those means. disinformation is another.

      - demonizing foreign countries, pandering to common hates and ignorance (yes, France, Germany, etc).

      - commingling the exective government with corporate business power. This was Mussolini's fascism: he at first called it "corporatism", amazingly enough.

      - demonizing and

    4. Re:Every journey by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      "I'd not seen that the United States was looking to take over other countries to send American Peoples there to settle and have 16 kids a family and out-breed the "Untermensch"."

      Have a look at the Jewish settlements pushing into what used to be Palestinian land. Pretty familiar according to your words. And the immigrant status given to new and proven Jews is a pretty sweet deal as well.

    5. Re:Every journey by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      I'd not seen that the United States was looking to take over other countries to send American Peoples there to settle and have 16 kids a family and out-breed the "Untermensch".

      Their comparison seemed to be more to the US statements that we want "peace in our time" while at the same time we are launching a series of unprovoked attacks on smaller countries. (Unprovoked, they argued, because neither Afganistan or Iraq have done anything to the US other than stand in the way of our oil interests; the Saudis (SP?) have much closer ties with the 2001 hijackers (almost all of who were Saudi) and North Korea poses a much more credible threat.)

      I only brought this up because it was the closest thing I've encountered to a serious comparison between the US and a country of that era.

      -- MarkusQ

    6. Re:Every journey by arkanes · · Score: 1

      The propaganda and demonization of countries that oppose us is pretty similiar, too. Not that I really expect GWB to turn into another Hitler (Hitler spoke better English :P), but the similarities ARE there, and it's worth people being aware of them.

    7. Re:Every journey by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Again.

      I've not seen the UNITED STATES looking to take over other countries to send American Peoples to settle there and out breed the Untermensch.

      I'll be all for the Israelis moving out of the PA lands as soon as Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Jordan give back the land and property siezed when they threw out the Jews in those countries in the 40s, 50s and 60s.

  40. HHGTTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooops. It was a radio series first.(Still the
    best version) Then a book. A modified/re-recorded version
    of the radio series was released on vinyl.
    Then came the TV adaption.
    Then came the book of the radio scripts.
    When all information such as this is a few clicks
    away via google, why do people get it wrong?

  41. no, i586-pc-linux-gnu means you are using a 586 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this what Microsoft thinks of viral licensing? Vagary writes "One of my friends just got a Microsoft router and asked me to check the security features for it. The ping denial doesn't work, which is good because a port scan found some pretty interesting things, including this string in the TCP/IP fingerprint: 'i586-pc-linux-gnu'. Does that mean Microsoft must provide Linux source to purchasers of this product?"

    This means that the box you're running nmap on is a 586 PC running GNU/Linux.

  42. No Star Destroyer? by SoLoatWork · · Score: 1

    Where's the Star Destroyer?!?

    (And borg cube)

    1. Re:No Star Destroyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the Star Destoyer?!?

      (And borg cube)


      Have people forgotten how to navigate framesets? Click the "-100X" tab on the upper frame and the other tabs to view ships at other scales. Some are so large that the images would be too big for browsers to handle at the same scale and still make out detail, like Godzilla standing on the Death Star II.

      Now if you want to complain about our own solar system's planets not being represented, then I'd agree. I want to see the Death Star II compared to Earth.

  43. guilty by association? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok if im wrong here someone straighten me out.
    here is what i gathered to be fact.

    1. he grew a beard and was less then friendly to his neihbors after sept 11 (sounds like most white american trash). ALSO was seen shooting firearms in a gravel pit which i in canada have done with mine (ever hear of the NRA?).

    2. alledgedly he went to china and accosiated with suspected terrorists, but i have no reason to believe he was there on business.

    3. he may have made a pledge to a charity that WAS under investigation for terrorist links (take waht you want from that one)

    4. after 6 weeks of being held he is finally charged with something.

    Here is what I think:
    it is a direct violation of his rights as a human being let alone as an american to be detained without charge this reflects poorly on me as they likely had no case. also there have been no direct link of money transfers to even alleged terrorist orginisations. last time i checked your constitution protects his right to associate with whomever he wants. so chatting with suspected terrorists is allowed. he was not in afganistan and he has not commited any terrorist acts. under canada's laws CASE CLOSED.

    under the US "stupid paranoid fucks laws resembaling mccarthur era" rules this guy might actually get charged. however i think that currently there is too little evidence supporting the prosicution. i think he will go home in the end. im surprised he was even detained.

    all i have to say is thank god i live in canada.

    1. Re:guilty by association? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also if they thought he actually was alqueda or related the FBI would have beaten the shit out of him too for information.

  44. Scary stuff... by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scariest part of that 43 page affidavit is where some of the evidence came from. On page 7:

    22. On October 19, 2001, a resident of the Grail Apartments in Portland, Oregon provided to the Portland Division of the FBI a plastic grocery bag containing miscellaneous paperwork, some in Arabic, that he/she discovered earlier that week in the recycling bin at the apartment complex.

    Since when does the FBI collect trash as evidence based on the recommendation of a random neighbor? Or is this a special exception since it contained, huge shock, Arabic writing?

    More on page 36:

    147: On October 5, 2002, the day after the arrests of Ford, Lewis, Battle and Muhammad Bilal, a neighbor of HAWASH, called the FBI Portland Division and stated that his wife and he resided at 2650 NE Aurora, Hillsboro, Oregon, until approximately June 2002. The neighbor stated that his previous neighbors (to the west of his residence in a light blue house, identified as Hawash's residence) who he identified as "Michael and Lisa" (HAWASH) were close friends of Ahmed Bilal and Habis Al Saoub. He observed Bilal, Bilal's wife Corrine, and Al Saoob frequently visiting Michael and Lisa's house. The neighbor further stated that Ahmed Bilal occasionally provided gardening services for him.

    148: During a subsequent interview conducted by a representative of the JTTF approximately four months after his initial telephone call, the neighbor confirmed the identity of Ahmed Bilal from a photo spread, but was unable to identify Al Saoub.

    149: On October 20, 2001, FBI Portland Division received a telephone call from a second neighbor of HAWASH in Hillsboro, Oregon, concerning Maher Mofeid HAWASH. The caller described HAWASH as a "Palestinian Muslim who works at Intel and is married with three children." The caller wanted to advise the FBI that HAWASH was spending more time at home following September 11, 2001, and that HAWASH was not as friendly as usual. During a follow-up interview with the second neighbor, he told investigators that following a visit by HAWASH's mother in the Spring of 2001, HAWASH changed his attire from "western" clothing to "eastern" clothing, grew a beard, and distanced himself from his neighbors. The second neighbor observed more vehicles driven by other Middle Eastern males coming and going from the residence. The second neigbor further believed that HAWASH began attending Mosque on a regular basis.

    So, let's get this straight. The first neighbor called the FBI because he recognized that one of the people who had been arrested had been to Hawash's house. That, I can almost understand, especially if there was media attention from the first arrests (seems likely).

    The second neighbor, on the other hand, called the FBI because.. why? Let's see, first, Hawash spent more time at home after 9/11. Gee, yes, that's suspicious, only like 80% of the people I know decided to spend more time with their family after that. And second, he wasn't as friendly as usual. But gee, huge tradgedies usually make people so *cheerful*, what could be his problem?

    Then, when the FBI actually followed up on this inane call, they found that he started attending a Mosque, dressing in "eastern" clothes, grew a beard, and became withdrawn from his neighbors, in turn associating with other Muslims. Gee, that certainly sounds like he found religion, doesn't it? And while that's arguably not the brightest thing to do, last time I checked it wasn't illegal, even if it's an officially unpopular religion like Islam.

    This whole thing is sick. Yes, there's other evidence in there that links him to the other people, that's fine. I'm not saying he's innocent. But the fact that the points above, particularly the 'second neighbor', made it into the report is just wrong.

    1. Re:Scary stuff... by geekee · · Score: 1

      Ahh., they didn't arrest him based on anything you mentioned above. They are simply observations made by witnesses or data collected by the FBI. You don't just throw out evidence because you don't think it's relevant. That's for the DA to determine.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    2. Re:Scary stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gee, that certainly sounds like he found religion, doesn't it? And while that's arguably not the brightest thing to do, last time I checked it wasn't illegal, even if it's an officially unpopular religion like Islam. "

      Yeppers, a nice, peaceful, easygoing religion like Islam. Not like those evil Norwegian grandmothers who flew the planes into the twin towers, or those sick Aleutians that continue to blow up school buses.

      Violent fundies (and the people they call friends), be they Christian, Hebrew, Co$, Islamist, or Buddhist (ha) deserve to to be distrusted. End of story.

      Please, cash this reality check soon. My account may be overdrawn.

    3. Re:Scary stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is peaceful. All YOU see is the fundies, but over 90% of the muslims arent like that. The violent ones get all the press.

