Stupidity Knows No Bounds

Even if you're a terrorist.

In the newest Big Bad Plot to Kill All the Americans, 27 year old Jose Pimentel was arrested for planning to bomb several targets in New York City--most notably, mailboxes during his practice runs. He's been under police surveillance for three years, and left a trail that all but screamed "come and get me 'cause I'm a bad person!"

When these idiots post on their open blogs just what they're going to do, one has to wonder, once again, just why we should be afraid. And then when the suspect operates an entire website centered around the subject...yes, they're living in the underground, coming to get us. Be very afraid.

And then there's some insight into just how far our wonderful law enforcement officers are willing to go to prove that there's still something to be afraid of.

Along the way, Mr. Pimentel began making incriminating statements to an informant who was working with the police, investigators said. Those conversations were recorded.

I suppose this shouldn't really surprise me. It doesn't actually--I mean, our government has already assassinated one American citizen, and didn't seem at all concerned about it--but it is rather worrisome. No, more than that: it's definite entrapment. We have an informant who was egging on Mr. Pimentel for the sake of the police, so they could build a more convincing case against him.

Of course, it just shows me that, once again, our government has a vested interest in scaring us back into submission every few months...just as soon as it appears that we might actually be starting to realize that there's not that much to be afraid of.

And Iran is Next

With the recent, most terrifying Big Bad Terrorist Plot that struck just a month after the tenth anniversary of 9/11, it seems that our government is quite ready to invade Iran. Or, at the very least, it's posing quite effectively, making us think it's quite ready to invade Iran. Apparently, two men with links to a Mexican drug cartel decided to try and kill the Saudi ambassador to the US, a target that even to my mind doesn't seem to make much sense. There's also their chosen method of execution.

The Iranians planned to employ Mexican drug traffickers to kill Jubeir with a bomb as he ate at a restaurant, U.S. officials said.

The logistics alone to this seem like a nightmare. From the use of Mexican drug traffickers (who might not even be able to get into the country, much less to DC, and run the added risk of being recognized and thrown in jail for the ignominious charge of marijuana possession), the fact that a restaurant is a rather iffy place to find the ambassador, liable to change at a moment's notice.

Not that it was ever much of a threat, anyway, since the United States Attorney has stated that law enforcement officers were guiding their sources the whole time, and no explosives were ever placed anywhere. In essence, we've arrested a man on the basis of what he might have been able to do if the CIA and FBI had let him.

As a result of all this, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton have touted the need for further sanctions against Iran, because obviously not talking to them helps them come to our side, just the way social ostracism works in high school.

Throughout all my travels through the internet punditry and news sites, I've not seen any concrete proof of Iranian involvement, except the fact that Mansour Arbabsiar (a disheveled, disorganized, divorced man in never-ending trouble with a long list of creditors) might have had contacts with the Iranian Quds.

Overall, it just seems like a rather ridiculous assertion, and I hope nothing more than a few hurt feelings will come from it. For more, Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent column on this subject. Enjoy.

The Weird and Weirder

So after realizing that I've fallen sorely behind on blogging, I decided to do another combined post! I know, I know. I use these to excuse my lack of posting far too often, and I apologize. But today, I even come prepared with a theme! That theme is things that really make me go: O.o

So, without further ado:

Number one : The solution to national debt

It will never cease to amaze me how the first response to the phrase "we need to reduce the national debt" is "let's just raise taxes!"

Am I the only one who just flat doesn't get that?

I mean, I understand. We need more revenue coming in before we can pay off our debt. That would probably be a good thing. What isn't a good thing is assuming that's going to be the only answer...as we start spending even more money...and keep borrowing money from China...because any ten year old will tell you that if you keep borrowing, you're never going to pay off your debt. It doesn't work very well.

Of course, any ten year old would probably also be able to tell you that if any household managed their finances like the US government does, they'd be sent to jail. But I digress.

I suppose what gets me is that the "let's raise taxes" solution isn't accompanied by anything more concrete, like...reducing the astronomically large offense - ahem, I mean, defense - budget, or reducing/restructuring medicaid benefits, or cutting off/reducing planned social security payments to the upcoming generation, since there isn't really any money there, anyway. There a million places we could cut funding, yet...the first idea that comes to mind to reduce the debt is...spend more, but raise taxes to sort-of compensate. Not promote fiscal responsibility, and live within our means, but instead live just like we did before, and hope we can make more money to pay for it.

This makes tons of sense.

Number two : The Republicans

I've been consistently puzzled by the quandary formed by the Republican party. They seem incapable of finding a candidate that can actually compete in the national elections.

I mean, I'm beginning to think that it's like some sort of rite that goes on every election at the RNC. All of the super-rich people who make decisions in political parties like that get together around a table, stare at each other for a minute, and then say, "Okay, we have here the list of prospective candidates for our party. Now which one is completely incapable of doing anything but spouting talking points and looking stupid?"

I'm not a Republican. You know this. But still. I'd like to at least have some sort of somebody that I could cheer on and not sound like an utter loser. So really, GOP, would it be too difficult to nominate someone who's actually smart and has the ability to talk without sounding like an idiot? You know, like...Ron Paul. Or Gary Johnson. Or both of them together. (That combination, by the way, would be something close to political dynamite. I'm just saying.)

