I do miss the sensibility that I've enjoyed in New Hampshire. The only problem with it is that Massachusetts politics are starting to creep in like an infection.
That's one of the reasons I'm debating moving to Alaska or Montana instead of New Hampshire. Is New Hampshire still going to be New Hampshire in another decade or so?
Take it up with your Senators if you are an American citizen. This whole conversation is largely an academic exercise because I doubt you'll find 67 of them who are willing to ratify the Rome Statute.
US Common Law (which, incidently, US courts routinely flout) is mereley a watered-down version of the Magna Carta. I am sure you are familiar with the country that originated this document and their stance on the ICJ. Ergo, Common Law concerns, whilst they may be legitimate, are clearly not the reason.
I don't know if you've been following the UK lately but they haven't exactly been living up to their Common Law/Magna Carta heritage of late. In any case I fail to see how the UK's decision should negate the legitimate concerns that many Americans and the United States Senate hold. To add another point to my previous concerns, I also find it pretty disturbing that some states apparently seek to add drug trafficking to the list of crimes that the ICJ would have jurisdiction over and I worry about mission creep.
The rest of your points are well made and interesting but ultimately do not convince me that my country should surrender more of our sovereignty to an international organization that isn't directly accountable to the American people. Should the issue come up again I will be exercising my first amendment rights and encouraging both of my Senators to reject ratification of the Rome Statute. If you happen to be an American citizen you are welcome to encourage your Senators to do the opposite. I wouldn't hold out much hope of finding 67 United States Senators willing to ratify said treaty but you never know....
Boy, that's dangerously close to "If you're not guilty of a crime, why is the government putting you on trial?"
No, it was just a question. Why is he testing you if you haven't been drinking? It could mean that he's being a power-hungry dick or it could mean that you did something to piss him off.
Most cops won't go out of their way to harass you, unless you give them reason, but the profession does attract more than its fair share of assholes.
I've seen both kinds. Around these parts the State Troopers generally seem to be the "by the book" assholes with an axe to grind. The local Sheriff's Deputies on the other hand are generally pretty nice to deal with. I've been pulled over by them three times (one of which was the aforementioned story) and each time I've left with a warning even though I was completely in the wrong.
On the other hand I had a State Trooper ask me to step out of the car, frisk me and eventually write me a goddamn ticket for 71 in a 65 and a seat belt violation in spite of the fact that I was wearing my seat belt. I took it off after he pulled me over so I could reach my wallet and the SOB claimed I was never wearing it. I didn't argue it with him though -- nothing to gain from doing so and besides, I knew the the guy in the DA's office who would be dealing with it;)
If you haven't then why is the cop asking you to take one? Stories of police abuse notwithstanding I think you'll find that most members of the police are fairly reasonable and not given to randomly asking people who don't smell like booze to submit to breath tests.
IANAL but if they asked me to take a test and I hadn't been drinking I would submit to it. If it comes back with a false positive then demand a blood test. They aren't known for being highly accurate devices but how likely is it that it's going to register >0.08 if the actual BAC is 0?
Incidentally the only time I've ever been pulled over while drinking the officer didn't even ask for a breath test. He asked if I had been drinking, I told him "Yes, I just had two beers with some friends". He said "Only two?", I said "Yes, only two". Then he ran me for wants/warrants and sent me on my way. Didn't even write a ticket for the original reason (failure to signal) he pulled me over. YMMV of course.
This page outlines American concerns better than I can. These points stick out in my mind although the other ones seem equally legitimate:
* We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
* Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.
* Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.
* The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.
This is also why America didn't want to sign up for the ICJ. It has nothing to do with protecting Americans from false claims, and everything to do with protecting high-ranking officials who happen to also be criminals.
That's funny, I thought it had something to do with this:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
Understood, but refusing a breathalyzer test is _not_ always the best course of action as was claimed in the parent comment.
It is if you aren't 200% sure that you aren't over the legal limit. I say 200% because they aren't known for accuracy and it's quite possible for them to register you >0.08 even if that isn't actually the case.
Given my weight I would agree to one if I had two drinks or less. This should put me around 0.046 according to most calculators that I've played with. That's a nice margin of error for the inaccuracy of the machine. Three drinks would leave me at 0.076 and now you are into territory where the inaccuracy of the machine might come into play. Of course you'll have to adjust these figures based on your own weight/sex and the time that's elapsed since you've been drinking but hopefully you see my point.
