Slashdot Mirror


Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo

DrDNA writes "After a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Justice Department released a study on workplace diversity. However, nearly half of the memo was blacked-out. In what was apparently an incredible goof, it was posted in a PDF format called Image+Text. The folks at The Memory Hole simply removed the image, revealing the redacted text. The redacted text was highly critical of the DOJ's diversity efforts, as the New York Times reports." Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.

453 comments

  1. news for nerds, stuff that matters. by dokebi · · Score: 0, Troll

    How is this news? It was all over yahoo YESTERDAY.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
    1. Re:news for nerds, stuff that matters. by Kevitt · · Score: 1

      Hey it was news to me, eh! And anyone that frequents Yahoo! is one, so there :P

  2. Torrent + Memory Hole = Better. by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yipes. Someone should introduce the fine folks at Memory Hole to bittorent.

  3. This happened once before... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was an occasion where this happened before...I believe it was in blacking out some sources on a PDF document...so some enterprising chap removed the blackouts...and voila, there were the "classified" sources. Obviously nobody in government learns from their mistakes.

    1. Re:This happened once before... by kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Informative

      yep, in fact it's actually happened several times before. One time names of undercover agents were revealed. Now we just need to get some improperly redacted FOIA responses about area51, roswell, and all the stuff out there that makes me wear this tinfoil hat all the time.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    2. Re:This happened once before... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Quote 1 from original story:
      > Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at
      > least do enough research to make sure
      > you're really being sneaky.

      Quote 2 from BJZQ8 reply:
      > Obviously nobody in government learns
      > from their mistakes.

      I wonder... would it be advisable if they remained unwise?

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    3. Re:This happened once before... by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 4, Informative
      This does seem to be a common goof. Bruce S. had some commentary in his newsletter a couple of months ago.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    4. Re:This happened once before... by epiphani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Arent the people who do this pretty much putting a big white and red target on themselves? I was under the impression, with things like the PATRIOT act, as well as the DMCA, that this type of thing would get you detained without a lawyer.

      Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.

      --
      .
    5. Re:This happened once before... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rub is that this document was supposed to be for public consumption to start with. It was prepared by an outside firm with no axe to grind, and the DOJ was skewered. The DOJ was so utterly embarrased they threw together this clip-art show.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:This happened once before... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You see, this document was supposed to be released to the public anyway. The redaction was dirty pool, and none of the information was a national secret. It was simply embarrasing to those in power.

      Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed. Especially since its release was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act case.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    7. Re:This happened once before... by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Ya, I remember when this did happen before, it was on some website, and if you hit stop before the whole pdf loaded or something, it didn't load the black parts that blocked out the text. Why don't they scan the papers with it blacked out already?

    8. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to read it anyway, but can someone point out the juicy bits, because I read a little and maybe I am just a newbie nothing makes sense as to why it would be redacted.

    9. Re:This happened once before... by bobbozzo · · Score: 3, Funny
      Obviously nobody in government learns from their mistakes.

      You know what they say: "Good enough for government work."

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    10. Re:This happened once before... by alangmead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a little bit different than the one than you seem to be thinking of. In 2000, The NY Times obtained classified documents about the 1953 coup that brought the Shah of Iran into power. They incorrectly redacted the document to preserve their sources and protect some government operatives before publishing it. (See Iranian Coup Plotters Exposed By PDF File)

      In this case, the government handed over the document with the naughty bits already blocked out, but didn't release that PDF is more like a collage than like graph paper.

    11. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the cou ntry has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.

      --
      Get paid for your spare CPU cycles [porivo.com]


      Quit it with the slander and quit spreading rumors, nobody is vanishing without a trace.

      Really, your post was just a lame attempt to get people to look and click on the link in your .sig . How much money do you get for that epiphani?

    12. Re:This happened once before... by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.


      We're too busy lynching black people, shooting each other, and mindlessly devouring indigenous cultures to bother with something this trivial.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    13. Re:This happened once before... by Spasemunki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I believe it was the participants in the plot to overthrow Premier Mossadeq of Iran that were exposed. The shah was already in power at the time, and was essentially a puppet of the U.S. and Great Britain. Mossadeq was a very popularly elected official who was attempting to regain some control of Iran's destiny- mostly by removing the oil reserves that Britian had bought for a song (actually, they bribed the Shah with a variety of shiny things) from foreign control.

      The U.S., of course, labeled this as 'communism' and began agitating to get Mossadeq dissmissed by the Shah. This included such charming acts of democracy as sending F.D.R's grandson (a CIA operative) out onto the streets of Tehran to hand out $50 bills to get Iranians to gather in front of the Shah's palace and demand Mossadeq's ouster. The Shah capitulated to the West and the "popular" demand, and Mossaeq was driven from office.

      If you're ever curious why a bunch of extremist nuts that not even the Iranians like are running Iran, little anecdotes like this are a good start.

      While Mossadeq is long gone, the PDF screw up may have exposed the families of the Iranian participants in the coup to a great deal of scrutiny if they were still living in Iran. It isn't healthy anywhere to be associated with someone who betrayed their country to a foreign interest, and moreso if you're living in Iran and the foreign government in question was the U.S.

    14. Re:This happened once before... by mickwd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why, if only the US government could have someone come to the US and give a talk on the limitations of some of Adobe's security mechanisms.

      Surely if someone was to do something like that, they would welcome him with open arms, and thank him for his useful expose ? After all, he would be doing them a service, wouldn't he ?

    15. Re:This happened once before... by t0ny · · Score: 1
      Changing the way you view a file isnt a violation of the DMCA.

      Hex editing is not a crime!

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    16. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are still the most free country in the world shit like you mention is what happens in your socialist countries

    17. Re:This happened once before... by ezraekman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I kind of hope that an attempt to prosecute this fellow is made. Then perhaps it will become more clear to our legislators how foolish a law is that will allow someone to be cited merely for the electronic equivalent of removing white-out from a white paper.

    18. Re:This happened once before... by Wolfrider · · Score: 3, Interesting

      --I wonder if the guy who had to do the blacking-out was Clueful and didn't like/agree with his orders... Maybe he did this intentionally, so it would appear like he was doing his job (CYA) but secretly wanted a way for other people to reconstruct the original document, so he could protect himself.

      (/conspiracy-theory)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    19. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this post:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=84364&c id=7368 473

    20. Re:This happened once before... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know what you are getting at... but I hope that you fund that guy's legal defense. Calling for people to be charged just to show the mockery is dangerous to the charged individual. It wouldn't even surprise me if the government succeeds in locking up the "culprit".

      Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    21. Re:This happened once before... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you wouldn't be able to do text searches..

    22. Re:This happened once before... by twostar · · Score: 1

      Arent the people who do this pretty much putting a big white and red target on themselves? I was under the impression, with things like the PATRIOT act, as well as the DMCA, that this type of thing would get you detained without a lawyer.

      You've been watching to much drama TV (News). Even so, one thing that American's should be known for by now is that we don't always follow our own laws. If a law is unfair or unjust or generally disliked, we don't just talk about it, we do something about it. It started way back with a little tea party.

      Now, with the help of the internet, information can get out before those in power can react. Slashdot is a great example of instant dissemination of information. Even if the server gets slashdotted at least the first few hundred people got the information and can then get mirrors out for everyone else. Even the fastest government agency is going to have trouble keeping up with the hundreds of bored geeks (slashdotters) with nothing better to do then play cat and mouse.

    23. Re:This happened once before... by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

      nah, adobe would put him under arrest with the DMCA, just like Dimitri

    24. Re:This happened once before... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Good point. Perhaps this was a deliberate leak. This White House is the most secretive and tight lipped in the history of our nation.

      They make Richard Nixon look open and honest.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    25. Re:This happened once before... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Your judgement of "how the country has been going" is distorted by exaggerated reports. The US is headed in the wrong direction, but it has a long way to go to get to where most of the rest of the world already is.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    26. Re:This happened once before... by cmacb · · Score: 0

      Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of a chance to bash Bush.

      The report was issued in June 2002. The article says it sat on the shelf for 2 years before release. The events in the report happened in the NINETIES and the article points out that the redaction was done by life-long government drones and simply approved by the appointees (who can't possibly give serious attention to every document put out by their agencies.)

      The cover-up is bad, I hope some people get fired over it (even though it's almost impossible to fire a government worker). I'll vote for any party that claims they are going to clean things up in Washington. Last person to even make that claim was Perot.

      Once people get it though their head that it's "The Government" that is at fault and not just a particular administration, maybe things will stand a chance of getting fixed. Until then, partisanship just proves that you are not paying attention. And they like it that way.

    27. Re:This happened once before... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not if someday they put out a blacked-out PDF with war plans of some sort, and end up forewarning the recipients of said war plans and costing lives. Security is security, and if they screw this one up, they're very liable to screw up lots more. "He who is faithful in least is faithful in most."

    28. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about exaggerated. "most of the rest of the world" isn't alot different than life in the US.

      Yes, the "fonts" are different. But the theme is always the same. Protect those in power and wealth.

      There are indeed some places where you live in fear every day. But, oddly enough, that's really pretty much not "most of the rest of the world".

      Beware CNN, et. al. Propaganda isn't unique to your "most of the rest of the world". It's alive and practiced with extreme predjudice right here, right now.

      Trivial little misbehaviors like our redacted document here pale in comparison to the things perpetrated by the Feds, with routine. But, like "most of the rest of the world" you need to justify your own so you can sleep at night.

    29. Re:This happened once before... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      You know what they say: "Good enough for government work."

      Yup, and lemme tell ya what, that isn't anywhere near "good enough for the girls I go with..."

      My apologies to an ex-brother-in-law who first used that line on me.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

    30. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even so, one thing that American's should be known for by now is that we don't always follow our own laws. If a law is unfair or unjust or generally disliked, we don't just talk about it, we do something about it.

      Sounds like terrorism to me. We have laws designed by our betters, and we must follow them. Hopefully you'll soon be detained without access to a lawyer so the rest of us can all sleep a little safer at night.

    31. Re:This happened once before... by jtcm · · Score: 1
      Why, if only the US government could have someone come to the US and give a talk on the limitations of some of Adobe's security mechanisms.

      You have a damn fine point, and you only have (+2, Funny)? Mod this guy up already! For those wondering what he's talking about, see Free Dmitri Skylarov. I'd give you (+1, Insightful), but my points expired (they always do that right before finding a post i care to mod up).

      Perhaps if the DOJ had attended Dmitri's seminar to be educated instead of to arrest the man, they wouldn't have leaked this document.
      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    32. Re:This happened once before... by instarx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think so? How about people simply disappearing into the 'justice" system, picked up in the dead of night by government agents, not allowed visitors, not allowed to see an attorney, held without trial and without charge? Earlier this year I saw pictures of mothers holding signs outside a federal prison in Washington State with pictures of thier sons, trying to find out if they were being held there! AND THIS WAS IN AMERICA!

      What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan and Iraq as well as detainees in Guantonimo falls well within the definition of torture of these organizations even if it isn't electric shock to the genitals. And those a AMERICANS doing the torturing.

      What about the new policy of political assasination? Officially prohibited to US agencies for decades it is now acceptable. So far its only foreigners that can be assasinated, but its not that big a jump to internal politcal opponents is it? That used to be one of the things that we could point at that made the US better than dictatorships, but no more.

      What about the government playing the legal system to get what they want no matter the courts? For example declaring a defendant an enemy combatant so they could imprison him when the trial wasn't going the government's way? What about holding hundreds of people indefinately without charge and without trial by mis-using the Material Witness laws?

      People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens. The administration justifies this by claiming that they are not on US soil and therefore aren't entitled to the protection of any US laws, including the rights given to them by the constitution. In the past US bases, embassies, and ships have always been considered US soil. Face it - we have an admnistration that thinks it is justified in cancelling the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.

      The people in this country who think that we haven't digressed from a country where citizens are protected from government by the Constitution really need to look hard at the reality of the situation rather than exercise their wishful-thinking genes and claim we're fine.

    33. Re:This happened once before... by Handyman · · Score: 2, Informative

      People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens.

      Yes, they do. They have obtained the right to gun privacy. (My original source for this is the book by Michael Moore called "Dude, where's my country?", but the above link was the first I could find on google. :) )

    34. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bestiality videos and lesbian sh*t videos are regularly available in these unfree, socialist countries. So, too, marijuana is quasi-legal there. Also, you can buy Tylenol with codeine in Canada over the counter.

      But I love this free country! We're the best!

    35. Re:This happened once before... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I think one can distinguish two kinds of file format. 'Transparent' formats and 'obscure' formats. In a transparent format, what you see is what you get in the true sense of the phrase. For example a text file has no hidden information, the characters are right there and there is no text editor stupid enough to hide some of them by default. LaTeX source is also transparent in practice (even though in principle you could construct a document using bizarre macros to obfuscate the final output - it would at least be clear to the reader of the source that some obfuscation was happening). Bitmap images are also transparent, all they contain is the value of each pixel, which you can see right there on the screen.

      Obscure formats are those containing implementation details of the application, such as memory dumps which may contain stale old data (Word documents have been notorious for this in the past, I don't know if the latest format fixes it). And those which allow for hidden information or at least information which is not shown by default. Finally those which are displayed by overlaying one graphic on top of another, as with vector file formats (you could have a hidden message with a white rectange superimposed on it) or this example of PDF with images.

      If you're sending out a document that might be sensitive, you'd better make sure to use a transparent format. You could do worse than take a screenshot of your application displaying the document, then you know there are no surprises (even though a bitmap image is a horrible interchange format in many other ways).

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    36. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One example I can think of was mentioned here on slashdot, it involved someone who had managed to get a cracked copy of one of those exspensive remote desktop tools for windows systems installed on militairy webservers and other systems. If I am not mistaken these systems belonged to some sort of logistics unit, which made me wonder why people bothered to chain themselfs to the railroads to stop the shipment of US army vehicels though europe for the war in iraq only months later.

      Thing is the guy got cought and the charges where available online in pdf format. They contained the IP addreses of the systems involved. It seems the document is still online here. (And I want nothing to do with those who will be checking if these are still machines running iis 3.0 with frontpage extentions on nt4.0 with sp3 or something like that) Now I am sure that the people responsible for running those mission critical windows boxes conected to the internet fixed the major holes. But apparently they managed to convince the court that those ips should not be made public anyway. (Ofcourse this is the first place blackhats look for the addreses of such systems, they just feel more at ease asking a court clerk for these documents rather then say doing dns zone transfers, networks scans and request to whois databases.)

      Rather then blacking out the text by putting a black bitmap over them, here investigators used a black font with a black background color.... Ofcourse most slashdotters are already thinking of that great pdf2ascii tool, part of xpdf. There was however no need for the windows world to feel left out, copy and paste worked just fine, afterall the acrobat "rights" control system specificly allowed it ;-)

      What intrigues me is that at that moment there where around three hundred >1 slashdot posts and nobody mentioned a thing. Eventhough at least a couple of people must have noticed these black parts all had diffrend lengths, just like the original ip`s. I always asumed everybody knows this and keeps it secret couse the individual person who came up with the idea of blacking out electronic text this time might learn from their mistake but by not reporting it on front pages everbody assured that there would never be a memo send around all goverment agencies explaining this problem. This would assure acces to those with sufficient interst to the black parts of documents could read them. Afterall these are documents that are already released to the public, whats to point in protecting a couple of black parts that would be left out if they where life-or-death kind of things.

      I just guess even slashdot traditions die one day

    37. Re:This happened once before... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      NB in the above comment I didn't consider deliberately hiding information, for example spelling out a secret message with the first character of each word or encoding a message in the least significant bit of the blue component of each pixel. I meant being safe against accidentally releasing information you didn't intend to, and which is clearly viewable by anyone who knows how the app works. Of course any useful file format can be used with steganography to carry secret messages if you deliberately try to.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    38. Re:This happened once before... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      You get the "Best. Post. Ever." award for today.

      That was fucking brilliant :)

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    39. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the codeine thing would be nice but I'll settle for free speech even without lesbian shit videos.

    40. Re:This happened once before... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Thank you for clarifying things. This doesn't really indict Bush. But I still stand by my appraisal about how the Bush administration releases NOTHING at all until it's been whitewashed and sanitized.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    41. Re:This happened once before... by bronsinbound · · Score: 1

      Au Contraire: Sometimes the new "information sharing" works the wrong way, i.e., they share the mistakes, not the fixes ;^)

    42. Re:This happened once before... by zonker · · Score: 0

      btw, here are some tools that make this kind of stuff really really easy. pitstop makes editing pdf's a breeze. and quite imposing makes masking a breeze. of course, what i use them for on a daily basis is quite different (imposition and printing), but they are equally adept at creating or uncovering stuff like this...

    43. Re:This happened once before... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Not if someday they put out a blacked-out PDF
      > with war plans of some sort, and end up
      > forewarning the recipients of said war plans
      > and costing lives.

      Very good point and one that is irrefutable I might add. You have pointed out the danger but do they see it? You must remember that these are much the same folks that are using Windows for Warships.

      Irregardless, I like your thinking.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    44. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I still stand by my appraisal about how the Bush administration releases NOTHING at all until it's been whitewashed and sanitized.

      you're not alone there...

    45. Re:This happened once before... by mr+breakfast · · Score: 1

      Thats a good point:

      "Gentleman, you will recall that we decided to put up our top secret plans to annex Poland online in the form of a pdf with some parts blacked out? I'm afraid I've got some bad news..."

      I'm fairly sure that war plans of most sorts are not actually going to get put online before the war in question happens.

    46. Re:This happened once before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of a chance to bash Bush.

      Don't let common sense get in the way of defending a borderline fascist government with a moron at its head.

      The report was written in the nineties? So what? The report was censored by a life-long government official? So what? Did you forget the recent changes in law to allow extensive censoring of government information... all in the name of preventing democra... err...terrorism.

      You right-wing idiots amaze me. You can't see the abuses going on right under your nose.

    47. Re:This happened once before... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Well how about flight plans for CH-47 helicopters in Baghdad? I can see someone releasing a document, let's call it "Time Table for Troops Returning From Active Duty" which talked about a group of soldiers returning from the field, and giving unit numbers that were coming home. Rather than edit out text from the document, some enterprising military type decides just to mask out the end portion, which is a list of schedules and departure points for those soldiers. As an Iraqi "resistor", you first unmask, get your SA-7's and SA-14's ready, and wait for them to fly over. What I am saying is that when classified information leaks out, who knows what kind of damage it could cause. Classified is classified, whether it is the battery-replacment schedule for a weather station in Fairbanks, Alaska, or a listing of train schedules in Iraq.

  4. Time to bet by FrankoBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    How much time before the DOJ shuts them down ? 5$ on next week.

    1. Re:Time to bet by Catskul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too late, slashdot already shut them down

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    2. Re:Time to bet by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Too late, slashdotters all over the web will copy the PDF to their archives, just like the Diebold memos...

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    3. Re:Time to bet by antis0c · · Score: 1

      How much time before over 1,000 people mirror it world wide? $5 in the next 30 minutes.

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
  5. Huh.... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    1 entry found for Redacted.
    redact
    To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example).
    To make ready for publication; edit or revise.
    So I guess this could be taken to mean "un-edited", but it still seems like pretty poor word choice to me. Although "Un-redacted" might be a good word to describe slashdot in general.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Huh.... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes, the definition in proper English is merely to edit, but in the jargon of the "Intelligence Community" redaction is the process of editing out anything you don't want the world to see.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    2. Re:Huh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *think* the correct term for this instance is deredact, as the document is having the redactions removed. Unredact suggests the document being presented is the one the redactor had prior to redacting it, which it isn't.

      If I'm wrong, fill me in. I'm not perfect at english; although I'd like to be. :-)

    3. Re:Huh.... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Redact is basically doublespeak for censorship. The government doesn't want to reveal some information so they censor it. Instead of saying censorship (which has negative connotations), they use redact.

      This is similar to collatoral damage, which is doublespeak for civilian deaths. Civilian deaths sounds bad so collatoral damage is used.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:Huh.... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the reference.com entry isn't quite complete enough. Redaction comes from the Latin word for edit - I believe redacteur is French for editor (apologies to French speakers in advance if I messed that up - but when used in English of a text it more usually means something that was actually *rearranged* in the process of editing - for instance, Biblical scholars speak of the various redactions of early Biblical texts in the process of their assembly and transmission. In this case, it was used as a euphemism for "censored."

  6. You'd have thought they would have learned... by Mr.+Dop · · Score: 0

    After they did this during the MS trial with PDF and black rectangles.

    *SIGH*

    You tax dollars at work, glad to see were getting our money's worth.

  7. Sneakiness by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

    Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.

    Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.

    Or maybe that's just what he wants us to think...

    1. Re:Sneakiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!..

    2. Re:Sneakiness by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.

      This would be a brilliant idea to spread false information. Instead of just publishing false information, write false information into a PDF and cover it with black rectangles. Not only do you have all the conspiracy theorists believiing whatever BS you wrote, you also have have a defense should anyone find out: it was blacked out, you weren't supposed to read it.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    3. Re:Sneakiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe even the guy was a gentleman of color?

    4. Re:Sneakiness by pergamon · · Score: 1
      Or maybe that's just what he wants us to think...


      Perhaps, but in any case, you are clearly in on it.
    5. Re:Sneakiness by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is one disinformation technique. However, it is very difficult to pull off. First of all, you have to know in advance that someone is going to "break the system". What if people didn't figure out how to reveal the hidden words? Second, people will verify the information as much as they can. This may contradict things.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  8. And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in other news, Ford today announced a new initiative to reinvent the wheel.

    Said spokesman, Bill Patteyunk, "We've tried and we've tried, but we keep getting this circular thing. We'll keep trying and trying until we've accomplished what we've set out to do."

    Ford shares were up with the news.

  9. your tax dollars at work by dauvis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I had information that I didn't want the public to see I would have at least made sure that the information was not accessible by someone who is using a hex editor. I made a PDA program for myself that stored passwords I had for various websites (when you have a different one for each site, it sometimes gets a little hard to keep track of them in your head). However, before I actually started using it, I looked at the binary image of the record or the PDA that was being created. Well, it turned out that the mechanism for "securely" storing the information was just making it inaccessible through the API. In the end, I had to write my own storage mechanism using a standard encryption technique. The moral of this story is, just because you can't get to it doesn't mean it's not there for someone to find.

    Of course the people/person at The Memory Hole will be labeled as a hacker/pirate/terrorist by the justice department.

    1. Re:your tax dollars at work by Politburo · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I had information that I didn't want the public to see I would have at least made sure that the information was not accessible by someone who is using a hex editor.

      Yes I have yet to meet a person on the street who doesn't agree 100% with this statement.

    2. Re:your tax dollars at work by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Odd. Most of the people whom I meet on the street -- those who don't give me a strange look and walk on without speaking -- ask "What's a hex editor?"