But I think it's pretty safe to say that people like Newt Gingrich (who is a laugh), Mitt Romney (who is a socialist), Herman Cain (who, from what I hear, is nothing but a warmongering talking-point machine), Sarah Palin ('nuff said) aren't really helping the conservative cause.

Number three : Osama bin Laden is Dead. Long Live the TSA.

I suppose it was rather idealistic of me to expect my freedom to come back when we killed the Big Bad. Perhaps it's just because I'm used to stories where, when we kill the bad guy, things go back to the way they were before. Yeah, that's probably it.

But it seems that in the aftermath of the death of the Biggest Threat to Mankind Anywhere, we have to increase security, not calm down because he's dead.

...

But isn't the single threat to America dead?

Oh, that's right. Bin Laden wasn't the only one. That's right. I remember now. Really, there's this faceless horde that he's been training, just waiting for the day when they can strike. Somehow. Hopefully not with bombs that don't work, because those are just too easy to laugh off.

This all goes back to the idea, I believe, that we have to be tremendously frightened at any given time that something is going to come and kill us, even when nothing is. And that something, of course, has to hate us simply because we're free, not because oh, they disagree with us ideologically, or they think our actions are imperialistic in nature and arguably illegal.

So, in order to feel safe from this mysterious threat, we have to continue our security efforts in our airports, and maybe even expand those security efforts to train stations, subways, and even your local grocery store. Because, after all, we can't ever be truly safe. You never know when bin Laden will come back to life.

So yes. Three things that make absolutely no sense to me.

From Starbucks to Palin

I've completely ruined one of those subjects now. Ah well. At least there'll be more Starbucks goodness. Starbucks is phasing in a new size- the Trenta. For those of you who don't know Italian and need that translated for you (like I did), Trenta is 30. Starbucks is going to be putting a 31-oz size on the market that you can fill with coffee, tea, or lemonade. I'm thinking a 31-oz strawberries and cream frappucino myself, but...yeah.

In other, far less important news, you can hop the border fence between here and Mexico in no less than 18 seconds if you are a roughly 20 year old, fit and trim young woman. Oh, and if you pick the right section of border fence. But don't you know, that fence is sure keeping those immigrants out. Um...yeah.

Iraqi "insurgents" detonated a bomb outside a police station in the midst of police recruits in Tikrit, Iraq. About 50 people died, to the best of my knowledge. Apparently, al Qaeda is trying to destabilize Iraq again. Sounds like a plan. Of course, if these attacks pick up again, we'll have to push back our departure date. Again. Because we can't leave the Iraqis defenseless.

Now to everyone's favorite subject: Sarah Palin. The woman has been constantly in the news lately because she used the term "blood libel" (and obviously doesn't understand the historical connotations of the term), and also perhaps because she used "shut up." Personally, I don't think we should give her the satisfaction. When she made up words, she made us laugh. When she misuses historical terms, that means we should start ignoring her.

Fox News is Watching

If you're a recent Muslim convert, fly often, and have said bad things about American foreign policy, watch out.

Fox News is watching.

Although, I don't understand what Fox News has against this woman. She's on their side. She openly says that the current government is communist. C'mon Fox News. Surely you have more guts than to try to get rid of someone who so clearly agrees with you!

Oh, that's right. She's Muslim. So obviously, she must be evil. Duh.

I quite liked this lady's response to one of Fox News' emails (which I, quite frankly, would have spammed and left quite alone, because I don't like random people emailing me)-
"“The so-called 'jihadists' you have mentioned are actually personal friends of my husband from childhood. In the video he was expressing his love and gratitude to his friends, who have died fighting for freedom. Just like any other American or European citizen who displays pictures of soldiers who have died on their videos. There is no difference in gratitude and love. It is just that your government has deemed these noble men as 'terrorists' because they are not on the same side. Least us not forget the Mujahideen who fought the Russians for the U.S. They were deemed 'heroes' and lead by Osama Bin Laden at that time, and now because the government says so... they are "terrorists.””

Beautiful!

Quite possibly their biggest beef with this woman? She wouldn't accept a friend request from the reporter. On Facebook. Well, duh. Facebook even warns you with something like- "Unless you know this person, you should not friend them" or something like that.

The moral of this story is: be careful what you 'like' on Facebook. Because, after all...your postings and 'likes' can be proof of your terrorist tendencies. And Fox News is most definitely watching.

In the Name of Safety

I'm sick of this subject. Which is why I'm going to proceed to rant about it for a minute. Or more.
I love how much is done in the name of "safety." We have to be "safe." After all, we wouldn't want to be...uh....unsafe, right?! It's for the children! So that they can...uh...well, be seen naked by creepy TSA people you can't see! Yeah! Save the children from...

Inept and slightly stupid terrorists. Who won't even blow up their own seats. I'm not sure why I should be scared of that. But okay.

Safety. What is safety? The absence from fear? Yeah, right. People are always afraid of something. It's practically a rule from the Human Handbook. And if there's nothing logical and concrete to be afraid of, our minds will make something up. Classic example: vengeful, angry ghosts. Throwing away billions of dollars and tons of privacy in the name of making people "feel safe" is absolutely silly from that standpoint.