      What, like Christianity is peaceful? Look at 2000 years of violence. Not over yet.

    4. Re:Scary stuff... by rocketfairy · · Score: 1

      And where in the affadavit does it indicate with any seriousness whatsoever that Hawash found a particularly violent form of Islam? Growing a beard and going to a mosque aren't signs of terrorism any more than living in Michigan is. My neighbors started going to mass more often after the 11th, does that mean they're likely to start a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land?

    5. Re:Scary stuff... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yeppers, a nice, peaceful, easygoing religion like Islam. Not like those evil Norwegian grandmothers who flew the planes into the twin towers, or those sick Aleutians that continue to blow up school buses.

      Islam does NOT advocate terrorism. Just because the terrorists call themselves Muslim doesn't mean most other Muslims agree with them. Just because Jerry Falwell calls himself Christian doesn't mean most other Christians agree with him.

      Violent fundies (and the people they call friends), be they Christian, Hebrew, Co$, Islamist, or Buddhist (ha) deserve to to be distrusted. End of story.

      What makes you say he's one of them?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Scary stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My neighbors started going to mass more often after the 11th, does that mean they're likely to start a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land?

      Probably not, Bush on the other hand, has already started his.
      And now he has conquered a great staging platform for the next step...

    7. Re:Scary stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Islam does NOT advocate terrorism. Just because the terrorists call themselves Muslim doesn't mean most other Muslims agree with them. Just because Jerry Falwell calls himself Christian doesn't mean most other Christians agree with him."

      Right-o. Only most Christians (or anybody, in fact) deplore the hijacking of Christianity. Where's the "majority" Islamic outrage over terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. Double-standard? All I've heard from Islam is "don't profile us!", *NOT* "that's not Islam".

    8. Re:Scary stuff... by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Since when does the FBI collect trash as evidence based on the recommendation of a random neighbor? Or is this a special exception since it contained, huge shock, Arabic writing?

      They didn't. They collected papers given by a concerned resident. They weren't rooting around in the building's trash, the resident was. Not all of the documents were in Arabic. He/she probably couldn't read Arabic, but saw something in the non-Arabic works that was frightening, prompting the resident to grab everything. The description looked benign enough to me (assuming I can't read Arabic), but was apparently worrysome to someone else (perhaps taking into account the changes in Hawash's behavior). I'm not trying to justify the act, just trying to suggest ways it might have appeared reasonable to someone at the time.

      The second neighbor, on the other hand, called the FBI because.. why?

      I agree that the stated information doesn't seem to justify a call, but it's possible the call was prompted based on some other concern that isn't documented here, and that all they're putting in the affidavit are certain facts immediately relevant to the affidavit. It's possible some evidence will be withheld until trial.

      But that's just a guess/assumption, but it seems more likely than some random resident calling the FBI to report the things documented there. That would be a bit weird. (But hey, this is America...)

    9. Re:Scary stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And where in the affadavit does it indicate with any seriousness whatsoever that Hawash found a particularly violent form of Islam?"

      Umm... that part about going to Afghanistan to train with al Qaida to fight US troops was my first clue.

      What's more ignominious? .... your tenuous grasp of who your enemies are, or the fact that I'm actually typing "LOLOLOLOL" to convey my view of that post?

    10. Re:Scary stuff... by aron_wallaker · · Score: 1

      The part that I find the most scary is the fact that people starting calling up the FBI on their neighbors based on them changing their taste in clothing or growing a beard. The garbage collectors are calling in the FBI because someone in the building writes in Arabic ? Why worry about the government when your fellow citizens seem so eager to help create a police state ?

  45. Gee, I wonder why by Aexia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>Hawash's neighbors became suspicious after the September 11 terrorist attacks and called the FBI, according to the affidavit. One of the neighbors said Hawash, who worked for Intel, was "spending more time at home following September 11, 2001" and "was not as friendly as usual."

    Given the rampant anti-Arab sentiment after 9/11, is this any surprise?

    1. Re:Gee, I wonder why by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      And where are most of the terrorists from? Hard to not understand on some level this particular feeling. Its a very Human reaction.

  46. ISO mirror by SlashdotMirrorer · · Score: 0

    I've got the ISO mirrored here. Take it easy on it guys ;)

  47. you'd have to lock up by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    --you'd have to lock up a boatload of US government employees then. Frankly, I wish "we the people" could. Al queda and the bin laden networks were trained and supported for years by the US government. All those caves and bunkers we are blowing up over there got built by the bin laden construction company, financed by combined joint US/saudi funds. The KLA went over night from being labeled a "narco terrorist" gang to "good allies in our fight against "whomever". They said it was milosevich, I say it was to consolidate some drug smuggling routes and grab some mines. Same with some bosnian muslims. Same with a lot of central american goons. And it's still going on, last week a very under-reported story, something like 57 top US companies all getting little joke toy fines for "trading with the enemy",iran, whomever, the "axis of todays badguys" list. None of those CEOs are locked up. I'm sure big fat campaign contributions and serious cash under the table has nothing to do with it. The elite try to not eat their own, they are content with being predators on the herd. Once in awhile they will sacrafice one of their own, that's about as far as it gets.

    Naw, the government/corporate cartel is a big fat hypocrite. They can pick and choose and change their minds daily, anyone else is forced to be psychic. We were shipping cash-43 million or so- to the taliban when they were actually destroying poppy fields, whoops! That sure didn't set well with the CIA drug smuggling cartel. Now our "allies" in what used to be called "the northern alliance"-those were the "commies" before and the "bad guys", remember?-well, those guys now have a bumper crop of opium, with supposedly the US all over ashcanistan. Funny how that stuff works, yes? It never really dawned on those in the crooked shadow government, being the chronic serial liars they are, that someone else might actually not lie, and really do what they said they would do, that the taliban would actualy DESTROY the 100 to 200 billion a year opium poppy crop, they thought they would play act at it, like they do in south america with coca. Now that don't excuse any other heinous bogus stuff the taliban did, but destroy that poppy crop they almost completed.

    Funny how all the top US administration guys from the twig on down all got long, well established close and complex business ties with the wahabists, isn't it? See any of those bozos getting arrested? Nope, because they are "the government" now and they can "change their minds" and you can't. They can "support" some nation or faction one day, the next day call them "terrorists" and if you as joe peon supported the same exact guys previously now YOU can be a terrorist while joe government just "changed it's mind".

    Fat, foul, vulgar stinking hypocrites. Saddam Hussein, old time, long time serious CIA asset, they used him on contract as a hitman, that's how he got his start. He was supported fully for more than a decade, then he just got double crossed by bush 1. That's what really happened. Once saddam was no longer usefull to the goon faction, he got automagically turned into the "badguy". Sure, he was ALWAYS a badguy, so what does that make guys in our own government who worked with him and supplied him all those years, and why ain't they in jail? Oh ya, they can change their minds, they are the "elite", VIPs, *you can't* though.

    Sorry, the US government and it's "law and intelligence" divisions are the biggest hypocrites and liars you'll ever meet, at least up into the upper management level I mean. The grunts just follow orders, same as any other regime on the planet. That's why they are using a lot of the same police saddam was using, the same police who dragged people into saddams prisons, who tortured people and killed them, now they are "good guys", on the US taxpayer payroll now. We did that after ww2, operation paper clip, bring over all the foul and disgusting german nazi scientists they could get their hands on, they become "good citizens" magically, got put on the payroll.

    Hy

    1. Re:you'd have to lock up by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      i couldnt agree more. the trouble is, how do you form a government WITHOUT it becoming corrupt?? What is the alternative, the great lost mechanism to prevent this????

      My vote is to get rid of nation states and standing-national armies... no wars, no hinderance of movement - then PEOPLE can see themselves as equal and the same..

      love the prey/herd line - gonna use that ;)

  48. other Hell's Faire extras by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    ...include some John Ringo story-specific themed Sluggy Freelance cartoons in the back of the book - if you're a fan of the stories & Sluggy Freelance, you'll love 'em! Plus it's great to see a drawing of the Bun-Bun Sheva. :)

  49. Intel programmer Mike Hawash by zymano · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If this is true that he wanted to kill our guys then he needs to Fucking Die or sent to jail forever and confiscate all the riches he made from this country or anything leftover from his donations to terrorist organizations.

    Alot of you people are so gullible. Just because a guy is a programmer in this country doesn't mean he's a nice guy. He's a plant by extremists or has loyalties to them.

    Quit your sympathies for the guy and let the gornment do it's work.

    1. Re:Intel programmer Mike Hawash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, asshole.

      I'll let the "gornment" do their work when they do it in a manner consistent with the people's charter for them - which includes disclosure, public input, due process, and an assumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The fact that you parade around here calling me "gullible" and telling me to "quit my sympathies" demonstrates your opposition to everything this country and its laws were modeled after and used to stand for.

