Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The bill would give the FBI "administrative subpoena" authority, permitting the bureau to write and approve its own search orders for any tangible thing held by a third party deemed relevant to an intelligence investigation, without prior judicial approval. This unilateral power would let agents seize personal records from medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses without any specific facts connecting those records to any criminal activity or a foreign agent.
Compare with the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The evidence will show that this case is about Dr. Al-Arian's right to
speak, your right to hear him and the attempt of the powerful to silence him,"
Moffitt told jurors.
Monday, May 09, 2005
life is good today. damn good.
details to follow.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison
camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong
underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood,
according to an insider's written account...
One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a
miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with
prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with
women who aren't their wives...
The disgusting rest here.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
From the proper perspective, then, Bush’s quixotic policies aren’t abhorrent to Our Beliefs or our previous foreign policy. All Bush does is present our previous policy without the polish. In short, we’ve always been the bull in the china shop, but in previous administrations we at least wore a nice outfit.
The pretext for US-UK aggression in Iraq is what is called the right of “anticipatory self-defense,” now sometimes called “preemptive war” in a radical perversion of that concept. The right of anticipatory self-defense was affirmed officially in the Bush administration National Security Strategy of September 2002, declaring Washington’s right to resort to force to eliminate any potential challenge to its global dominance. The NSS was widely criticized among the foreign policy elite, beginning with an article right away in the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, warning that “the new imperial grand strategy” could be very dangerous. Criticism continued, again at an unprecedented level, but on narrow grounds: not that the doctrine itself was wrong, but rather its style and manner of presentation. Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright summed the criticism up accurately, also in FA. She pointed out that every President has such a doctrine in his back pocket, but it is simply foolish to smash people in the face with it and to implement it in a manner that will infuriate even allies. That is threatening to US interests, and therefore wrong.
Albright knew, of course, that Clinton had a similar doctrine. The Clinton doctrine advocated "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interests, such as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," without even the pretexts that Bush and Blair devised. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush’s NSS. But the more expansive Clinton doctrine was barely even reported. It was presented with the right style, and implemented less brazenly.
So, if the war is here; if we’re going to war against the Arab nations of the world – perhaps Bush is the best man. No more pretext. No more guises. Just take the fight to them and pray (literally) for the best. I just want to know when we voted on war against Arab nations who don’t take our marching orders. Those options weren't on my touch screen on Nov. 2.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Family Values Yesterday:
Bush introduced Mike and Sharla Hintz, a couple from Clive, whom he saidand today...
benefited from his tax plan.Last year, because of the enhanced the child tax
credit, they received an extra $1,600 in their tax refund, Bush said. With other
tax cuts in the bill, they saved $2,800 on their income taxes.They used the
money to buy a wood-burning stove to more efficiently heat their home, made some
home improvements and went on a vacation to Minnesota, the president said."Next
year, maybe they'll want to come to Texas," Bush quipped.Mike Hintz, a First
Assembly of God youth pastor, said the tax cuts also gave him additional money
to use for health care.He said he supports Bush's values."The American people
are starting to see what kind of leader President Bush is. People know where he
stands," he said."Where we are in this world, with not just the war on terror,
but with the war with our culture that's going on, I think we need a man that is
going to be in the White House like President Bush, that's going to stand by
what he believes.
A Des Moines youth pastor is charged with the sexual exploitation of a
child.KCCI learned that the married father of four recently turned himself in to
Johnston police.Rev. Mike Hintz was fired from the First Assembly of God Church,
located at 2725 Merle Hay Road, on Oct. 30. Hintz was the youth pastor there for
three years. Police said he started an affair with a 17-year-old in the church
youth group this spring.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
(1) Democrats can't keep ignoring their base. Running to the middle and
then asking our base to make sure to vote isn't a plan. And to those who say
talking to your base doesn't work -- Read the Rove 2004 playbook!
(2) Finally, what is the purpose the party strives for today? What are our
goals for the nation? You couldn't tell from the election. Very few good ideas
come from the middle, and they tend to be mediocre. Consultants have become
adept at keeping candidates in that safe zone. But the time has come to develop
bold ideas and challenge people to sacrifice for the common good. Experts will
tell you that you can't ask the American people to sacrifice individually for
the common good. Those experts are wrong -- it's just been so long since anyone
has asked them.
This guy is facking brilliant, and were it not for all those Northern Democrat slobs, we might have a Democrat in the White House. The link to the full article here.
Friday, November 26, 2004
The top-giving corporate political action committees did not hedge their bets in the fall elections despite the narrow division between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. They favored Republican candidates 10 to 1.
Of 268 corporate PAC's that donated $100,000 or more to presidential and Congressional candidates from January 2003 through the middle of last month, 245 gave the majority of their contributions to Republicans, according to an analysis released Wednesday by Political Money
Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service.
Article here (via NYtimes)