If we define safety as merely being able to get on a plane without being blown up...well, since the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are pretty near non-existent, I think we have that all wrapped up. Mission accomplished. The TSA can go home now. Leave us alone. Buh-bye. Let us go back to regular fears, like possibly dying from heat stroke or electrocution.

There's also the logical hilarity of the arguments used to support these new measures. The "Underwear Bomber"? Please. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't even embark on a plane in the United States, but rather in Amsterdam. How was that a failure of our security services, and how could any heightened security measures here have stopped him in any way? (Except of course, for that little measure we could have taken of revoking his visa, but that would have been way too simple!)

The other two "major" terror attempts in the past few years have also not been connected to commercial flights departing from the US- the "Times Square Bomber" which was in no way connected to airplanes or airports, and the Terrible Cartridge Bombs of Death, that were sent through the cargo and baggage areas of the airport. On a FedEx plane. Tell FedEx they must submit to rigorous security protocols. FedEx can be used to initiate terror plots against the United States!

Yet despite all that, the government continues telling us that, in the pursuit of "safety", it is essential that we ignore every area of transportation and mail that might actually prove to be a threat, and instead focus on the civilians of America. In other words, us. Somewhere along the way, we became the enemy...if we ever even had a real enemy in the first place. Which I doubt. We created a phantasm in our minds, and now shy at it reflexively. But like nightmares, the danger is very real.

But only in our minds.

Civilian Trials (once again)

Ahmed Ghailani, one of the men supposedly involved in the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya (that occurred, um, twelve years ago) was brought to trial Wednesday- or at least, that was when he was acquitted of all but one out of 280 charges.

Yessir. Those poor prosecutors were unable to use statements he made under duress (the outrage!), and unfortunately their trail had gone cold since, apparently, terrorists are unlike regular people, and we can't bring them to justice immediately. Oh no. We have to wait twelve years. Actually, only six, since he was captured in 2004. And then sent to Guantanamo.

Yeah.

Despite the acquittals, Ghailani is still looking at anything from twenty years to life in prison. Go us. We now know that if you conspire to mess up a pretty government building, you can get life in prison.

Right. Okay.

In any case, the response to this is pretty typical. In fact, it's laughably familiar. Didn't we already go through this? The Republicans are mad because they only had circumstantial evidence to throw at him, and hence he's not...uh...going to go to jail for a long time. Guys, let me acquaint you with one of the beauties of the American justice system:

You can't send somebody to jail if you don't have proof. It doesn't work. No matter how much you absolutely know, deep down in your little heart, that Ahmed Ghailani committed grievous crimes against us, without proof, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's a good thing. It keeps innocent people from going to jail.

This does not prove that civilian trials won't work for terror detainees. It just means that we have a cultural block, and we need to get over it and realize that these people are just that- people, who deserve just as much courtesy and justice as any other human being. We afford the worst kind of people civilian trials.

And on that note, I'd also like to, once again, challenge that little thing. "They're not civilians!" people cry. "We can't try them in civilian courts!"

But... "They're not a military! We can't afford them the protections of the Geneva Conventions!"

....

This proves it. I know what these men are.

They're figments of our imagination. *nods seriously* This has all been a big trick played by our minds. 9/11 didn't happen. Guantanamo doesn't exist. Because there is not a netherworld between military and civilian, and hence these men must not exist.

In any case, and all joking aside, I have decided that most of these trials are merely a sham, in any case, as this quote from the NYTimes aptly illustrates:

"Had he been cleared of all charges, the administration would probably have been forced to take Ghailani back into military custody rather than see him released."

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. It just flat doesn't matter. Nothing matters in this crazy country we're living in now. According to the government (not only this administration's, but past ones as well), convictions, or non-convictions, by a jury duly appointed can be turned over at the whim of said government.

People ask how they can see us naked and pat us down in incredibly invasive ways for the mere crime of *gathp* wanting to travel?

That's how. Welcome to America.

The Terrible Cartridge Bomb of Death

In today's news, the UK police discovered what appeared, on first glance, to be a bomb. Only, it probably wasn't. Or it was. Whatever. You know, it amazes me how al Qaeda always manages to pick plots that can be so easily encapsulated in little two-word catch phrases. "Underwear Bomber". "Times Square Bomber". "The Cartridge Bomb". So easy for dumb Americans to remember and chant.

On top of that, there's the idiocy of current al Qaeda operatives. We had Abdulmutallab, whose bomb wouldn't have taken out more than this own seat. We have the Times Square Bomber (whose name escapes me now that I think of it) whose bomb wouldn't have done...well, much of anything, actually, seeing as it wasn't really a bomb to begin with. Now we have The Infamous Terrible Cartridge Bomb of Death that...

Was so obvious officials could spy it as suspicious from the outside of the packaging because it had white powder and wires. On the outside. The only thing that was missing was the ominous ticking of a Time Bomb. (BTW- don't click that link unless you want to spend many hours of your life on a website that is epic in its ability to suck you in...and because it's just sheer awesome, but anyway.)