      What has been proven in the Hawash case? Nothing. Your government, after holding the man in a cell for a month and a half as a "material witness" to a crime that itself hadn't been brought before a judge, has accused him of travelling to China, and supposedly maybe thinking about crossing into Afganistan. They have a bunch of hearsay, no demonstratable hard evidence, no jury trial, no conviction, no peer review outside of the executive branch, and you label him an "extremist" who should be "sent to jail forever"?

      The extremists - the terrorists - are people like you, whose actions fly in the face of over two hundred years of constitutional protection for American citizens. (If we're going to play "guilty-until-proven-innocent", then I want to play too, you filthy terrorist.)

    2. Re:Intel programmer Mike Hawash by zymano · · Score: 0, Troll
      There are new laws in place because were at WAR you stupid French, Euro,Asian or Muslim cocksucker.

      That all changed after 9/11.

      We will arrest people that are suspected of Terrorism. Go back to building your suicide vest!

    3. Re:Intel programmer Mike Hawash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to building your suicide vest!

      Sounds like you need one more than he does.

    4. Re:Intel programmer Mike Hawash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we are at "war" with every single country in the world is because of red-necks like yourself who are full of ignorance and hatred for others.

      I guess you're one of those people who "voted" for Bush (if there was such a thing called 'vote').

  50. Hawash Disappeared? or Better hide the axe by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would Hawash rather be tried under Treason charges?

    Fro those of us who dont remember wwII

    a citizen can be tried fro treason on grounds of takign up arms against the US..

    The treason trial and charges are conducted by the military..

    and you either get life or hanging..

    Hawash should thank himself that he is in FBI custody as a Material witness ...

    He could be in a military brig instead..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:Hawash Disappeared? or Better hide the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think treason is bad - I had to walk barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways.

    2. Re:Hawash Disappeared? or Better hide the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "it could be worse" statement doesnt fly. So what if Bush allows something similiar to what Saddam did. By your reasoning, at least he wasn't like Hitler, so we're safe.

  51. Microsoft Router by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "The ping denial doesn't work, which is good because a port scan found some pretty interesting things, including this string in the TCP/IP fingerprint: 'i586-pc-linux-gnu'. Does that mean Microsoft must provide Linux source to purchasers of this product?"

    I'm thinking "no." Ping denial also doesn't work on my XP Pro box running ICP, so it sounds like the router is running Microsoft's own software. I doubt a router running Linux would have that problem.

  52. Political statements do not help Mike by alexo · · Score: 1

    Mike was working in Israel for some time. I am pretty sure that during that time he worked with Israeli Intel employees who considered him, at the least, a "decent guy" and would like to help him.

    However, they may be reluctant to associate with a site that includes in Mike's biography statements like "Mike's family was exiled from the Palestinian Territory by the Israeli government in the early 1970s".

    It does not matter what is your stance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, statements like this (especially when presented without any context) do not help Mike's case.

  53. Fighting Spaceships List! by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    1. Gort in his patrol ship would clean all their clocks (and no, this is not a joke entry)

    2. Giant light bulb ship from ToS

    3. Death Stars (main laser only)

    4. Hypothetical Federation ship with phase cloaking and some of the other balls-out stuff hidden in the secret vaults of the Federation, to say nothing of the futuristic stuff Janeway brought back, including the 26th century holo emitter and data gleaned from the borg baby who temporarily absorbed it. (M5 [or Data, for that matter] in charge of a ship based on the neutronium hull of the doomsday machine, armed with genesis-derived crap? Ex-queeze me? "The Klingons, the Romulans, the Borg, the Dominion? They're nothing compared to the coming of the Federation." Actually, the death star couldn't kill this, nor the light bulb ship. Gort could, tho'.)

    5. Some crazy ship from some Japanimation I rented when I was on a kick some years back, they opened up dozens upon dozens of blasters and fired continuously and violently for minutes on end. Probably a more realistic space battle, they only last minutes.

    6. Monitor class from "In Death Ground..." book duo-logy. My god, if you're tired of the wimpy battles in Star Trek and Star Wars and on TV..., not to mention the ferocious "game over, man!" ass-kicking humanity & friends receive for the first half of the series...

    7. Vader's command super star destroyer

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    1. Re:Fighting Spaceships List! by LaminatorX · · Score: 1
      6. Monitor class from "In Death Ground..." book duo-logy. My god, if you're tired of the wimpy battles in Star Trek and Star Wars and on TV..., not to mention the ferocious "game over, man!" ass-kicking humanity & friends receive for the first half of the series...

      Doulogy? Oh no You need to read Insurrection, the published-earlier/set-later Starfire quadrology novel. It's the Americal Revolution playing out between the Core and Rim systems within the Terran Ferderation a generation later. Great stuff.

  54. You say this every god damned day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    learn what the fucking words mean! I mean, dammit
    All men are created equal, but you're really pushing the fucking boundaries here, asshat.

    The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
    In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices,

  55. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by geekee · · Score: 1

    Did you ever consider that antitrust legislation is so vague that the govt. can make up whatever rules on the fly they want to to persecute any company they choose? Given this, the outcome against MS was just. The govt. simply declared them a monopoly and set some ground rules.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  56. Right on the money by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You're absolutely right. In my case, I started by reading the frist free chapters of the 1st John Ringo novel online. Then I ordered the HTML version. Then I ended up buying the book for finishing it without having to stand in front of a screen. All of that beause of the free chapters online.

    Would the RIAA people please look at the sales figure of Baen and get a freakin' clue?

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:Right on the money by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      That would make entirely too much sense for a carnovirous pack of lawyers {lawyers making law is like a fox guarding the henhouse}

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    2. Re:Right on the money by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "Would the RIAA people please look at the sales figure of Baen and get a freakin' clue?"

      Baen gives away many items for free (via the Baen free library), but doesn't give away everything. Result: Slashdot-types love them.

      RIAA members give away many items for free (via www.mp3.com), but don't give away everything. Result: Slashdot-types vilify them.

      Besides, there's also a larger difference between an e-book and a real book versus a properly encoding mp3 and the corresponding original CD track. Reading an e-book is noticeably more awkward than its dead paper equivalent, yet many casual music listeners don't notice the difference between an mp3 and a CD unless they're looking for it.

  57. Your arguments are just like your namesake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spotty record and full of holes.

    Go die somewhere.

  58. Don't call it "Justice" either by Frodrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared,"

    Actually, the government wouldn't even admit that they had him for several weeks. And he certainly wasn't given access to legal representation. Then the government declared a fair bit of the information surrounding his case was "secret" and therefore did not have to be revealed in court.

    Except for the "never seen again" part, that sounds pretty damn close to "disappeared" to me.

    And now that the time initially set by the judge was about to expire, and the court would likely set him free, the feds have charged Hawash with every crime the can think of (If he were a little older, no doubt he would also be charged with the Lindburgh kidnapping) figuring that they can hold him for another year before it is even likely to come to trial.

    Then, in 6 months or so, they might offer him a plea bargain "he can't refuse", all the while making noises about executions, life imprisonment, taking away his family's citizenship, etc. Then, once they extort a guilty plea from him, he won't even be able to appeal!

    I don't know what we have here, but it sure ain't justice.

  59. Did you read any of the articles? by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You make some interesting arguments regarding some events you seem to have imagined in your head, but they have very little to do with the actual case of Mike Hawash. Reading the links provided would easily show that.

    1. There was no explanation. Through unknown channels, stories appeared in the press about how he was held as a material witness, but Mikes friends and family got no answers to any inquiries about his status. Also, unless he is called to testify in some case, which nothing seems to indicate will happen, the "material witness" label was phony.

    2. "in *any* country, you'd expect him to be arrested and charged" Did you miss that the main complaint here is that he was not arrested and charged?

    3. Nobody is asking for him to get special treatment. Just his constitutional right to a fair trial, like all other Americans.

    4. Are you under the impression that anyone is holding up China or Cuba as models for better legal treatment? Or are you saying that as long as the US is marginally better than the most oppressive regimes on the planet, we should not complain?

    5. The crime he is charged with seems to be that he travelled to China and back. Nobody is even alleged to have been hurt by these actions.

  60. Besides the point by error0x100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if he is guilty, which would be very unfortunate especially in this case, that is entirely beside the point. The important point here is the loss of rights under which US citizens can now be detained in this manner. This is what people are protesting, and the point stands that this is a serious problem whether or not he is actually guilty in this case.

    Sadly, if it turns out that he is guilty, then many people will forget the important point here - because they will inevitably confuse the concept of defending his basic rights (that all US citizens are supposed to share), with the concept of defending him.

  61. Read the links by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    If you actually read the links you will find that he was in fact not held as a material witness as a matter of public record. Stories appeared in the press claiming he was held as a material witness, but there was no public record of it, and the authorities refused to answer any questions about what had happened to him.

