There is no "Military Detainee Act" that I am aware of. Perhaps you are referring to the Detainee Treatment Act or maybe the Military Commissions Act of 2006?
Right, that's what I meant. It was late when I wrote that.
These at most supplement the Third Geneva Convention and do not contradict it as far as I can tell. If you are referring to a specific instance of the Geneva Convention being superseded you'll have to point it out before I concede the point.
The point was that with the stroke of a pen, Congress can supersede treaties. So if there are aspects of the DTA or MCA that conflict with Geneva, they prevail under priority rules of the US legal system. Treaties are not these all-powerful legal entities that bind countries forever.
The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
Who is advocating that? Insisting that we not torture people and granting some sort of legal status instead of holding prisoners in a legal limbo for all eternity is not remotely close treating them better than POWs.
A lot of people, almost everyone on the left and most of the mainstream media, are arguing that these detainees get trials or be released as if they are criminal defends like OJ Simpson. In war, POWs are held until the other side capitulates, and don't get trials (it's actually prohibited for lawful POWs); therefore, the detainees would be getting more rights than POWs, the opposite of what Geneva prescribes.
The way it works in war, one side surrenders, then and only then do they get their captured personnel back. You don't release them before that so they can't shoot at you again, as several Gitmo detainees have done once released. It isn't America's fault that these little bastards won't give up. So these al Qaeda scumbags flout the rules of Geneva (blending in with civilians and targeting them, inter alia) and instead of being punished for it, they get due process, whereas POWs would sit in a camp until the war is over. Irrational.
I wasn't the one comparing Americans with Saddam. You guys were, by abusing the word "torture" to suit your needs. The point is, if waterboarding is "torture," what word do you use for Saddam's atrocities?
We have been waterboarding all Navy pilots and Special Forces operators during training long before Bush was President. If our military personnel can take it, it can't be that bad.
I think it's funny that you lefties are concerned about scaring al Qaeda terrorists with some water, but we can put a bullet in their heads if we see them running around in Kabul. Can't wiretap them, can't get them wet, can't try them in military tribunals, but if get them in our sights, and we can shoot them with an M-16. So we can kill them, but not scare them. Got it.
properly ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land in the US.
Actually, according to US legal priority rules, treaties are supreme until a conflicting federal law is passed. In other words, whichever is passed last prevails. One could argue the Military Detainee Act supersedes Geneva, assuming Geneva even applies.
Geneva distinguishes between POW's and unlawful combatants. It takes a carrot-and-stick approach. If you are a signatory and abide by its requirements (fight for a country, in uniform, according to the rules of war), you get its protections as a POW. Unlawful combatants are only granted "humane treatment," not the other POW privileges.
The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
The administration got absolutely no useful information as a result: they got a series a bogus leads that all turned out to be wild goose chases. And now that the use of torture is known there is no prospect of getting any criminal convictions in a real court of law.
George Tenet has said that the enhanced interrogation techniques ("torture" for those who are "nuanced" on the left that apparently claim moral equivalence between waterboarding and Saddam's cutting out of tongues, raping children in from of parents, and chopping off fingers) gathered more intelligence than all other intel programs combined. Now, you can say Tenet is a liar, but I'd like to hear who your source is on this, other than an anonymous, anti-Bush source in the CIA who doesn't have the balls to ID himself.
"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," he tells Pelley. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
Bush isn't being impeached. Congress is trying to call Rove for a regular hearing. Short of impeachment, Congress should not be calling members of the exec. And there is nothing in that section that explicitly says the President has to show up as a witness. Besides, what are they going to do if he doesn't, impeach him?
And you, for your specious arguments, trying to argue technicalities in bad faith that you have no political or legal basis for.
The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation
Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting? Where is your SCOTUS case law for this? When has SCOTUS declared any/every war since WWII illegal?