It's hard to be shiveringly fearful of an organization that consistently manages to (once again) prove just how idiotically inept and impotent it really is. Dear al Qaeda people- please make all this government control in my life worth it and prove that you really can pose a threat to us. Please.

Life Goes On

Even in the middle of evil terrorists being tried. Well, well. Four trials prosecuting terror suspects were held in the past two weeks.

I'm sure some would like to say that there was mass rioting and much badness happened as the evil terrorists spouted anti-American rhetoric and thousands fell under their sway via their evil Sith mind tricks...

Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. People nearby, in the city, outside the city...were just fine. They didn't even hardly notice. It was a normal day. Birds singing, people talking, cars honking...

And the best part? It didn't cost New York City billions of dollars in security or trial fees. It didn't cost any more than any regular trial on any other regular case. 'Magine that. (H/T to SunTzu for this story. :) )

In other news, a Michigan judge ruled the health care law Constitutional yesterday. Oh, the joys. The judge's argument? He used the Commerce Clause, which is an innocuous line in the first article of the Constitution. It reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (Emphasis added)

How, exactly, that gives the federal government the leeway to mandate people must buy health insurance I don't know. You might be able to say that would justify the government making health insurance companies cooperate and like, let their policies carry on over state lines, because that's just smart and all. But not to demand that private citizens must carry some form of insurance.

Also, for those of you have been following the story of the soldiers who repeatedly staged combat deaths of multiple Afghanis for some strange, demented reason, court-martials have now been "recommended" for them. Really, now? You mean we might now want to court-martial them?

Meh. The military's inner workings will probably remain a mystery to me far into the future, and I really don't mind that. I don't want to know.

So, from terrorists...and back to terrorists. Peace.

Hmm

Sorry it's been awhile since I last blogged...my life has been pretty boring lately, and hence I've been too bored to actually write a blog post. Although, in my defence, I was out of town from Thursday to Sunday night (actually, Monday morning if you want to be technical), and so I couldn't blog.

So...in the news this week, local police officers are now going to have even more license to make eternal nuisances of themselves, as their job descriptions are now going to be expanded to "watching for precursor activity to terrorist activities" or something like that. (And an hilarious image of Barney Fife trying to apprehend a terrorist just popped into my head...)

From this article: "But this initiative represents the administration’s first thoughtful steps in fulfilling President Obama’s commitment to defining a lasting rule of law for this brave new world. We must make it work."

We "must"? Oh yeah, that's right. So we can be safe, yada yad. Right. I forgot that part. Of course, there are other options. Like, you know, we could, like stop bombing and invading sovereign nations without cause and stuff. You know. Be smart and courteous and all that good stuff. Stop hitting other children on the playground.

But oh wait. That would be the smart thing to do. We're Americans. We aren't smart, so we're not needed to be. That's right.

In that same vein, our government is now trying to control the internet- oh wait. Not control it...just make sure...you don't say something stupid, using the vehicle of fear. There goes half of my Facebook activities. Sarcasm? Out the window. Joking references to terrorism and your plot to blow up the 2011 Comic-Con? Don't even think about it.

You see, apparently the government has decided that Americans don't use phones enough anymore. We've all migrated to the internet, so now, naturally, the government is going to have to start imposing rules upon the internet. Well, to be fair, not quite rules. They just want to team up with social networking sites to get information about their widdle citizen's activities. Because we all need to be babysat, of course.

"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."

Mm-hmm. Because it's always good to tie the hands of independent companies that operate on the free world of the internet so that they have to cooperate. At least Google went into willingly.

Once again along that tack, the Obama administration (which is, of course, for terrorists and against anything akin to intel gathering or the wars) wants to have more control over banks, not for the purpose of money, but so that banks have to report money transfers out-of-country.

But always remember- Obama is soft on terror.

In a rather ironic twist, atheists and agnostics score the highest on a poll on American religious knowledge.

Right.

That's sad, Christians.

The midterm elections are approaching, which is rather...well, not exactly exciting, per se, since I am fixing to make a prediction about who's going to take the Congress. Before I do that, I'd just like to say that this prediction kind of stinks.

Because I'd really rather the Democrats lose their majority, but the Republicans not gain one.

I dream of a better world where the true interests of the people are represented by a four, five, six party Congress...

I dream big, in case you couldn't tell.

There's lots more I could talk about. But I don't really want to. I'm already depressed enough.

The Parent Company Trap

Jon Stewart critiques the folks over on Fox News over their obsessive (or not so much) tracing of "where Rauf's money is coming from."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Now let me say- I don't think the majority of people over at Fox News are necessarily stupid. Misguided, perhaps, though no more misguided than the folks over at say, CNN or ABC or CBS or the NYTimes or the Washington Post.

The Cordoba House- Again

So this issue has once again been brought to my attention. Here is a short, probably not-so-sweet, but to the point summary of my position.

I do think it is a bit insensitive of Cordoba to build this so close, especially when they've seen the reaction. However, there are some facts that cannot be disputed. They bought the property, hence they have the right to do whatever they want with it- property rights. They have a religion, and are free to practice it- freedom of religion. They have a right to worship together- freedom of association.