    As far as I can tell he was disappeared in the Argentinian sense for those 6 weeks, but now that he is charged with a crime that is no longer so. Even in Argentina, some of the disappeared were eventually found alive and well.

  62. I didn't say it didn't suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I just wanted to point out that what's going on is nothing new.

    And if you think it's bad now, wait to see what happens if the US does get hit again like 9/11 - or worse. Then things will really get nasty - with about 90%+ approval ratings. And if the US does get hit with a suitcase nuke or smallpox I'm not sure I'd care if the FBI preemptively bugged every mosque in the US.

    But I'd still be willing to bet that the US is one of the few societies that has open debates on the rights of someone who pretty obviously had thrown in with a group intent in murdering as many members of that society as possible.

    1. Re:I didn't say it didn't suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the US does get hit with a suitcase nuke or smallpox I'm not sure I'd care if the FBI preemptively bugged every mosque in the US.

      You should watch 24.

    2. Re:I didn't say it didn't suck by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that this is old enough that no mods will wander through it, but this comment should have been modded waaaaaaay up.

      It is an accurate reflection of fairly mainstream American thought - September 11 permanently changed things. It was not a blip. People are still angry about it, deep down, and the decent people of the world should hope that nothing like it happens again. As the parent noted, the government's behavior up to this point is only a tiny fraction of what would happen if the US were attacked again. "Blind murderous rage" would be wholly inadequate to describe the American public's reaction if that were to happen. Mike Hawash's story would be one of many.

      That said, it's nice to see that the government has gotten around to charging him.

  63. Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by bluegreenone · · Score: 1
    Wow, that is an impressive page. I wonder where he got all the illustrations for the ships, they look great and relatively uniform. Anyway, some divergent thoughts:

    The Romulan D'Deridex (bottom right) seems way too big, as I recall these were roughly the size of the Enterprise D

    Does anyone else just hate the Enterprise D? I've thought about it a lot and decided that it is because it is way too top-heavy. The saucer section is just so much larger than the middle other hull and the warp nacelles, it just looks awful.

    Gotta give this guy marks for completeness for including the Battlestar Galactica ship and the Eagle from 'Space 1999' TV Series. That makes this an "A" project not an "A-". Wow, does anyone remember Space 1999? Don't think it reruns anywhere.

    Suggestions for future additions: Nostromo from Alien, Valley Forge from Silent Running, ships from Enemy Mine

    1. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by Sacarino · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "Planet Express" ship from Futurama.

      --
      -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
    2. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by {tele}machus_*1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there is something wrong with my browser (and the images aren't appearing), but there are four major omissions: the Imperial class Star Destroyer, the Victory class Star Destroyer, and the first and second Death Stars. A little less important, but still of interest would be: the star destroyer-like ships seen in AotC, the ships of the Zentraedi fleet (I believe the flagship was about 11km long), SDF-1, SDF-2, SDF-3, the Robotech Masters mothership, the Homeworld Mothership, and the ship/underwater vessel from the Abyss.

    3. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      Too bad there isn't a decent picture of the Ark from Tuf Voyaging...

      Other ships: the Disks from ID4. The fighter from The Fifth Element (I'd love to see the capships from the opening sequence against 'Mr. Shadow', too, but there was no scale referance there). Moya, Scaran Dreadnaught, etc. from Farscape.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    4. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about all of the ships, but the Trek ones came from this site, which is probably why there's "so many" of them.

    5. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valley Forge from Silent Running is there, take another look.

      AC

    6. Re:Thoughts on Starship Scale Diagrams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not notice the 10X, 1X, -10X, -100X, and -2000X links at the top of the frameset?

  64. Quick statistical analysis by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh I get it, it's alright to hang out with Fundamentalist Christian Militias but not with Fundamentalist Islamic Militias (if in fact that is what he did, nothing has been proved yet).

    I was intrigued by your equivocation, so I ran the numbers real fast. Here's what I came up with:

    Number of American citizens slain by "fundamentalist Islamic militias" since Sept. 2001: at least 3,000.

    Number of American citizens slain by "fundamentalist Christian militias" since Sept. 2001: approximately 0

    Yep, about the same.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:Quick statistical analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, Christians arent sinless either.

      The KKK, Nazis, abortion clinic bombers, the IRA, have all killed waaaay more than Muslims in this country.

    2. Re:Quick statistical analysis by Merkins · · Score: 2, Informative

      Number of American citizens slain by "fundamentalist Christian militias" since Sept. 2001: approximately 0


      Actually, that is incorrect. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

    3. Re:Quick statistical analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the count on Iraqi citizens slain by fundamentalist Christian governments?

    4. Re:Quick statistical analysis by cranos · · Score: 1

      How is it equivocation to compare an Islamic militia that advocates the violent over throw of government to be replaced by an Islamic Theocracy with a Christian Militia that advocates the violent over throw of government to be replaced by a Christian Theocracy?

    5. Re:Quick statistical analysis by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      How is it equivocation to compare an Islamic militia that advocates the violent over throw of government to be replaced by an Islamic Theocracy with a Christian Militia that advocates the violent over throw of government to be replaced by a Christian Theocracy?

      The question is not "which group's goal is more contemptible". The question is "which group is the greater danger". I am sure that somewhere there is a sect of Moonies that wants to take over the world too, but since they aren't killing anyone nobody cares.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    6. Re:Quick statistical analysis by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Compared to say Heroshima or Dresden very few

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    7. Re:Quick statistical analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the number of people killed in car accidents by white drunk drivers in the same year? approximately 20,000.

      you moron. why don't you go burn a cross.

    8. Re:Quick statistical analysis by brlancer · · Score: 1
      The question is not "which group's goal is more contemptible". The question is "which group is the greater danger". I am sure that somewhere there is a sect of Moonies that wants to take over the world too, but since they aren't killing anyone nobody cares.

      First, most Islamic militants aren't interested in world domination but isolation--they want domaination over their holy places. The main thrust against the U.S. is military presence in the middle east and our support of Israel.

      Second, there are plenty of murderous zealots who aren't Muslim but they don't make news because they're murdering poor or dark people. Innocents in South America and Africa (as well as the middle east) have been slaughtered while "civilized" countries stood and watched or often condoned.

      People are being targetted because of their ethnicty and nothing else; people are being held contrary to due process. It's no big deal until it happens to you.

      --
      Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
  65. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm rather taken aback at the idea that antitrust legislation is abused. AFAIK it's only been used against bonafide damaging monopolists, and it's worked rather well at busting up until now.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  66. You all should read the whole affidavit by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 0

    and its clear this guy was in deep with the rest of the them. And it really makes you wonder what was going on when somebody who files adjusted gross income of 357,668 in 2000 and 184,873 in 2001 is associating with this bunch. And its just as striking that before leaving he signed everything over to his wife, who then tossed 5,000 in a bank account for him. Why? Sounds to me like he was worried about becoming the source of funding for this band of thugs. Probably thanked his lucky stars when they couln't get to Afghanistan.

  67. International Law? Who cares? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

    Well, neither the US nor Al Qaeda signed a treaty that you can't fly planes into someone's buildings. So what makes the war of Al Qaeda against the US illegal?

    The US doesn't care whether Al Qaeda terrorist attacks were "legal" or not. It cares about whether or not they will happen again.

    "International law" is a silly game for people to play if they don't have to worry about whether anyone's trying to kill them. The League of Nations didn't do Abyssinia a whole lot of good - or the Rotterdammers, or the Chinese. In fact, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 outlawed war entirely. That's nice. That must be why there haven't been any wars since then.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  68. You have a point, but... by crucini · · Score: 1

    Being arrested and held for six weeks without charges isn't really in the same league as vanishing without a trace and showing up a decade later in a mass grave with signs of being tortured to death. Which is what's normally meant by "disappeared". How many people have been held six weeks without charges in the US in the last 20 years? I doubt anyone here knows. I think it's pretty common, though. It's just rare that the prisoner has a group of friends to put up a nationwide stink about it.

  69. They went, they saw, they turned around. by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
    Reading through the entire Hawash affidavit is helpful. It's clear that he had some friends who wanted to go to Afghanistan and help out the other side. It's reasonably clear that Hawash travelled with them to China, but less clear he did more than that.

    What seems to have drawn attention to the group was that the group, not including Hawash, were found practicing with guns in a gravel pit in Washington State on September 29, 2001. This discovery cranked up a major FBI effort. After a while, the FBI had two informants in the group. The members of the group, other than Hawash, were indicted last October.

    These guys aren't big-time terrorists. They come across more like a bunch of bozos. If they'd achieved their goal of going to Afghanistan to fight on the Taliban side, they would have been just a few extra guys with guns. They didn't even get that far. All they really did was go to China for three weeks. Some of them made it to Bangladesh. Then they turned around and came back to the US. Thus, they're not charged with treason, only "conspiracy to levy war against the United States".

    Ultimately, the courts will have to sort out who did what here.