    3. Re:your tax dollars at work by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Informative
      If I had information that I didn't want the public to see...

      The people who are replying to this story are some of the most immature idiots with zero knowledge of government. Has NOBODY worked for our legal or justice system? Anybody ever graduate high school civics?

      Information is blacked out and the black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it. They don't. They *want* you to know that something was taken out.

      The reason information is blacked out is because it was found to be factually incorrect or otherwise not reliable to be placed into public record and used as a cite for future legal uses. If I was a clerk and started filing things that said "Senator Smith is a satan worshiper who kills cats" and it turns out that I just have an axe to grind and am making up bullshit, then everywhere I filed that information is blacked out. If a witness on a stand says "Oh, and he rapes puppies too", and it turns out that the witness was lying, the information is "stricken from the record", but a *note* is make that it was strinken, and how much was stricken.

      It's not to hide anything - if you want the original report, subpoena, etc., the easiest thing to do is go back to the original author and ask for the original filing. Reporters and historians do it all the time (since the press does not have to have the same standards that the legal and legislative system does).

      Jebus - has nobody reading this entire site ever read a subpoena?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    4. Re:your tax dollars at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Information is blacked out and the black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it. They don't. They *want* you to know that something was taken out.

      The reason information is blacked out is because it was found to be factually incorrect or otherwise not reliable to be placed into public record and used as a cite for future legal uses.

      Interesting theory. It sounds as if you have some legal experience. Have you never read through any FOIA cases? The USG "redacts" anything that the current administration or current set of bureaucrats finds in any way embarrassing or uncomfortable. Then they scratch, claw, and kick that said "redaction" is due to issues of "national security", "personal privacy", "confidential personnel records", or whatever. Sooner or later someone gets the real document, and the "redacted" material turns out to be Joe Asst Secretary directly ordering the actions he later denied. "National security" my ass.

      Personally, I don't see the concepts of "redaction" or "under seal" (not to mention "FISA courts") appearing anywhere in the Constitution and I think they should be eliminated from our legal system.

    5. Re:your tax dollars at work by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sorry, but you're just wrong. You describe one reason that documents may be redacted in legal circles. However, that is not by far the reason that documents are usually redacted in government as a whole. Documents are often released to comply with FOIA requests that are redacted to the point of saying nothing other than "something happened to somebody on this date, and somebody else said something to somebody", but you can't figure out what they said or who it was too - this isn't generally done to protect the government from libel charges, it's done to avoid releasing embarrassing information.


      Your analogy of a redacted court document to a redacted internal government report doesn't seem to hold up. The judicial system doesn't have any vested interest in preventing embarrasment of parties to law suits beyond the requirements of the law, and the protection of their legally guaranteed privacy, but government _bureaucrats_ have every interest in protecting their superiors, their superiors' superiors, and the elected officials who appointed them.

    6. Re:your tax dollars at work by charleschuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it.
      If that were the point, why wouldn't they just strike through the text with a simple line (e.g. the <strike> tag in html) instead of blacking it out entirely?
    7. Re:your tax dollars at work by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      this isn't generally done to protect the government from libel charges, it's done to avoid releasing embarrassing information.

      True enough. Striking something from the official record is abused. That doesn't mean the actual act is somehow nefarious and has no good purpose the way people in this discussion are claiming. It's there to prevent abuse (from inserting factually incorrect or wild claims into public record), and the mechanism itself is sometimes abused.

      But then, that's why reporters and historians run down the originals to see what was striken. ;)

      And the other reason which you brought up - keeping classified information quiet (like the names of information sources that should not be published) is another very valid use of striking things from the record.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    8. Re:your tax dollars at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I think the original authors wanted to demonstrate their technical prowess. By saying things like: 'I've got a pda _and_ I'm able to program it!' or 'I talk to people _and_ I know what a hex-editor is!'

      It could also be that it's just my diseased brain giving me these false impressions :)

    9. Re:your tax dollars at work by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      You'd probbably be right.. if this was a court document. This document was obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act, which has very specific circumstances in which requests can be denied, and what information can be withhelf.

      You can read about all the excemptions and exclusions allowed by law for FOIA requests here.
      Most of which have to deal with national security, privacy, business secrets, endangering an ongoing law enforcement investigation, etc. As far as I can tell none of these exclusions/excemptions apply to what was hidden.

      --
      AccountKiller
  10. Why assume it was a mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who was being sneaky here? The department, for wanting to block out so much of the report? Or perhaps a person down low in the organization, who knew it was going to be put on the web site after "editing", and deliberately did it in such a way that the clueless PHB would okay it, but that the info would be available if anyone cared to really go after it?

    Slaves resist their masters in many subtle ways. Wage slaves do, too.

    1. Re:Why assume it was a mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Monday at dawn he will be called into his manager's office, and scolded for "confusing" the public with his poor redacting. Yeah, that's the word: "confusing"! Yeah that's it: if the public reacts strongly to the revelation, it's not because they are rightfully shocked at them, no, it's because they are confused!

  11. Still waiting... but... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the whole measuring diversity is pointless.

    The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it. Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Still waiting... but... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I would ordinarily agree. Except that I have seen cases firsthand where given the choice between a black man and a white the white's will take white every time. Granted the blacks will take blacks in a heartbeat over a white. It's not evil, it's human nature.

      If the population of whites and blacks were about equal, there wouldn't be a problem. If we all lived in the same part of town, it wouldn't be a problem. But this is not a perfect world, and those that have take more from those that have not.

      We need these artificial rules to keep the game balanced for everyone.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Still waiting... but... by cloudmaster · · Score: 0, Insightful

      But, our population is perfectly diverse, so our workforce should reflect that. What? Our population is mostly white males? Huh, I thought our population was mostly black and hispanic women, since those groups have special recognitions and opportunities, while white males have no special exceptions granted to them. That'd be racist and/or sexist, after all.

      Then again, I'm glad that I can't get a job based on anything but my qualifications for that job - I'd be annoyed if my skin and gender put me above someone else.

    3. Re:Still waiting... but... by TheMidget · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On the whole measuring diversity is pointless.

      The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it.

      Actually, according to the memo, the issue here was not just about diversity, but active discrimation. They were not hiring whoever was better for the job, they were giving better chances to caucasians: certain career opportunities were only offered to caucasians, critical information was withheld from minorities. The playing field was severly skewed against minorities. Yes, in this memo lack of diversity is just a polically correct euphemism for outright racism!

      Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).

      It was not about aiming at exactly 50%, but rather about aiming at anything above 0% for the minority employees!

    4. Re:Still waiting... but... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I submitted this same story(probobly rejected, unless it comes up as a dupe), and I read some other press reports. Apparently, the problem is that minorities that are hired by the DOJ leave at a higher rate than whites, and that women also leave at a higher rate than men(though not as much as minorities). This would indicate that there is a cultural problem in the DOJ and it is hindering them, especially in serving minority communities. Please understand that no one is suggesting that qualified white males should not be hired or that minorities be given a preference - just that the DOJ seek to retain those that they do hire, and fix whatever is pushing them away.

    5. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would ordinarily agree. Except that I have seen cases firsthand where given the choice between a black man and a white the white's will take white every time. Granted the blacks will take blacks in a heartbeat over a white. It's not evil, it's human nature.

      I saw a few days ago a comment on the making of "The Planet of the Apes", where the ape actors in disguise on lunch or break would hang together according to their costumes ape type (gorilla, chimpanze, ...).

      Even if under the costume they where a mix of Black / White / Asian / Latinos ... It IS just human nature.

      A neutral group seeing a video clip of the welcome handshake of candidates (15 seconds) arrived to the same evaluation as another group viewing the full interview.( Page 15-17 of "how to move mount Fuji?" )

      If the boss likes you he will 'forgive' any answer that are not obvious errors or stupid BS, and if he does not like you, he will use any small error to dismiss you.

    6. Re:Still waiting... but... by smilinggoat · · Score: 1

      The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it.

      That's not the point. No where does it say that they're aiming for a numerically balanced workforce. From the article, "Whites and minorities as well as men and women perceive differences in many aspects of the work climate. For example, minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment and racial tension as characteristics of the work climate."

      This does not deal with being a racial or sexual 50/50. It has more to do with perceptions and attitudes of day to day relationships between employees.

    7. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > given the choice between a black man and a white the white's will take white every time.

      Um, not all whites and not every time.

      Geez.

      What we NEED is universal access to education and non-districted affordable housing. Kids in gettos don't have much real chance to learn, and those that do have no support to pay for college, and may, or may not, win the grant lottery.

      Our educational system is a class barrier. You are either rich enough to "make it", or you are forever barred from "real jobs". And tuition isn't the only expense in some of these people's lives.

      Like everything we do, we've created yet another entitlement solution, rather than solve the actual problem. It so sucks and it so doesn't have to be this way.

    8. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      women also leave at a higher rate than men

      Some would say women leave to have babies. How is the DOJ supposed to "fix" (your word) that?!?!

    9. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Every company should have to hire some blacks to keep everything balanced.


      Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

    10. Re:Still waiting... but... by anagama · · Score: 1

      • "... it is hindering them, especially in serving minority communities"
      To expand on this a little bit, it is important for the DOJ to have a group of attorneys with a wide range of experiences. Raw scores on the LSAT or Bar exams are important, but many times, it is the non-legal experience a lawyer has that is most useful to understanding the facts of a case - it is unique experiences that often helps the lawyer pick up on subtle hints which can lead to a factual motherlode.

      For example if the players in a case were all Cajuns, I'd want a lawyer who understands Cajun culture because that lawyer will understand the facts better even if he/she didn't graduate from Harvard, 3d in the class. This why diversity should be important to the DOJ. Diversity might make no actual difference when we're talking about assembly line workers, but when understanding other people is crucial to success, diversity is the easiest way to generate that success.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm required to subscribe to a mailing list for my school. I'm getting tired of being deluged every day with scholarship and employment opportunities unavailable to me because I'm the wrong color and gender. As far as I'm concerned it's racist spam.

    12. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the amount of criminals going through the court seem to be largely the minorities. At least the media reports on them at a higher rate.

      I am getting tired of all of this diversity talk though. Hire the most qualified person who can do the job the best. If you are a minority, of course you are going to think that everyone is against you.

    13. Re:Still waiting... but... by Selecter · · Score: 0

      "But this is not a perfect world, and those that have take more from those that have not." Bullshit. Why would a have want anything the have not has got? Besides that, the part of the document that was "concealed" basically said that the Affirmative Action concept was not working out in practice. The very subject of this article says it does not work.

    14. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so convinced your use of italics is quite enough to get your point across. Maybe you should try even harder to, say perhaps using ***stars***

    15. Re:Still waiting... but... by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the problem is that minorities that are hired by the DOJ leave at a higher rate than whites, and that women also leave at a higher rate than men(though not as much as minorities). This would indicate that there is a cultural problem in the DOJ and it is hindering them, especially in serving minority communities. Please understand that no one is suggesting that qualified white males should not be hired or that minorities be given a preference - just that the DOJ seek to retain those that they do hire, and fix whatever is pushing them away.

      The study dedicates quite a bit of discussion to this effect. Since the DOJ doesn't do a good job with exit interviews, it's extremely difficult to tell why the attrition rate is higher for women and minorities than for white men.

      There are two issues going on, and its most likely a mixture of the two that causes this effect.

      1) Dissatisfaction with the environment.

      2) Active headhunting by the private sector. The study points out that law firms actively recruit top-performing minorities and females from the DOJ. These law firms spend more effort per hire on pulling away women/minorities than they do on white men.

      Given the joint effort of these Push - Pull factors, it's not surprising that the attrition rate is higher. The problem is that the DOJ could have an enviroment where everyone is equally satisfied, but they would still lose more minorities/women because of factor #2.

      Apart from that, this survey really had response issues. More women responded to the survey than men. More minority attorneys responded than white attorneys. The overall response rate was only 13%. Given these statistics, there's a big dark cloud hanging over this survey which is 'did the folks who responded have an axe to grind?' The statistics that talk about "Perceptions" should be examined a lot more carefully than they are in a quick glimpse.

      The redaction part of the story is disturbing nonetheless.

    16. Re:Still waiting... but... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For reference, I'm a 27 year old male from Toronto, Canada (important for the discussion below).

      What you are saying doesn't apply to this case, since this is a consulting report which is the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. people within the system are being discriminated against).

      In any case, what you are saying is valid for the general situation. The problem is that the world isn't perfect. A sizeable amount of the population are racists, sexists, etc. For example, people I have encountered in my life (people my age, who you would think aren't sexist) were very sexist. I have seen many men (20 to 30 year olds, meaning more liberal than old men) who actually say stuff like "women can't do that job", "women aren't good at xyz", etc. What do you think these guys are doing when they hire people? Do you really think they are hiring women? I highly doubt it. The same thing with ethnicity, language, etc.

      The problem is as follows. You pre-suppose the following: "you just hire whoever is better for the job." Can you guarantee that? The answer is no, given what I said above with people being racist, sexist, and so forth.

      Look at, say, blacks in USA. Blacks were considered as equals for a long time. Yet, many people did not hire them. They weren't even hired for the worst jobs. Why? The reason is discrmination. As long as the people who discriminate is sizeable, the best person will not be hired for the job. Trust me, if hte best person for a job was hired, things would be a lot simpler and you wouldn't have some of these problems.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    17. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, if Monica Lewinsky was black, would it have the same size scandal, bigger or smaller?

    18. Re:Still waiting... but... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Problem is that racism still exists. Look at the memo. If people were really hired purely under meritocratic processes, there would be no need for affirmative action. But that's not yet the case.

    19. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).

      That's a pretty simplistic view, totally eliminating historical context (e.g. if you screwed people of one gender before, is evening things out really so discriminatory, or is it just fair?)

      Still, what you're describing is called a quota, and they've been banned in the U.S. since the 70s (Was it the ruling in the Bakke vs. U.C. Regents case which set this precedent?)

    20. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know there is a fairly well known (Unfortunately, I can't remember his name, so maybe he isn't so well known....) author who refers to those as assholes. Draw your own conclusions (or assholes, as the author did).

    21. Re:Still waiting... but... by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Kurt Vonnegut?

      I recall in one of his books he says something like "here is a picture of an asshole" and then there's a big * on the next page.

    22. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the issue here was not just about diversity, but active discrimation.


      amazing how anti-diversity is never related as anti-discriminatory
    23. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton fucked enough black women to make a Tarzan movie. He had a bastard child with one.

    24. Re:Still waiting... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I recall in one of his books he says something like "here is a picture of an asshole" and then there's a big * on the next page.

      Yes, and thanks to Amazon's "search inside this book" feature, you can have look yourself!

  12. Please ignore... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny
    That text behind the curtain!

    (Spins handle to fan up flames)

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re: Please ignore... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > (Spins handle to fan up flames)

      Oh, just what's needed on Slashdot!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Please ignore... by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 1
      I think you mean:

      Pay no attention to that text behind the curtain.

      Sheesh, some people just don't watch enough Wizard of Oz... or maybe I just watch too much...

      TheAJOfOZ

    3. Re:Please ignore... by Webmoth · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you've all figured out by now, anybody can read the "blacked out" portions simply by using the text select tool, and copy-pasting it into some other editor.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
  13. What they remove by big_debacle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it is most interesting to see what the government has decided shouldn't be revealed to the public. Classified sources? Nope. National Security threat? Nope. Poor HR? Yes. Discrimination within the government? Yes.

    Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration.

    1. Re:What they remove by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Amen.

      And don't think congress isn't looking. Have you been paying attention to the brouhaha between the Senate, the State Department and the CIA over the pre-war intelligence. You have members of the President's own party calling him to the carpet.

      That's beyond power-mongering. Dubya has crossed over to so corrupt he's stupid.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:What they remove by Jameth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, and have said such many times.

      However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not. I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.

    3. Re:What they remove by jmv · · Score: 1

      ...and next time try convincing people that the blacked-out parts are for national security.

    4. Re: What they remove by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not.

      Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The current Administration is secretive as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, to the point of looking like a petty third world dictatorship. But were other recent Administrations any different, or just less amateurish about it?

      > I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.

      Actually, they were obsessed with getting anything they could find on him. It just so happens that after 7 years and $40,000,000 all they could find was dick, so that's what they had to settle for.

      You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:What they remove by defaultXIX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah because the government never did anything bad or stupid BEFORE bush was president.

    6. Re: What they remove by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.

      The sad thing is, they will probably find something.

      This is why we need a strong third party in this country. Mudslinging between three candidiates just wouldn't work as well. Plus debates would be a lot more interesting.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    7. Re:What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well Hillary Clinton munches carpet ;-)

    8. Re:What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is not the "bush" admin.... get off your bush bashing liberal thinking. it is ALL of them ... your pall clinton also. i am gettting so sick of seeing all the bush/republican bashing here. this is suppose to be a "techies" place, not a liberal minded political place. i can get that anywhere. PLEASE, keep you crappy bush slams to yourself. they are old and tiring. did you know clinton signed over our freedom to the un??? look it up, he sign an order that if the prez died the US would become TOTAL un run. how is that one for size??? huh??? not buch CLINTON!

      both sides are corrupt evil jerks. look at the fact that they never have any one against a self given pay increse.... if thew demicrats were so holy and good they would vote AGAINST a self inflicted rase. but no, they cheat us just a bad. take money from the "rich" [anyone working and making money] and give it to the "poor" [anyone leaching of the gov cuz to lazy to work].

      and this is the same across the world. polititions are just there to take your money and possetions and give it to their "pals" or put it in thier own pockets.

      so, please, PLEASE, stop saying how evil bush is. he is just like all the rest including your "savior" clinton

    9. Re: What they remove by Cyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because there are no WMD.

      Buts its nice how we keep giving them millions to continue their search. Its so blissful living in such a faith based country that we'll pay to make any reality the truth, even if it takes covering up all those annoying little facts and painting over them with distraction after horribly fearsome distraction.

      Its a good thing God exists. If he doesn't there are a lot of delusional people in this country who are prime targets for intesive psychotherapy.

    10. Re:What they remove by heli0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration."

      The NYT article stated that these documents were edited before release by career lawyers at the DOJ and that Bush-appointed employees of DOJ made no changes at all.

      Mr. Corallo said career lawyers who routinely decide how to censor material before public release made the recommendations about what to delete from the diversity report. He said their recommendations were sent to the office of the deputy attorney general, where it was reviewed by political appointees who made no further changes.
      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    11. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      That's because there are no WMD.

      Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right? Or was that just part of a global conspiracy against poor innocent muslims?

    12. Re:What they remove by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      It has always been this way. Those in charge of hiring tend to chose those whom they are comfortable with.

      I worked for the government during Clinton's administration and we didn't hire two individuals, that I know of, for reasons of race. The comments were "he's bright enough, but he's black", and "we don't need any Italians or Catholics working here".

      In another department, located across the street, that I worked with, the administrator was a woman and amazingly enough, most of the management positions were filled by women.

      The department I worked in, and the others I worked closely with, were riddled with favoritism, cronyism, racism, and a couple of cases of nepotism.

      Although you may personally hate Bush for whatever reason (my guess is you've never personally met him and any hatred you feel is just the lemming effect of American politicking kicking in), you cannot lay this at his feet.

    13. Re: What they remove by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > > That's because there are no WMD.

      > Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?

      Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you were to take the current US political system, go to the source, and recompile with -funroll-loops -i586mmx, you'd get something much more efficient and around 10% faster, which would give you space for a strong third party.

    15. Re:What they remove by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

      But is there one good thing you can say about the Bush administration?

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    16. Re:What they remove by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but I'd rather have an effective Justice Department than a diverse one (not that the two are mutually exclusive or that the current one is necessarily effective). Just because it isn't diverse doesn't mean there is discrimination.

      I am SO sick of political correctness and the American public is too, judging by the GOP's continuing success in elections. *grins*

    17. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, they just diappeared?

      They were destroyed between 1991 and 2003, as required by the UN resolutions after the end of the Kuwait war. Amazingly, biological and chemical weapons do not last forever, and many agents simply decompose after only three or four years. So in effect yes, they did actually simply cease to be.

    18. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      So where are they?

      My guess is Syria.

    19. Re: What they remove by ncc74656 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?

      Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.

      How about 1998, when your pal Bill Clinton told the world that Saddam was flouting the sanctions against him? Regime change in Iraq has been our stated policy since then. That he failed to act on the information and opportunities that presented themselves to him (such as Sudan offering bin Laden on a plate) will forever remain a black spot (one of many) on his administration.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    20. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Syria and Iraq had not been friends in recent years, don't forget that Syria was part of the coalition against Iraq back in the first US Iraq conflict. I don't know how far back this antipathy goes, but at least back to the 70's.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    21. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.

      Make a joke of it if you want, but we have already determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Howard Dean does have a dick, and we intend to use that information, along with our connections with Diebold Inc., to insure that George Bush is appointed president over Howard Dean in 2004. We did not consider the poop angle though. Thanks for the idea.

    22. Re: What they remove by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Syria and Iraq had not been friends in recent years, don't forget that Syria was part of the coalition against Iraq back in the first US Iraq conflict.

      Also, though it may not be too hard to relocate a small number of weapons across the border without a trace, relocating an entire weapons program is another matter.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    23. Re: What they remove by UU7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because your guess matters.
      I wouldnt waste time, call up Bush and let him know.

    24. Re: What they remove by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      such as Sudan offering bin Laden on a plate

      This is a tired old canard. Sudan was not offering bin Laden. Some joker who claimed to have authority that he didn't have claimed that he could get the Sudanese government to offer bin Laden. There was no reason to believe that he was trustworthy. Conservatives make this an issue now even though there is no doubt that a conservative administration would have given this guy just as much attention as did the Clinton administration.

    25. Re: What they remove by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      recompile with -funroll-loops -i586mmx

      That -i586mmx is incorrect. -squirrelGoFaster.wheel is the proper modifier.

    26. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case you didn't get the joke - Bush already knew; immediately after he figured out there's nothing left in iraq to keep the interest high, actually (do some googling for continuing the war on terror with siria)

    27. Re: What they remove by starlion · · Score: 1

      "You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?" Yes. The international community also saw to it that were destroyed. Sanctions were effective in preventing them from re-arming, but that wasn't especially good for Bechtel, Halliburton, and their friends.

      --
      Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're YOURS. -Richard Bach
    28. Re:What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It ought to be called the Bush mal-administration!

    29. Re:What they remove by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      But is there one good thing you can say about the Bush administration?
      It's finally almost over?
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    30. Re:What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll stick my neck out.

      After the 11th of September, Al Qaida and - for backing them - the Taliban, had to go. The administration forged a coalition which did the job, something Clinton should have done earlier.

      What happened next was a mess - the new Afghan government has been more or less abandoned - but the initial job was done well.

      That was my 'one good thing'. It is all I can come up with.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    31. Re:What they remove by DrDNA · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration.