Again, cockeyed reasoning. By your (il)logic, if Congress had suspected or known about Pearl Harbor in advance, it couldn't pass a resolution saying, "If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, the President may exercise full war powers." So the Department of Defense isn't actually allowed to do any actual "defending" of the country, save a war declaration? So if China launches missiles at the USA, Congress has roughly 15 minutes to declare war or we cannot retaliate? So the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine, pre-authorizing the National Command Authority to launch massive nuclear retaliation as a deterrent, the USA's policy since the start of the Cold War, that was illegal all this time? This is absurd, and I doubt many people - law professor, historian, or average Joe, would agree with you. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was created, chiefly, to prevent abuses of power via checks and balances, not to prevent the two war-making branches from actually making war and defending the nation when they want to do so!
Thomas Jefferson (who launched his own little police action in the Mediterranean against shipping pirates) and James Madison laugh at your folly from the grave.
Seems to me that in both of the examples you cite above, the congress declared war.
I am so sick of this disingenuous argument, or should I say lack of argument.
One more time for the extremely slow: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.
The purpose was not, I repeat not so anti-war people can use a semantic argument that since Congress didn't use the word "war" in its authorization, there is no "war" so enemy combatants become magically transformed into criminal defendants fully vested with Constitutional rights. There is absolutely no basis for this reasoning in our history, politics, or law. Vietnamese and Korean combatants were considered POWs (or, as the case may have been for some individuals, unlawful combatants), and those were not declared wars either. Congress authorized military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is enough under our Constitution for the President to wage a war. There is no legal source that says otherwise, and Congress authorizing military action without actually using the word "war" has total acceptance within our political system, nitpicking strawmen notwithstanding.
And al Qaeda declared war on the USA. By your reasoning, since Congress hasn't passed a resolution with the word "war" in it, we can't respond militarily, only send out the FBI and start Mirandizing people. By this (lack of) logic, any Japanese captured during the attack on Pearl Harbor would be considered criminal suspects, and have to be arrested by police and given a lawyer, since Congress had not declared war yet. Utter nonsense.
The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.
This is true, but in all the hysteria here people are forgetting that unlike during the Hoover era, there are various civil and criminal laws preventing the kind of black bag shit that Hoover pulled on MLK and John Lennon (not to mention, more troublesomely, presidents, which is why Hoover survived 48 years as director - he had something on everyone, including every president). After the post-Watergate reforms, that stuff is so illegal it isn't funny.
And today, the FBI has an internal affairs division whose job it is to catch such stuff, not to mention the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. These are staffed with lawyers just looking to catch wrongdoing to make their careers.
And don't forget that the exclusionary rule isn't the only remedy for violations of law or constitutional rights of citizens. There are lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.
One should also consider that there hasn't even been the suggestion that the FBI director or the President has been using the FBI as a political weapon, a la Nixon or JFK or Hoover. You just can't get away with that shit today. Run the wrong license plate for a friend, and a computer catches it and that agent's ass is grass.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep an eye on the Feds. But to suggest that the MLK spying type of stuff could happen today without serious shit hitting the fan is just ludicrous.
Please, show me where in the Constitution Congress has the power to subpoena a member of the executive branch? What would happen if Bush tried to subpoena a member of Congress or his staff? They'd tell him to honk off. How and when did this idea that the White House staff answers to Congress ever become accepted? The Constitution is quite clear on the checks - it's called impeachment, and elections. That's it. I've read Article I pretty carefully, and I have never seen anything about calling a president's top advisor on the carpet and demanding that he explain himself. All of you supposed "but the Constitution!" advocates out there who decry the end of the Republic every time the Feds do something, suddenly play fast and loose with the Constitution when it comes to using the law the way you want.
Just as the Clinton Administration did repeatedly, Rove is right to assert executive privilege, and good for Bush to assert it, not just for himself but for future presidents. If a staffer can't advise the president privately and candidly, he won't be getting good advice, regardless of what you think of Rove.
ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...
Uh, excuse me, but when did POW's or unlawful combatants ever get access to civilian courts? Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII) was to use military tribunals. Your post suggests that Bush made up some new legal approach. If anything, the current paradigm gives more rights (district court review of habeas corpus; DC Circuit and SCOTUS appellate review) to those less deserving (unlawful combatants not complying with any aspect of Geneva) than any enemy combatant in American military history. But suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war, the enemy deserve to be Miranda'd and Mark Geragos defending the in a civilian court?