    "When four sit down to talk revolution, three are fools and the fourth is a police spy."

    1. Re:They went, they saw, they turned around. by bani · · Score: 1

      These guys aren't big-time terrorists.

      No, but they definitely wanted to be. Read the parts where they stated they planned to kill 1000 people in a shooting spree if they could.

      They come across more like a bunch of bozos.

      No, they come across as a bunch of fucking morons.

  70. Torrent for Honorverse by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    If anyone's interested, I have the first CD Baen Books put out with David Weber's War of Honor up on a BT torrent. It's not an ISO image, though, it's a zipped copy of all the files.

    The .torrent file is available for download at http://www.liberty4me.com/tracker .

  71. Whiny anti-establishment weenies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whine #1. you're holding him without charging him!

    Whine #2. you're charging him without enough evidence!

    future whine #3..

    He was convicted with a rigged system!

    Guess what? There law was followed.. rules codified into a law that, when you get off your lazy asses, go read, and try to change.

    The FBI apparently believes they have a case and will have to prove it in front of a U.S. District Court Judge, this man will get his day in court.

    Was his handling heavy-handed? yes.. was it justified under the circumstances? time will tell..

    Either way, to hear the people around here go on you'd believe he was lying in a ditch with a bullet in his head.

    The world is a messy place.. someone has to deal with it, be glad they are people who believe in the values of this(USA) country.

    -an immigrant

  72. Sweet! by offpath3 · · Score: 1

    Kudos to the BBC for releasing the hitchhiker's guide audio. I still have the whole thing on 6 audio tapes, but I know they're not going to last forever.

  73. Wrong Starship Dimensions Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here's a link to the home page, alowing you to see the Deathstar, Vader's Destroyer, etc.

  74. At least learn to spell it by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    It is spelled America, not amerika. It is still the best place to live as evidenced by the fact that most of you are still here and by the fact that people break the law to come here you sound just like the left wingers that i knew 30 years ago

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    1. Re:At least learn to spell it by hplasm · · Score: 1
      This is, I believe, the "militant" spelling, ie 'Amerika'= evil twin of 'America'. Like 'Wimmin' = 'Women' who don't like 'men'. It differentiates for those 'hip enuff' to differentiate.

      (yes, I found a large bag of ''''' s. :))

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    2. Re:At least learn to spell it by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      it still sounds like 60's radical bullshit to me. However,given that American Education is firmly in the hands of the left it is understandable. My last experiance with the so-called Higher Education Process ended when I pissed of the Instructor by calling him a goddamm lier. (excuse the spelling)

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    3. Re:At least learn to spell it by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Then 1000 killer whales = 1 ORCAsm(couldn't resist)

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    4. Re:At least learn to spell it by hplasm · · Score: 1

      With sperm whales, perhaps.. ;->

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  75. So you admit law is beyond you....? by pbuxton · · Score: 1

    You might convince someone if the US government had only recently started treating suspects to the following:

    "We have evidence you were at Location A, at Time B, which other evidence shows was the time and place Crime C was committed. You can claim 5th Amendment rights against incriminating yourself, or you MUST tell us what happened, as mere witnesses do not benefit at all from the 5th's protection against SELF-incrimination."

    In other words, testify, confess, or refuse to speak lest you self-incriminate. Three choices -- no magic 4th choice pulled out your ass. That's as old as the hills, and perfectly legal and proper -- and unpleasant, but that's real life law for you.

    1. Re:So you admit law is beyond you....? by arkanes · · Score: 1
      "Material Witness" laws have little or nothing to do with witness in the traditional sense. And, as a heads up, you're under no obligation to cooperate with law enforcement, or give testimony, unless you're under subpoena. Which only happens in court. Which only happens when there's been the due process which is violated by the material witness laws.

      Nobody until Ashcroft had the balls to use material witness legislation, much less advocate making thier use a standard policy. So while one can hardly blame the current administration for the laws, you can still be amazed at how little they care for the Consitution (which is technically a violation of the oath of office, btw, and therefore they're all perjurors...)

  76. Seconded! by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    But that's not far from the same thing, though, is it? :-)

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  77. A quick edit: by chriso11 · · Score: 0

    I corrected your post somewhat:

    Number of American citizens slain by "fundamentalist Islamic militias" since April 19, 1995: at least 3,000.

    Number of American citizens slain by "fundamentalist Christian militias" since April 19. 1995: at least 168

    Darn - the truth keeps messing up your little fox-based world again!

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:A quick edit: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Spin the dial back to the Middle Ages, or 4,000 B.C. The numbers wander all over the place before they become irrelevant before those religions existed.

      Life used to be cheap, and still is in much of the world. When one is lucky to survive long enough to have children, or when the improvement of all human life is not important, then the flow of life is much different.

      In the USA life is safe and comfortable for the vast majority of people. The USA also has the fattest poor people in the world. It's easy to chatter about abstract concepts when one is not aware of the realities around the world.

      However, it is interesting to note that the leader of Al-Quaida grew up as a spoiled rich kid, and had free money with which to start his destructive hobby. We also can see that despite his whining against Western life, he doesn't mind using the technology produced by it. It's pretty easy to play at being a suffering revolutionary when one knows at any time one can retire from the game and relax in comfort. At least now he no longer gets to play at it.

    2. Re:A quick edit: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about this one?

      Number of Americans slain by Islamic militias that received money from Saudi citizens since 1969 - about 3000
      Number of Britons slain by Christian militias that received money from American citizens since 1969 - about 3000.

  78. Re:Don't call it "Justice" either by black+mariah · · Score: 1

    Except for the "never seen again" part, that sounds pretty damn close to "disappeared" to me.

    Except for him not being dead, and us knowing where he is, and him currently on the way to the store to get some coffee... someone shot him and dumped the body in an unknown location.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  79. The Jews may be next by Keith+McClary · · Score: 1

    Soon Iraq will be declared to be "democratic",
    just like Afghanistan (according to the US State Dept.
    Human Rights report).
    Kuwait is described as a "constitutional monarchy", can
    Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and even Iran
    (already a democracy) be far behind?

    Obviously it makes sense for the US to support
    the oil-rich "good guys" in the "new Mideast".

    The "bad guys" will then become the Israelis
    with their illegal nukes and their occupied
    territories in violation of UN resolutions.

    Unlikely? Remember how quickly Osama and the
    Chechen rebels went from being "freedom fighters"
    to "terrorists" (CNN was quite confused for a while there).
    The Jewish lobby is rich and powerful but Bush
    has noticed that there are lots of Iraqis and
    other Arabs in Dearborn etc. who also have votes.

    I think we may wake up one day to hear that all
    those Jews who go to fight for Israel are now
    classified as terrorists or "enemy combatatants".

  80. Mike Hawash, Innocence, and Liberty by gnetwerker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I won't even try to address all the comments here -- they represent a wide spectrum of opinion.

    I'm Steven McGeady, I know Mike, and I have this to say to /.ers:

    You have absolutely no reason to consider Mike Hawash innocent of the charges being levelled against him -- no reason except one: the implied social contract present in our society that if *you*, or someone you love, was accused of a terrible crime, that other citizens would withold their judgement until all the facts came out.

    All the liberties we enjoy are based on this social contract, in all its parts -- I don't condemn you because of the way you look, how you pray, or with whom you associate.

    Recall that the Complaint -- the affidavit that we posted willingly on the "Free Mike Hawash" website -- is the U.S. government's side of the story. Mike has not been given a chance to tell his yet. I don't know the answers, nor does anyone else.

    Mike doesn't deserve a free pass because he's a software engineer, because he's Palestinian, or because he's my friends. If he is proven guilty, then he will pay the price.

    But I hope that this audience, more so than many others, will not judge him because of facial hair, based on scant but one-sided evidence, or because of his faith.

    You are right to be skeptical. But you can contain both skepticism and a presumption of innocence, in the same way you can contain skepticism both toward those of us who believe the charges will ultimately prove groundless, and those who find sinister motives hidden among weak and circumstantial evidence.

    S. McGeady

    (dammit, now I've blown my (weak) pseudonym -- time to sign up for a new account ...)

    1. Re:Mike Hawash, Innocence, and Liberty by bani · · Score: 1

      mike was apparently running with a group of really bad dudes. mike's claims for travelling to china apparently don't wash.

      it's circumstantial evidence sure, but things definitely don't look good for your buddy mike.

      i'm more concerned with mike's being held for weeks without being charged. of course, kevin mitnick got shafted far worse... (not that i believe kevin is a saint, or that mike is necessarily guilty).

  81. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by ubernostrum · · Score: 1
    At any rate, I believe they'd be required to give source (if they changed it) to anyone per the GPL.

    No, they'd be required to give it to anyone to whom they provided a binary. RTFL.

  82. Sounds alot like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    HOGWASH; to me...

  83. It's called BALLS! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    That we have the bigger balls by letting someone go free because we stand for princials--even for those who wish to kill us. Because we can't prove in our court by our rules that they commited the crime.