However, I do think one thing needs to be remembered- Cordoba and Imam Rauf did not kill those 3,000 on 9/11. The guys who killed those 3,000 are dead. It's useless to whine about them now. It's over. Can't cry over spilled milk. Yes, what happened was terrible. I condole with the families who lost loved ones- both Muslim and Christian and athiest, and whatever other belief systems may have been represented, because I'm sure the families of those 19 men miss them just as much.

But we also can't forget what has risen out of this. It's killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all over the world. It's divided Americans even more starkly along lines of left and right. It's made Americans so gun-shy they freak over the slightest evidence of a possible terror attack- while the rest of the world laughs at our naive belief that we are the only country that has ever been attacked by a terrorist. We lambast a whole race of people for the actions of 19 men. 19 men attacked us. There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims on the globe, and the number is rising. You do the math. 19 is such a tiny percentage, I'm pretty sure you'd have to put it in decimals. Even if you put in the couple hundred estimated insurgents involved in al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like groups (and that membership is growing too...I wonder why?), you've still got a small, small percentage. That's like saying that, out of the couple billion Christians in the globe, all of them should be treated with as much disdain as we all treat Westboro Baptist Church. That doesn't make sense, and nor does ostracizing and behaving with such venom towards an entire sect of people.

To summarize- yes, I feel for the families of the 9/11 victims. I do think Cordoba should look into moving this community center/mosque somewhere else. But in the meantime- Constitutionally, they can do whatever they want with the property. And I think, that if this does begin to happen, and happens, we should let it be. Move past it. We're all adults. Osama bin Laden would love nothing more than for us all to jump on Muslims and demand they shut down their mosques. Do you know how much of a PR field-day that would be for him? His recruiting levels would go up immediately! The evil Americans, denying what they profess to believe in, and repressing the poor, beleaguered Muslims. Yes, we may look at that and think that he's misrepresenting the situation...but we know about the media, and we know that's exactly what bin Laden and his ilk will say.

Let's not give him the satisfaction.

"Ground Zero Mosque"

So the entirety of the American political spectrum is up in arms- has been up in arms, to think of it- over this issue. A group of Muslims, led by one Imam Rauf, is planning to build a mosque three blocks away from Ground Zero.

Oh noes.

Of course, it's entirely unacceptable that America, like, be the beacon of religious freedom she has been for the past two hundred years. I always thought religious freedom was over-rated, anyway.

The opposition to this mosque/community center arises mainly (surprise, surprise) from the Right. In the American exceptionalist mindset the average Republican pundit possesses, it is inconceivable that America should actually allow alternate views and religions to rise up in her land! After all, those Muslims spread their religion! And...they blew up our towers!

Hint about that last one, by the way- the people who blew up our towers...are dead. Just thought I'd let you know.

But, of course, those aren't the only reasons we don't like the idea of having a mosque in America. This mosque is practically right on Ground Zero! Even though it's...three New York City blocks away. But it would hurt the sovereign, just, righteous cause we have! That Muslims are evil! That they killed our people! It would send a message to our enemies that- Hey! Bring me your tired, your worn, your radicals!

This author has an answer to that:

"But I’d have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, “What would Osama bin Laden want?” and then do the opposite.

Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam."

My take-

It's a mosque and community center. As one of the commenters on the above linked article asked- how would Palin, King, etc. react if it were a church being proposed? Would they care if Muslims objected?

That's a laugh. It would be whimper-and-whine time. "Oh boo-hoo. Help us. Religious persecution!"

But since it's another religious group we're discriminating against...oh well, that's fine.

Furthermore, I don't think this will harm our image in the Muslim world. I think it'll show people that America is mature enough to not compromise on what she claims to believe in- that is, freedom for all, not just the people we like.

Jon Stewart had an excellent segment on this issue:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

In the News...

Lots of fun stuff is happening, as usual!

Airstrike "Complications" (Yeah, I'd call it a complication)

So for starters, we just killed five Afghan soldiers who were *gasp* actually doing their jobs! In our defense, it was an accident. So McChrystal instated new rules that made it difficult for soldiers to call in airstrikes on unidentified personnel. God forbid we actually like, exercise discretion before we go in, guns blazing like we're in the Lone Ranger or something. Totally unacceptable.

Yet those rules are loosened and we instantly see an uptick in deaths. Um...yeah. I'm thinking McChrystal's approach was better. The article put it this way-
"Yet other [soldiers] say there have been few cases identified where it is clear troops have been harmed because they were prevented from properly defending themselves – and that the drop in civilian deaths from airstrikes and night raids has also meant fewer enraged cousins and brothers who themselves become insurgents and kill Americans to avenge the deaths."

Can we learn this principle of "blowback" people? We let our soldiers kill civilians, our soldiers die. It's that simple. (Of course, we could avoid both parts of that equation by just getting the heck out of their country, but since it seems nobody outside of a village in Afghanistan seems to think that's a good idea, I don't think it's going to happen.)

As one of the commenters said- "Has any army since Alexander the Great successfully subdued Afghanistan? If not, what makes us think we can?"


Excuses, More Excuses

That's the title of a song BTW, written by a Christian evangelist person who is now dead I believe. He was hilarious. But anyway. That is irrelevant to this section.