      Did this kind of stuff happen under Clinton? Probably. Undoubtedly, much of it occurs by non-political appointees, who are life-long government workers. Of course that doesn't make it right.

      What is important about this situation is that the Bush administration, probably including Ashcroft himself, prefer to cover it up rather than admit it and try to do something about it. Let's not forget they were forced to do the study in the first place. They always think politics over policy every time.

    32. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      They were destroyed between 1991 and 2003, as required by the UN resolutions after the end of the Kuwait war.

      Where are they? How do you know they were destroyed? Assuming you admit you don't, why do you believe they were? Where are the remains of them?

      So in effect yes, they did actually simply cease to be.

      They disintegrated into nothing without so much as a trace of their existence or evidence of their destruction. Interesting theory.

    33. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      We weren't talking about the weapons program. We were talking about the WMD.

    34. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Syria and Iraq had not been friends in recent years, don't forget that Syria was part of the coalition against Iraq back in the first US Iraq conflict. I don't know how far back this antipathy goes, but at least back to the 70's.

      So just because they're not friends means that weapons can't be hidden there? You don't have to be friends with the whole country. Just one border guard.

    35. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yes. The international community also saw to it that were destroyed.

      They did not. Part of the international community took Saddam Hussein's word that they were destroyed. The rest went in there and bombed the shit out of them.

    36. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      See, unlike Cyno, who claims that the WMD spontaneously combusted into nothingness, I admit that my theory is merely a guess.

    37. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. So let's invade Syria. Then when we don't find any weapons there we can "guess" that they are in Jordan, or maybe Iran this time. Rinse and repeat. Face it asshole, it was all a lie. Iraqi defectors told us that Iraq destroyed their WMD. You are a sheep.

    38. Re: What they remove by Ogerman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.

      As well as in 1998 when Iraq declared publically that they still had them. (And there was sufficient evidence that they were likely still producing them, hence the continued UN inspections) Sure, it could have been a bluff to make neighboring countries afraid of him, but why would Saddam go all the way to let himself be overthrown if he could have just said "We lied.. we really didn't have any. Come on in and freely look around to see for yourself" Secondly, it is naive to believe that the first Gulf War knocked some sense into the man and he just willingly gave up all his WMD capabilities. With his conventional military mostly destroyed, it was the only remaining base of power.

      The anti-war folks would like people to believe that there was no possibility whatsoever that Iraq possessed WMD's before the war. This is decidedly untrue.

    39. Re:What they remove by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You can bet it did. This doesn't have anything to do with who's in power, this has to do with bureaucratic CYA.

      OTOH, this is true whenever "National Security" is allowed to decide who is allowed to decide who can see what. More properly, it is true whenever someone is allowed to decide what someone else can read. The reason that is given will be whatever will be accepted. The purpose will be either to CYA, or to prevent the other person from taking precautions that would prevent them from being adversely affected. But CYA is so much the more common that the second cause can (nearly) be ignored. When you invoke the Freedom of information act, what you get back will usually contain large areas of blacked out stuff. Sometimes only the page numbers are left. Usually this is CYA, but I'm convinced that sometimes it's more in the spirit of "How dare you ask *us* to let you know what we've been doing!", and that the blacked out areas are just maliciousness of the "let him worry" variety. Basically because they can, and you can't stop them, and they don't need to worry about censure from above. They followed the letter of the law, in so far as you are able to prove anything.

      It's one of the many things that causes me to despise many branches of the government. Especially the ones that claim to be protecting me.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    40. Re: What they remove by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      They didn't find Saddam either, does that mean he never existed too?

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    41. Re: What they remove by HiThere · · Score: 1

      We know that they had them at one point. We sold them to them. Perhaps they resold them? Perhaps we should have done a recall for manufacturing defects. Or maybe we should have put a "no resale" clause in the EULA.

      The US accusing some other country of having WMD is really quite absurd. That it's happening doesn't make it less absurd. That it turns out that they were telling the truth when they said that they didn't have them is the cream of the jest. It does, however, look like North Korea got the joke.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    42. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the international community took Saddam Hussein's word that they were destroyed.

      Saddam's word had nothing what-so-ever to do with the belief that WMD were destroyed. It was the years of active (and documented) destruction of those weapons by the UN inspectors.

      The rest went in there and bombed the shit out of them.

      Ah yes. "The rest" The U.S., Great Britain, Austrailia and the rest of the "coalition of the willing" many of whom were paid handsomely for their "support"

    43. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      aha - you are talking in terms of smuggling a pistol or two over the border and making sure you get checked by the friendly border guard and not someone else on his shift, or by someone on another shift.

      I thought we were talking something large scale like missiles. So, what would be the point of smuggling something like that into Syria? What is the use of having WMDs if you are not going to use them?

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    44. Re: What they remove by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Well these devices do not last forever. Biological agents simply die off over time. Those little buggers (and their offspring) have a shelf life. Chemical agents decompose, become unstable or unusable, and must be disposed of. So yes, in a way they do "spontaneously combust.. into nothingness".

      -b

    45. Re: What they remove by dheltzel · · Score: 1
      Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?

      Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.

      Then Sadaam sure was stupid. If I took all the effort to disarm according to the UN requirements, I think I'd have the inspectors all over the place to prove it and rub President Bush's nose in it. The only reason I can think of to exclude the inspectors is because they still had WMD, or to "play chicken" with the US.

      Fortunately, it seems neither option really worked out for him :)

    46. RE: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can be classified and what cannot is spelled out in Executive Order 12958-Classified National Security Information, as Amended.

      This document can be found (among many other locations) on-line at the Information Security Oversight Office site:

      http://www.archives.gov/isoo/rules_and_regulatio ns /executive_order_12958_amendment.html

      Check out sections 1.4 and 1.7 regarding types of information classified.

    47. Re: What they remove by delstar+dotstar · · Score: 1
      What is the use of having WMDs if you are not going to use them?
      Deterrence.
    48. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      decidedly untrue?

      What the hell does that mean.

      And your random facts were not proof, I'm sorry but some sort of satelite survelience in conjunction with a spies testomony would be proof, random conjuring of select quotes aren't going to prove anything.

    49. Re:What they remove by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      What happened next was a mess - the new Afghan government has been more or less abandoned - but the initial job was done well.

      Who performed that job? A military equipped and trained under 8 years of Clinton.

      Once the NYC WTC was destroyed, the decision to attack Afganistan was basically unavoidable. Any US President, Gore or Bush, would've told the Pentagon to overthrow the Taliban. And from then on, the job is done by warfighters recruited and molded long before 2000.

    50. Re: What they remove by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      will forever remain a black spot (one of many) on his administration.

      I thought most of the spots were white....

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    51. Re:What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding ding! We have a winner. The Slashdot Most Ignorant Use of the English Language Award for November First goes to... Post #7367686!

      You also were in consideration for Most Unnessecary Shift of Focus from Bush to Clinton, but the rest of the anti-Clinton trolls are WAY more accomplished than you. Remember, the Clinton-specific flames should be reserved for a story that specifically targets yet another one of Shrub's crimes and lies, that is when it's most important to blame Clinton for everything and to ignore the true material debate. Thanks for trying though. Maybe some other day?

    52. Re: What they remove by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      And your random facts were not proof, I'm sorry but some sort of satelite survelience in conjunction with a spies testomony would be proof, random conjuring of select quotes aren't going to prove anything.

      I was not talking proof, but rather possibility. The anti-war folks claim there was no possibility of WMD when in fact there was a very significant possibility. This combined with the fact that Iraq itself claimed to possess said weapons, had not cooperated with UN inspections, AND had made public its support of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel) was, in my opinion, enough reason to overthrow Saddam. To say nothing of his continual human rights violations: genocide, political executions, etc..

      Incidentally, we had satellite surveillence and spies testimony. Whether or not that intelligence was accurate is still up for debate. If it was not, the intelligence community is to blame, not Bush.

    53. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Iraq is surrounded by hostile nations, including Iran to the east. Iraq was broken and defenseless nation due to ten years of sanctions. A better explanation than "play chicken with the US" would be as deterent against their hostile neighbors.

    54. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "Where are they?"

      They were dumped into the ground or stored in barrels.

      "How do you know they were destroyed?"

      There are written records of the destruction. There are also residues in the places where they dumped them.

      "Where are the remains of them?"

      There are detectable amounts left in the dumping grounds. The UN inspection team has documented them.

      "They disintegrated into nothing without so much as a trace of their existence or evidence of their destruction. Interesting theory."

      No not quite that way. Over time they do disintegrate into mostly harmless chemicals but as I said there is plenty of evidence that they were destroyed. Not only documents but eye witnesses and such. Many top Iraqi officials have been captured and "interrogated" in cuba, kuwait, quatar, and israel. Some of those were interviewed by the UN inspection team before the war when they were not being "pressured" during "interrogation".

      The facts are out there. You choose to ignore them or not believe them. That is your option I guess but just because you ignore facts that does not mean they don't exist.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    55. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where is the program? The factories? the trucks used to transport them? The storage facilities? The scientists? The laborers and the janitors? The guards and soldiers? Where is the paperwork that must have existed to produce WMDs in sufficient quantity to ender the lives of all Americans.

      Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US with a bucket full of mustard gas were they? Where are the atomizers? the catalysts? Where are the other chemicals to stabilize and refine biological agents? Where are the growing tanks for all the biological agents? Were they being incubated in a thermos or a yogurt maker?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    56. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "Deterrence."

      Hussein (and the rest of the world) knew full well that george bush wanted to bomb iraq. He knew deterrence was not a factor.

      If he wanted to deter he would have said that he had them and threatened to use them against israel. Instead he said he didn't have them and let the weapons inspections in the country and pretty much let them go whereever they wanted.

      Once the attack started he had several days to use them before Bagdad was lit up by bombs. He still did not use them or even threaten to use them.

      He did not have have WMDs. Bush lied.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    57. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Wow. I guess there is no real difference between clinton and bush then.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    58. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      There were weapons inspections going on until a few days before the bombing started. Iraq was co-operating by and large. Sure it may not have benn 100% co-operation but there is no dispute that the inspection was free to travel anywhere including the palaces.

      "had made public its support of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel) was, in my opinion, enough reason to overthrow Saddam. To say nothing of his continual human rights violations: genocide, political executions, etc.."

      If those were the reasons for going to war then Bush should have made that clear. He should have said simply that we will invade, bomb, and occupy any nation that threatens israel and/or violates human rights, or practices genocide or political executions. I don't remember anybody arguing before the war that those were the reasons.

      Now that the big lie WMDs has been exposed the republicans have retroactively made th war about protecting israel and punishing saddam for human rights violations.

      I for one do not think that the US military should be used to invade and occupy countries that threaten Israel. Israel has over 200 nukes and is the fourth or fifth most powerful military in the world. It has modern armaments, missiles and jets and has enough capacity to kill all the human beings on this planet many times over. They do not need us to fight wars for them. We already give them 5 to 10 billion dollars a year we don't need to fight wars for them too.

      I am however in favor of the US military attacking and occupying all nations in which genocide, human rights violations and political executions are routine. Whether or not they have oil.

      If GW told me that we were going to war to end human rights violations and genocide all over the world he has my 100% support.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    59. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't find Bigfoot. Does that mean Bigfoot exists?

      Nice logic.

    60. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Umm, they just diappeared?

      No. They were just redacted.

    61. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      We know that they had them at one point. We sold them to them. Perhaps they resold them?

      Perhaps so, but then the statment that "there are no WMD" is quite false.

      The US accusing some other country of having WMD is really quite absurd.

      No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them of it.

      That it turns out that they were telling the truth when they said that they didn't have them is the cream of the jest.

      We don't know if they had them or not when they said they didn't. We only know that currently they can't be found.

    62. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... I don't know when you seem to think that Iraq claimed to possess WMD but in Saddam's interview with Dan Rather he clearly said that Iraq did not have WMD.

      I don't understand why you mention the satellite and communications intelligence that the White House tried to use to show that Iraq had WMD. We now know that the evidence was presented in a misleading fashion AND it's conclusion was far from a certain fact. Remember those trailers at the supposed WMD site that left just before the inspectors came?

    63. Re: What they remove by BGl · · Score: 1

      Actually they seem to love Dean because they know he can't beat Bush. Check out http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/1624957.p hp and http://www.esoterically.net/log/archives/000615.ht ml and just google other articles. They really hate Clark though. Check out http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-0 72803.html Think about how they dampt down all things Clark but let all Dean (who can't appeal to a broad based segment of the population) matter fly. Believe it--it's Clark they're really worried about.

    64. Re: What they remove by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.

      Yeah, this came out as a memo to all of us about 2 months ago. Our fearless leader issued it over the RPAN (Republican Party Announcement Network), he said that instead of continuing the investigation into an Iraqi weapons plan, that we should all try and dig up some dirt on that ne'er do well Dean. He wrapped it up quite nicely too, thanking us all for keeping the masses downtrodden and telling us all to "keep up the good work" by using our vast financial resources to buy our ways around the law.

      WMD investigation teams != GOP re-election teams.
      Fucking moron.

      Score: -1, Troll

    65. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking something large scale like missiles.

      Yeah, cause the Iraq/Syrian border is so secure that the fucking leader of Iraq couldn't get something large scale like missles across it. Give me a fucking break. Where is Saddam? Is he in Iraq? Is he in Syria? Is he dead? Or did he never exist in the first place?

      So, what would be the point of smuggling something like that into Syria?

      To make us look stupid. Saddam escapes, takes the weapons with him, waits a few years for the U.S. to be condemned by the international community, then returns. It's not very likely to work, but Saddam didn't really have much other choice, did he?

      What is the use of having WMDs if you are not going to use them?

      It's questioning like that which brought this war about in the first place.

    66. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Without a trace?

    67. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      There are written records of the destruction.

      Wrong. Here's my source:

      But there wasn't much he could tell them, not that he could prove, at least. Just before the war, he recalls, the chiefs at the mic had told people like him involved in the weapons program to hand over some of their documents and burn the rest. "They didn't realize at that time the Americans would insist on every single document," he says. "They thought the (U.S.) attacks would come and that would be it." When in the years after the war U.N. inspectors kept demanding a paper trail, the superiors got nervous. They "started asking us for the documents they had told us to destroy. They were desperate. They even offered to buy any documents we may have hidden."

      Now where's yours?

    68. Re:What they remove by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      You'd better document that one. If it's not true, you've just committed libel. And don't think noone will figure out who you are - they will.

      my guess is you've never personally met him and any hatred you feel is just the lemming effect of American politicking kicking in)

      I suppose you have met GWB? Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine has. Says he came across as a bright fellow. Molly Ivins has said the same thing, by the way, in print and on radio. But I agree with her and not with him: nice he may be, and bright, but he's still wrong.

    69. Re: What they remove by dheltzel · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, and the 10 years of sanction were for what?
      I suppose you also think MS behaves like a monopoly because the Justice Department persecuted them so much, they just had to act that way.

      if your in North Dakota and hear hoofbeats, don't shout "Zebra"
      Don't overlook the obvious, Sadaam obviously had WMD's. Thanks to France/Germany/Russia, he had plenty of time to export them to Syria and who knows where else.

    70. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Where is the program?

      I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program).

      Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships?

      I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions.

    71. Re:What they remove by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      ...the initial job was done well.

      How can you say the job is done? Mullah Mohammed Omar is still on the loose. Usama bin Laden is still out there plotting something (here is his latest news).

      Sivaram VElauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    72. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad Clark is a DLC sock puppet. Dean gets "donations" from hellywood a little to often for me to be comfortable with him as well. But at this point even George of the Jungle is better than George Bush Jr.

    73. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that an open admision that the work of upper management has absolutely nothing to do with the success of the tasks assigned to those under them?

    74. Re: What they remove by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Correctly processed and stored, they do have quite a shelf life. The US still has stocks of chemical agents from WW2 that are still potent. Biological agents are in the form of spores, which can last for decades. Enough biological agent to wipe out New York can be stored in a small refridgerator. We've found all sorts of evidence of a ongoing weapons program, as well as many efforts to conceal things. But even research into these weapons were banned after the first gulf war.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    75. Re: What they remove by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      I don't think he implied that Saddam Hussein doesn't exist ;-)

      What is funny is that the president said that
      This is a large administration with a LOT of top level officials. Therefore he feels they may never discover the leaker. But he does still feel strongly that we will find Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

      My bet ... Saudi Arabia ;-)

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    76. Re: What they remove by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      RPAN = CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX

      The media butters it's own bread. Bush has supplied the butter. Only CBS seems to have the remotest wiff of independence from the Bush spin doctors.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    77. Re: What they remove by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      George, George, george of the Midland,
      Dense as he can be (boom, boom, boom)

      Ahahahahahahahahahahahaaaahha
      Watch out for that Dean. (boom, boom, boom)

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    78. Re: What they remove by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone so quick to jump on Syria?
      1. Syria is secular
      2. Syria has been fighting terrorists for years. They GAVE the US information on Al Qaeda the US never had, because they were never fighting them before. That actually made Syria a FRIEND to the US and earned their trust.
      3. If WMDs went into Syria, wouldnt people see? Doesnt the US monitor with spyplanes and satellites? Remember those circled stockpile locations on Colin's map? Do you really think the US is not going to watch where stuff goes? Wouldn't a herd of trucks and trailers going from one country to another perk up somebody's attention?

    79. Re: What they remove by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right? Or was that just part of a global conspiracy against poor innocent muslims?

      They were there. The UN was tasked with finding them. Then the Bush administration came in, said the UN weapons inspectors were all a bunch of idiots, and that if they went in with the US military, they could resolve this in no time.

      The net result of the Bush action? Lots of dead innocent civilians, far more hostility towards the US in the region, broken diplomatic relationships with Europe, and whatever WMDs there may have been left after the UN inspections have scattered all over the Middle East. Oh, and let's not forget hundreds of billions of your and my tax dollars wasted while education and health care are falling apart at home.

      So, to be clear: almost everybody, including the UN, agreed that there were some WMDs left before the US invaded. But Bush has made it nearly impossible to track them down now and killed lots of people and wasted lots of money in the process.

    80. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      In what way does the link you provide or the passage you quote prove that Saddam had/has weapons of mass destruction?

      How is intelmessages.org somehow a world recognized authority on WMD? It seems like they don't even pretend to be a objective source.

      Here is what Hans Blix the guy in charge of the weapons program had to say.

      http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq /j ustify/2003/0918spin.htm

      In case you don't trust that source here is a few more on the same topic.
      http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1220712.html
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3118462.s tm
      http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/FOR 20 030918c.shtml

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    81. Re: What they remove by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The US accusing some other country of having WMD is really quite absurd.


      No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them of it.

      Sure it is. The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.

      It is not absurd to state that other countries have WMDs, it is not even absurd for the US to consider that state of affairs undesirable. However, it is absurd for the US to imply that everybody should agree that there is something ethically or legally wrong with that.

      For example, I may "accuse" you of driving a car and thereby destroying the environment, but chances are that you and the majority of other Americans would consider my "accusation" absurd because I drive a car, too, and because you don't see anything wrong with driving a car in the first place.

      Well, it's an uncertain world, and India, Pakistan, and China have as much interest in defending themselves as the US. And the US has done nothing to reduce the need for WMDs in this world--quite to the contrary. That's makes it truly absurd for the US to "accuse" other nations for having WMDs.

      A nation like the Vatican, however, does have the moral authority to accuse other nations of having WMDs because they don't. And such nations generally accuse the US as much as they accuse other nations.
    82. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program)."

      How did they get the WMDs without a program to manufacture them? WHere did they store the WMDs? How were they planning on deploying the WMDs?

      "I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions."

      George Bush said that and so did Dick Cheny and Colin Powell. Apparently you think they were lying.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    83. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why is everyone so quick to jump on Syria?

      Geography.

      If WMDs went into Syria, wouldnt people see? Doesnt the US monitor with spyplanes and satellites?

      Yeah, and just as Desert Storm II was ready to begin we saw lots of traffic going from Iraq to Syria. So much in fact, that Syria had to close its borders. As for the underground tunnels, it's hard to know what exactly went on with them.

      Remember those circled stockpile locations on Colin's map? Do you really think the US is not going to watch where stuff goes?

      Obviously either that intelligence was incorrect or we missed it.

      Wouldn't a herd of trucks and trailers going from one country to another perk up somebody's attention?

      I'm sure somebody noticed. But there's not a whole lot of detail you can get with spy satellites.

    84. Re:What they remove by thynk · · Score: 1

      But is there one good thing you can say about the Bush administration

      The reduction of income taxes? The reduction of the number of living terrorist? The reduction of tyrants in power? That this administration had the balls to do what they saw as right regardless of world opinion?

      Oh, sorry, you asked for one. My bad.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    85. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Troll

      In what way does the link you provide or the passage you quote prove that Saddam had/has weapons of mass destruction?

      It doesn't.

      Here is what Hans Blix the guy in charge of the weapons program had to say.

      I see no mention of "written records" of the destruction of the WMD. Are you admitting you made that up, or do you want to try again?

    86. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.

      So is it absurd for someone to "accuse" a convicted felon of possessing a handgun if he himself has a handgun?

    87. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      How did they get the WMDs without a program to manufacture them?

      They had a program. They (clearly) don't have a program any more.

      WHere did they store the WMDs? How were they planning on deploying the WMDs?

      If I knew this I certainly wouldn't be telling you.

      George Bush said that and so did Dick Cheny and Colin Powell. Apparently you think they were lying.

      Of course they were lying.

    88. Re: What they remove by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      If those were the reasons for going to war then Bush should have made that clear. He should have said simply that we will invade, bomb, and occupy any nation that threatens israel and/or violates human rights, or practices genocide or political executions. I don't remember anybody arguing before the war that those were the reasons.

      Actually, some of Bush's pre-war speeches did make a point in mentioning Saddam's other 'certain' evils. It certainly may have been a political blunder to make WMD's the primary focus if there was significant chance that those weapons would not be easily located after the war. Far fewer people questioned Clinton's actions in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. (or even his continual bombing of Iraq)

    89. Re:What they remove by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      But is there one good thing you can say about the Bush administration
      The reduction of income taxes?

      At the obvious beginning of a recession and in such a way as to not bring any impact to the economy. I'll quite confidently say that as soon as I saw bush was running I expected him to win and his win to be followed by a nasty downturn in the economy. To my great dismay, I was right. Now that the economy's doing so bad all estimates show huge deficits in the federal budget that wouldn't have been there if he hadn't messed with taxes to begin with. I would rather he'd have looked to the real problems in the economy than offering his dad's No New Taxes panacea.

      The reduction of the number of living terrorist?
      Take the number before 9/11/2001, subtract the number that he's caused to be killed, and add the number that he's caused to be inspired to revenge, and I don't believe there's any evidence to show the new number is less than the old one. In fact, I expect it is probably quite a bit higher.
      The reduction of tyrants in power?
      I haven't heard about Afghanistan lately, so while we removed one set I have no reason to believe that another set hasn't replaced the first. As for Iraq, I reserve judgement until I see what the old tyrants are replaced with.
      That this administration had the balls to do what they saw as right regardless of world opinion?
      And thus damage relations with europe, russia, and create a new crop of terrorists in the mideast?
      Oh, sorry, you asked for one. My bad.
      Still waiting.
    90. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Clintons actions in Somalia and Bosnia (and haiti which you did not mention) were very different. First of all they came with the blessing and co-operation of the UN and NATO. Secondly they were humaniterian wars from the get go. They also enjoyed worldwide approval if not support. The notable exception to wordwide approval was the republicans in the US who objected. Finally all those actions ended up with the US leaving the country and turning the reconstruction over to the UN with a minimal NATO military presense. In the case of Kosovo the rulers were handed over to the international courts to be tried. Also we did not hold tens of thousands of foreign fighters in concentration camps by calling them "illegal combatants". Finally we did not take over the natural resources of any of those countries once the war was over. Currently all the oil wells in Iraq are under the control of the US military. They will be divvied up amongst the "coalition of the willing" with the vast majority going to US companies.

      The differences between Clinton's execution and Bushs's is night and day.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    91. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "It doesn't."

      I am glad you admitted that.

      "I see no mention of "written records" of the destruction of the WMD."

      If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation. Thus another round of inspections were put in place which was abruptly ended when the US told the inspectors to get out lest they get killed by our bombs.

      All this was widely reported by the US news media as well as international press. I am shocked that you are ignorant of them.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    92. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "They had a program. They (clearly) don't have a program any more."

      When did they have a program. Was this program ever producing a threat to the United States?

      "If I knew this I certainly wouldn't be telling you."

      You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist. It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?

      "Of course they were lying."

      I am glad we agree on this. Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book. If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    93. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nono,
      there *are* WMD, they just keep looking in the wrong place... The largest caches are WMD are in the united states, not some oil-economy middle eastern state we keep using for target practice.

    94. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (This is metadiscussion so I'll post this AC)

      One of the reason's Anthony's on my friends list is that, despite the fact I disagree with him on a whole host of issues (he's closer to a libertarian position than I am, I'm closer to being a liberal than he is) he does think outside of the "Dems vs Repubs" box.

      I don't agree with him about WMDs, but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer. If you miss this and react as if this is a discussion about whether Bush et al ought to be impeached, then you miss the points he's trying to make.

      I get flamed regularly because I'll post some dreadful stuff along the lines that I think musicians who create music on the premise that that music will be protected by copyright and can be used to (attempt to) earn a living through sales should have their choices respected. The immediate response is that I'm some sort of RIAA stooge, because this is the Slashdot logic - you're on one side of the subject, therefore you're a disgusting pirate, or you're on the other, in which case you're in bed with Hilary Rosen or whatever ghastly GOP replacement they've gotten for her.

      I'm tired of labels. I don't think Anthony deserves this, and I think the attempts to turn this into an unrelated discussion about Bush's trustworthiness simply obscures issues of fact and the related conclusions that should be discussed.

    95. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1
      Give me a fucking break. Where is Saddam? Is he in Iraq? Is he in Syria? Is he dead? Or did he never exist in the first place?
      Your point is?

      To make us look stupid. Saddam escapes, takes the weapons with him, waits a few years for the U.S. to be condemned by the international community, then returns.
      and
      It's questioning like that which brought this war about in the first place.
      Are you serious, or are you trying to be modded up as 'funny'? This war came about because a bunch of idealogues in Washington DC decided that it would be a cool idea to send a load of GIs to the Gulf and finish what Dubya's dad started. Nothing that Saddam did (short of resigning, and Noriega's precedent showed that resigning would not help him) was going to prevent that war. I remember the German foreign minister telling Powell that:
      • Saddam was an extremely unpleasant man
      • the evidence for WMDs was simply implausible
      • getting rid of him would be a very bad idea
      What he said was self evident then and has subsequently proved to be completely accurate. I am not surprised that Iraq is proving to be ungovernable, even though the degree of resistance (shooting that Chinook down this morning) has surprised me.

      When you say To make us look stupid, you are identifying yourself with that crew in the White House. That is your choice.
      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    96. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."

      His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though. Rational people don't believe in things that are not supported by evidence. Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations. We monitored all their communications, we spied on them with sattelites and with human intelligence. There was a pre-war inspection regime by the UN and a post war combing over the country by the US.

      After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.

      Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.

      Most liberterians I know are rational people. They don't believe in things without evidence. They certainly have a healthy distrust of the govt and are well aware of the tendency of governments to lie and delude the populace. I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a liberterian. He simply does not talk one. He does talk like a republican though.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    97. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Flamebait?

      Why doesn't slashdot just give up and put a -1 "I am a republican and people who disagree with me don't deserve to get read" moderation option.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    98. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation.

      That's all I'm saying. Thank you.

    99. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      "but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."

      His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though.

      So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? Obviously I can't prove whether or not the later is true. The evidence that they had them recently is the fact that they had them 10 years ago, and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed.

      Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations.

      Nonsense. We overflew them in the no-fly zone (where they shot at us to try to kill us). We sent some drones past that, most likely, but that's hardly scrutiny. The US government can't even track anthrax spores which were held inside the United States and sent through the US post office. You think they can track them in a country which orders its military to kill US officials? No way.

      After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.

      I assume you mean Iraq, not UN? Here's evidence that Iraq had WMDs:

      When passing the report to the Permanent Representative, I would propose to invite his particular attention, and through him that of the authorities in Baghdad, to three key aspects of the report: "all analytical data provided by the three laboratories were again considered conclusive and valid"; "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq's declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with chemical warfare agents"; and, the recommendations of the group of experts that the Special Commission invite Iraq "to explain first the origin and history of the fragments analysed by all three laboratories and then the presence of degradation products of nerve agents" and "to explain the presence of a compound known as VX stabilizer and its degradation product, and to provide more information on the Iraqi efforts during the period from mid-1988 to the end of 1990 to develop and produce VX by improved synthetic routes".

      Now will you stop making such stupid claims?

      As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US.

      Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.

      Iraq had WMD. They lied about those WMD over and over and over again. They claimed the weapons never existed, then we found out they lied, so they claimed they destroyed them, then we found out they lied, so they claimed the ones we found were the only ones, then we found out they lied, then they claimed our tests were incorrect, so we retested and found out they lied. They lied over and over and over again, so my respect for their statements is 0. Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here.

      Most liberterians I know are rational people.

      I have to disagree with you on that one.

      I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a libertarian.

      Good. I'm not. Not even close. And if you read the AC's post you'd realize he never said I was. He

    100. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the greatest of respect, you seem to have ignored my complaint. As I said, I disagree with Anthony on the issue of WMDs. However, I don't believe it's reasonable to suggest that because he believes Saddam was hiding WMDs that this implies he's a Republican, a supporter of the current regime, or even a warmonger.

    101. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Your point is?

      My point is that important objects of interest can move without being detected by the United States.

      When you say To make us look stupid, you are identifying yourself with that crew in the White House. That is your choice.

      Nope, I'm identifying myself as an American. And yes, that is my choice.

    102. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist.

      Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

      It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?

      Sure. But there is evidence for there being WMD. Knowing where something is and knowing whether or not something exists is two completely different things.

      Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book.

      I guess. Do the ends ever justify the means? That's a whole different question which I'm torn over anyway.

      If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?

      Sure. Wasn't lying to congress one of the offenses Clinton was charged with?

    103. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      This is a genuine question coming up:
      Did you identify with decisions made by the Clinton Administration (or other previous ones) in the same way?

      I am English. I agree with some decisions made by British governments, but passionately disagree with others - irrespective of which party is behind them. No government has an automatic right to my approval (not that they care much), how could they? - changes in government often lead to changes in policies, that is supposed to be the point of having elections.

      Opposition politicians normally disagree with the government of the day, that is also normal. Are you indicating that to disagree with your government of the day is 'unamerican'? That it what it sounds like.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    104. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Did you identify with decisions made by the Clinton Administration (or other previous ones) in the same way?

      Pretty much. The Clinton Administration was a lot more fun, though.

      Are you indicating that to disagree with your government of the day is 'unamerican'? That it what it sounds like.

      No. I disagree with my government of the day all the time. I also disagree with those who disagree with my government of the day all the time. That's what I'm doing right now.

      My statment was that the Iraq war made us all, as Americans, look stupid. I don't see how that implies that disagreeing with the government is unamerican.

    105. Re: What they remove by alexo · · Score: 1

      > Wow. I guess there is no real difference between clinton and bush then.

      Clinton had better looks, personality and was more intelligent and articulate. Thus, he was more successful with the ladies.

      I firmly believe that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are superficial and mostly serve the purpose of giving people a false sense of choice.

      Vote independent!

    106. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? "

      Of course not. We gave him WMDs ourselves during the iran iraq war. He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. The UN security council drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons against civilians but the Reagan Administration vetoed it.

      "Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? "

      They were all destroyed or have decayed to the point of being mostly harmless.

      "and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed."

      There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.

      "I assume you mean Iraq, not UN? Here's evidence that Iraq had WMDs:"

      Once gain see my post above about the presence of WMDs in Iraq during the past 20 years. I do not dispute that they had them in 1991.

      "As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US."

      This is truly twisted logic. If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States. Surely I can mix together enough Amonia and Bleach or make up some mustard gas in a bucket right?

      "Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here."

      Once again there is plenty of evidence that the weapons were destroyed. Maybe not a 100% but mostly. Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war. Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States. It simply points to a series of UN resolutions which are not conclusive of anything. As I said before the US drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq which was blocked by the US. the UN security council drafts resolutions all day long which does not prove anything.

      "But this isn't a political discussion anyway. This is a question of facts and evidence."

      And yet you continue to believe that WMDs exist despite the fact that nobody can find them. This is like people believing in God even though no evidence exists for his existance. Surely a pre-war inspection team, a post war inspection team and during the war military inspections would have found something. Some storage tank, some maufacturing plant, some barrels with residue, some eyewitness. Besides if he had them he would have used them.

      "But when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush. "

      You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is. I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.

      "But that doesn't mean there were no WMD in the first place. And it doesn't mean they were all destroyed when they were supposed to be."

      Where are they? If he had them how come he didn't use them? What happened to all the places that were used to manufacture and store them? What happened to all the vehicles that were used to transport them? What happened to all the people who worked in those places?

      Here I'll ask even a harder question.

      Why is our intelligence and Military so inept? If Saddam had WMDs how is it that we did not know where they were? Why was the Military waging a war against an enemy armed with chemical and biological weapons (and maybe even nuclear ones) without knowing where these weapon

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    107. Re: What they remove by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      Finally we did not take over the natural resources of any of those countries once the war was over. Currently all the oil wells in Iraq are under the control of the US military. They will be divvied up amongst the "coalition of the willing" with the vast majority going to US companies.

      I don't know where you get your information, but you need to start checking your sources, because that's 100% BS. The current administration has stated clearly on numerous occasions that Iraq's natural resources will remain in the hands of the Iraqi people and this promise has not yet been violated. The only reason we currently have military involvement with the oil wells is for protection and rebuilding. In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to re-establish peaceful self-government so we can pull our troops out and be done with the mess. The difference is that Saddam and his thugs were far more entrenched.

    108. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.

      Those documents, dump sites, and eye witnesses only cover a small fraction of the WMD that Iraq possessed.

      If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States.

      I never said that any bone fide threat to the United States should be bombed by the United States.

      Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war.

      You're right. It doesn't prove it. But it's evidence of it.

      Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States.

      Get this through your thick skull. I never claimed they were.

      You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is.

      Actually, you seem to be doing the same thing.

      I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.

      And I'd agree.

      I don't believe you.

      IHBT. IHL. HAND.

    109. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels."

      "And I'd agree."

      Now you are contradicting yourself. You said that you did trust and believe bush.

      Anyway this is going nowhere. You are convinced that Saddam had WMDs just before the war. There is no evidence for this, none have been found, he never used them, nobody ever saw them, no traces of them exist anywhere and yet you believe it nevertheless. To you it's a matter of faith like a belief in god. You don't need evidence you just believe. There is nothing anybody can say to you that would change your mind.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    110. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clinton was a better speaker. THAT IS IT

      he was less intelligent than bush is, test scores and and MBA say so.

      clinton speaks well, and he rode out the good economic times knowing full well they would crash after he was out.

    111. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Sorry - that statement of yours was a bit ambiguous and I did not interpret it as I now see it was meant. No wonder it did not make sense!

      Speaking as a non-American, I think that the Iraq war made the Bush cabal, the Tony Blair cabal and several others look stupid. A large number of people - also in both of those countries - saw through the propaganda at the time and do not look 'stupid' at all now.
      It would never cross my mind to indicate that all Americans are now looking stupid because of something a few people in the White House organised, although those who agreed with them certainly have a head start in those stakes ;-) Even then, calling all of the followers 'stupid' is simply wrong, a lot will fall under 'misinformed' and many of them will hopefully have since learned to trust certain sources of information less - a lesson we all have (had) to learn.

      I take my .sig seriously :-), all information sources are incomplete and probably biased.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    112. Re: What they remove by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      Syria had to close its borders? Could it be because of the millions of fleeing Iraqis, afraid that their homes were going to be bombed?

      Underground tunnels, pfft. We'd still see trucks taking stuff from stockpiles near Baghdad to places on the edges of Iraq. Nothing like that happened. Ever noticed how the White house hasn't spoken about WMDs since the summer? Could it be they've figured out that shifting the "fabled WMD" hot potato to other countries, especially those who have helped the US war on terror, is a bad and futile move?

      Colin Powell's speech was refuted point for point.

      But there's not a whole lot of detail you can get with spy satellites. What? What about the sophisticated satellites that supposedly can read license-plate numbers? The sat images that can tell a woman's cup size from space? Just because the administration screwed up, you're going to blame the hardware now? Agh, and they say I drink the Kool-Aid.

    113. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You said that you did trust and believe bush.

      Is English your first language? I said "when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush." Like you said, it doesn't always come down to such a black and white decision. Sometimes it does, though.

      Anyway this is going nowhere.

      I'll drink to that.

    114. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a non-American, I think that the Iraq war made the Bush cabal, the Tony Blair cabal and several others look stupid.

      To an open-minded, well reasoning person, perhaps. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the sense that many people outside the US (especially in the middle eastern countries) don't seem to take the time to distinguish our administration from us. There's certainly enough of the same happening over here, too. Resturants banning French Fries because of the actions of some in the French government.

      When a new President comes in, is the whole Iraqi war going to be forgotten? Somehow I think resentment against the US will still be harbored. I think US power in the UN will continue to be diminished for long after Bush has left. Maybe I'm just over-pessimistic.

    115. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Syria had to close its borders? Could it be because of the millions of fleeing Iraqis, afraid that their homes were going to be bombed?

      Well yeah, of course that was why. But don't you think that WMD could have been easily smuggled in during the time that the borders were opened, hidden from our spy cameras amoung the fleeing Iraqis?

      Underground tunnels, pfft. We'd still see trucks taking stuff from stockpiles near Baghdad to places on the edges of Iraq. Nothing like that happened.

      How do you know this?

      What? What about the sophisticated satellites that supposedly can read license-plate numbers?

      I've never seen evidence of such satellites.

      The sat images that can tell a woman's cup size from space? Just because the administration screwed up, you're going to blame the hardware now?

      Not at all. I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed. Seeing a woman's cup size doesn't tell you what's inside a covered truck. And that presumes that you're focused on the right place at the right time. And that there's enough light to see. And that the satellites are in the right position.

      If spy satellites are so good at tracking things, why don't we know where Saddam is right now?

    116. Re: What they remove by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1
      The UN needs the US. The US knows it.

      The current mob thought that the US could either rule or ignore the UN, and fell on their faces. The US will always be 'welcomed back into the fold'. As to the future, let's look at the past (for as long as I can remember back to), just considering foreign policy.
      • The Nixon/Kissinger Admin did serious damage in Cambodia, Chile and most of the rest of S America. I am not sure if Marcos in the Philippines was not from back then as well. The US seemed to prefer dealing with client dictatorships. That caused a lot of resentment.
      • Ford/Kissinger, I thought at the time that it was an improvement and Ford was certainly less devious. I was pretty young then and may well be wrong about the improvement - Kissinger was still there.
      • Carter: meant well. He did improve relationships with some countries, but his idea of sending Mohammed Ali as a representative to Africa had the reverse effect there.
      • Reagan: the worst. The prince of darkness. Every time I thought things could not get worse, they did. Remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick at the UN?
      • Bush: 4 years of Bush undid an incredible amount of damage. There was that discussion as to whether he had been 'in the loop' during the previous 8 years, well - he may have been there but they cannot have listened to him. By the end of those 4 years, Reagan's time was a fading nightmare. Bush also made some errors - we all do - but the intent was so obviously there.
      • Clinton: It's the economy, stupid and it certainly was not foreign policy because there was none. It took Clinton years to get going, but when he did it was ok. Reagan was a faded nightmare.
      • Bush: his name is Bush, it should be Reagan.
      When the first Bush replaced Reagan, it only took a few months before it was obvious to the world that things had changed. A new administration will have the same effect, although each region has it's own priorities:
      • Western Europe + Japan want Kyoto and a reliable partner. They also want the US to lead an economic recovery to get everyone out of the current mess.
      • The Arab world wants the US to reign Israel in and to stop financing the Israeli actions against the Palestinians
      • Israel wants the reverse
      • Osama bin Laden wants the US to nuke itself.
      Those regions that get what they want will forgive the current excesses in short order, although many Chileans still hold Pinochet against the US 20 years later - that revolution was initiated and organised by the US. I simply do not know how things look in other victims of US foreign policy.
      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    117. Re: What they remove by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      But don't you think that WMD could have been easily smuggled in during the time that the borders were opened, hidden from our spy cameras amoung the fleeing Iraqis?

      I doubt that, for the simple fact that everyone made the big stink about giant trailers, mobile weapons labs and missile stockpiles. These aren't things that go in a pickup truck, they require tractor-trailers. Those Al-Samoud missiles are pretty big themselves. And like I said before, the White House is silent on the WMD issue since the summer. I'm not going to consider the issue until they bring it up, and even then I'm still going to be a little dubious. The fact that they aren't discussing WMDs anymore is a hint to me that they gave up trying to convince people.

      How do you know this [about tunnels]?

      Simple. Iraq is very large. WMDs were supposedly in and near palaces, much of which was in Baghdad, near the center of Iraq. You can't exactly have a tunnel that goes anywhere near Baghdad and then to Syria. That's like a tunnel from Manhattan to Cichago. It would be fantastically expensive, tricky, and couldn't possibly be kept secret. Then you're assuming that Syria wouldn't mind activity under their land, and that nobody in either government would leak any of this information to CIA moles. Even if you made the tunnels shorter, like closer to the boarder, you'd still have to get weapons from Baghdad above ground to the tunnels. They're not something you can just hide in a minivan here either, they'd be huge and have military escorting them, both for security and to make sure nobody looks inside. I'm not buying the idea that this happened. The inspectors, Iraqi scientists, and captured Iraqi officials all say there wasn't WMD, and Bush so far has not called any of them liars.

      Like I said, he's distancing himself from it. I think its pretty shameless. He blamed the FBI for not preventing 9/11, the CIA for bad Iraq intelligence, and the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln for hanging up that "Mission Accomplished" banner when he admitted that the White House printed it and brought it onto the carrier for them. I don't like what I see here.

      I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed.
      But why did President Bush stop saying "WMDs will be found soon"? He's spun the issue onto "freedom of Iraqis" now and is totally ignoring the issue. Before the war, he made accusation after accusation about Saddam, why isn't he making accusations against Syria if there was even an inkling that a WMD move may be afoot? I mean, the current administration so far has insulted every Arab government while turning a blind eye to Israel, why did they quiet down about Syria?

      I think that there is no evidence at all, and Bush isn't going to go out on a limb and make an accusation that Syria is hiding WMDs, only to have the accusation blow up in his face (figuratively) when Syria complains to the UN, invites open and free inspections, and shows detailed accounting of what they do have. President Assad could be so clear and transparent on the issue that Bush would just turn red and change the subject at the next press conference. I don't see how you suspect Syria of having WMDs when President Bush doesn't seem to think so. The US has been in control of all the ministry buildings for six months now, don't you think Bush would hold up papers saying "See! The totals don't add up" and if it wasn't proof of WMDs, it would at least look suspicious enough to let him off the hook. The US is offering rewards to any Iraqi, don't you think someone would have stepped forward by now and showed some evidence? It doesn't even have to be great evidence, it could just be eyewitness statements of people who lived next to an armory. You could be sure Fox News Channel would love a scoop like that.

      If spy satellites are so good at tracking things, why don't we know where Saddam is right now?

    118. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I doubt that, for the simple fact that everyone made the big stink about giant trailers, mobile weapons labs and missile stockpiles. These aren't

      things that go in a pickup truck, they require tractor-trailers. Those Al-Samoud missiles are pretty big themselves. And like I said before, the

      White House is silent on the WMD issue since the summer. I'm not going to consider the issue until they bring it up, and even then I'm still going to

      be a little dubious. The fact that they aren't discussing WMDs anymore is a hint to me that they gave up trying to convince people.

      Even given the immense resources of the US, I think it entirely possible to covertly move things within Iraq without the US knowing about it.

      Particularly in the 14 months of the UN filibuster. They found foxbats buried in sand at Saddam Intl. Airport the US never knew about. Thats a

      Mig-25, now if those can be hidden in the dirt/sand, anything can. And they got there from Russia without us knowing about it at some point during

      the years with the no-fly zone.

      Simple. Iraq is very large. WMDs were supposedly in and near palaces, much of which was in Baghdad, near the center of Iraq. You can't exactly

      have a tunnel that goes anywhere near Baghdad and then to Syria. That's like a tunnel from Manhattan to Cichago. It would be fantastically expensive,

      tricky, and couldn't possibly be kept secret. Then you're assuming that Syria wouldn't mind activity under their land, and that nobody in either

      government would leak any of this information to CIA moles. Even if you made the tunnels shorter, like closer to the boarder, you'd still have to get

      weapons from Baghdad above ground to the tunnels. They're not something you can just hide in a minivan here either, they'd be huge and have military

      escorting them, both for security and to make sure nobody looks inside. I'm not buying the idea that this happened. The inspectors, Iraqi scientists,

      and captured Iraqi officials all say there wasn't WMD, and Bush so far has not called any of them liars.

      Likely you wouldnt even need a tunnel to pull this off. There isnt a moat between Iraq and Syria. And it tends to be that its very easy to trailblaze

      in that part of the world. I would think it possible to cover your tracks using a some mechanism after you drove over the land. (drag a rake, blow

      diffusive wind from a machine downward, etc)

      Like I said, he's distancing himself from it. I think its pretty shameless. He blamed the FBI for not preventing 9/11, the CIA for bad Iraq

      intelligence, and the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln for hanging up that "Mission Accomplished" banner when he admitted that the White House printed

      it and brought it onto the carrier for them. I don't like what I see here.

      Maybe he doesnt have to answer to you until election day. how about that? Have a problem with the system there buddy?

      I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed.
      But why did President Bush stop saying "WMDs will be found soon"? He's spun the issue onto "freedom of Iraqis" now and is totally ignoring the issue.

      Before the war, he made accusation after accusation about Saddam, why isn't he making accusations against Syria if there was even an inkling that a

      WMD move may be afoot? I mean, the current administration so far has insulted every Arab government while turning a blind eye to Israel, why did they

      quiet down about Syria?

      Israel is innocent compared to the arab scum and the state sponsored terrorists. You know, Israel breaks a lot of deals,

      after a bunch of civillians are murdered by arabs. You focus on the dealbreaking. i focus on the murders. i got a lot more respect f

    119. Re: What they remove by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      So is it absurd for someone to "accuse" a convicted felon of possessing a handgun if he himself has a handgun?

      If the convicted felon can legally carry a handgun, then, yes, it is absurd. If the convicted felon cannot legally carry a handgun, then it is a valid legal accusation.

      In the latter case, the analogy to other nations is not valid. While US politicians condemn anybody they don't like as "criminals", internationally, almost all nations are sovereign and can develop whatever they like. The US is in a particularly bad position to criticize other nations because of the recent moves the US has made against arms control and unilaterally getting out of international treaties. And many of the US's activities overseas have been highly illegal, such as the toppling of the democratically elected government of Iran or attempts to assassinate foreign leaders the US happened not to like.

    120. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If the convicted felon can legally carry a handgun, then, yes, it is absurd. If the convicted felon cannot legally carry a handgun, then it is a valid legal accusation.

      So you are reliant upon your governmennt to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Personally I separate what is moral from what is legal.

      In any case, the UN decided that Iraq cannot legally possess WMD. So the analogy holds.

    121. Re: What they remove by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1
      So you are reliant upon your governmennt to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Personally I separate what is moral from what is legal.

      No, you just made a bad analogy.

      In any case, the UN decided that Iraq cannot legally possess WMD. So the analogy holds.

      You wrote:

      No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them [other countries] of it.


      You statement wasn't specifically about Iraq, you made a general statement about "other countries". I just pointed out that it was indeed absurd for the US to accuse "other countries" merely because those countries had WMDs. Most countries can legitimately have WMDs, whether the US likes it or not.

      Whether it is absurd for the US to accuse Iraq specifically is a separate issue.

      The problem with your statement and your attitude is that you are implying it's OK for the US to have WMDs but nobody else. And most people in the world would probably disagree with you.
    122. Re: What they remove by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No, you just made a bad analogy.

      I think I made a perfect analogy.

      You statement wasn't specifically about Iraq, you made a general statement about "other countries".

      True. But my statement meant that it is not necessarily absurd to accuse other countries of having WMD. Obviously it may be absurd in certain situtations. You can't take my statement out of context. We were talking about Iraq, and specifically we were talking about the notion that it is necessarily absurd to accuse a country of doing something that you yourself do.

      The problem with your statement and your attitude is that you are implying it's OK for the US to have WMDs but nobody else.

      It's OK with me.

      And most people in the world would probably disagree with you.

      Sure, I'd expect them to.

    123. Re: What they remove by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      1 and 2 apply to Iraq as well.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    124. Re:What they remove by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      First, I don't think it is possible to commit libel via ethereal references, but if somebody wants to sue me for libel, I wouldn't have any problem proving that what I said actually happened.

      Second, what does my having met GWB have to do with anything I said?

      Out of curiosity, what, in your opinion, is right?

  14. FIA is a sham by CausticWindow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?

    The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:FIA is a sham by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?

      Well, this one, for starters. Although the substance was their unintentionnally...

    2. Re:FIA is a sham by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?

      The recent trend under my state's FOIA is to tie the release up in court long enough for the state legislature to pass yet another special exemption saying that the material does not have to be released.

      It has become a complete sham, just like almost everything else the previous generation did to try to enforce open, honest government.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:FIA is a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, my FBI file...

    4. Re:FIA is a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exemptions to FOIA are pretty clearly spelled out in 5 USC 552 (b). The only one that could
      have passed the laugh test on blacking out this material would be:

      (2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

      But then Ashcroft has written his memo stating all FOIA request should be obstructed as much as possible, which goes to show you he has no desire nor intent to uphold the law!

  15. Accountability for such actions? by ftobin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only person who feels such actions are an atrocity, as they are willful censorships of documents critial of the department? Unless the department can be held accountable for such deeds, these scenarios are going to play out repeatedly.

    1. Re:Accountability for such actions? by Dr.+Blue · · Score: 1

      I simply don't understand this at all, and when I think of it then yes it is definitely an atrocity, and it pisses me off.

      I can understand classified documents being edited, and sources being protected, but a review of a government agency that is edited for apparently no reason other than that it was critical of the agency? Hell no that's not ok! The idea in this country is that they (the DOJ) work for *US*, and they are accountable to us. Reviews of public agencies should be public, with the only reason for redacting something being legitimately classified info.

    2. Re:Accountability for such actions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see any different between this and CNN's coverage of Iraq before we attacked them.

      Still think censorship isn't a bad thing? Okay, censor the world from our children, fine. They grow up not knowing the world. Censor the wars from our people, fine. They never know why these wars happen or what gets accomplished. Censor the government's mistakes from the people, fine. The government goes on making more mistakes.

      But what happens when those mistakes were made on purpose or for reasons other than national security or welfare of our citizens? What happens when they use the power of our government and military for personal gain instead of the common good. What happens when they decide to lie to us?

      We don't have all the facts.

    3. Re:Accountability for such actions? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      It speaks volumes on how much the doj knows about software and technology in general.

      If you want to blame someone blame Judiann Roche - she at the very least converted the document to pdf, if not made the corrections herself. Knowing the doj (and most businesses for that matter) you could probably call their operator and ask to be connected.

      I took a look at the original - its really not a graphic overlaying the black text. Its a text property. I found that if I used the touchup text tool in Acrobat I could select the text and reverse the colour. The other thing you can do is save the pdf file as a word/rtf/html/text doc - the text comes out just fine that way too. They made that PDF with microsoft word using PDFMaker (which is a macro to convert word links and styles to pdf links and bookmarks) - I'll bet they made all those black lines by using the word highlight tool - which in general is used to highlight text, not removing text. In word there's a nifty tool that does that - its called the delete key.

      Possible workaround in Acrobat > they could have certified the document with Acrobat 6. That at the very least would prove much more diffucult to crack to use the touchup text tool and change the font colour like they did in this document.

    4. Re:Accountability for such actions? by ftobin · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you completely misunderstand me. I want accountability not for goofing up the censoring, but for the creation of the censoring in the first place. I am very glad that the DOJ was technically incompetent in this situation, or else the public would not have realized the cover-up.

  16. Beware of Photoshop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Beware of Photoshop, too! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      As Cat Schwartz knows, Photoshop sometimes leaves extra stuff behind, like your breasts.

      If you highlight the DoJ "Spirit of Justice" statue in a redacted PDF, and do a copy and paste into Photoshop, you get the entire statue, breasts and all. They haven't been removed- they've still been in the file all along.

      Nasty evil boobies! Now we'll never get into heaven!

  17. xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! by op00to · · Score: 1

    I loaded up XPDF, highlighted a blacked-out portion, cut and paste, and blammo, I got the text! Way to go.

    1. Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does this make the author of xpdf a terrorist as he built a tool that circumvents a technical barrier the government constructed to block confidential information from outside access ?

      possible legal options these days ....

    2. Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! by Gid1 · · Score: 1

      Heh.. you don't even need xpdf, cut and paste, or third-party plugins. Just activate the Accessibility functions in Reader 6.0.

    3. Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! by christor · · Score: 1

      or use Preview in OS X, and then copy and paste to textedit - pretty neat seeing the censored stuff revealed in a poof of (simple) technology

  18. Now I Feel Safe by Jameth · · Score: 1

    No, honestly. There's more to fear from a tyranny than an enemy, and it's hard to run a Tyranny when your completely incompetent.

    No, that was unfair. They're only mostly incompetent.

    1. Re:Now I Feel Safe by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Well, a *completely* incompetent tyranny would be fine, but a *mostly* incompetent tyranny is actually worse, in my opinion, than a competent tyranny. At least with competence there is some assurance you can know the rules, (even if they are 'don't breathe without first asking permission') but with a partially competent tyranny the rules are what they can enforce. And what they can enforce is a function of the situational competence, which you cannot predict...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  19. Just a thought but... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that all of this was unintentional?

    1. Re:Just a thought but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What makes you think that all of this was unintentional?

      "Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"

  20. So, uh, by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you wanted lots of people to read something, what would you do? Release a gov't document that is easily accessible, or release one that is actually easily accessible but appears to be a massive cover up?

    Seems like someone inside the DOJ or possibly someone at KPMG wanted the information to get out, and decided that this was a surefire way of getting to a large audience.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:So, uh, by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      You're giving them too much credit. This appears to be simple incompetence. I'm suprised this kind of stuff doesn't happen more often.

      -B

    2. Re:So, uh, by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Yeah, incompetence. I'm surprised not one person yet has pointed out the incompetence of Adobe for making a program that *appears* to remove information, while actually not doing so. It's deceptive, and a feature like that makes this sort of event almost unavoidable. (Of course in this case that's a GOOD thing, but still...)

  21. NEW YORK TIMES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh oh, it's the New York Times. Better double-check the facts to make sure they're not lying again.

  22. Good by scrotch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.

    1. Re: Good by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.

      The DOJ should be renamed to Department of Enforcement, since even casual observation of which cases they support and which they oppose will reveal that they aren't interested in what we ordinarily think of as Justice.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: Good by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Be more accurate, and call them the Dept. of Enforcers. Of course, we should also go back to the older system, and instead of saying "Dept. of Defense" say more plainly "War Dept."

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. $2M I'll write a page :D by llZENll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok $2M for 186 pages of survery results, I'll gladly write a couple pages for $10,753 per page. So about a week of work and I won't have to work for 2 years, or according to the graphs in the pdf, 1.75 years if I were a woman, or only 1.5 years if I were black, homey don't play that!

    1. Re:$2M I'll write a page :D by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      You tax dollars at work.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  24. Un-Redacts? by Space+Coyote · · Score: 0

    Couldn't you just say "Memory Hole Dacts Redacted DOJ Memo"

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    1. Re: Un-Redacts? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Couldn't you just say "Memory Hole Dacts Redacted DOJ Memo"

      Or "DOJ Got Dact By Independent News Source".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Un-Redacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, no. "dact" is not a root of "redact," though you're probably still wondering why something that's plausible is so "diculous."

  25. Memory Hole Goes To Jail by thelizman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Memory Hole to be Charged With DMCA Violation

    Reuters 11-01-03

    Just one day after releasing an uncensored version of a Department of Justice report on racial diversity in the work place, operators of the web site "Memory Hole" have been charged with violating terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice in the 6th Federal Circuit Court, Memory Hole illegally circumvented electronic controls used to protect confidential material.

    On October 31st, the Department of Justice responded to a request under the Freedom of Information Act and released the report. However, several sections of the report were blacked out. Memory Hole discovered that the file format (PDF) used an image laid over the censored text, and simply removed the images and published the memo.

    On Saturday morning, Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the FBI raided the offices of Memory Hole, the home of the publisher, and their ISP and confiscated several computers. The web site has not yet been ordered to be taken down, but a request is pending with Judge Y. H. Barrett Thompson to have the site terminated monday morning.

    Last Updated: Saturday Nov 1 2003 @ 2:50:34 PM

    1. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      So basically the Department of Justice blame Memory Hole for their fault of putting a very bad protection on confidential material. Quite the finger pointing DoJ and get your acts straight.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by frycarson · · Score: 1
      Why would Alcohol, tobbaco and firearms agents be involved in this? it doesn't even make sense. You should have said ATF(or american task force or something like that) if you wanted to pretend it was real.

      _ry_arson:

    3. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Judge who? Y.H. Barrett Thompson?

      His monogram: YHBT.

      Nice one. Keep up the good work.

      All you young trollsters out there, take note: this is how it's done.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    4. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Well, encryption devices were at one time (and may still be, for all I know) considered to be munitions under US law. The ATF has some interest in munitions, especially when they're not in the hands of the military.

    5. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by meiocyte · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know you all see it too, but the judge's initials are YHBT..=)
      HAND.

      --
      The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
    6. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by Soko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The parent post is neither troll nor funny. If I had mod points at present, it would get "+1 Insightful".

      In reality, though, I'd rather give it "+1 Scary".

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    7. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by Jmstuckman · · Score: 1

      YHBT (You have been trolled.) The article was made up.

    8. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the reply.

      Yes, the article was made up. But it's a clear possibility "legal" under the current "laws" that we have. Scary is, indeed, the proper mod.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the ATF is? Alcohol Tobaco Firearms ATF

    10. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      If holding down shift when inserting a CD is a violation of the DMCA, then certainly so is pressing ctrl-a-c in a pdf.

    11. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, the RIAA has said that they will be 'following suit' by suing, their spokesperson saying that, "We believe that since MP3s are only used by criminals and other low-life societal dropouts, these folks will surely have something worth $750,000, at the very least."

      The MPAA was unavailable for comment, as were other fine scabs, parasites and hard-working spammers.

  26. Re:This happened thrice before... by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, it happened a few times...

    ...with a Carnivore review team...

    ...with a justice department document...

    ...and a CIA document containing agent's names


    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by ftobin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am distraught that the editors and many posters find it simply amusing that the DOJ was technologically incompetent in this situation, and that that is all there is too it. What frightens me is when they do become competent, and these breakdowns cannot or do not happen, whether it be via more 'perfect' DRM systems, or simply more competent DOJ employees/contractors.

    It is in our interest to have the government flawed when it comes to secrecy.

    1. Re:Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      It is in our interest to have the government flawed when it comes to secrecy.


      Really? It is? It's acceptable, and even a good thing, when the identities of people about to testify before a grand jury about organized crime activies are revealed?

      I guess it is if you're a mobster...

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by ftobin · · Score: 1

      You have a valid point, so but I still feel there is truth to my statement, so let's try to resolve the differences by highlighting some distinctions. In one case, that in the story, the DOJ is protecting itself, an entity without inherent rights. In witness scenarios, the DOJ is protecting others, humans, which do have inherent rights. In general, the latter is also an example of focused attempts at secrecy (that of the witness's identiy), not a generalized notion of "keep the practices of the DOJ classified". It is in our interest of the 'general notion' of secrecy flawed, with the focused measures, which are finite, approached with more diligence.

    3. Re:Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By its very nature, this sort of thing is self-defeating. Total Information Awareness, or total information control, or ubiquitous law enforcement, subverts itself through the inability of its principles to maintain the surveillance. When trivial information (think Haliburton contract in Iraq) is treated as restricted information, it devalues those restrictions and the information controls slip. Then something important slips through, someone dies, and the enforcement becomes total and draconian; then people get fed up with the lack of perspective and subvert the enforcement themselves. A true "totalitarian" society wouldn't survive the stresses long enough. (Look at the attempts so far.)

    4. Re:Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I'll go one further. Maybe the government shouldn't be in charge of information about the government. How accurate do you think a report by the DoJ about the DoJ is going to be anyway?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  28. encryption techniques by giblfiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suppose this is better than just changing the font to wingdings, but then SCO probably has a patent on that

  29. what can and can't be blacked out? by forkspoon · · Score: 0

    Aren't they only allowed to black out stuff because of national security concerns or if it relates to ongoing operations, not just critisism?

    Travis

  30. Do It Right by spoonist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're going to redact something, do it right.

    Here's how it's done:

    Take document and with an X-Acto knife, cut out words you wish to redact.

    Take resulting full-of-holes document and scan with scanner.

    It's foolproof.

    IF THE WORDS PHYSICALLY ARE NOT THERE, THEY CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED!

    Using a marker might not be foolproof if you miss a spot, or funky reflections, or whatever may result in some parts of the document becoming visible. Give it a try, you'll see what I mean.

    1. Re:Do It Right by javabsp · · Score: 1

      Print the black-out'ed paper and then scan them back is probably easier

    2. Re: Do It Right by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Take resulting full-of-holes document and scan with scanner.

      Just make sure it's not stacked on top of the original when you scan it...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Do It Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better idea... don't write it to begin with. This not only saves time, it is secure!

    4. Re:Do It Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly what these guys did for this document. Maybe they know something about security?

    5. Re:Do It Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digitally, there are easier ways to do this. For example, in Word, you can mark text as "hidden," which means it is not sent to the printer (and thus when you print to Distiller, that text will show up as blank -- whitespace but no actual text). Or, open up Acrobat and delete all the offending text.

      And this isn't all that hard to break, either. Aside from the oft-mentioned method of using a hex editor, it's easier to open up Acrobat and delete the box. Or Illustrator. Or CorelDRAW -- all three have the abililty to natively edit the vector-drawing (and text, of course) components of PDF files. I've done this on several occasions, or extracted vector logos for projects (when the original organization only released low-res raster copies otherwise).

      In fact, at least with the minor "security" features in PDFs (i.e. don't allow printing, etc. flags), Corel ignores the settings and allows full control over the document (including republishing, minus any unwanted flags). I'm not sure about the higher levels of protection (doesn't PDF have a built-in encryption scheme that the author may employ), since I've never run into any of those.

    6. Re:Do It Right by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Not good enough for the really paranoid. From the size of the missing spot, you might still infer things like names if you at least suspect what they might be. In other words, SOME information is still retained. The secure way to do it would be to retype the document, omitting the censored information completely.

  31. Old computers reveal hidden info. by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw a similar botched attempt to hide info in a document from a networking company. It was intended to illustrate some web-based employee-finding application. Various sensitive information was "X"-ed out.

    But on an older computer there was a delay between rendering the sensitive info and rendering the overlaid "X"s. The "hidden" data was in plain sight for a readable fraction of a second. A quick screen-grab at the right time could easily capture a static image of the employee data on the CEO and other employees listed in the figure.

    Sometimes older computer can be more fun.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Old computers reveal hidden info. by nytes · · Score: 1
      I just tried it with this document.

      I just brought it up in Acrobat, selected some of the redacted text with the mouse, and did a "copy" (ctl-C). Then I went over to a notepad document and hit ctl-V (paste). Voila! Full text (the blacked out stuff in bold):
      Hiring is serving to make the Department even more diverse: hires in 2001 were 40% female and 21% minority. In particular, the Attorney General's Honors Program is an important tool for increasing diversity. Honors Program hires in 2001 were 63% female, compared to 45% of the law school graduating class, and 30% minority, compared to 21% of the class of 2001.

      Not a terribly interesting factiod.
      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    2. Re:Old computers reveal hidden info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it bloody well is... By blacking it out, they've tried to hide information that indicates that the Attorney General's office is pro-diversity. If I were in a particularly paranoid mood, I could take that as evidence of a radical right-wards shift in the making. On the other hand, it could just be bitchiness from someone who didn't get a mention.

      I prefer to think of this as rather unsubtle propaganda, mostly because the world's a more interesting place that way.

      May we all live in interesting times...

  32. What really worries me... by Dinosaur+Neil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...about this is the level of technical competency implied in the organization that is responsible for "justice" in cases involving things like MS, DMCA, DRM and so on. The "holing up in a cabin in Montana" thing is looking more and more appealing...

    --
    "I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
    1. Re:What really worries me... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      What is this facination with Montana. There are some perfectly desolate spots in the Appalacian mountains. Granted, you will be fighting off hillbillies, but at least you'll be using your cache of firearmes for something.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:What really worries me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh. Come to New Hampshire instead. :)

    3. Re:What really worries me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, I resemble that remark!

      In all seriousness, if the proverbial fecal matter strikes the air circulation apparatus, I plan to hole up at a friend's place out in semi-rural Tennessee. This dude has a gun safe you could fit 3-4 normal-sized adults, 2 average Americans, or 10-12 Ethiopians in. He can't fit all his guns in it.

      Among his firearms are:

      • AR-50 rifle in .50cal BMG, with a scope that looks like it belongs in an astronomical observatory. It's sighted in for 750 yards, and he can put 5 rounds in a 10" circle at that range.
      • Steyr AUG-P rifle in 5.56mm NATO
      • Armalite AR-15 rifle in 5.56mm NATO
      • Carbon-15 pistol, in 5.56mm NATO
      • Isreali FN-FAL variant, heavy-barrel model with bipod, in 7.62mm NATO
      • Standard FN-FAL, actually an Austrian STG-58, in 7.62mm NATO.
      • Makarov CZ-52 pistol in 7.62mm Tokarev - IIRC, this one's high muzzle velocity plus small-diameter round mean that, with certain brands of ammo, it can penetrate the bullet-resistant vests worn by law enforcement.
      • Colt Commander, with 4-14" barrel and laser sight, in .45ACP
      Those were just the ones that sprang to mind as I typed this. He has numerous other rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers...and several thousand rounds of ammo in each caliber for which he has a firearm. Some of his .50cal ammo is "armor-piercing discarding-sabot" or some such - his term is "blue tips for blue tops", referring to the blue-helmeted UN troops he expects to see patrolling the US in his lifetime. He also has some standard armor-piercing stuff (yes, it's still legal in TN, so long as you don't commit a crime while you have it in your possession). We've tested that out on a 7/8" thick piece of boilerplate steel in front of an 8" thick wood block. It penetrated through both and split a large rock behind them (about 2 feet in diameter) in half. Most of his rifles have very powerful optical scopes, infrared-enhanced (night vision) scopes, or laser sights. All of his handguns have grip-mounted laser sights.

      And his place is basically a great big hill, easily defensible :)

    4. Re:What really worries me... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      ...And his place is basically a great big hill, easily defensible...

      Well, not against air strike or artillery. Keep a low profile and you'll do fine.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  33. Re:Nude Lynch Photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn you! they're not there!

  34. possible trick by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

    I havent checked the article or whatsoever, but based on what I've readen here... its a PDF with a black image over the text, right?

    if that's so, why not put a fake document image with some missleading text that make everybody think that's the real content of the document, avoiding smart hackers' suspicion.

    I might just be wrong anyway. sorry.

    don't flame... I'm just a regular slashdot observer.

  35. Yes by thelizman · · Score: 0

    If there is a resonable risk to national security (i.e., revealing information about intelligence collecting techiniques, agents in the field, et al) it can be censored. This, however, is a report about diversity. I seriously doubt there's anything in there about the number of undercover agents and their assignments.