Isn't this the same Web site that wants the government to intervene to lower the price of Windows, or supports early iphone adopters who paid the stupid tax suing Apple because they had the audacity to lower prices?
I'm all for passing a Digital Consumer Rights Act to protect fair use and end user licensees, but some of the amoral "logic" here boggles the mind. If it is bad for Microsoft or Sony to rip off consumers, it's bad for you to rip off them.
Those who just want to believe that man is ruining this planet had to change the name of the phenomenon to fit the facts.
I'm sorry, but if greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the planet, there is no logical way that cools the planet.
Unless you change the name.
The irony is that same people who ridicule Christians as believing in a spaghetti monster believe in man-made climate disaster as a matter of faith, regardless of the temperature evidence. How nice, the temp goes up, you win, the temp goes down, you win. Nice theory.
Mod troll all you want, but this is what I really believe.
Don't give us all so much credit. There are a lot of things hard-wired into an animal's brain that comes from millions of years of evolution, and other things that come from the organism's experiences.
For instance, a heterosexual man can't help but look at a pretty girl, which annoys the hell out of their wives.
You have it reversed. Perhaps we don't deserve credit because our religious and cultural traditions of monogamous marriage conflict with our (and most other mammalian species') evolutionary drive to spread our DNA as far and wide as possible. I have long said that monogamy is contrary to male human nature - at least men under 60 not receiving testosterone replacement therapy and/or Viagra. One could argue that the short-term romantic love is an adaptation to get the male to stick around long enough to provide for and defend his offspring - then it wears off and he is often gone to spread his DNA seed some more - but for the checks of cultural and religious definitions of "right" and "wrong" - not to mention the cost of divorce and child support.
Some women who bother to learn about and understand men should know this (and I have had the odd girlfriend who does, and tolerated it with an eye-roll and a shake of her head), and that merely looking at other women in a non-disrespectful manner is not "wrong," just the nature of the male. Of course, it's the flirting, then the touching part that becomes the problem. Sadly, the PC perspective is to call men "pigs" or "dogs" for reacting pursuant to millions of years of evolution (and for the modern pussified male to feel bad about such desires). But God forbid a woman acts emotionally or irrationally during her period and you are a dog or pig for pointing it out. Well, if you want equality, ladies, you've got to take the good with the bad. We are flawed too! So deal.
If you think I am wrong, or somehow socialization is the problem, look at gay guys. I am always somewhat amused when I see a (presumably committed) gay male couple and both of them are furtively checking me out. Guys will be guys, gay or not. Now tell me that is due to society's conditioning!
To me the great irony is that the major religions have figured out this aspect of the male nature. That is, men are tempted by other women. Unfortunately (for women and the men who like to leer at them), the religious answer is to make women dress modestly and in some religions, not even talk to other men. Yeah, the men have the "problem" and you make the women (and non-religious men) suffer?
And for the record mods, politically incorrect does not equal flamebait or troll. I really believe this shit.
Have you not familiarized yourself with the current criminal IP laws in the USA? The criminalization of intellectual property law - something heretofore dealt with in civil courts except in the most extreme circumstances - is a disturbing trend in the US in the last 10-12 years. And it's getting worse. Now there are bills in Congress to create IP police, akin to the DEA, whose sole job it is to enforce criminal IP laws at taxpayer expense. This is the role of law enforcement? To protect a single industry, merely because it throws money at Congress?
There's a helluva lot more than lawsuits going on, brother.
Talk about no credibility. Several times I've read on the Web "so-and-so wins gold!" only to see it 30 minutes later on NBC with the "live" logo on the screen. WTF? If it already happened, it ain't live. Another way NBC is misleading people.
Obviously this vulnerability is an embarrassment to Medco, and many facilities will be vulnerable, mostly from crooked employees. Still, you do need a copy of the key, or at least a scan.