What this portion is about is the fact that we keep finding more and more reasons to attack Pakistan and take over their government and stay there for decades and kill their people and harass their military and their government and ruin their infrastructure and all that fun stuff we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah.

Sure, it looks all nice on the outside- we've caught terrorists! We've charged them with crimes! We know who they are! We're going to put them in Gitmo and uh...use interrogation techniques that may or may not mentally and/or physically harm them, and find out all their secrets! Then we're going to put them in jail for a long, long time!

Mm-hmm.

"Newly unsealed charges against Adnan G. El Shukrijumah...present the government's clearest case to date that the main al-Qaeda organization remains active in trying to attack U.S. targets, alongside similar efforts by al-Qaeda affiliates."

"The court filing comes as President Obama and senior national security aides have increasingly cited recent domestic terrorism cases as justification for the war in Afghanistan, noting that country's border with uncontrolled tribal areas in Pakistan where al-Qaeda is based and from which, U.S. officials say, threats continue to emanate."

Yeah. So the next logical step is, of course, to attack Pakistan and continue our quixotic search for these evil terrorists.

Tea Party Exceptions

So now Sarah Palin is trying to get the ardent members of that Tea Party populace to not engage in their deficit-reduction fervor quite so much. Why? Well, it just wouldn't do for us to stop spending 3-11 billion every time we bought a ship. Entirely unacceptable.

...


Last time I checked, we were in the midst of a major recession. When people are going through hard times, what do they do? Well, they might just decide to scale back, not just on that new gadget or on their food budget...but usually, they might also fire that extra security guard if they have one. Y'know. To save money and all that good stuff.

See there's this amazing thing about the Declaration of Independence, that thing we celebrated just a few days ago. One of the complaints they lodged against King George was that he had a standing army. Remember that? Yeah.

Kind of amazing, that little fact, right? ^.^


So yes. Just a little foray into three things that caught my eye. There's more, of course- lots of oil-spill drama, even more economic drama. However, I'm not going to cover it here...

As a quick note- I'm going to be leaving Sunday for church camp, and will not return till the following Sunday. I'm going to enlist my mother to post comments for me again. Play nice. ;)

Yet Another Blow...

Against civil liberties is being proposed. On the heels of the latest proposal (to take away Miranda rights) comes this gem- if a person is suspected of being in collusion with a foreign terrorist organization, he or she will be stripped of their citizenship and detained indefinitely. By the military.

Oh joy.

Let's forget Constitutionality- again- and do what is needed to keep us...'safe.' Sort of.

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. For starters- what part of 'inalienable' and 'not infringe' did you not understand?

Secondly, in America we have this wonderful thing that sets us apart from a lot of other countries (especially those ones we style as 'the enemy' and berate practically every day)- innocent until proven guilty. This has been a fundamental tenet of the American legal justice system for a long time. Apparently though, even that goes by the wayside while we're on a quest for this elusive 'safety.'

In closing, I'd like to bring attention this little tidbit-
"Citing with approval news reports that President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing the targeted killing of a radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Mr. Lieberman argued that if that policy was legal — and he said he believed it was — then stripping people of citizenship for joining terrorist organizations should also be acceptable."

Oh nice. Let's take one piece of bad decision-making, turn it around, then use it as justification for another piece of bad decision-making! Oh, I like it.

Only in the government...

Taking Away Your Rights...

So the terrorists can't destroy them!

It works. It's awesome. We should try it.

Of course...we are.

Under a measure currently being discussed around the White House Round Table, Miranda RIghts might be, shall we say...modified. Or rather, the mode of administering them will be. You see, in the ten seconds it will take to tell a suspect he has the right to silence and a fair trial, we might be in imminent danger of a terror attack.

Oh, and don't forget the fact that they might actually like, take advantage of those rights. And that would be bad.

According to Eric Holder, we need more "flexibility" to deal with terror suspects. Which, of course, naturally means being able to delay the ritual reading of the rights. (Not that that would pose a problem to someone informed of American law- all you have to do if arrested is demand your rights as a prisoner. Quite simple, but I digress.)

This springs, I believe from a misconception that the reading of Miranda Rights automatically means that the suspect will stop talking to us- which is a pretty serious error. History is full of people who had their Miranda Rights read to them, then proceeded to talk. Like, it happens every day.

Of course, precedent is somewhat established...from the article-
"Under the current public safety exception, statements obtained before issuing the Miranda warning may be used in court -- including to charge suspects -- if it is determined that police needed to obtain information quickly to prevent further crimes. Once an immediate threat is ruled out, the Miranda warning must be read, under current law."

Oh goodie. So if there's a suspicion you might be on the verge of a terrorist attack (or any other kind of crime) they can delay reading you your rights because of it. (Even though, technically, you still have the right to remain silent. I wonder, what would they do if some terror suspect refused to talk under such auspices?)

In any case, this seems silly. Let's say we catch a suspect on the verge of blowing up a bomb, as in the case of the Pakistani-American bomb suspect we caught last weekend. The threat is easily seen (not that his bomb was much threat). So do we delay reading rights under this exception with the excuse that there might be other threats?