    Sure, they might come back an get us--even more so because they precive us as weak for showing to principle and not fear. Not instilling fear in OUR OWN PEOPLE is what makes us strong! not a big army with lots of smart bombs. Or big corps that can buy foreign dictators. Or a mouthy Prez.

    Like the guy or not, the cops are cheating the system. They're lying too. The guy was home for months before they got him. They obviously weren't looking for him to start. Being held as a material witness means in general you can't be prosecuted for what you're witness for--or they would have just charged you. You also don't have the same rights as you are assumed by the court to be innocent [one of the rare cases] and can treated as a hostile witness. Changing the charges now is borderline illegal--in normal criminal cases a good lawyer would get you out right there. He was denied council and Habeous Corpus. Things he said w/o access to a lawyer will now be used against him--even though at the time he wasn't under arrest. Our President has been more than willing to bend the laws to get what he wants. In this case the guy is a US citizen who did or didn't do something abroad. He didn't ever actually fight with them, he was denied at the China border, and they didn't deem him enough of a threat to pick him up with the rest of the bunch [who were outright arrested].

    Remember boys and girls, we're still at war with DRUGS! They've been more than willing to bend the laws for that sham too. How else would they have a list ready of what to ask for? Hope you don't know any pot dealers on campus guys--this could happen to you! That's why this is so wrong. Many of the early National Security laws of the 60's and 70's have been used in the drug war. The "patriot" act was written expressly to allow these "foriegn powers" provisions to be used in as many civilian criminal cases as they could get away with! I live in Michigan: There was a Detroit procecutor who wanted to try out the new spouse abuse law and spent 18+ month of taxpayer time and a family's lives on a case that didn't have any merit...just to get a score for being "baddest a$$" Don't think for a minute that a procecutor or police chief somewhere won't try to extend these crazy laws to everyone. It's not if, it's when!!!

    This discussion is almost laughable. Realize that when the constitution was written most of the nation was still wild. People could be attacked by indians [no offence] at any time! The British answer was exactly yours--they demanded that troops accountable only to the Army be installed in everyone's house for protection. They couldn't be accountable or punished for much of anything [hope you didn't have lots of chickens or daughters!] The people that wrote the Constitution lived under constant threat of attack. They knew exactly what they were writing. They had lived under what you propose: a rights-for-saftey deal and found it to be undesireable enough to start a war over it. The american revolution was started over far less than what GW has done lately! Much less! They were taxed, abused by unaccountable officers, tariffed, told they didn't need representation because the corps in charge of the Colony represented them in London...History seems to be repeating itself. We even get a George! Maybe we should wake up and get a clue.

    As far as preventing 9/11 it would have been & still is impossible! Those men went onto the planes like normal passangers. They would have passed any inspection--I'm sure they even left their carkeys and metal eyelet shoes at home. Even today's security wouldn't help because they carried no weapons onboard!! only hatred [they bribed the food crew to leave boxcutters!] there's still no body who watches the prep crew 100% of the time--we can't make a law about that.

    1. Re:It's called BALLS! by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You know, we're not talking about searching completely innocent passengers looking to fly across the country. That much, I feel, IS stepping on people's rights in a paranoid act to try and protect the U.S.

      What I'm saying is, this guy IS a combatant; he is involved, whether innocently or not, in espionage and terrorism, and he's being held as a material witness and treated as a combatant (for which the definition is up in the air). My feeling is, if someone is believed, strongly, to be a combatant, he should be put away, de-clawed, neutered, shaven, shackled and buried up to his neck before you even start asking questions.

      No...it's not balls to let him go, it's stupid. We have more at stake here than you are acknowledging. You like our way of life? Our values and our freedoms? Well, a "combatant" would take them away from you. Take no chances, AT ALL. There's just a point where, what's at stake is worth so much, it means so much, that when someone threatens the core of it, you don't treat them fairly. You don't give them a fair shake. You can't. If you do, and the system fails in their favor, you are putting your neck on the chopping block, hoping an axe doesn't fall on it.

      Whether the material witness issue is upheld or not, whether the definition of combatant turns out to include Hawash, I believe they've done the right thing. My feeling is, we can't afford people more than simple human rights when it comes to national security. When you make yourself a threat to the very core of the existence of the U.S., that's it: grab them by the neck, hold them at arm's length and keep them there until they are proven innocent. Yes, not innocent until proven guilty, guilty until proven innocent. They may be U.S. citizens, but they are pledging allegiance to another country, so let's treat them as attacking soldiers.

      Which is how they're treating combatants right now. Rightly so.

      If you don't want to be held indefinitely without council, you be a good monkey and don't throw poop on the nice citizens.

    2. Re:It's called BALLS! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      If there is as much evidence as you say there is, he should have been arrested and charged in the first place, not held for 6 weeks then charged. I would not say that anyone who we had reasonable evidence of terrorist support should not be arrested, it is just that when you allow the government to hold citizens without charging them, you are denying all citizens their right of habeas corpus.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:It's called BALLS! by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You missed the point then. There doesn't have to be evidence. This isn't a criminal trial. They haven't apprehended a criminal. They've trapped a combatant: someone who is plotting to do harm to the U.S. as a whole.

      Once everyone feels it is no threat to national security to have him come out and either stand trial or simply be set free, they will do so. That's when it's a matter for criminal courts; until then, he's a combatant.

      What do you think they do with people they hold as material witnesses or as combatants? I mean, there's so much fear of conspiracy going on. Do you think they're testing sodomy techniques on these people? Perhaps they're unwilling test subjects for diseases or genetic conditioning? There's such a strong, fearful message of "Why are they holding him! What are they doing!? What if they did it to you!? WHAT IF THEY DID IT TO ME!?!?"

      Jesus Christ, people...stiffen your backs a little.

    4. Re:It's called BALLS! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      What if they did it to you?

      I would cry foul...

      What if they arrested your mother and did not charge her? Would you assume your mother had been helping the enemy? Would you assume she is a combatant? What there is no evidence? There was no evidence against Hawash for the first 6 weeks...

      Ya' see they can do this to anyone, with no burden of proof this could get very out of hand. That is why we have the constitution.

      If you value your cowardly hide more than your freedom you should move to another country, one where you do not have the right of habeas corpus.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    5. Re:It's called BALLS! by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Of course I would cry foul. Soldiers being captured and detained want to be set free, and who wouldn't? It's not about one man's freedom, it's about national security and the ability to protect the freedom of MILLIONS of American citizens. If we guarantee so many rights and freedom to even our worst enemies, we leave ourselves open to being destroyed and then we will be in no position to protect anyone's rights and freedoms. It's just not good policy.

      The only thing really lacking in this system are some definitions about what a combatant is and more information about their detention. The fact that people are held now with little information coming out as to why needs to be checked and governed a little more precisely. However, don't expect things to flat-out change. Holding them in secret is, in itself, a tactic against the combatant's colleagues. Things will not change except in slight degrees, and people will still not like it.

      But you know what, tough fucking shit. Life isn't fair. If it was we'd all have new cars, new houses, new clothes, lots of food to eat, no pollution, quiet neighbors, etc., ad nauseum.

      This is the price you pay to protect your freedom. The blood of our young men and women. The sacrifice of the freedom of the occassional combatant.

      Suck it up and show some courage. Quit being such goddamn soppy vaginas because you're afraid they're coming after you. Throw away the fucking bong if you're so worried they're coming to knock down your door. Get a fucking haircut, too.

    6. Re:It's called BALLS! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      So you would cry foul if an american citizen (your family) was held, but not if an american citizen (Hawash) is held... I see... racist pig.

      I am showing courage, I put it on the line, I want you to do the same.

      We do have to clear up one thing before I give up on you: You are the coward, you are the one who demands the illusion of protection over freedom. I am showing my courage. I am willing to risk bodily harm to myself and my loved ones based on my principles, that people are innocent until proven otherwise.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    7. Re:It's called BALLS! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      If they had enough evidence to arrest the other six guys why mess with him weeks later? There's no valid legal reason-- except to mess with him!
      according to their own affidavit they knew who he was with, when, and where he was when they arrested the others. That would mean that if they had the evidence to arrest him, they would have used it. Not using it is grasping at straws. Either they have had new evidence from the arrested guys [again, just arrest him!] or they didn't have enough evidence and wanted an "example" [horrifically bad and evil--boardering on treason!]
      Holding him as material witness is a very grave thing, reserved only for National Security issues like you have said. By definition it is for people who are not at fault but need to be kept against their will. Now after six weeks they are changing their story just in the nick-of-time to keep a judge from actually hearing his argument!

      If it looks like a rat...
      ...and smells like a rat...
      ...then we're calling it a rat!

      The severity of the powers they are using demands that they be forthright with the public in these matters! Even the appereance of impropriety should be severely punished by public opinion.