  36. Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by cft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.

    The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.

    I just hope the feds never try to housebreak my cat.

    1. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so?

      That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.

      You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governments and you'll see what I mean. For example, China does not prosecute everyone that speaks against the government. In fact, people in shops and restaurants regularly criticize the government. The government doesn't arrest any of those. However, if the person that is critizing was a "true enemy" (i.e. powerful opponent, and not some guy off hte streeth), then the government would send the guy to jail. The government selectively applies the law. All of a sudden, the law that everyone breaks is used to punish those that are dangerous to the government.

      If something was enforced all the time, no one would do it and the power wouldn't even exist. However, if you let everyone "break the law" but then prosecute a few of your enemies, that's power!

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I believe that the US Attorney general should be elected, not appointed. He shouldn't work for the president and be subordinate to the will of the president.

      The president would have law enforment capabilites as well. In this way they could investigate each other and we would have little need for special prosecutors.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  37. Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

    GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU /Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

    It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

    It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

    It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

    It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

    Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

    * How it works!

    The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

    Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

    f

  38. The point was already made.. by cft · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry if I just don't get it, but I did not really see any mention of anything that actually refuted any of the DOJ claims.

    All I see is a bunch of clarification of the points that would not have been appropriate to mention at a press conference (the likes of which the soundbytes were taken from).

    I also notice that none of the new powers can simply be used willy-nilly. They all require the permission of a judge (who may well interpret the warrant request as, well, unwarranted).

  39. Didn't we meet these guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall from an earlier interview how a number of DOJ lawyers read /. and they were talking about how they would be just as quick to defend violations of the GPL as they were to throw people in jail over a few songs.
    I haven't heard the DOJ say a single word about SCO up to this point.
    It really is bizarre what's happening in the federal government. It's like the powers that be think they can just spin everything and nobody is ever going to remember a word of it later. Just keep on lying and make sure they get another shot of Ms. Rice and the President. There's nothing racist about Bush's policy in the Mideast --why look, he's taking a picture with a black woman right now!

  40. Read the manual by locarecords.com · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it's best that Governments actually *don't* read the manual!!

    Great get out clause for whiste-blowers!

    --
    ---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
  41. Mirror by Manip · · Score: 1

    Free Mirror for both files [Zip Format]
    "diversityanalysis.zip">
    MD5 D6BC1FA89F8AF7AF27A94916F9570D85

  42. PDF mirror by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    I suggest downloading each file completely, and then viewing locally (vs viewing with a plug-in, downloading one page at a time in your browser). Trying to pull down a page at a time as you scroll isn't efficient with PDFs unless you're local (10mbit+):

    IPv4:
    diversityanalysis.pdf
    doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf

    IPv6:
    diversityanalysis.pdf
    doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf

  43. What makes you so certain... by ChipMonk · · Score: 0
    that the President, or a Cabinet official, personally ordered the redaction? That's like saying that Bush personally ordered Mayor Street's office in Philadelphia to be bugged. It's a non-sequitur.

    But it does speak volumes about your personal prejudices.

    1. Re:What makes you so certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well someone ordered it and it certainly wasn't me. Its about time soneone is held accountable for these obviously retarded mishaps, don't you think? The President appears to be harborring liers, at the very least. He could very easily be harborring terrorists and deserve the same attention we paid to Iraq.

      How can we know when we're constantly being censored and lied to?

    2. Re:What makes you so certain... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      He could very easily be harborring terrorists and deserve the same attention we paid to Iraq.

      Not unless you do what liberals do and stretch the definition of "terrorism" so much that painting the United States as being as bad as Al Quaeda is a matter of fancy footwork.

      Honestly, I want to see Bush out of office as much as the next guy, but please. If Bush is harboring terrorists, then the Democrats are too (otherwise they would speak up about it).

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    3. Re:What makes you so certain... by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      Not unless you do what liberals do and stretch the definition of "terrorism" so much that painting the United States as being as bad as Al Quaeda is a matter of fancy footwork.

      It doesn't take a liberal to redefine "terrorism" in their own interests. From an article at ABC News:

      "Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

      And

      A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

      As you can see from these tidbits and the overall article, any crime which can find the slightest foothold for prosecution within the new anti-terrorism laws is being treated as a terrorism case.

    4. Re:What makes you so certain... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is all correct. Civil liberties good, Republicans bad. But it's a long shot to suggest that Dubya is harboring terrorists.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  44. Question.... by FooGoo · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that minorities feel slighted because they view themselves as being "minorities"?

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  45. After glancing through the unedited PDF... by Bobulusman · · Score: 1

    It's a little odd how they chose to edit it. For example, they would sometimes cover the summary sentance of a paragraph, but the meaning of it could still be guessed based up the rest of the paragraph.

    Other places are more logical coverings, though.

    --
    Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
  46. DOJ Memo - encrypted by SCO and SunnComm by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, in additon to hiring the same lawyer (Boise), I see the DOJ has hired SCO's encryption team of MIT mathmaticians to handle its super-secret documents. Next they will hire SunnComm to write a document locking program that uses the windows auto-play feature, change their font to Chinese script, and make it black on black background. Shhhh.. don't tell the Russians to hold down the shift-key.

    No wonder they can't catch Bin Laden.

  47. Am I the only one... by Jellybob · · Score: 1

    ... that thought this was about a buffer overflow bug allowing someone to read classified documents?

  48. Proof of abuse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just proof of W's admin using the issue of National security to avoid anything that would be critical of it.

    1. Re:Proof of abuse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, its always somehow W's fault, isn't it?

  49. Fake. Mod down by extra88 · · Score: 1

    This is entirely made up.

  50. wysiwyg by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

    Always knew that wysiwyg was a stupid people trap.

  51. ZIP'd PDF mirror by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    Doh, ZIP really is your friend with these PDFs (60% compression, ~2mb vs ~6mb):

    IPv4:
    diversityanalysis.zip
    doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.zip

    IPv6:
    diversityanalysis.zip
    doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.zip

  52. More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy Now ran a good story on thursday's edition i believe. They also ran an whole hour segment on the voting machine scandal.

  53. the text SPEAKS! by molszewski · · Score: 1

    Adobe Reader 6.0 (maybe earlier versions, never checked) has a feature to "read out loud" text under the view menu. I tried this on the original blacked-out report....and it read the censored text just like i expected. what a blunder.

    1. Re:the text SPEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This perhaps would be a good defense against any compliants under DMCA.

  54. absolutely appalling by treat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in. This makes the redacted official version a deliberate deception. The people responsible should be held accountable.

    1. Re:absolutely appalling by benja · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I agree this is "absolutely appaling," re "Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in:"

      Even complimentary conclusions were deleted, like one that said "attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work" and another that said "private industry cites DOJ as a trend-setter for diversity." Beyond that, a recommendation that the department should "increase public visibility of diversity issues," was kept out of the public report.

      (from the article)

    2. Re:absolutely appalling by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      Of course they left the positive text in. Do you think they just black documents at random? If they are bothering to black the text, there must be something negative to hide.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    3. Re:absolutely appalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the Freedom of Information Act only applies to information that upholds the government.

      That's why the government said "Mission Complete!"

    4. Re:absolutely appalling by Anonnymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      And worse--why did they use black for the negative stuff. That shows subconscious rascism. When was the last time you saw the government white out negative portions of reports? I rest my case :).

  55. Re:Nice to see the Slashdot editors . . . by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the way this site is moderated, you can always take your eyeballs elsewhere.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  56. Oops by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.

    Reminds me of my first and only attempt at forgery. Got a detention in 4th grade, notice of which had to be signed by my parents. I made a copy of the detention notice, pasted my dad's signature on the bottom, and made a copy of that. All went well and the teacher bought it, but I left the original in the copying machine which my parents naturally found later that day.

  57. Couldn't be easier... by pr0c · · Score: 1

    Export the pdf to a text document and there it all is. In acrobat 6 all you do is select Save As Text from the File Menu... The people who blocked out the text are obviously just idiots, I hope this costs them their job.

    1. Re:Couldn't be easier... by aber · · Score: 1

      I hope it doesn't, and this idiot keeps his/her job. All we don't need is efficient fascism...

  58. Department of Justice has NO respect for the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. The sneakiness showed the Department of Justice has NO respect for the law.

  59. Why? by vix86 · · Score: 1

    The question I have is why on earth would you censor a report like this? What material in this report would harm national security?

    I guess this is just further proof that the people on top are idiots.

  60. The Republicans didn't care about the sex by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    They cared about the fact that he lied under oath which is perjury, a felony. If you or I did the same thing in the paula jones trial we'd be in prison.

    1. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cared about the fact that he lied under oath which is perjury, a felony.

      That only came out after the Republicans found out about the sex, and tried to use sex to embarass the president.

      Republicans care nothing for privacy.

    2. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      As a non-american, I simply do not care that much about his peccadiloes.

      The Republicans spent years hounding Clinton, and all they came up with was some dirt involving a couple of women, although I will agree that the Paula Jones case stank. What is the name of that Supreme Court judge? The one that ran under 'Long Dong Silver'. That stank just as much and also at the personal level, but was simply ignored.

      Now look at what Nixon/Kissinger got up to in Cambodia and Chile.
      Look at Reagan in Nicaragua and Lebanon. Reagan backing terrorists in Angola and Mozambique. Reagan backing murderous governments in El Salvador and Guatemala (although he did pull the plug on Marcos).
      Look at the mess Bush has got the US into in Iraq.

      All of those people lied about what they were doing or why they were doing it, Reagan was the 'Teflon president' because nothing stuck to him, but how many members of his administration were indicted?

      The father of the current president did a pretty good job in a lot of ways, although some of his appointments (Long Dong Silver, the VP) basically showed his contempt for the offices they were filling. Clinton also did a pretty good job, initially just at home and then in his foreign policy as well.

      There was a report I read a couple of days ago, that there was a group in the Pentagon (but under the VP) whose job was to push the President into war against Iraq, telling whatever lies were needed to push him into action. Was this report genuine? Is this public knowledge or was some reporter being creative? If the president really was manipulated in this way, then some members of this administration should be given a fair trial, taken out and shot.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    3. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by dprovine · · Score: 1
      They cared about the fact that he lied under oath which is perjury, a felony. If you or I did the same thing in the paula jones trial we'd be in prison.

      No we wouldn't; perjury in a civil trial is almost never prosecuted at all.

      You're right that the Republicans didn't care about Clinton having sex, though: they only care about getting in power and staying there. Any tool (no pun intended 8-) which helps them get power and stay there is what they want. The Democrats are the same way, but they're comparatively incompetent.

      I offer for comparison James Allchin's perjury in the Microsoft Antitrust trial, which involved vastly more serious damage than Clinton was ever alleged to have done Paula Jones, for far more money, against far more many people. And yet when George W. Bush took office, he had the justice department settle with Microsoft even after the government had won a conviction on the crime.

      Clinton acts like a jerk, but commits no crime (because acting like a jerk is actually legal), and then lies about acting like a jerk, and the Republicans have an impeachment trial.

      Microsoft destroys companies, hampers competition, sets the computer industry (and US economy) back by at least a decade, and then presents bogus evidence at trial, and the Republicans decide it shouldn't be prosecuted.

      The reason is that Microsoft is rich and powerful and Bill Gates can be talked into making huge campaign contributions. Thus, Microsoft can help the Republicans stay in power, so the Republicans help Microsoft.

      The Democrats do the same thing, just with a different set of campaign contributors.

      Here's one for your consideration: Ken Lay is a friend of George Bush, and Enron was a contributor to political campaigns both Democrat and Republican. Ken Lay stole tens of millions of dollars and put thousands of people out of their homes. Martha Stuart is accused of insider trading to the tune of about $40,000. Less than half a percent of what Ken Lay stole, and nobody has been presented as "This guy lost his house because Martha Stuart insider traded". But Martha Stuart isn't a big campaign contributor. So they're aggressively prosecuting her. When is Ken Lay is going to trial? Never.

      So while you're correct that Republicans didn't care about Clinton's sex life, you're an idiot if you believe they cared one bit about Paula Jones. And you're an idiot if you believe for one second that any political party cares about you, or for that matter, anyone else. They care about themselves and staying in power, and that's all.

    4. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The reason is that Microsoft is rich and powerful and Bill Gates can be talked into making huge campaign contributions. Thus, Microsoft can help the Republicans stay in power, so the Republicans help Microsoft.

      The Democrats do the same thing, just with a different set of campaign contributors.


      Not all that different. After the "wake-up call" of a nearly disasterous anti-trust trial, Microsoft(tm) contributes to both parties.

      I don't have the full numbers handy anymore, but for example, in 2000, Microsoft gave Republicans $1,300,000 and Democrats $900,000. Sometimes (as with the presidential election), they'd contribute to opposing candidaties! It sounds weird, but apparently many corporations care less about who wins than that the winner will owe a favor.

    5. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Informative
      There was a report I read a couple of days ago, that there was a group in the Pentagon (but under the VP) whose job was to push the President into war against Iraq, telling whatever lies were needed to push him into action.

      The Bush administration is controlled by neoconservatives (aka neocons). They are mostly superhawks and hence see everything in terms of power. They are the ones that pushed Bush for the war. I don't think they lied but they manipulated the information (although one may say that lying and manipualating information is the same). Recently the US government has been involved in disinformation over Syria (eg. Syria has WMDs, Syrian fighters streaming across the border to Iraq, etc). Syria is the next target on the neocon agenda. Bush is too dumb to figure out what is going on. Bush is a very simplistic person who seems everything as a religious person (eg. good vs bad; either with us or against us; etc).

      But due to the mess in Iraq, the neocons are losing power. Bush recently shifted power from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleeza Rice. Another neocon, a senior advisor to Cheney, was also let go recently. There may be a few more "changes." I still don't think Bush knows what's going on but the Republican Party knows it. Karl Rove is basically trying to clean house.

      Having said all this, I think Bush will be re-elected again! The problem with American politics is:
      1. Executive branch (i.e. white house/president) is too strong. Unlike British systems (eg. Canada), US Presidents are worshipped like Gods by their citizens, opponents, etc.
      2. Two party system: This basically means that there really isn't much dissent. You either go with one guy or another. To make matters worse, both the Republicans and Democrats are very similar.
      3. Too much control by capitalists. The capitalists, such as corporations, control US politics. This happens everywhere but it is worse in USA. I think it is like that because USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism, and hence the most powerful corporations, wealthy, etc reside there. This essentially means that they will be more powerful than anywhere else. This isn't just the Republicans either; the Democrats are controlled by corporations too.
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    6. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It sounds weird, but apparently many corporations care less about who wins than that the winner will owe a favor.

      That sounds weird but that's how it is everywhere. Pick any country and you'll find that the wealthy elite and their corporations meddle with all parties. In Canada, where corporations don't donate as much as USA, you'll note that the Liberals and the PCs receive funding from the same companies.

      Corporations are basically apolitical entities. If given the choice they wouldn't even be involved in politics. However, they want to become wealthy. Nowadays, manipulating politics is the best way to become rich (eg. check out Kellog&Brown (aka Halliburton) and their profits from Iraq). So the best thing to do is to donate to whichever party you think will win. That way, you influence both. These corporations have no opinion on politics. They don't have a position on war, on abortion, on human rights, etc. But they do care about money.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    7. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Had the president really commited purjery, he would have been indicted by the special persecutor. It didn't happen.

      He was dancing on the head of a pin. He did give testimony that wasn't 100% forthcoming. That isn't a crime.

      They had some very expensive lawyers in the special prosecutors office. If they can't formulate a concrete question like ...
      "Did Monica Lewinsky give you oral sex???? A blowjob, a hummer, etc...???? Was your penis in her mouth? Did she polish 'little bill'??? Have you had an erection in her presence????"

      If you carefully read their criterea for "sexual relations" you will find a blowjob wasn't included. Nor are blowjobs normally considered sexual since you can't get pregnant by swollowing cum!!!!! I believe it's conservatives who advocate "procreation only" sex.

      Why wasn't the questioning specific. Because they were still fishing. The whole effort was a fishing effort. All they caught was the president's dick. I have no idea whether it was "a whopper".

      By the way, the "identifying feature" that Paula claimed to know was curvature of the penis. The president's doctors testified to the contrary. If you want to examine the issue with your own eyes, I suppose thats up to you.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    8. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by thynk · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm republican and I care about the sex! I care a lot about the sex I get. About the only other person who's sex life I care about is my girlfriend.

      Of course, I didn't really care about the sex President Clinton had, or even that he lied about it (it was pretty well established that he was dishonest before all this). What *really* pissed me off was that he did it on the job, in the oval office, while making troop decisions that effected my best friend's unit (we were both active duty military at the time).

      If it got found out that I was having sex at work, while doing something really important, I think I'd rather expect to be fired.

      Is it possible to have very conserative political views and very liberal lifestyle views? Yep, sure is.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    9. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by thynk · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read their criterea for "sexual relations" you will find a blowjob wasn't included. Nor are blowjobs normally considered sexual since you can't get pregnant by swollowing cum!!!!! I believe it's conservatives who advocate "procreation only" sex.

      It was President Clinton's attorney that refined the definations of "sexual relations", not anyone in the prosecutor's office. (just learned that tonight, thanks).

      As for conseratives advocate "procreation only" sex, not all who are conserative with thier votes are conserative in the bedroom. I myself got "fixed" several years back, and have had all sorts of sex (before I descovered /. of course) that had NOTHING to do with procreation, unless maybe we're refering to the procreation of orgasms.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    10. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
      Just to clarify a bit, I must add a few things to your arguments. Bush getting re-elected?!?! Yup, probably, unless of course we get any answers about anything, before the election.

      I would further your point by stating that the bounds of ("wild") capitalism are now far beyond the concept of borders or allegience. The HQ is in, say, Detroit, but there are branches and offices and networks to 16 other countries, 120 partners, etc. Globalisation may not have hit your home country, but I bet it has, and hard. Oh your gonna make the pollution laws stricter? Well, let's get us NAFTA passed and move ourselves to Mexico where they don't care about such things. What? I have to pay people at least $5.75!!?? Well fuck that, Ill move the manufacturing to China where the kids work practically for free! WTF is the government gonna do to stop them? Raise tariffs?

      The Bush administration may be controlled by neo cons, but I believe that it is just about keeping corporations prices down. Certainly we all have felt the pangs of remorse after some of us and our collegues were fired or outsourced. I believe they see everything in terms of money, and power being a secondary bonus to the primary goal. If I was a money hoarding company I would put my branches where they keep costs down and numbers up. If a local law in Detroit makes the manufacturing plant undesirable there, move the fucker to Mexico or wherever keeps the costs down. If your lobbies to keep new cost raising laws from being passed do not work, then you need to explore other options. I just think it should be a crime to reap huge profit margins at the expense of people, but hey, at least we don't have plague.

      1) Executive Branch may be too strong, as you suggest, however I believe it is more that the Judicial Branch has no spine or has become loyal to the whims of the Executive branch. If any two of the three branches of government fall perfectly into line, the system is not working as intended. These guys are supposed to check and balance each other, not make the government stronger as a whole. (As I understand it.) As a matter of personal opinion, I believe the President is a schmuck regardless of which party he is.

      2) Two party system. Aww, fuck it man, say it like it is. We have the Masons. (Remember the "secret shadow government" Bush stupidly talked about way back...)Doesn't matter if your vote R or D, it still comes down the secret societies. So sit back, have a coke and a big mac and watch a movie to get your mind off things cuz it ain't changin' soon. (The Free Masons came out of England, historically. Who was it that backed us during this past war? The country eludes me...)

      Moving right along... the main difference between Republicans and Democrats in my experience is the following. The democrats say that "everything will be fine!", and then they fuck you. The Republicans say "Hey! We're gonna fuck you!", and then they fuck you. I don't lean to the left or right but I have to admire the Republicans candor regarding that kind of behavior.

      3) I think you are right. I disagree with why they reside here though, as I believe that it just has the most money and chance to get things off the ground. I would say the the American monopolists have already invaded your home country with deadly efficiency. From my understanding, (See Jihad vs. Mcworld, by Benjamin Barber) there are only 2 or 3 countries that don't have MTV. Think about that for a minute. We are force feeding our culture, values, etc to these countries quite easily and efficiently. Borders mean nothing anymore. Ultimately, I guess my point is that the power no longer resides with government. The power or the world is in the hands of the capitalists you and I disagree with so much. This could be changed if the American people had enough spine to stand up for certain rights, but who can risk jail time when there are car payments, house payments, bank payments, child care, day care, health care, electric bills, gas bills, and not enough of the green bills to go around.

      Vox

    11. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm not from where you think I'm from. I'm actually Canadian (originally from Sri Lanka).

      BTW, you say you are apolitical but you sound like an anarchist :)

      Bush getting re-elected?!?! Yup, probably, unless of course we get any answers about anything, before the election.

      A lot of people think Bush won't be re-elected but I don't know. With his propaganda machine, anything is possible--although the war is dragging him down.

      I would further your point by stating that the bounds of ("wild") capitalism are now far beyond the concept of borders or allegience. The HQ is in, say, Detroit, but there are branches and offices and networks to 16 other countries, 120 partners, etc.

      Yeah, I agree. What matters is that they are wealthy capitalists. They move around their corporations as it suits them. It wouldn't surprise me if they flee the US if things turn bad. Although, many wealthy people partly live in places like Bahamas, Monaco, etc.

      The Bush administration may be controlled by neo cons, but I believe that it is just about keeping corporations prices down.

      What you are saying is true in the larger picture (i.e. long term 10-year plan). But in the short term, I think the ideologies and politics matter more than the corporations. For example, I don't consider the war in Iraq to be driven by corporations. Yes, they are profitting from it but it is driven largely by ideologies.

      1) Executive Branch may be too strong, as you suggest, however I believe it is more that the Judicial Branch has no spine or has become loyal to the whims of the Executive branch.

      The problem is that the judicial branch can be manipulated easily. I don't know the rules governing it but maybe the president appoints the attorney general? I know in Canada the Prime Minister appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Not sure how the US system is.

      Moving right along... the main difference between Republicans and Democrats in my experience is the following. The democrats say that "everything will be fine!", and then they fuck you. The Republicans say "Hey! We're gonna fuck you!", and then they fuck you. I don't lean to the left or right but I have to admire the Republicans candor regarding that kind of behavior.

      lol hehe :>

      Ultimately, I guess my point is that the power no longer resides with government. The power or the world is in the hands of the capitalists you and I disagree with so much. This could be changed if the American people had enough spine to stand up for certain rights, but who can risk jail time when there are car payments, house payments, bank payments, child care, day care, health care, electric bills, gas bills, and not enough of the green bills to go around.

      Most humans on earth are sheep. They can be so easily manipulated that it isn't even funny. That isn't a very nice portrayl of a so-called intelligent species but I don't see it any other way...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  61. Lateral recruiting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "When components do advertise, they tend to use sources such as the Washington Post, Legal Times, National Law Journal, and DOJ and component web sites. Some components report using specialized publications or meetings targeted toward their field of the law, and a few report advertising in publications or at meetings geared toward minorities."

    Yeah, I want my DOJ staff selected out of the Vibe want adds.

  62. Karma Whoring... Google link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  63. Best Quote of the article by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

    From the NYT article: "This was a study that we commissioned of our own volition to get a look at what our work force looked like," Ms. Duffy said. "We didn't have to let people know we were doing this." YES YOU DO HAVE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW !! This woman clearly has not heard of the Freedom of Information act, or clearly misunderstands it's intentions. It's to allow the average american to know what his/her government is doing ! Comments like these from government officials scare me.

  64. My reaction to this is mixed. by Rotten168 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    On one hand their shouldn't even be a diversity report on the DoJ, the idea that a lack of diversity means that discrimination is prevalent is ludicrous (sp?). Maybe the most competent employees happen to be white males? Ever consider that?

    On the other hand W and his cronies are continuing to look like cowards due to silly, dumb actions like this. Conservatives are looking like the whiny bitches that we all know liberals are what with stuff like this and Fox news suing Al Franken. Conservatives shouldn't do stuff like this because we. are. better. than. they. are.

  65. What's really outrageous about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Is the fact that the DOJ is charged with enforcing FOIA provisions and yet they willfully violate them themselves.

    I'm not a FOIA lawyer, but I browsed the FOIA exemptions and exclusions and I see no reason whatsoever that this information that was naively blacked out was excluded.

    Think about what ELSE they aren't telling us... And, they probably don't usually don't make such stupid mistakes.

  66. Affirmative Action = Racism by AntiBasic · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Affirmative Action = Racism. It discriminates against middle and lower income Euro-Americans.

    "Sorry Jimmy, you worked your ass off but Raynisha gets the free University ride because she is black and your grandparents might have done something to her ancestors even though none of your family was here until 1920. Nevermind her GPA is nearly a whole point below yours and she never took part in any extra-curricular activities. Oh yeah, we are also have less money than her but you're white so you're fscked. Nevermind that her parents are neuro-surgeons." Great policy.

    1. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what happened to me. It gets moderated down by liberal pie-in-the-sky communist censors. Thank you thought-police.

    2. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo-fucking-hoo. Suck it down, unqualified boy.

    3. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by TheRealStyro · · Score: 1

      Any action that results in advancement of one race of people against another race of people is racist. Affirmative action is quite racist. However, the minority that have been oppressed in this country (USA), until (officially) the mid-1960's, love it. You can be well educated with a great personality and all the right experience, but if the place you are applying to has been told that they have too many people of your race then you are out. Discriminatory? You betcha. But not discriminatory against the races that have been traditionally discriminated against for far too long.

      Want to change these discriminatory practises? Good luck. If you are not of a race that has been traditionally discriminated against, then any actions you bring to the table will be viewed as suspect. Now it is time to turn the tables around, even if it is slight.

      I have come to the conclusion that changing this societys view on racism will take a huge cultural change. Education will play a huge part, so will government intervention. Schools need to be equalized so that those underperforming are brought up to standard (regardless of racial makeup). The media has to stop over-reporting race - I don't need to hear the race of a criminal or the racial makeup of an underperforming school. The government has to stop racial profiling its departments and bureaus and let them hire the most qualified persons that apply. Discard race. Teach children to love each other regardless of race. Let 'race' die out in society. Then we will be one large step closer to a civilized and equal society.

      --
    4. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

      Right on. But this huge cultural change you speak of will not happen unless 95% of teachers and 89% of reporters stop being card carrying democrats (or worse). That means eradicate the NAACP, NEA, etc. There will be no progress until then.

      I could be wrong, who knows. Maybe with a little critical thinking they'll see their racist policies as they really are.

    5. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoia is the false impression that there is a conspiracy against you. Reread your postings.

    6. Re:Affirmative Action = Racism by TheRealStyro · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe the NAACP & KKK could both go right away and that would help loads. Both groups are fanatics for their racial views of the world, and both are wrong (but at least the NAACP uses good PR - sounding honorable).

      Racism goes beyond simple party politics. Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist - all can be a mixed boat of racism. Knowing this is an election year, one has to realize no that politician is going to say anything that will offend a large group of potential voters. The Democrats will beat on the drums for affirmative action since minorities love it. Republicans will play along. Nothing will happen with racial law for the next year.

      --
  67. Were you tortured much in the POW camp? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    Or is there some other explanation for your failure to get a joke?

  68. Some highlights from the report by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 1

    I noticed this a few days ago and have had a good time scanning the unedited report. The Memory Hole was even helpful enough to highlight the formerly blacked-out sections in yellow, so you know exactly what you were missing.

    It's sad because it's obviously not a huge conspiracy that was covered up. It was "just" the racism and sexism that everyone knows is still present in America, but no one likes to admit.

    Here's some stuff I thought was interesting. I don't think it's amazingly surprising (which is sad) but it's pathetic they found it 'bad' enough to try and cover up. These aren't all directly related to diversity, just stuff I found interesting.

    Page 4: "Attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work. Most attorneys across race/ethnicity, gender, and component groups report that the environment is collegial and productive."
    This is actually blacked out in the origonal document. That's just stupid. Why would it possibly be blacked out?! It's employees saying GOOD THINGS!

    Page 4: "Minorities perceive unfairness in a number of human resources practices, such as hiring and promotion."
    Ah ha. Now we begin to see...

    Page 5: "Minorities are significantly under-represented in management ranks." and "Minorities are substantially more likely to leave the Department than whites."

    Then there's a long section on the background of the study and how it was conducted...very little blacked out here...

    Then there are just weird things to cover up. Like on page 26: "The organizational culture varies by office and is influenced by the leadership in each office and the Regional Counsel that oversees it."
    Wouldn't that seem obvious? Your superiors will change the attitude of your office. Duh.

    Page 37: "It is especially noteworthy that a large majority of both women and minorities answered unfavorably about the item asking about tolerance of dissent."

    Page 89: "Note that promotion rates for minorities are highly correlated with, but consistently less than, promotion rates for whites."

    Page 94: "When controlling for component, grade, and salary, we found that the average minority is currently residing approximately one-third step lower than the average white, and the average woman is currently residing approximately one-half step lower than the average man. These effects are statistically significant."

    Page 97: "...women and minorities received statistically significantly more recognition in the form of time-off awards in 2001 compared to men and whites, respectively."
    "[but] women were both less likely than men to receive cash awards and received fewer awards per person among those who did receive them. Likewise, racial minorities were less likely than wites to receive cash awards (although they received the same number of awards among people who receive any). A more refined analysis of the race result shows that blacks and Asians were the least likely to receive cash awards (41% compared to 50% for whites and 56% for Native Americans)."

    You get the gist. The document is over 200 pages long, but even if you scroll quickly and just glance at the highlighted stuff, you can come out with a good picture of what was covered up.

    Basically, anything with substance.

    -Trillian

    1. Re:Some highlights from the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there are just weird things to cover up. Like on page 26: "The organizational culture varies by office and is influenced by the leadership in each office and the Regional Counsel that oversees it."

      Translation: Some departments appear to be more racist than others, specifically certain managers. If we acknowledge this, public will want these certain managers removed.

      Page 89: "Note that promotion rates for minorities are highly correlated with, but consistently less than, promotion rates for whites."

      Translation: Everyone is promoted at the same rate, but because there are fewer minority employees in general, the raw numbers indicate more caucasians are being promoted. This could be misconstrued, so they covered it up.

  69. Secrecy is a real threat to our national security by mhackarbie · · Score: 1
    I first downloaded the redacted version and seeing pages and pages of redacted material only produced feelings of greater and greater antagonism towards the DOJ, as it reinforced my concerns about the dangers of the PATRIOT powers they are seeking to acquire.

    The truly ironic part is that when I read the unredacted version I began to gain a greater understanding of the complexities and challenges of the DOJ and tended to be less judgemental and dissmissive of their leadership.

    Complex and huge challenges such as improvement of racial diversity and national security absolutely require the good will and support of the general population in order to be achieved. Therefore openness and transparency of government authority is vital to maintaining this good will and support.

    It is very clear that the current administration has rejected openness and transparency in favor of secrecy and in so doing they are actually threatening great harm to our national security in the long term. It is a very ignorant and short-sighted view. They think that secrecy helps them to catch the 'bad guys' and reduce the flak of negative publicity. What they completely fail to realize is that public confidence in the honesty and integrity of government institutions is infinitely more important to our security in the long term.

    mhack

    --
    Building a better ribosome since 1997
  70. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The government doesn't have to say a damned thing about it. People have to ask for it first.

  71. DMCA? by satyap · · Score: 1

    Does that count as a DMCA violation? (I hope not!)

  72. Or you could just underclock by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 1

    ... or run it on a CPU emulator. Or just run lots of crap in the background. The emulator would probably be best, especially if you could freeze it.

    Reminds me of a computer column I read in a newspaper about 10 years ago, where the writer talked about a friend who always got higher scores on DOS games than he. Then he learned his friend's secret: he played the games under Windows (3.1) rather than directly under DOS.

  73. How many African Americans work for Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or VA Software, for that matter?

    What efforts are you guys doing to promote diversity among your ranks, particularly management?

    Folks, if you're going to use such a smug, self-righteous tone when you post these stories, at least make sure sure your own house is in order.

  74. Re:encryption techniques-WingDings????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If i recall correctly, the term is dingbats, you dingbat.

  75. /. full of Commies lately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    infiltration?

  76. What is a minority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What groups are counted as minorities? It seems that for this study Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks are counted as minorities, but that Jewish people are counted as white. Doesn't this skew the report just a bit?

    1. Re:What is a minority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews are white........Oppressor!

    2. Re:What is a minority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asians are not a minority they are the majority!

  77. PDF is waaay too easy to hack by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, you can encrypt documents, but it's seldom done.

    This particular one was absurdly easy. You can just use the text selection tool, and grab the text behind the blackouts.

    But: with the full version of Acrobat, you can delete or move text or entire text or graphical objects -- nearly as easy, why didn't they do that before hand? The same tools can help un-black those objects.

    Also: Acrobat is, by default, a text format. You can usually find all kinds of juicy things in the text. Text on a page is usually found (in parentheses). Tools such as the "Browser.api" plug-in help see all the bits and pieces that make up the contents of a page. At that point, you might be in DMCA reverse-engineer land, but just barely.

    So, kiddies: encrypt, redact properly, protect, and then double-check.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:PDF is waaay too easy to hack by specht · · Score: 1

      Removing text or images with Acrobat may not necessarily remove these elements from the PDF file: Acrobat does an incremental save when you use the "Save" function. This means that only the differences to the last version are stored. You have to do a "Save As" after such edits to make sure that the just removed information does not stay in the PDF file. It's actually pretty interesting how the incremental save is implemented: The original content of the PDF file remains unchanged. Acrobat just attaches a new section after the end of the original document with the updates.

      To reliably redact a PDF file you need software that's written for specifically this task. This is not a trivial job, so you better make sure that the company who's selling the redact solution to you lives and breaths PDF.

      I only know about one such solution: Appligent's Redax Acrobat plug-in. (I don't have any financial interest in this company, I'm just a happy user of one of their other products).

  78. Off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take this shit to DU

  79. DOJ Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2002 by skywire · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did DOJ follow its own published guide to Exemption 5? Slog through DOJ Guide to FOIA Exemption 5 and decide for yourself.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  80. Why does the truth hurt so much? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

    After reading thrugh a few of the censored (call the spade black, for pity's sake) entries, I have to ask the question...

    Why cover up the truth?

    I don't get it. Sometime the truth hurts, but it's easier to deal with than the aftereffects of lying to cover up the truth. It's easier to say "OK, we're not perfect, we have diveristy issues to address" and deal with them than to stick heads in the sand and when something like this leaks out, proceed to conduct damage control.

    It's easier to tell a consistent truth than a series of consistent lies.

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  81. Blacking out non-security issues... by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    ...in a Freedom of Information Act requested document is censorship. It is also the only proof required in arguing that the U.S. Department of inJustice is working against the citizens of the United States and not for them. This is not a game; this is an affront against the public.

    = 9J =

    1. Re:Blacking out non-security issues... by TheRealStyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ACLU should start a class-action suit against the federal government of the USA. The current administration is redacting far too much information under the excuse of "national security". NS used to be used only when necessary, and only very selectively (for example to redact field agents identities). Now DOJ documents showing lack of workplace diversity are being redacted - a subject not related to NS in the very least.

      The citizenry are quickly losing all control of the government, and the government is actively hiding information from the citizens. We need to regain control of the government, media, and military before the USA starts looking more like the USSR...

      --
    2. Re:Blacking out non-security issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lost control a long, long, time ago. My 'ol man was CIA and they were conducting drug experiments on people back in the '60's. Many people.

      They commited a ton of expressly criminal acts, ruined the lives of a great many people, and did absolutely nothing to "pick up the pieces" of these people's lives -- all still kept absoultely secret. National Security? Humbug, buy that "right" the US Federal Government has assumed abosolute authority to do anything it damned well pleases, criminal or otherwise.

      I KNOW the US was "dead" by the '60's. And, probably before that. Why cry now?

    3. Re:Blacking out non-security issues... by m1066ad · · Score: 1

      The U.S. has a higher percentage of its people locked up than any other nation on Earth, by far. George Orwell could have been looking into a crystal ball, either that, or maybe or maybe our leaders shouldn't have taken '1984' as a training manual...

  82. This is a system design issue by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As in any other cases simplicity and the appearance of simplicity are two entierly different things. The seeming simplicity many tools in the Windows-world offer is fake. As soon as you leave the narrow focus of what the designers expected the tool to be used for, many things break, including in many cases security.

    It is far better to have a hard to use tool (e.g. commandline, although many people find that actually easier to use) that does not surprise you than a seemingly easy to use tool that does (sometimes massively) surprise you. This is no new wisdom. It applies everywhere in engineering. Some parts of the software industry are still not aware of this sound engineering principle.

    Of course there is a second issue here: the users that are by now so uneducated about the nature of the tools they use that severe mistakes become likely. It is not that the users are less sophisticated than in the past (at least I hope so), but the tools they work with have become massicely more complex and many people have not realy noticed and therefore are not able to anticipate any pitfalls.

    To put ist short, if they wanted to keep the redacted stuff confidential they should at least have used a tool they understand, like printed paper, or they should have consulted an expert first. This was a highly unprofessional mistake.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  83. Education by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Its so absurd its not even funny that these sort of things happen, and the worst thing is that people will start saying "oh those damn hackers" or something stupid like that. People really need educating about technology and not just some "IT training course" proper education about computers and technology and the people who need it most are the politicians and judges and anyone else in important positions.

    And if they are "too old" to learn then its time to get rid of them, people who cant learn shouldnt be in those positions.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  84. US sold WMDs??? by beakburke · · Score: 1
    " We know that they had them at one point. We sold them to them."

    Almost correct, but not quite. The US never sold saddam WMDs, they did sell him weapons back during the Iran Iraq war in the 80s in an attempt to "even up" the fight. Supposedly, saddam was also sold materials that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons programs (such as laboratory media etc.). But the US never actually shipped him mustard gas or anything like that, and we certainly weren't stupid enough to sell him weapons after the 1991 gulf war, like some others did. The US isn't blameless, but what you are saying isn't correct.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  85. lynched me a few today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but hey I live down here in GA and was tired of rapin' my daughter.................
    you stupid fuck

    1. Re:lynched me a few today by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      What does a Georgia girl say after losing her virginity?

      Get off me Pa, you're crushing my smokes!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  86. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet, my stock rises ever higher with each SCO troll.

    --
    Love, Daryl.

  87. The 9 exemptions to FOIA by DrDNA · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the ACLU Freedom Network. The following are exempt from FOIA requests.

    1. National Security
    2. Internal Agency Rules
    3. Governed By Other Statutes
    4. Business Information
    5. Internal Government Memos
    6. Private Matters
    7. Law Enforcement Investigations
    8. Regulation Of Financial Institutions
    9. Oil Wells

    Nowhere does it state 'items embarrassing to the government.' This is a federal violation on the part of the DOJ. Maybe we can get Ashcroft to investigate himself.

    1. Re:The 9 exemptions to FOIA by jpetts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe we can get Ashcroft to investigate himself.

      Good luck: in this report you can see how John Ashcroft has been trying to undermine the FOIA. Choice quotes, one from the reporter:

      " In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens."

      and a quote from Ashcroft's memo, which memo is the subject of the article:

      "When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  88. Pissed at the gov't? Shoot a Judge. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I swear...the more I read the more I am furious with the douchebags in power. Obviously, no matter who you vote for there will be corruption. I say, let the people rise up and show that they won't take it. Yes. Vigilantism may be the last best hope.

    --
    Blar.
  89. no subscription link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  90. it's very possible this is a trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    think about it...

    last week the white house creates a new robots.txt file to block access to iraq files. now this gaff?

    seems to me they are fishing around with these docs, so that they can better learn to hide the things that will get bush/cheney impeached and possibly imprisoned.

    but that's a bit of a stretch even for this president.

  91. This is funny. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    I don't see how the information that they attempted to remove should have been allowed to be removed in the first place.. it was vital to the report.

    You aren't allowed to just remove whatever you feel like it from an FOIA requested document. the whole point of the FOIA is so you can see documents you have a right to see; like this report.

    Exemptions are made for things like national security, fair enough.. and privacy.. but simply crossing out the "bad" parts of a report is absurd.

    1. Re:This is funny. by Ernest · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes.

      And now, they are going to fire the stupid bloke who funked-up the hidding, instead of doing anything about the rapport's conclusion.

      Ah well, that what we call justice.

      --
      Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
  92. the "J" stands for Justice, Right? by t4b00 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the situation with the DMCA, Diebold, Patriot Act, Victory Act, Enron, SCO, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, Ashcroft and Generals on a Crusade isn't bad enough? now the Department of Justice gets caught trying to cover some back side.

    Now remember, all of these guys are just looking out for the best interests of the "American People." after all they don't want to upset an already BAD situation by adding fuel to the fire, right? That is why it is in the interest of national security.(tell me it aint so)

    at risk of being moded redundant I will repeat in my own words what I heard earlier on this subject..."Next time I see a document with black magic marker allover it,go ahead, TRY and convince me it is in the "interest of national security"

    Maybe they are right, in thinking if the "American People" knew about HALF of the things that probably go on daily, they would probably revolt, which does, sadly give weight to their arguement.

    "In the interest of national security we cannot tell you how corupt the system is because it would be disruptive TO that system (and your security)."

    "Totam Spem Relinquite Hunc Locum Adeuntes"

    indeed.

    1. Re:the "J" stands for Justice, Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >Maybe they are right, in thinking if
      >the "American People" knew about HALF of the
      >things that probably go on daily, they would
      >probably revolt, which does, sadly give weight
      >to their arguement.

      But they are wrong, because if there were sufficient grounds for rebellion it would be the peoples *duty* to bring it on. Decietfully preserving the regime is actually treasonous.

      So it's painful to accept that the system has failed, it's more painful that which results from a regime propping itself up with lies simply because it *must* succeed. That's what happened in the Soviet Union under the Five Year Plan, the government insisted to the people that they were prosperous, even as farmers were literally starving to death.

  93. to fully understand the situation... by joebeone · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think the slashdot poster was fully able to highlight the gravity of this:

    http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-O ct ober/000143.html

    Subject: DoJ uses Word's "Highlight" tool to redact, doesn't work

    Hi Declan, Dave:

    A HARD LESSON TO LEARN: don't use Microsoft Word's "Highlight tool"
    with the color set to black to redact documents--one can still copy
    and paste "highlighted" text!

    The really interesting part about this DoJ case is reading the
    un-redacted document and seeing what was "blacked out" under FOIA
    exemptions (un-redacted document is here:
    http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/doj-attor ney-div ersity-unredacted.pdf
    ).

    I wonder how many other electronic FOIA-released documents are out
    there where a simple copy and paste will reveal redactions?

    Pertinent paragraph:

    "It turns out the [DoJ's] report began its life as a Microsoft Word
    document, and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public
    release did so by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight
    color set to black, according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of
    activePDF, a maker of server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient
    technique would have been perfectly effective had the end product been
    a printed document, but it was all but useless for an electronic one."

    Joe

    ---
    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272

    Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy

    By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM

    A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
    of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
    diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
    blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.

    The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
    Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
    in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
    blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
    to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
    private.

    The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
    the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
    published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
    rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
    Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
    experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
    copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
    copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.

    It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
    and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
    by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
    according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
    server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
    been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
    but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
    actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
    text is still there." ...

  94. I hope it happens... by thelizman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...not for Memory Hole's sake, but if the DoJ does do it, I would have an affirmative piece of evidence to motive the sheeple I know to fight the DMCA. Till now, the DMCA actions brought are either too complex, or not a clear enough violation of fair use standards to be palatable to the general public.

  95. You're rewriting history by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    You're rewritting history:
    • The anti-war folks claim there was no possibility of WMD when in fact there was a very significant possibility.

      No, they claim there was no proof, when Bush told the world he had proof and then failed to produce it or the weapons.

    • This combined with the fact that Iraq itself claimed to possess said weapons, had not cooperated with UN inspections,

      They were actively claiming they had destroyed the weapons, and were cooperating with the UN inspectors, who themselves opposed the invasion, asking instead for more time to inspect.

    • AND had made public its support of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel) was, in my opinion, enough reason to overthrow Saddam.

      Dispite the fact that it is illegal (under our laws) for us to do so? I don't think Saddam was a good person, and I can't say the majority of the world will miss him, but I do say that our principles ought to mean more to us than they seem to.

    • Incidentally, we had satellite surveillence and spies testimony.

      The administration claims we did. That claim now seems questionable.

    • Whether or not that intelligence was accurate is still up for debate. If it was not, the intelligence community is to blame, not Bush.

      Hardly. In general, they warned against the use of the faulty information (some of which was publicly known to be forged, etc.). The administation largely ignored their concerns. NASA anyone?

    -- MarkusQ
    1. Re:You're rewriting history by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      You're writing history that hasn't happened yet.

      No, they claim there was no proof, when Bush told the world he had proof and then failed to produce it or the weapons.

      It has not been proven either that the weapons did NOT exist, so there's no sense in claiming yet that Bush lied. Full scale investigation efforts, with the resumed help of the UN, only began recently. If, in a year or so, the evidence is that the weapons really did not exist, then start pointing blame.

      They were actively claiming they had destroyed the weapons, and were cooperating with the UN inspectors, who themselves opposed the invasion, asking instead for more time to inspect.