But truly secure sites like the White House have a bit more security than a mere door lock. Try getting to a WH locked door without proper credentials. Even if you could, you'd have less time than Magnum PI picking a lock while "the lads" descend upon him.
those airframes also carry the same combat load as an F-16 and the missions being carried out are just as complex if not more demanding than with piloted missions.
When a guy operating a UAV joystick is pulling 9 G's and risking being a KIA or POW, then we'll call it as demanding as an F-16 mission, K?
Unions have destroyed the auto and airline industries in America. It is quite rational to see how unions can price workers out of jobs. Which is why I shop and Wal-Mart and get much of my food for 50% less than the local grocery chain store. And grocery stores, too, are dinosaurs sinking into tar pits. Thank the unions for that, convincing workers with no education beyond high school that they deserve high wages and "free" health care at the customers' expense. Yeah, well keep your resumes updated.
And if you are so for collective action, I'm sure you are against antitrust law. If workers can collectively bargain, shouldn't businesses be able to as well?
In order for it to even be a search - before the probable cause analysis even comes in - there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP). This has been the standard for decades, and SCOTUS decides what is constitutional and what isn't (they can't only be the arbiter of the Constitution when you like what they say - you can't have it both ways).
There simply isn't REP at borders. So legally, it isn't a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes. So probable cause isn't even a consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the HardOCP forums, and you'll see several people had talked of using Flourinert, it's just too damned expensive.
There is no "Military Detainee Act" that I am aware of. Perhaps you are referring to the Detainee Treatment Act or maybe the Military Commissions Act of 2006?
Right, that's what I meant. It was late when I wrote that.
These at most supplement the Third Geneva Convention and do not contradict it as far as I can tell. If you are referring to a specific instance of the Geneva Convention being superseded you'll have to point it out before I concede the point.
The point was that with the stroke of a pen, Congress can supersede treaties. So if there are aspects of the DTA or MCA that conflict with Geneva, they prevail under priority rules of the US legal system. Treaties are not these all-powerful legal entities that bind countries forever.
The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
Who is advocating that? Insisting that we not torture people and granting some sort of legal status instead of holding prisoners in a legal limbo for all eternity is not remotely close treating them better than POWs.
A lot of people, almost everyone on the left and most of the mainstream media, are arguing that these detainees get trials or be released as if they are criminal defends like OJ Simpson. In war, POWs are held until the other side capitulates, and don't get trials (it's actually prohibited for lawful POWs); therefore, the detainees would be getting more rights than POWs, the opposite of what Geneva prescribes.
The way it works in war, one side surrenders, then and only then do they get their captured personnel back. You don't release them before that so they can't shoot at you again, as several Gitmo detainees have done once released. It isn't America's fault that these little bastards won't give up. So these al Qaeda scumbags flout the rules of Geneva (blending in with civilians and targeting them, inter alia) and instead of being punished for it, they get due process, whereas POWs would sit in a camp until the war is over. Irrational.
I wasn't the one comparing Americans with Saddam. You guys were, by abusing the word "torture" to suit your needs. The point is, if waterboarding is "torture," what word do you use for Saddam's atrocities?
We have been waterboarding all Navy pilots and Special Forces operators during training long before Bush was President. If our military personnel can take it, it can't be that bad.
I think it's funny that you lefties are concerned about scaring al Qaeda terrorists with some water, but we can put a bullet in their heads if we see them running around in Kabul. Can't wiretap them, can't get them wet, can't try them in military tribunals, but if get them in our sights, and we can shoot them with an M-16. So we can kill them, but not scare them. Got it.
properly ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land in the US.
Actually, according to US legal priority rules, treaties are supreme until a conflicting federal law is passed. In other words, whichever is passed last prevails. One could argue the Military Detainee Act supersedes Geneva, assuming Geneva even applies.