    8. Re:It's called BALLS! by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Here's where the paranoia lies: why are they messing with him? What do you think, that the government sits around just ACHING to mess with people, and when nothing comes around, they go bananas and start making stuff up and the first guy they run across gets throw in the pokey for no reason because their appetite for "messing with people" is so insatiable they can't help themselves?

      Yeah...oooohkay then. He was a complete innocent and they're just hungry for some hot "messing with people" action.

    9. Re:It's called BALLS! by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You aren't the first to declare yourself the courageous one, it seems.

      In the face of your own terror you demand that no one, not even our worst enemies, be treated a certain way because, however remote you swear the chance, you don't want it happening to you.

      You are the coward.

    10. Re:It's called BALLS! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      It is not about me, it is about all Americans. Don't you see that?

      I suggest that you go read about what was going on in Germany in the 1930's. The arguments you make, have been made before, they allowed for the rise of the 3rd Reich, the holocaust and WWII. I don't want to be doomed to repeat that...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    11. Re:It's called BALLS! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's exactly the point. Police officers are not nice people! They are every bit as selfish and crooked as Bill G or Steve B that we like to pick on--and there are a lot more of them! Ashcroft has got them way too much power and we the people need to call them on it every chance we get!

      Who's to say you won't bop some FBI guys GF & he'd try to get back at you by compiling your /. posts to make you look like a terrorist! These people have openly stated time and again at all levels that your Constitutional rights get in there way--for 'all' criminal offences, not just terrorism! They're not afraid to say that in public--that should scare you! Officers routinely use their position and the legal system as 'weapons' against people who piss them off. It's considered a "job perk"!

      In this case they had already arrested the guy's buddies. I'm along with you, they should have arrested him too! But using the MW rules in this case is WRONG. Either they didn't have a legaly grounded case against him, they're basicly 'tourching' him, or they're lying to the court for the sake of it [because they can] Clasifying him a MW requires them to SWEAR to a Judge that he's NOT a suspect but must be kept as a hostile witness. Who knows what rights this guy gave up while in custody as a MW that will now be illegally admited in court as evidence against him?

      They basicly lied for the sake of it! That's what I'm calling out here. If you think that that end justifies the means in this manner, then you've got a rude awakening coming soon!

  84. I Know This is Trivial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but really, the fourth book in a trilogy?

  85. so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am pretty sure that [Mike Hawash] worked with Israeli Intel employees who considered him, at the least, a "decent guy" and would like to help him.

    Big deal. He's in the US justice system. I would like to think that Israeli Intel employees don't hold as much sway there as US citizens.

    How could Israeli Intel employees help him now, even if they wanted to?

    I'd rather read the blunt truth than appeasment paplum.

  86. Enemies of the State Dissapearing by mudrat · · Score: 1

    The old South African government (pre 1990s) had laws that allowed them to detain people without being charged for 90 days without even informing their families of their arrest. The 90 days was renewable, so people could dissapear for arbitrarily long periods of time.

    The government said that the people they detained were guilty of treason but most were doing nothing but passively resisting the apartheid policies. For instance, many people who attended the Congress of the People at which the Freedom Charter was drawn up, dissapeared for months afterwards (the leaders of the congress were formally tried for treason).

    Citizens of the United States should watch very carefully what happens to their human rights. They pay a lot of lip service to 'liberty', but don't seem really concerned that it's liberty for some. If I was a Muslim in the United States right now I would be very worried about my future freedom.

  87. Don't Complain - It's All Here by CedgeS · · Score: 1
    That mirror is some unofficial portion of the real thing, which now has an official mirror here: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/merzo/

    The origrinal slashdotted site started to redirect here after a couple of days. This is just the standard editorial sloppiness that ensures I'll never pay for slashdot.

    1. Re:Don't Complain - It's All Here by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Thanks alot. I had no idea how big the Borg Cube was, or the second Death Star.

  88. You would have them omit it? by bani · · Score: 1

    They have to report *everything* related to the case, no matter how small. It's up to the courts to decide what's relevant, not you.

  89. A turd by another name still smells like shit... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
    He was held as a material witness. Nice and legal.

    It amounts to the same thing. Who cares if the stupid lawyers are calling it something different?

  90. Yes, some of the sizes are wacky by @madeus · · Score: 1


    I'm not sure how they came up with some of these sizes - it's a cool site but some of the sizes are just plain wrong.

    The Kurzon (sp?) ships are way to big, as is one of the Jem'ar (sp?) ships. The same goes for a couple of the Star Wars ships. :/

    Granted there might be parts of the series where sizes are reflected poorly, but it's misleading to reflect them grossly distorted.

  91. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by Catiline · · Score: 1

    Yeeeess, and if they embed it into some hardware device which I bought, they provided me a binary. Or are you suggesting that maybe hardware devices are deliberately shipped with blank EEPROMS?

  92. Fallacies up the wazoo by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    You made a couple of arguable points about semantics and tastefulness, but then your case went out the window.

    The fact that he worked in a computer related field does in fact have a lot to do with this. A lot of computer professionals are very left-leaning. Worse yet, many are young and naive. While most liberals are not young and naive, it seems the majority of young and naive people are liberals.
    No logical reader is going to be impressed that you've strung together these generalizations and topped it off with a non sequitor. Instead, you only persuade us that you hold certain grim views on youth and the IT sector. Please pay a visit to Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

    Nobody wants to hear this crap. It makes people feel helpless. It makes people feel like there's nothing they can do. It is that feeling that is really driving this country towards totalitarianism.
    Er, well, now that you mention it...no. You might as well complain, "Nobody wants to hear that the house is on fire. It makes them feel that they're burning. It's that feeling that is really making them turn into ashes."

    But as Jefferson more wisely advised, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Noticing the flames under our Bill of Rights - indeed, more deeply, as Hawash's case shows, under the very principle of habeas corpus itself - is actually the first step to putting out the fire.

    1. Re:Fallacies up the wazoo by (void*) · · Score: 1
      No logical reader is going to be impressed that you've strung together these generalizations and topped it off with a non sequitor. Instead, you only persuade us that you hold certain grim views on youth and the IT sector. Please pay a visit to Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/


      That's called statistical reasoning. Granting the truth of the generalization (which you should question), it's not hard to see young, naivity being strongly correlated with left-leaning as being dangerous, becuase young and naive means not having the real experience that affirms leftism - in other words, left-leaning as a dogma. That's dangerous. I suggest you learn how to argue to a sensible, intentional conclusion.

  93. Eldridge by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

    The Eldridge is the space ship you see in the beginning of Xenogears, the RPG by Squaresoft that no sci-fi fan should miss. With a wingspan of 42 kilometers and a length of 100 kilometers, it has everything on that chart easily outclassed in size, except maybe the space slug. There's some other pretty cool ships from Xenogears too, like Excalibur, Ezekiel, Merkavah, and Yggdrasil IV which transforms into a giant robot :D

  94. Good point. by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    "indisputable" in this context probably means that those trying to dispute the evidence risk sharing a cell with Mr. Hawash soon thereafter.

    *laugh* Good point. Since most of there case seems to rest on him giving money to people that the government disagrees with, I suppose even donating to his defense fund (if there is one) could be risky.

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Good point. by Frodrick · · Score: 1

      "I suppose even donating to his defense fund (if there is one) could be risky."

      Not at all. Not as long as you contribute cash . . . anonymously.
  95. Re:The Lord wants your anus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it doesn't.

  96. Stupid frickin' A-rabs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hint:It's generally a bad idea to throw rocks at guys with guns.

    Christ. You're like a bunch of three-year-olds!

    1. Re:Stupid frickin' A-rabs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It took time to rebuild Germany.
      It took time to rebuild Japan.
      It will take time to rebuild Afghanastan.
      And it will take time to rebuild Iraq.

      You idiots really don't expect us to just kick out the current leaders and then leave, leaving a power vacuum to be filled by fanatics that hate the United States, do you?!!

      "I don't remember having to explain to Italians that our problem wasn't with them, but with Mussolini! Why does the U.S. have to take every Arab country in the world out for an ice cream cone?"

  97. Re:Don't call it "Justice" either by arkanes · · Score: 1
    Disappeared means you don't KNOW if he's dead or not. And while this (currently) doesn't really qualify, it's not for lack of trying (as the parent pointed out). Mike is fortunate in that he got a great deal of support from his friends and family.

    It's important to remember that, despite that fact that it's well known NOW where he is and what's going on, for the first 2 weeks, the government didn't even admit to having taken him! That's disappeared by any definition.

  98. I can read by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    I just didn't think the 'and/or' had any merit. Anyone can be accused of being 'un-American' or whatever, even you (by the vary virtue of your comment).

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  99. Literature for the Math-Challenged? by Anomalous+Cowbird · · Score: 1
    Please . . . except in the case of Douglas Adams, there is no such thing as the fourth book in a trilogy.