      They were claiming the weapons were destroyed, but refused to give evidence or documentation of their destruction. Additionally, there was evidence that labs, compounds, etc. were being evacuated just before the inspectors arrived. Those facts do not imply cooperation.

      Dispite the fact that it is illegal (under our laws) for us to do so?

      If it was so clearly illegal, why are the Dems not making a big fuss in this direction? Even the UN, which disagreed with our actions, never formally declared them 'illegal' because past resolutions gave us enough room to do what we did.

      The administration claims we did. That claim now seems questionable.

      It will be interesting what the CIA comes up with in the next month to defend their stance. If bad intelligence was used, then yes, people should be held accountable.

    2. Re:You're rewriting history by 2short · · Score: 1

      "It has not been proven either that the weapons did NOT exist"

      But the question is whether the PROOF existed. Bush said it did. It did not. Bush lied, whether WMDs are found now or not.

      "Even the UN, which disagreed with our actions, never formally declared them 'illegal' because past resolutions gave us enough room to do what we did."

      And because we get a veto. The UN (well, the Security Council, which is the meaningful part) never formally declares anything it's permanent, veto-weilding members do 'illegal'. Supposedly, these 5 countries should be politically and diplomaticly mature enough not to do anything that would be so declared in the first place; i.e. to get formal Security Council approval before doing anything questionable. So much for that.

    3. Re:You're rewriting history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It has not been proven either that the weapons did NOT exist
      It has not be proven however that YOU do not possess weapons of mass destruction, and I demand that you do so. What, you mean you can't? (Serious point: it's not really possible to prove that a negative in this way.)
      so there's no sense in claiming yet that Bush lied.
      Au-contrair. To claim Bush lied, you merely take statements made as fact that he's presented and see if he was justified in making them or if he's contradicted himself. You don't need to prove something unprovable. If Bush decided to launch a nuclear strike on YOUR HOUSE, citing "weapons of mass-destruction", claiming you were a "threat of unique urgency" and with the White House claiming you were an "imminent threat", would you feel that he isn't lying simply because both you and he can't prove he's wrong?

      A good place to look at for a measure of the trustworthiness involved here is the Valerie Plume scandal. The apparent cause of this was that Plume's husband, Joseph Wilson, discovered that the White House was reporting information about sales of Uranium to Iraq that it knew to be untrue.

  96. Apple re-redacts the un-redacted document. by rworne · · Score: 3, Informative

    When viewing the report supplied by Memory Hole under Adobe Reader 6.0 the redacted parts in yellow show up and all is fine.

    Under Preview.app (OS X's PDF viewer, Panther's in my case), all the yellow sections are removed.

    It's a conspiracy I tell you!

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  97. Re:Pissed at the gov't? Shoot a Judge. by Orne · · Score: 1

    Shooting Lawyers appears to be really popular lately...

  98. OMG! These ppl are dumb LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh US government is so not r33t!!!11 I use my SUPAR-S3CUrE shell pipeline for meh sens1t1ve data LIEK SO!!!11:


    $ cat omg_hiddent_data_lol.txt | bzip2 -cz9 | tac


    OMG! Even if tehy .gov h4x0r5 intercepted me putting t4ht on teh Int4rw3b, they still wouldn't know what it was LOL! Free Kev1n! I bet no one, not even teh hole of /. COULD decrypt MEH TOP-SECRET text omfg!1

  99. mod up! mod up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod up parent! $8,000 of my tax money went to cover that find statue--I might as well get a laugh out of it.

  100. Yeah, but I was dissapointed... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I was hoping it would be a prosecutor...shooting your own lawyer seems kinda dumb...especially considering that the guy isn't in jail!

    --
    Blar.
  101. Nice try, but can't happen.. by schon · · Score: 1

    It was good for a laugh, but it couldn't happen..

    Since government documents are in the Public Domain, they're not covered by copyright, so the DMCA wouldn't apply.

  102. Are U kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing motivates "the sheeple" until a Cop is standing on their doorway proceeding to take something away from them personally.

    Even then, they whine a bit, vote either the red or blue clone into office, and whine a bit more.

    Sheeple, en mass, are never motivated until a substantial number of them have been decimated in a manner public enough for them to expect they WILL (not may) be next. Or, the powers that be expend enough money to convince them to drink whatever the kool-aid of the day is.

    Until that fateful day the watchword will always be "do on to others whatever you wish, let 'em die in the streets for all we care, just send the money our way and keep the bodies out of sight."

    Sad, perhaps, but that is the human experience.

  103. Can we give the parent comment a score of 6? by bigpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed."

    Government representatives are only supposed to keep stuff secret that would give a potential enemy vital information... blacking out anything that doesn't meet this criteria should be a hanging offense. If this report is true, then this is obviously corruption in its most base and basic form.

    Next thing you know we will be trillions of dollars in debt spending half our income on taxes with social security about to collapse and being told that everything will be okay. Oh wait a sec...

  104. FOIA may be a "sham"... by qtp · · Score: 1

    but it's the only thing we've got.

    The bigger shame is how few Americans actually read the stuff.

    If you'd like to avail yourself of this "sham", please feel free to visit the National Security Archive.

    If you'd like to learn something more about the pricks who are currently running this country.

    I especially advise you check out the section on the Iran Contra Affair. Many of the criminals mentioned in these docs are currently serving in the Bush administration.

    If you would like to get some perspective on the Taliban, Al Q'aeda, and September 11 that the mainstream press doesn't quite cover, read the September 11th Sourcebooks.

    And always remember to search beyond the collections to find the stuff they forgot was released in other investigations (such as this evidence that Rumsfeld, Poindexter and pals were paying for thier illegal terrorist operations in Central America with DRUG MONEY)

    There may be problems with FOIA, but the biggest problem is that not enough of you are willing to make use of what is available.

    --
    Read, L
  105. Um? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Does anyone think that FOIA documents didn't get the same treatment under Clinton or any other administration subject to it? I think it's time to check more docs and see what Reno's Justice may have decided to "redact" seems to me. The same clowns were may have doing the radaction via the same method as it's not the kind of job an "appointment" would do. This is grunt stuff.

    The big problem with most people is they tend to think you can give government a break. You can't it's out after yuo libertiy and freedom so it's job is more convient. It can't ever be trusted.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  106. Re:Pissed at the gov't? Shoot a Judge. by ctnp · · Score: 1

    >Obviously, no matter who you vote for there will
    >be corruption.

    Or who you don't vote for. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will....

  107. Re:Pissed at the gov't? Shoot a Judge. by mhackarbie · · Score: 1
    You know, it's moronic attitudes like yours that are a real threat to society. You don't even have a clue about what you are really advocating. If vigilantism to the point of shooting judges ever became the norm, society would be so much more dangerous, chaotic and fucked up than it is now. Instead of your current state of relative safety and pathetic ignorance, you would be far more likely to end up shot through the head on some sidewalk in the world that you are advocating.

    Maybe you should read a little about Columbia (or maybe spend some time there), they have a history of shooting judges, as well as the nasty consequences that follow.

    mhack

    --
    Building a better ribosome since 1997
  108. A true memory hole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmm tried to visit the site and it was down.. I wonder if they pissed off the wrong poeple? Or maybe they were just slashdotted... Anyone know the legality of what they've done? Could they be held responsible for publishing classified info?

  109. So what's the long and the short of it? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 6 meg .pdf ain't gonna happen on my dialup.

    Is the blackened out part a legitimate national security issue, or is it just the government covering up its embarassment?

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  110. The Peoples "duty"... by t4b00 · · Score: 1

    Historically, how far does it go before a collapse occures in a system such as the one it seems we have today? You mentioned Soviet Union, how about others such as the Roman Empire? Is this sort of thing really "new" or is this just a big chapter of history repeating itself?

    Just curious what your view on that is, if any. Im also wondering your view on what practical steps can be taken to "save" the USA from going by way of Soviet Union.

  111. Maybe you should downgrade! by mactari · · Score: 1

    In Jaguar, Preview shows every word of the Memory Hole version and blacked out lines galore in the original (using the link from the Memory Hole site), sometimes with yellow-highlighted periods at the end of sentences.

    The yellow periods have spots that are yellow in nearly the same spot in the Memory Hole version, but are still readable.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  112. voting! by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    Get out there and vote people. Our whole entire country is being run by people who aren't interested in us, let's get them out.

    Interestingly, ie. fucking scarily, our voting system is being replaced by easily hackable electronic systems with no paper trail...

    I for one welcome our new Diebold overlords!

    Heh, I don't know if I'm really trying to be funny; frankly, I really fear for this country.

    The question I have for myself is, have I become paranoid, or was I just naive before?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:voting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Get out there and vote people.

      FSCK'ing blow me. Voting is not a cure for criminal behavior.

      Got it.

    2. Re:voting! by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      It's not paranoia if it's actually happening!

  113. This is SOP for corporations though, what's prob? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporate America has been having classified internal discrimination audits for years. It's SOP for these to be done by attorneys and for the results to be company confidential. The idea is that the company has the oportunity to seek out and fix problems without worrying about that information that they gather being used against them later.

    It is considered a good thing becaues it means that companies are more likely to take a pro-active aproach to solving their discriminatory problems ahead of time, instead of waiting for a lawsuite.

    On the negative side are that the governing board does not necessarily take the advice they are given. They are just as prone to having blocking defense mechanisms as anyone else.

    Without these audits, I'm not sure what tools there are for companies to identify and resolve gender/race discrimination problems before they are sued.

    So, the same goes for the DOJ. Being lawyers, they did what lawyers do. However, they are a public institution, I'm not sure that such things should be kept private by public institutions, or that it helps us in the long run, even if lawsuites do result. I mean, suing the DOJ is like suing me, which I really don't need, but I do want a DOJ that is fairly and honorable in it's hiring and promoting practices.

  114. Caulk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe caulk?

  115. Don't trust the Beeb by gryf · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if you listened to the demagogues on national and international tv talking about how americans were so oppressed by the new Gestapo, you'd wonder why these thigns keep coming out for public scrutiny. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is no Gestapo? Maybe the Constituion hasn't been burned in a secret Satanic ritual by John Ashcroft?

    --

    #-#
    Ad Astra Per Aspera
    A rough road leads to the stars
  116. Hello California by thelizman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    True only to an extent. Take Gray-out Davis for example. As soon as he proposed a hefty car tax, the sheeple got motivated to yank him out. As soon as he proposed drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, he was as good as gone.

    You should acquint yourself with the concept of How-To: Boil a Frog.

  117. The biggest oxymoron of the 20th century by alexo · · Score: 1


    And the prize goes to Malcontent for the following gem:

    "Secondly they were humaniterian wars from the get go" (sic.)

    1. Re:The biggest oxymoron of the 20th century by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      "Secondly they were humaniterian wars from the get go" (sic.)

      humanitarian
      adj 1: marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare;

      In a case where all peaceful options have been exhausted and the only way to stop bloodshed is to violently remove those causing it, yes, that qualifies by definition as a humanitarian war. WW2 is the most classic example. Perhaps you have a baseless "all acts of war are evil" presumption clouding your judgment.

  118. PARENT IS GOATSE.CX LINK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    parent is goatse.cx link

  119. Nah...not the norm... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Just a few shootings to stir things up. Mass bombings won't do it...too easy to pin on a 'radical' or 'terrorist'. But a few assasinations, with explanations given, might get the message accross in a way even the gov't can't spin in their favor.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Nah...not the norm... by mhackarbie · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. In addition to just being plain WRONG, assasinations of judges would let the government justify greater secrecy of judicial proceedings, like secret trials, evidence and testimony. In fact, they are ALREADY trying to do this, though public opposition is slowing them down. If assasinations happen, you can forget any chance of stopping PATRIOT 2 or worse. This is the absolute wrong direction we need to be heading. Our greatest security lies in openness and public oversight of the government. And that includes following the rules of law and working within the system, as frustrating as that might seem sometimes.

      mhack

      --
      Building a better ribosome since 1997
  120. Re: What they remove caliphate of DEATH 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    you show you for who you are. you are very interested in this breach because you want to execute politicians. you are a terrorist, and you will be found out you fucking death islam sympathizer.

    i saw your fucking journal, terror boy.

    CLITORIS CHOPPERS. Hi there you fucking Islamic career clerics, doctors of death, Waffen Schutzstaffel doctor Josef Mengele is a patron saint compared to you fucking ragheads. You suck. You aide and abet terror and death. You are partially responsible for the deaths of other fellow men. For this fratricide you shall pay dearly. Your soul is black with the stains of inaction, ineptitude and sympathies to those who walk the dark side. Your foul life is full of sins, not religious, just heinous, your karma is low, you don't confess, and you aren't in prison where you belong. You are your own dark, kept secret. I see through you, the worthless academic, the pseudo intellectual, the unproven unpublished un patented WASTE OF FUCKING FLESH. You are a drain on society, you are a member of the 1st world but pretend to not be. I hate you, you are a stained man.

    Hi clitoris chopper, you islamists support clitoris carving. You are Islamic, and of course are a fucking animal. I hate you you pull-start camel jockey lover. Towelheads, Camel Jockies, Sand Niggers, Ackmids, Abeebs, Carpet Flyers, Dune Coons, Rag Heads, Sand Scratchers, Habeebs, Abba-Dabbas, Camel-Humpers, Demi-niggers, Fig-Gobblers, Hucka-luckas (hucka hlacka ghalcka ghugh), Lefties (If you steal, you lose the right hand so, since they are thieves...) Ocnods, Pull-Start-ables (imagine pull starting Ossama's dirty rag like a Briggs and Stratton), Roach-Ranchers (habibs cant kill roaches by a tenant of Is-slum), Sand Moolies.

    Shut up all you dirty fucking Islamic pigfucking swinehundts and the pigs, the communist fuckin Islamic terrorist supporter.

    Take your fucking Koran and cram it up your ass. The sooner the earth sees Islam leave it, the better off it will be. Your Koran is Goat Piss.

    I hope if there is a God and a Hell, you have to drink the liquidy shit from a Pig's ass, and Jewish Rabbis defecate on you.

    I hate the stupid ISLAM fucks who read into the trash they come up with. Saddam Hussein [who needs to take a dirt nap] is higher on my sanity list than fucking Muslim "clerics." In fact, I like Saddam more than most of the other Arab leaders because he is secular. We should fucking nuke the Saudis and Mecca and Medina and turn it into rubble, then tell Saddam to remove the heads of all the buttfucking "royalty" in the area.

    I want to wipe my ass with Mohammad's shroud. I want to grind his body up into bone meal and fertilize my garden with it.

    Our tortured dead scream out in HORROR, asking for vengeance:
    1. Kill all Camel Jockeys.
    2. Kill all Mohammedans.
    3. Kill all Dune Coons.
    4. Kill all Rag Heads.
    5. Kill all Towelheads.
    6. Kill all Arabs.
    7. Kill all Camel Rooters.
    8. Kill all Osama Bin Laden supporters.

    Nuke their countries to hell.

    Nuke them again.

    Death to Islam.

    I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I shit upon Mohammed. I wipe the cum for a freshly fucked pussy with Mohammed's shroud then throw it in the pig sty so it can mire in pig shit as it decomposes.

    I only hate with words, you fucking wet towel fucking scum killer, you maim, your terror bomber.

    You will be judged and cast away by the powers that be, your death will get none of my pity and you will have precipitated it upon yourself, YOU xenophobic pieces of shit, your elitist religious country club will be your own undoing..

    In the great continuum that it time your are those who serve to disrupt it by ending the brilliance and lives of those who your zealous foul religion call heathens and infidels. Your death will be celebrated, y

  121. Re: What they remove your explanations unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I doubt that, for the simple fact that everyone made the big stink about giant trailers, mobile weapons labs and missile stockpiles. These aren't

    things that go in a pickup truck, they require tractor-trailers. Those Al-Samoud missiles are pretty big themselves. And like I said before, the

    White House is silent on the WMD issue since the summer. I'm not going to consider the issue until they bring it up, and even then I'm still going to

    be a little dubious. The fact that they aren't discussing WMDs anymore is a hint to me that they gave up trying to convince people.


    Even given the immense resources of the US, I think it entirely possible to covertly move things within Iraq without the US knowing about it.

    Particularly in the 14 months of the UN filibuster. They found foxbats buried in sand at Saddam Intl. Airport the US never knew about. Thats a

    Mig-25, now if those can be hidden in the dirt/sand, anything can. And they got there from Russia without us knowing about it at some point during

    the years with teh no-fly zone.

    Simple. Iraq is very large. WMDs were supposedly in and near palaces, much of which was in Baghdad, near the center of Iraq. You can't exactly

    have a tunnel that goes anywhere near Baghdad and then to Syria. That's like a tunnel from Manhattan to Cichago. It would be fantastically expensive,

    tricky, and couldn't possibly be kept secret. Then you're assuming that Syria wouldn't mind activity under their land, and that nobody in either

    government would leak any of this information to CIA moles. Even if you made the tunnels shorter, like closer to the boarder, you'd still have to get

    weapons from Baghdad above ground to the tunnels. They're not something you can just hide in a minivan here either, they'd be huge and have military

    escorting them, both for security and to make sure nobody looks inside. I'm not buying the idea that this happened. The inspectors, Iraqi scientists,

    and captured Iraqi officials all say there wasn't WMD, and Bush so far has not called any of them liars.

    Likely you wouldnt even need a tunnel to pull this off. There isnt a moat between Iraq and Syria. And it tends to be that its very easy to trailblaze

    in that part of the world. I would think it possible to cover your tracks using a some mechanism after you drove over the land. (drag a rake, blow

    diffusive wind from a machine downward, etc)

    Like I said, he's distancing himself from it. I think its pretty shameless. He blamed the FBI for not preventing 9/11, the CIA for bad Iraq

    intelligence, and the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln for hanging up that "Mission Accomplished" banner when he admitted that the White House printed

    it and brought it onto the carrier for them. I don't like what I see here.

    Maybe he doesnt have to answer to you until election day. how about that? Have a problem with the system there buddy?

    I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed.
    But why did President Bush stop saying "WMDs will be found soon"? He's spun the issue onto "freedom of Iraqis" now and is totally ignoring the issue.

    Before the war, he made accusation after accusation about Saddam, why isn't he making accusations against Syria if there was even an inkling that a

    WMD move may be afoot? I mean, the current administration so far has insulted every Arab government while turning a blind eye to Israel, why did they

    quiet down about Syria?
    Israel is innocent compared to the arab scum and the state sponsored terrorists. You know, Israel breaks a lot of deals,

    after a bunch of civillians are murdered by arabs. You focus on the dealbreaking. i focus on the murders. i got a lot more respect for revenge

    killing that terrorism. You dont seem to remember, Saddam admitted to possessing WMD. The UN knew it. The US knew it. Even Bill Clinton an

  122. Syria, yeah and I've got a bridge to sell you! by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1
    Umm, you know those things we have in orbit? I think their called, spy satellites... Anyway, Colin Powell used them a lot for a presentation to the UN about those WMD. Had a lot of photos of big equipment. You know, stuff that would be pretty easy to photograph from orbit. 'Course there were also all those UAV flying over Iraq for a couple of months prior to the war and I'm pretty sure they are equiped with video equipment and whatnot...

    Anyway, seems to me that if there were any WMD that were moved to Syra WE'D HAVE A TON OF FUCKING PHOTOS OF THE MILES OF TRUCK CONVEYS IT WOULD TAKE TO MOVE THE TENS OF THOURSAND OF POUNDS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THE BUSHIES SAID HE HAD!!!!

    Except, there aren't any photos. I mean this administration would certain trot them out to quite all the critics and stuff if they had them, right? So repeat after me, THE WMD WERE DESTROYED JUST AFTER THE FIRST GULF WAR LIKE THE UN INSPECTORS SAID THEY WERE.

    Well, that pretty much clears that up. Oh, and Bush and company a bunch fucking traitors.

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  123. Re: What they remove caliphate of DEATH 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did you like my journal?

  124. Re: What they remove your explanations unlikely by mr100percent · · Score: 1
    If you're the same troll as the post above yours, glad to see you want to actually sanely discuss an issue. Just tone down the seeping hatred and accusations of me being a liar.

    "Likely you wouldn't even need a tunnel to pull this off. There isnt a moat between Iraq and Syria. And it tends to be that its very easy to trailblaze in that part of the world. I would think it possible to cover your tracks using a some mechanism after you drove over the land. (drag a rake, blow diffusive wind from a machine downward, etc)"

    I doubt the plausibility of that idea, I mean, a bunch of zambonis out there wouldn't be inconspicuous. Besides, there are roads in Iraq. Not to pick on you personally, but the average American thinks that Iraq is all tents and desert and camels. The average Iraqi doesn't see camels unless they go rural, and almost all the cars there are cars without off-road capability, so sticking to pavement is a must.


    Plus, Bush didn't bring up WMDs much in his latest press conference last week. He could have said that it's easy for a border hundreds of miles long could have had weapons sneak into Syria since it may or may not have been patrolled well (I think it was, if you listen to generals talk about what they caught), and people would have believed him. The democrats aren't faulting Bush too much for not catching Bin Laden, because they probably couldn't do a much better job.


    Maybe he doesnt have to answer to you until election day. how about that? Have a problem with the system there buddy?
    No need to get testy on me. He is an elected official and still has to answer to Americans. I'm not going to let him go and screw things up until election, things have gotten way worse under him, terrorism-wise and foreign relations-wise, not to mention the economy.


    I'm not an Arab, so I'll ignore the flamebait. State-run media, regardless of where it is, has no credibility with me. I'm even leery with BBC sometimes. Why are you trashing Muslims? What leader are you ripping on? Whichever one, he's not my leader. I'm not going to bother ranting incoherently about your hatred of all Muslims, you suffer from the flaw of availibility heuristics. (look it up)


    Mufti met with Adolph Hitler? Well, Godwin's law aside, you also had priests and Vatican emissaries who met with Hitler, what's your point? Does that somehow invalidate the religion?

  125. Caliphate Apologist And His J Lynch Fantasy . . ._ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr100percent. His fantasy, to have participated in the raping of PFC J. Lynch. He masturbates to the fact that her M-16 jammed, and she blacked out, leaving her supple anal whole open for rape.

    He takes his Palestine/PLO/Arafat supplied AK-47 with the double long al-queda curved clip that Ussama likes to show off, and he shoots chunks of chum off her arm, leaving powder burns but doing only superficial damage.

    With opressed women singing by Lynch's bedside, only becuse Mr100Percent beats her, supresses her, and chops her clitoris off, Arab and Muslim women all secretly want Americans to not only win, but to kill all the Muslim and Arab men, ending over 1400 years of rape, agression and opression towards women and all non-believers.

    Like bravo two zero said, they would make love to dogs if it were dignified, because they are twice as intelligent.

    Face it. You are an apologist for a Satanic cult. You are trying to raise the anti-christ. We will watch, fight and never give up. We will never surrender.