"The goal of revisions would be to give law enforcement officials greater latitude to hold suspects within the criminal justice system and interrogate them for long periods of time -- without having to transfer them to a military system or designate them as enemy combatants, officials said. "

Oh nice. And once again, the Obama admin pulls a Bush- instead of following the rule of law, we'll do what's convenient, circumvent the Constitution, all in the name of safety for La People. (Do they ever ask us if we want to be kept safe in such a manner? Of course not.)

According to the Washington Post, the changes may take a different form- instead of changing the public safety exception, the statute limiting how long a prisoner can be interrogated without coming to trial.

Which isn't any better.

Maybe (and here's a novel idea) we should just leave the system like it is and instead like, work within it. And do things right- in other words, Constitutionally. If you don't want to try terror suspects in civil court, put them in military tribunals. Of course, we can't do that because they're not part of a uniformed military. So hence, they are civilians and should be tried so.

What are we afraid of that we can't do that? That we've detained a bunch of innocent people?

Maybe we should examine that just a little...

And This is Called Blowback

Surprise, surprise.

Imagine this amazing concept- we do things and, like, the Middle Easterners want to do things back! It's like, totally weird.

In all seriousness, I don't understand the surprise here. We did things- pretty big things. Like, oh, messing in the politics of the region, keeping bases open all over the Middle East, invading two of their countries, threatening to invade two more, fanatically upholding a nation that has done some pretty horrid stuff over the years...

But all that has nothing to do with our current situation. Oh no. Our bombing of their countries has nothing to do with the current soaring recruitment numbers, not at all.

And this is what we call Doublethink, children.

What we do has an effect on what they do. What we do always has an effect on someone else's actions. The same principle applies here. (It's called blowback, BTW, if you were wondering...)

Oh and another note- Obama is going to get us all killed. He's so soft on those evil terrorists, after all.
"His first year in office he authorized more Predator strikes — more than 50 — than President Bush did in his last four years in office. In December, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama stated that sometimes peace requires war. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” he said. Negotiations “could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”"

Here and Now...

Well, it's about that time again. It gets to where there's so much going on that I don't know where to start, so I don't post, and I just make things worse for myself (I'm a terrible procrastinator, and you'd think I'd learn), and then end up having to condense everything into three paragraph blurbs and combine them into one rather longish post that deals with more than one issue.

So yes. Here we go.


The Oil Spill

Yes, yes. The oil spill that is going to kill lots of little animals out in the ocean and endanger fishing livlihoods all over the US. Well...I never liked fish, so that's no skin off my nose. I haven't been following this story very much, mostly because oil is of absolutely zero interest to me.

But anyway...it looks like the new opening up of offshore drilling places (you see how horribly ignorant I am of this issue?) is going to be postponed because of this spill. However, this spill has also (according to some members of Congress) made it politically unfeasible to try to pass energy and climate legislation- probably because any plan that'll get in good with the Republican minority will have to include something increasing offshore drilling, and the environmentalists aren't going to go for that right now...

And I sort of agree with them. Let's see...we just had a huge oil spill that may or may not have been caused by poor security or safety practices, and we want to add more cooks in the kitchen? o.0 Yeah. That's smart. Not.


Supreme Court Appointments and You

So with Justice Stevens retiring, that leaves another spot open on the Supreme Court. Meaning Obama gets to appoint another Justice. Which obviously means that we'll have to be subjected to a repeat of last year's Sotomayor Fiasco, with accusations whirling, counter-accusations being shot back, and underneath it all, the absolute certainty on the Right that Obama is an evil socialist who wants to enslave us all.

Hence this lovely quote- "Senate Republicans said they would be watchful for a nominee who made decisions based on his or her "own views and political agendas," in the words of Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee..."

Translation: "We're going to absolutely flip over any nominee you send us who isn't Republican and making decisions based on our views. Because anything less is absolutely unamerican."

And of course, being the civil rights geek I am, I was wondering exactly what the potential judges think about said rights...which, of course, means this caught my eye.

What exactly do the potential Justices think about executive power? Their records are vastly dissimilar in many ways, but I must say this woman talks some sense-
"Of the three, Judge Wood, of the appeals court in Chicago, has the clearest record in favor of protecting civil liberties and taking a skeptical stance toward executive power. In a 2003 essay, she spoke out against approaches to counterterrorism that she said posed “a significant threat to the continued observance of the rule of law” — like giving noncitizens fewer due process rights than citizens and sacrificing individual privacy to foster intelligence-gathering.

“In a democracy, those responsible for national security (principally, of course, the executive branch) must do more than say, ‘trust us, we know best’ when they are proposing significant intrusions on liberties protected by the Constitution,” Judge Wood wrote."

Thank you, Ms. Wood. One of the other prospective nominees (another woman, Ms. Kagan), I feel more iffy about. She has a known record of siding with the White House when it comes to executive power...and that's not a good thing. The other front-runner, one Merrick Garland, also has a mixed record which means he could go either way when it comes down to a decision on the issue.

Now I know very little about all the prospective nominees, but the NYTimes did a piece giving a brief blurb about each. Check it out.