Geneva distinguishes between POW's and unlawful combatants. It takes a carrot-and-stick approach. If you are a signatory and abide by its requirements (fight for a country, in uniform, according to the rules of war), you get its protections as a POW. Unlawful combatants are only granted "humane treatment," not the other POW privileges. The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
The administration got absolutely no useful information as a result: they got a series a bogus leads that all turned out to be wild goose chases. And now that the use of torture is known there is no prospect of getting any criminal convictions in a real court of law.
George Tenet has said that the enhanced interrogation techniques ("torture" for those who are "nuanced" on the left that apparently claim moral equivalence between waterboarding and Saddam's cutting out of tongues, raping children in from of parents, and chopping off fingers) gathered more intelligence than all other intel programs combined. Now, you can say Tenet is a liar, but I'd like to hear who your source is on this, other than an anonymous, anti-Bush source in the CIA who doesn't have the balls to ID himself.
Tenet says the interrogations uncovered networks and broke up plots in the U.S.. - Note on this interview - For some astonishing reason, 60 Minutes edited it and removed the part where Tenet claims EIT gathered more intelligence than all other programs combined. Here's the part 60 Minutes cut, but CBS's affiliate did not:
"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," he tells Pelley. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
Bush isn't being impeached. Congress is trying to call Rove for a regular hearing. Short of impeachment, Congress should not be calling members of the exec. And there is nothing in that section that explicitly says the President has to show up as a witness. Besides, what are they going to do if he doesn't, impeach him?
Fuck you for getting snotty about it.
And you, for your specious arguments, trying to argue technicalities in bad faith that you have no political or legal basis for.
The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation
Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting? Where is your SCOTUS case law for this? When has SCOTUS declared any/every war since WWII illegal?
Again, cockeyed reasoning. By your (il)logic, if Congress had suspected or known about Pearl Harbor in advance, it couldn't pass a resolution saying, "If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, the President may exercise full war powers." So the Department of Defense isn't actually allowed to do any actual "defending" of the country, save a war declaration? So if China launches missiles at the USA, Congress has roughly 15 minutes to declare war or we cannot retaliate? So the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine, pre-authorizing the National Command Authority to launch massive nuclear retaliation as a deterrent, the USA's policy since the start of the Cold War, that was illegal all this time? This is absurd, and I doubt many people - law professor, historian, or average Joe, would agree with you. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was created, chiefly, to prevent abuses of power via checks and balances, not to prevent the two war-making branches from actually making war and defending the nation when they want to do so!
Thomas Jefferson (who launched his own little police action in the Mediterranean against shipping pirates) and James Madison laugh at your folly from the grave.
Seems to me that in both of the examples you cite above, the congress declared war.
I am so sick of this disingenuous argument, or should I say lack of argument.
One more time for the extremely slow: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.
The purpose was not, I repeat not so anti-war people can use a semantic argument that since Congress didn't use the word "war" in its authorization, there is no "war" so enemy combatants become magically transformed into criminal defendants fully vested with Constitutional rights. There is absolutely no basis for this reasoning in our history, politics, or law. Vietnamese and Korean combatants were considered POWs (or, as the case may have been for some individuals, unlawful combatants), and those were not declared wars either. Congress authorized military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is enough under our Constitution for the President to wage a war. There is no legal source that says otherwise, and Congress authorizing military action without actually using the word "war" has total acceptance within our political system, nitpicking strawmen notwithstanding.
And al Qaeda declared war on the USA. By your reasoning, since Congress hasn't passed a resolution with the word "war" in it, we can't respond militarily, only send out the FBI and start Mirandizing people. By this (lack of) logic, any Japanese captured during the attack on Pearl Harbor would be considered criminal suspects, and have to be arrested by police and given a lawyer, since Congress had not declared war yet. Utter nonsense.
The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.
This is true, but in all the hysteria here people are forgetting that unlike during the Hoover era, there are various civil and criminal laws preventing the kind of black bag shit that Hoover pulled on MLK and John Lennon (not to mention, more troublesomely, presidents, which is why Hoover survived 48 years as director - he had something on everyone, including every president). After the post-Watergate reforms, that stuff is so illegal it isn't funny.