A better solution is to just not drive if you've been drinking. If you must then you'd best not be a dumbass about it. I've probably driven on the wrong side of 0.08 before but I've never gotten pulled over. Driving down the street with the radio blaring and your lights turned off at 3am isn't usually the best course of action if you wish to avoid the inconvenience of a traffic stop.....
As stated less forcefully in other replies, if you refuse a breathalyzer test in Virginia, you _will_ lose your driving privilege. I think you can require them to take a blood test, but that's _in addition_ to the breathalyzer, not instead of it.
Losing your license != being convicted of a criminal charge.
You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
If you've been pulled over while drinking losing your license should be the last thing you worry about. A criminal record is going to haunt you a lot more than a suspended license. Why give them evidence that will be used to help secure a conviction that leads to that criminal record?
In California, you sign a contract to get your drivers license that says they can breathalyze or blood test you for BAC on reasonable suspicion of drunk driving and you waive the right to refuse.
AFAIK you can't sign away your constitutional rights that easily. If you refuse to take the breath test you are going to be in violation of the aforementioned contract and will lose your license as a result -- but that's going to happen anyway so why give the state evidence to use against you in a future criminal proceeding?
I'd rather have a driving record that contained "criminal test refusal" on it than a driving record that contained "DWI conviction" and a criminal conviction under my belt.
That is sage advice for those of us who live in states with implied consent laws.
Either way you are going to lose your license. The question is would you rather lose it through a civil process at DMV or would you rather lose it through the courts and get the added "bonus" of a criminal conviction? The best solution is obviously not to drive drunk but every lawyer I've ever talked to says to refuse the breath test if you've been drinking.
Obama actually voted to strip telecom immunity from the bill. It's true
Notice: In no way shape or form did he endorse illegal wiretapping
Your splitting hairs. I appreciate his vote for the amendment to remove the provision but the fact remains that he voted for the final bill which contained that provision. In what world do you live in that a 'Yey' vote isn't an endorsement of the language contained within a bill?
Yes, be upset with him. No, don't lie and exaggerate his support.
I'm not exaggerating anything. And the reason I'm upset with with him extends far beyond his support. The fact that he pledged to support a filibuster of any bill containing the immunity provision and then reversed himself on that pledge (conveniently right after securing the Democratic nomination) is the reason that I'm upset with him. If he had been honest from the outset I wouldn't have voted for or campaigned for him during the primaries. On that day he exposed himself as the typical sleazy politician and revealed just how empty his promises of "change" really were, IMHO. My only regret is that I was too stupid to see this from the beginning.
I think you're implicitly making a common but very crucial, subtle error here: the Constitution isn't a grant rights to the people of the United States; it is a set of restrictions on the powers of the government
Bravo sir, you just bitch-slapped me with an argument that I've used before. For the record I do agree that the Constitution is a set of restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government and that the Federal Government shouldn't have powers that aren't specifically delegated therein.
The Constitution gives the federal government pretty broad powers to conduct the foreign affairs of the country
Again, bravo for pointing that out. It's rare to hear somebody around here make a reasoned argument. Lord knows that I often don't;)
but they were granted alternative procedures to allow them to exercise the same fundamental rights.
I think that's what the military commissions were intended to do but SCOTUS apparently thought otherwise. So now what do you do?
Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?
Everybody has choices. Given the relevant court rulings in his case it seems likely that he could have had his day in court if he had wanted it. I'm guessing that he didn't feel any particular connection to this country and decided to go home instead of having his day in court. He had citizenship by virtue of being born here but both of his parents were Saudi citizens and he was largely raised in Saudi Arabia.
My apologies about Walker Lindh
By all accounts Walker actually got due process and had his rights respected. He was captured 11/21/01, indicted 02/05/02 and plead guilty 7/15/02. Had I been in his shoes I probably would have taken my chances with the jury (particularly given the fact that most of the evidence collected against him likely would have been thrown out), but then again I wouldn't have been serving in the militia of a foreign power to begin with.....
I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.
My favorite liberal contradiction is to hear them talk about police brutality in one discussion and then in the next discussion use the existence of the police as the justification for why we don't need privately owned guns. Mind you, I don't think police brutality is a good thing but it does seem like quite the contradiction doesn't it?
He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.
You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right? You also left out the part where he was released from Gitmo and brought to the United States once his citizenship status was discovered.
John Walker Lindh [wikipedia.org] - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.
Lindh was never held in Gitmo so I'm somewhat baffled as to why you are bringing him up in the context of this discussion. He got his day in court and opted to plead guilty rather than take his chances with the jury. What's the problem here?
The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org], who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant.
You left out the part where he eventually got his day in court and was convicted by a jury.
but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least
That much I'll give you. As an American citizen captured on American soil he should have processed through the civilian justice system and accorded the right to a speedy trial. None of this really relates to my original question though. Which American citizens are currently being held in Gitmo?
The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war; however, the Bush administration's standpoint was they were not prisoners of war either so they didn't get those rights.
The Geneva Conventions also lay down requirements that combatants must meet if they want to receive the protections accorded therein. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniform under the command of officers while taking steps to minimize civilian casualties I'll start worrying about the fact that they aren't being accorded POW status.
Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system. As far as I'm concerned the military can hold them until such time as hostilities against our country are ended. As far as I'm concerned our military doesn't even need to concern itself with taking them prisoner in the first place unless it deems that they may have useful intelligence.
Imagine a terror loony who has powdered a couple of ounces of plutonium and wrapped them around a single stick of dynamite and then lighting the fuse and tossing it off of a tall building. Imagine a contaminated, major city that must remain uninhabited for the next 100,000 years.
Umm, Fat Man had 13.6 pounds of plutonium in it and Nagasaki isn't uninhabitable for the next 100,000 years. I realize you were trying to make a point about the threat of dirty bombs but we don't do ourselves any favors when we exaggerate threats or blow them out of proportion. It would take a lot more than a "couple of ounces" of plutonium to render a city uninhabitable for any length of time, let alone 100,000 years.
We are forced to ferret them out and shut them down well before they reach out and kill large numbers of people.
I agree, although it kind of reminds me of Whac-A-Mole. In the short term we need to track these dirtbags down and kill them but in the long term we need to be doing things to solve some of the underlying problems in the Middle East that render the populations so hopeless that suicide bombing becomes attractive to the population therein.
Slashdot Mirror
I do miss the sensibility that I've enjoyed in New Hampshire. The only problem with it is that Massachusetts politics are starting to creep in like an infection.
That's one of the reasons I'm debating moving to Alaska or Montana instead of New Hampshire. Is New Hampshire still going to be New Hampshire in another decade or so?
Some of these objections are complete bullshit
Take it up with your Senators if you are an American citizen. This whole conversation is largely an academic exercise because I doubt you'll find 67 of them who are willing to ratify the Rome Statute.
US Common Law (which, incidently, US courts routinely flout) is mereley a watered-down version of the Magna Carta. I am sure you are familiar with the country that originated this document and their stance on the ICJ. Ergo, Common Law concerns, whilst they may be legitimate, are clearly not the reason.
I don't know if you've been following the UK lately but they haven't exactly been living up to their Common Law/Magna Carta heritage of late. In any case I fail to see how the UK's decision should negate the legitimate concerns that many Americans and the United States Senate hold. To add another point to my previous concerns, I also find it pretty disturbing that some states apparently seek to add drug trafficking to the list of crimes that the ICJ would have jurisdiction over and I worry about mission creep.
The rest of your points are well made and interesting but ultimately do not convince me that my country should surrender more of our sovereignty to an international organization that isn't directly accountable to the American people. Should the issue come up again I will be exercising my first amendment rights and encouraging both of my Senators to reject ratification of the Rome Statute. If you happen to be an American citizen you are welcome to encourage your Senators to do the opposite. I wouldn't hold out much hope of finding 67 United States Senators willing to ratify said treaty but you never know....
Boy, that's dangerously close to "If you're not guilty of a crime, why is the government putting you on trial?"
No, it was just a question. Why is he testing you if you haven't been drinking? It could mean that he's being a power-hungry dick or it could mean that you did something to piss him off.
Most cops won't go out of their way to harass you, unless you give them reason, but the profession does attract more than its fair share of assholes.
I've seen both kinds. Around these parts the State Troopers generally seem to be the "by the book" assholes with an axe to grind. The local Sheriff's Deputies on the other hand are generally pretty nice to deal with. I've been pulled over by them three times (one of which was the aforementioned story) and each time I've left with a warning even though I was completely in the wrong.
On the other hand I had a State Trooper ask me to step out of the car, frisk me and eventually write me a goddamn ticket for 71 in a 65 and a seat belt violation in spite of the fact that I was wearing my seat belt. I took it off after he pulled me over so I could reach my wallet and the SOB claimed I was never wearing it. I didn't argue it with him though -- nothing to gain from doing so and besides, I knew the the guy in the DA's office who would be dealing with it ;)
And if we haven't?
If you haven't then why is the cop asking you to take one? Stories of police abuse notwithstanding I think you'll find that most members of the police are fairly reasonable and not given to randomly asking people who don't smell like booze to submit to breath tests.
IANAL but if they asked me to take a test and I hadn't been drinking I would submit to it. If it comes back with a false positive then demand a blood test. They aren't known for being highly accurate devices but how likely is it that it's going to register >0.08 if the actual BAC is 0?
Incidentally the only time I've ever been pulled over while drinking the officer didn't even ask for a breath test. He asked if I had been drinking, I told him "Yes, I just had two beers with some friends". He said "Only two?", I said "Yes, only two". Then he ran me for wants/warrants and sent me on my way. Didn't even write a ticket for the original reason (failure to signal) he pulled me over. YMMV of course.
This page outlines American concerns better than I can. These points stick out in my mind although the other ones seem equally legitimate:
* We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
* Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.
* Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.
* The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.
This is also why America didn't want to sign up for the ICJ. It has nothing to do with protecting Americans from false claims, and everything to do with protecting high-ranking officials who happen to also be criminals.
That's funny, I thought it had something to do with this:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
Clearly you've never driven in Florida or New Jersey.
a tube full of shit.
Is that why Ted Stevens never got those internets his staff sent to him?
Understood, but refusing a breathalyzer test is _not_ always the best course of action as was claimed in the parent comment.
It is if you aren't 200% sure that you aren't over the legal limit. I say 200% because they aren't known for accuracy and it's quite possible for them to register you >0.08 even if that isn't actually the case.
Given my weight I would agree to one if I had two drinks or less. This should put me around 0.046 according to most calculators that I've played with. That's a nice margin of error for the inaccuracy of the machine. Three drinks would leave me at 0.076 and now you are into territory where the inaccuracy of the machine might come into play. Of course you'll have to adjust these figures based on your own weight/sex and the time that's elapsed since you've been drinking but hopefully you see my point.
A better solution is to just not drive if you've been drinking. If you must then you'd best not be a dumbass about it. I've probably driven on the wrong side of 0.08 before but I've never gotten pulled over. Driving down the street with the radio blaring and your lights turned off at 3am isn't usually the best course of action if you wish to avoid the inconvenience of a traffic stop.....
I would much rather have a carefully designed, well calibrated machine prove in seconds that I'm sober
Clearly you haven't read a lot about breathalyzers.....
As stated less forcefully in other replies, if you refuse a breathalyzer test in Virginia, you _will_ lose your driving privilege. I think you can require them to take a blood test, but that's _in addition_ to the breathalyzer, not instead of it.
Losing your license != being convicted of a criminal charge.
You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
If you've been pulled over while drinking losing your license should be the last thing you worry about. A criminal record is going to haunt you a lot more than a suspended license. Why give them evidence that will be used to help secure a conviction that leads to that criminal record?
I hope you appreciate the irony of making posts in a discussion about DWIs, given your choice of nicknames ;)
In California, you sign a contract to get your drivers license that says they can breathalyze or blood test you for BAC on reasonable suspicion of drunk driving and you waive the right to refuse.
AFAIK you can't sign away your constitutional rights that easily. If you refuse to take the breath test you are going to be in violation of the aforementioned contract and will lose your license as a result -- but that's going to happen anyway so why give the state evidence to use against you in a future criminal proceeding?
I'd rather have a driving record that contained "criminal test refusal" on it than a driving record that contained "DWI conviction" and a criminal conviction under my belt.
That is sage advice for those of us who live in states with implied consent laws.
Either way you are going to lose your license. The question is would you rather lose it through a civil process at DMV or would you rather lose it through the courts and get the added "bonus" of a criminal conviction? The best solution is obviously not to drive drunk but every lawyer I've ever talked to says to refuse the breath test if you've been drinking.
Obama actually voted to strip telecom immunity from the bill. It's true
Notice: In no way shape or form did he endorse illegal wiretapping
Your splitting hairs. I appreciate his vote for the amendment to remove the provision but the fact remains that he voted for the final bill which contained that provision. In what world do you live in that a 'Yey' vote isn't an endorsement of the language contained within a bill?
Yes, be upset with him. No, don't lie and exaggerate his support.
I'm not exaggerating anything. And the reason I'm upset with with him extends far beyond his support. The fact that he pledged to support a filibuster of any bill containing the immunity provision and then reversed himself on that pledge (conveniently right after securing the Democratic nomination) is the reason that I'm upset with him. If he had been honest from the outset I wouldn't have voted for or campaigned for him during the primaries. On that day he exposed himself as the typical sleazy politician and revealed just how empty his promises of "change" really were, IMHO. My only regret is that I was too stupid to see this from the beginning.
I think you're implicitly making a common but very crucial, subtle error here: the Constitution isn't a grant rights to the people of the United States; it is a set of restrictions on the powers of the government
Bravo sir, you just bitch-slapped me with an argument that I've used before. For the record I do agree that the Constitution is a set of restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government and that the Federal Government shouldn't have powers that aren't specifically delegated therein.
The Constitution gives the federal government pretty broad powers to conduct the foreign affairs of the country
Again, bravo for pointing that out. It's rare to hear somebody around here make a reasoned argument. Lord knows that I often don't ;)
but they were granted alternative procedures to allow them to exercise the same fundamental rights.
I think that's what the military commissions were intended to do but SCOTUS apparently thought otherwise. So now what do you do?
Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?
Everybody has choices. Given the relevant court rulings in his case it seems likely that he could have had his day in court if he had wanted it. I'm guessing that he didn't feel any particular connection to this country and decided to go home instead of having his day in court. He had citizenship by virtue of being born here but both of his parents were Saudi citizens and he was largely raised in Saudi Arabia.
My apologies about Walker Lindh
By all accounts Walker actually got due process and had his rights respected. He was captured 11/21/01, indicted 02/05/02 and plead guilty 7/15/02. Had I been in his shoes I probably would have taken my chances with the jury (particularly given the fact that most of the evidence collected against him likely would have been thrown out), but then again I wouldn't have been serving in the militia of a foreign power to begin with.....
I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.
My favorite liberal contradiction is to hear them talk about police brutality in one discussion and then in the next discussion use the existence of the police as the justification for why we don't need privately owned guns. Mind you, I don't think police brutality is a good thing but it does seem like quite the contradiction doesn't it?
Thank you. You said it better (and faster) than I could.
He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.
You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right? You also left out the part where he was released from Gitmo and brought to the United States once his citizenship status was discovered.
John Walker Lindh [wikipedia.org] - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.
Lindh was never held in Gitmo so I'm somewhat baffled as to why you are bringing him up in the context of this discussion. He got his day in court and opted to plead guilty rather than take his chances with the jury. What's the problem here?
The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org], who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant.
You left out the part where he eventually got his day in court and was convicted by a jury.
but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least
That much I'll give you. As an American citizen captured on American soil he should have processed through the civilian justice system and accorded the right to a speedy trial. None of this really relates to my original question though. Which American citizens are currently being held in Gitmo?
The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war; however, the Bush administration's standpoint was they were not prisoners of war either so they didn't get those rights.
The Geneva Conventions also lay down requirements that combatants must meet if they want to receive the protections accorded therein. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniform under the command of officers while taking steps to minimize civilian casualties I'll start worrying about the fact that they aren't being accorded POW status.
Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system. As far as I'm concerned the military can hold them until such time as hostilities against our country are ended. As far as I'm concerned our military doesn't even need to concern itself with taking them prisoner in the first place unless it deems that they may have useful intelligence.
Imagine a terror loony who has powdered a couple of ounces of plutonium and wrapped them around a single stick of dynamite and then lighting the fuse and tossing it off of a tall building. Imagine a contaminated, major city that must remain uninhabited for the next 100,000 years.
Umm, Fat Man had 13.6 pounds of plutonium in it and Nagasaki isn't uninhabitable for the next 100,000 years. I realize you were trying to make a point about the threat of dirty bombs but we don't do ourselves any favors when we exaggerate threats or blow them out of proportion. It would take a lot more than a "couple of ounces" of plutonium to render a city uninhabitable for any length of time, let alone 100,000 years.
We are forced to ferret them out and shut them down well before they reach out and kill large numbers of people.
I agree, although it kind of reminds me of Whac-A-Mole. In the short term we need to track these dirtbags down and kill them but in the long term we need to be doing things to solve some of the underlying problems in the Middle East that render the populations so hopeless that suicide bombing becomes attractive to the population therein.
Hans Reiser's going to be doing nothing twiddling his thumbs for the next few years as well....
Cool, Apple will finally be able to overcome the pesky filesystem limitations that have been holding the iPod back ;)