Israel and Nukes, oh me oh my....

So it's happened. Finally, the IAEA is looking into Israel's nuclear capabilities. After ignoring her lapse for years in favor of jumping all over non-nuclear countries that are trying to proceed with their own programs, somebody has finally blown the whistle on Israel and asked for an investigation.

Sort of.

Israel is eighth on the agenda. Tentatively. Of course, if Israel and her allies (us) throw a big enough fit, she'll be struck off the agenda, probably never to return. Which would be wrong.

I thought the UN was about the world working together to reach common goals. I thought the UN was about us all knowing what everybody else was doing, so that nobody gets ahold of something they shouldn't (which kind of makes the whole world sound like a playdate...). So why shouldn't Israel's nuclear arsenal be discussed?

We've consistently yelled at Iran about their nukes (which they don't have). We went to war in Iraq over nukes (which they didn't have). We've consistently lambasted North Korea for their possession (and testing) of nukes. Yet somehow, our allies and ourselves are immune to this wave of criticism against the Big Bad Boy Bomb.

Wha-?

Ah yes. The difference. Iran would use nukes, and we never wou- Uh....wait...

Iran would use nukes, but Israel never would. Ever.

And we know both of these things for certain because we read the minds of their leaders. Uh-huh. Tell me how that works out for ya'.


How Convenient- Pakistan and the 'Square Bomber

So after the bomber-that-wasn't, our Government has decided Pakistan is the new Enemy of the State. Which of course means that the most obvious course of action is to invade their country, or, in the nice language of our President, "put more boots on the ground."

You almost have to wonder how this could happen so conveniently. Obama is looking for a way to invade Pakistan (for purposes of "national security", naturally), and hark! A bomb! Driven by a dummy who was trained in a Pakistani Taliban camp! He's a Pakistani Talib! Help!! Invade Pakistan!!

Of course.

Now naturally, the Pakistanis don't want us invading their nice little country. But that's okay. That's why we've been really nice to Islamabad lately. That way Pakistan will like us. Or maybe not. We'll just have to get hit with another attack, that's- oh wait. Did we say that out loud? ^.^

Define a Terrorist

At what point do you become a terrorist? When you bomb a building? When you attend a training camp? When you talk to a terrorist?

Apparently all of those, even the last, hold true.

According to this article, in 1996, a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act {PDF} (so much for there being nothing to deal with terrorism), set up a system whereby anyone providing "material support" (Supplies, people, etc.) would be treated as a terrorist- detained, imprisoned, etc.

With the advent of the PATRIOT act {PDF}, in 2001, the definition of "material support" was expanded to include "expert advice or assistance," and "service."

I see many problems with this- mostly because it is so incredibly abstract and over-reaching. What, exactly, is "service?" Is it doing electrical work in a house that is used by al Qaeda operatives? Delivering pizza? Or do there have to be overt tokens of actual complicity in the organization?

"A lawyer would commit a crime, she [Ms. Kagan] said, by filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a terrorist group. Helping such a group petition international bodies is also a crime, she added."

This is so incredibly wrong, I don't even know where to start. I really don't understand why we shouldn't be trying to reach out to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and yes, even al Qaeda and the Taliban. Perhaps we should listen to them, try to figure out their beefs with us or their main antagonists, and then perhaps we could reach a solution that would be mutually amicable.

It's like the Kurdistan Worker's Party (P.K.K.)- I've heard so many Americans use the Kurds as one of the biggest beefs with Saddam Hussein. "Don't you know Saddam killed hundreds of Kurds in nerve gas attacks?!"

Yeah. And you wonder why they were engaging in terrorist activities against him. The Kurds have been set upon by both the Turks and the Iraqis- and their situation isn't getting any better. But somehow, only Americans are allowed to be freedom fighters: all other peoples are just going to have to suffer in silence until we get around to helping them out.

"Support of any kind, Justice Kennedy said, “will ultimately inure to the benefit of a terrorist organization, and we have a governmental interest in not allowing that.”"

I can see his point in a way, but I also still think that this law is way too overreaching. Like I said above- where do we stop? The pizza delivery guy's pizza will come to benefit the terrorists, but should we go after him as an accomplice in terrorist activities? What about a school teacher? Should the men who taught the 9/11 hijackers to fly planes be imprisoned?

I have been saying for a long time that the PATRIOT act is way too powerful. I still think I'm right. And I think this confirms it.

Mullah Baradar

Well, we finally managed to actually get something done in Afghanistan. (So much for the claim that Obama is soft on terror and the wars.) Mullah Baradar, allegedly the second-in-command in the Taliban, was captured last week.

Of course, I find it not quite as significant to the future of the Taliban as some. Sure, he knows some stuff- but within a few weeks, what he knows probably won't be applicable anymore because the Taliban will move, and they'll have a new second-in-command. I would be willing to bet that there were plenty of people within the Taliban itself that would have been more than willing to shoot him so they could have his spot anyway, but his capture will serve the same purpose.

From the article:
"The participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush the Taliban."

Well of course they're cooperating. We've threatened to invade them. They probably figure if they be Good Little Friends and help us out, we won't send soldiers into their country. Small hope, that.