And today, the FBI has an internal affairs division whose job it is to catch such stuff, not to mention the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. These are staffed with lawyers just looking to catch wrongdoing to make their careers.
And don't forget that the exclusionary rule isn't the only remedy for violations of law or constitutional rights of citizens. There are lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.
One should also consider that there hasn't even been the suggestion that the FBI director or the President has been using the FBI as a political weapon, a la Nixon or JFK or Hoover. You just can't get away with that shit today. Run the wrong license plate for a friend, and a computer catches it and that agent's ass is grass.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep an eye on the Feds. But to suggest that the MLK spying type of stuff could happen today without serious shit hitting the fan is just ludicrous.
Please, show me where in the Constitution Congress has the power to subpoena a member of the executive branch? What would happen if Bush tried to subpoena a member of Congress or his staff? They'd tell him to honk off. How and when did this idea that the White House staff answers to Congress ever become accepted? The Constitution is quite clear on the checks - it's called impeachment, and elections. That's it. I've read Article I pretty carefully, and I have never seen anything about calling a president's top advisor on the carpet and demanding that he explain himself. All of you supposed "but the Constitution!" advocates out there who decry the end of the Republic every time the Feds do something, suddenly play fast and loose with the Constitution when it comes to using the law the way you want.
Just as the Clinton Administration did repeatedly, Rove is right to assert executive privilege, and good for Bush to assert it, not just for himself but for future presidents. If a staffer can't advise the president privately and candidly, he won't be getting good advice, regardless of what you think of Rove.
ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...
Uh, excuse me, but when did POW's or unlawful combatants ever get access to civilian courts? Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII) was to use military tribunals. Your post suggests that Bush made up some new legal approach. If anything, the current paradigm gives more rights (district court review of habeas corpus; DC Circuit and SCOTUS appellate review) to those less deserving (unlawful combatants not complying with any aspect of Geneva) than any enemy combatant in American military history. But suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war, the enemy deserve to be Miranda'd and Mark Geragos defending the in a civilian court?
First Slashdotters blame copyright holders for not protecting their works better. Then it is Nigerians blaming scam victims. What's next? Don't lock your door, you deserve to be robbed? And women who dress provocatively deserve to be raped?
Isn't this the same Web site that wants the government to intervene to lower the price of Windows, or supports early iphone adopters who paid the stupid tax suing Apple because they had the audacity to lower prices?
I'm all for passing a Digital Consumer Rights Act to protect fair use and end user licensees, but some of the amoral "logic" here boggles the mind. If it is bad for Microsoft or Sony to rip off consumers, it's bad for you to rip off them.
Those who just want to believe that man is ruining this planet had to change the name of the phenomenon to fit the facts.
I'm sorry, but if greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the planet, there is no logical way that cools the planet.
Unless you change the name.
The irony is that same people who ridicule Christians as believing in a spaghetti monster believe in man-made climate disaster as a matter of faith, regardless of the temperature evidence. How nice, the temp goes up, you win, the temp goes down, you win. Nice theory.
Mod troll all you want, but this is what I really believe.
Don't give us all so much credit. There are a lot of things hard-wired into an animal's brain that comes from millions of years of evolution, and other things that come from the organism's experiences.
For instance, a heterosexual man can't help but look at a pretty girl, which annoys the hell out of their wives.
You have it reversed. Perhaps we don't deserve credit because our religious and cultural traditions of monogamous marriage conflict with our (and most other mammalian species') evolutionary drive to spread our DNA as far and wide as possible. I have long said that monogamy is contrary to male human nature - at least men under 60 not receiving testosterone replacement therapy and/or Viagra. One could argue that the short-term romantic love is an adaptation to get the male to stick around long enough to provide for and defend his offspring - then it wears off and he is often gone to spread his DNA seed some more - but for the checks of cultural and religious definitions of "right" and "wrong" - not to mention the cost of divorce and child support.
Some women who bother to learn about and understand men should know this (and I have had the odd girlfriend who does, and tolerated it with an eye-roll and a shake of her head), and that merely looking at other women in a non-disrespectful manner is not "wrong," just the nature of the male. Of course, it's the flirting, then the touching part that becomes the problem. Sadly, the PC perspective is to call men "pigs" or "dogs" for reacting pursuant to millions of years of evolution (and for the modern pussified male to feel bad about such desires). But God forbid a woman acts emotionally or irrationally during her period and you are a dog or pig for pointing it out. Well, if you want equality, ladies, you've got to take the good with the bad. We are flawed too! So deal.
If you think I am wrong, or somehow socialization is the problem, look at gay guys. I am always somewhat amused when I see a (presumably committed) gay male couple and both of them are furtively checking me out. Guys will be guys, gay or not. Now tell me that is due to society's conditioning!
To me the great irony is that the major religions have figured out this aspect of the male nature. That is, men are tempted by other women. Unfortunately (for women and the men who like to leer at them), the religious answer is to make women dress modestly and in some religions, not even talk to other men. Yeah, the men have the "problem" and you make the women (and non-religious men) suffer?
And for the record mods, politically incorrect does not equal flamebait or troll. I really believe this shit.
The RIAA is using civil suits.
Have you not familiarized yourself with the current criminal IP laws in the USA? The criminalization of intellectual property law - something heretofore dealt with in civil courts except in the most extreme circumstances - is a disturbing trend in the US in the last 10-12 years. And it's getting worse. Now there are bills in Congress to create IP police, akin to the DEA, whose sole job it is to enforce criminal IP laws at taxpayer expense. This is the role of law enforcement? To protect a single industry, merely because it throws money at Congress?
There's a helluva lot more than lawsuits going on, brother.
Talk about no credibility. Several times I've read on the Web "so-and-so wins gold!" only to see it 30 minutes later on NBC with the "live" logo on the screen. WTF? If it already happened, it ain't live. Another way NBC is misleading people.
1) First, get a million dollars, then...
Obviously this vulnerability is an embarrassment to Medco, and many facilities will be vulnerable, mostly from crooked employees. Still, you do need a copy of the key, or at least a scan.
But truly secure sites like the White House have a bit more security than a mere door lock. Try getting to a WH locked door without proper credentials. Even if you could, you'd have less time than Magnum PI picking a lock while "the lads" descend upon him.
A CEO makes $2 mil, with 10,000 employees, that's $200/employee. Talk about a red herring.
I'd like to see neither get handed the bulk of the profits. That goes to shareholders, BTW.
those airframes also carry the same combat load as an F-16 and the missions being carried out are just as complex if not more demanding than with piloted missions.
When a guy operating a UAV joystick is pulling 9 G's and risking being a KIA or POW, then we'll call it as demanding as an F-16 mission, K?
Unions have destroyed the auto and airline industries in America. It is quite rational to see how unions can price workers out of jobs. Which is why I shop and Wal-Mart and get much of my food for 50% less than the local grocery chain store. And grocery stores, too, are dinosaurs sinking into tar pits. Thank the unions for that, convincing workers with no education beyond high school that they deserve high wages and "free" health care at the customers' expense. Yeah, well keep your resumes updated.
And if you are so for collective action, I'm sure you are against antitrust law. If workers can collectively bargain, shouldn't businesses be able to as well?
Another nail in the coffin of freedom of contract.
So the grandparent poster says we should drill in Antarctica without insulting anyone, and gets modded flamebait.
Max Littlemore (parent of this post) responds by calling him an idiot, and gets modded insightful.
Well, so long as moderators aren't using their points as political weapons. Why do we even have a moderation system here?
Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport"(insert period here).
There, that's better.
So now if you joke about gymnastics or any difference between the sexes you hate women? Got it.
/. get so PC? Lighten up.
Gawd, when did
In order for it to even be a search - before the probable cause analysis even comes in - there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP). This has been the standard for decades, and SCOTUS decides what is constitutional and what isn't (they can't only be the arbiter of the Constitution when you like what they say - you can't have it both ways).
There simply isn't REP at borders. So legally, it isn't a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes. So probable cause isn't even a consideration.