    If it stops here, it could be a tetralogy, but I think the word you're looking for here is series.

    1. Re:Literature for the Math-Challenged? by Wizard+Prang · · Score: 1

      >> the fourth book in a trilogy

      Not very familiar with HHGttG, are you?

      That was how the printed edition of the book described itself.

      I believe that it is called humour.

  100. government service limits by zogger · · Score: 1

    --one idea I thought of was a total ban on career government "jobs" and zero pensions. Make it something like a grand total of ten years, any government job, mix and match, then you are out, can never have a government job again. NO PENSIONS. No "career" politicians or bureaucrats or civil servants. That goes for any military service as well. The reserve militia is quite adequate, and creating new ncos and officers. that's sort of a different subject as some sort of national SELF DEFENSE force is needed, but exterior wars should be very infrequent, rare, based on extremely verifiable reasons of import.

    We had a somewhat good idea on that in the past, no large standing full time army, just citizen soldiers-the militia-and they were only used for like invasions or whatnot. The national guard now is just a clever way to have full time standing federal army "lite". And professional politicians? No way! Also make it illegal for any "corporation" to donate campaign money, or donate "gifts" or anything along those lines. And make it stick, for profit, non profit, whatever, no exceptions. Lobbying and the bribe and the hijacked two party junta "system" has been a failure. When you can have so called "national presidential debates" and only two parties are represented on the stage, that is an example of a junta.

    Several other ideas but those are the bigees, that and eliminating the federal reserve. The idea that they can poof create money out of thin air then "loan it" to the government then somehow we owe them "interest" back is beyond loony. Along with fractional reserve banking. Being able to loan that which you do not possess is crazy. Those economic policies lead to monopolies, serious abuse, and nutso boom/bust cycles, instead of slow steady positive economic growth based on wealth that has actually been created and exists in reality.

  101. Digital copies vs the real stuff by SysKoll · · Score: 1
    Come on, ED, you cannot be that oblivious to the real world. Please.

    There are many more reasons why the RIAA is one of the most vilified organizations in the US. Look, Baen doesn't send the police after students. They don't buy a law that trample the 4th Amendment and then use it against people who are merely suspect.

    As for differences between digital copies of audio and books, you are right. However, consider that someone who loves a band will actually go out and buy their CDs, often on the mere recommendation of other fans, even if they already own MP3s of the songs. They value the physical object, the cover art, etc. A fan who has the disposable income and loves the band will fork out the $18 and buy the CD. If the disposable income is not there, then the guy is not a potential customer anyway.

    Of course, this presupposes that there are bands and artistst that can gather a real fan audience and that aren't mere disposable products of a targetted marketing. If the studios had their way, we'd all be buying tepid crap.

    So of course, casual listeners will just as well listen to the MP3. But please note that casual readers would just borrow the book!

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:Digital copies vs the real stuff by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1

      You're right in that what I stated got a little far afield of reality. However, I still stand by part of the point that I was trying to make -- the RIAA does understand the value of giving away products to generate sales, and everyone acts as if they don't do this. As for their often overly zealous efforts to crack down on copyright infringement, I believe that's rooted in the simple fact that the severity of music-based copyright infringement beats book-based copyright infringement on all levels -- its scope, its convenience to the person with a copied work, and the ease of generating the first digital duplicate.

    2. Re:Digital copies vs the real stuff by SysKoll · · Score: 1

      I believe that when you talk about free products given away to generate sales, you are talking about songs played on radio? Or is there another angle I am not seeing here?

      In marketing terms, I'd say that the goodwill and recognition generated by the free stuff given away by the studios is more than counterbalanced by the consumer annoyance generated otherwise (inane copy protection for instance).

      Good point about MP3 clips being played more often than bootleg e-books. It takes hours of assiduous reading to "use" an ebook, while you can listen to an MP3 in 3 mins while reading /., indeed.

      I do think that the studios need the same kind of customer-friendly marketing and appeal as Baen. Instead of treating every listener like a potential criminal, the studios ought to give away MP3s of a few titles that they own and don't generate much revenue anymore, then allow people to download and burn CDs (not MP3) on demand, especially for older releases you won't find easily in stores. Some manufacturers even had planned a kiosk sitting in malls, on a fast link, where you could actually insert your credit card, select songs and burn them in a few minutes as high-quality redbook CD Audio files. The studios killed the project for, in my opinion, totally irrational reasons.

      Also, if the CD prices went back to Canadian levels (about $11) instead of the current $18, the incentive for CD burning would be lower, generating more impulse sales. The studios' price fixing is killing the whole industry.

      But said industry represents less than $10 billion. Compare with the $600B IT industry. Microsoft or IBM could buy every studio and barely miss the cash. So I violently object to the notion that the music industry should dictate DRM terms to the IT industry, especially when these terms fly in the face of the necessary protection of customers' rights.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    3. Re:Digital copies vs the real stuff by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "I believe that when you talk about free products given away to generate sales, you are talking about songs played on radio? Or is there another angle I am not seeing here?"

      Actually, I was referring to www.mp3.com, which is a lot more analogous to Baen's free library. There are plenty of RIAA acts on the site with mp3s up for download. There are also some mp3s that only allow you to stream it from the site, rather than supporting a plain download.

      Compared to file sharing, the available music is extremely limited. On the other hand, compared to the typical Slashdot characterization of the RIAA, it's pretty damn good. And it's legal.

      As for your other points, I agree. Record labels should really do more to utilize their older material that they aren't otherwise making money off of. They should offer mix-and-match kiosks. I honestly don't know if we'll ever see it, but they're good ideas.

  102. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by tbuskey · · Score: 1

    The GPL states they have to provide the source code *at a reasonable cost* to anyone they provided the binary to. They cannot prevent some that has obtained the source from redistributing it.

    ex: NeXT used GNU C as the basis of its Objective C compiler. If you wanted the source code, you had to buy it ($500?). Once that person had it, they could post it for free, sell it for $$$, etc. But NeXT couldn't prevent that person from distributing the code.

    There was no requirement that *NeXT* provide the source for free.

  103. Agreed by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    It used to be "The land of the free, and the home of the brave" because it takes bravery to have freedom.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  104. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by n8_f · · Score: 1

    You misunderstood ubernostrum. S/he was replying to the "(if they changed it)" in the parent post. It doesn't matter if Microsoft changed it, if they hand out binaries they must hand out source.

  105. Read newspapers by mi · · Score: 1

    The yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a front page article about this. There is no denying, he went to China (after paying off his mortgage and transfering the house ownership to his Christian wife) in October 2001, while telling friends he was going to Palestine (his family lives there). He said, he went there to search for business opportunities, but made no phone calls to China prior to going there -- FBI has his phone records. His friends he say he was becoming increasingly Muslim in recent years, but rejected violence. His lawyer (yes, unlike the really "disappeared" people, he has a lawyer) explains his sudden mortgage payoff by Islam's prohibition to borrow money at interest. May be. But there are plenty of other unanswered questions.

    While the government's behaviour does seem heavy-handed to me, I see no reason to doubt their sincerety (as over-rated as this virtue might be -- the sincerety). He will not be the first innocent person in history to be held -- that's just the unfortunate drawback of the best legal systems currently known. But the evidence against him -- as presented so far to the public -- is not the weakest in the history of such legal systems either.

    If you want to fight human rights violations -- consult Amnesty International. They spend time and money researching and fighting some real abuses. Just pick any one instead of charging nearby windmills...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  106. Thanks, I'll check it out. by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I'll check it out. The most concrete thing I had seen todate was the deposition posted on the web. So far, none of this looks as bad as people are making out (if they were to lock people up for traveling to foreign countries or lieing to their friends almost all of us would be behind bars). But I do not doubt that there is much more that we don't know yet.

    -- MarkusQ

  107. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

    I don't know what comment you think you're responding to . . . the post I replied to claimed that making modifications to GPL code somehow means you must distribute its source, which is not true. You only have to give people the source if you give them a binary, and then you only have to give it to people to whom you've provided a binary. Parent poster seemed to think making any changes under the GPL mandates worldwide distribution, which is incorrect; you can make all the changes you want and keep them to yourself.

  108. Re:You've completely misinterpreted the fingerprin by Catiline · · Score: 1

    I'm not too sure either; I wanted to make sure that somebody make clear that distributing GPL software as the firmware BIOS for something is just as much distrobution as putting it onto a CD and shelving it as a Linux distrobution.

  109. Please don't suck the site... by ChrisKnight · · Score: 1

    I know that lots of people would like a copy of this CD, but running wget against my site isn't the way to do it. wget is sloppy, and there is no compression.

    I have placed a zip copy of the CD on my site. Please download it if you want the whole thing:

    http://honorverse.ghostwheel.com/HonorHarrington .z ip

    Cheers!

    -Chris

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --