Dark Web

Hmmm.

The quivering images and militant writings are frightening: an exploding Humvee blankets passing cars with dust; a lab technician makes explosives, step by step; hatred oozes from "A guide to kill Americans in Saudi Arabia."

Tens of thousands of Web pages are now devoted to terrorist propaganda designed to attract followers. On the surface, the messages and videos reveal little about their creators. But programmers and writers leave digital clues: the greetings and other words they choose, their punctuation and syntax, and the way they code multimedia attachments and Web links.

Researchers at the University of Arizona are developing a tool that uses these clues to automate the analysis of online jihadism. The Dark Web project aims to scour Web sites, forums and chat rooms to find the Internet's most prolific and influential jihadists and learn how they reel in adherents.

Lab director Hsinchun Chen hopes Dark Web will crimp what he calls "al-Qaida University on the Web," the mass of Web sites where potential terrorists learn their trade, from making explosives to planning attacks. Experts said they are not aware of any comparable effort, though some said the project may have only limited applications.

The project in the university's Artificial Intelligence Lab will not identify people outside cyberspace "because that involves civil liberties," Chen said, preferring to let law enforcement and intelligence analysts take over from there. Instead, it will help identify messages with the same author and reveal links that aren't obvious.

"Our tool will help them ID the high-risk, radical opinion leaders in cyberspace," Chen said.

Not especially surprising that they've developed something like this. Just interesting that the press took so long to make it obvious that someone was doing it.

My question comes down to who defines "high-risk, radical opinion leaders?"

Readability?

This is a bit odd. The Volokh Conspiracy only got Junior High level.

I wonder what this really means?

Kucinich's Little World

You really have to love this part of politics.

It is hard to know which effort has longer odds, the bid by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, to become president of the United States, or his bid to unseat Vice President Dick Cheney by impeaching him.

Both efforts got a brief burst of publicity on Tuesday when Mr. Kucinich brought his bill to impeach Mr. Cheney to the House floor and, with the surprise help of Republicans aiming to embarrass Democratic Congressional leaders, nearly succeeded in securing an hour of debate.

After a motion to table Mr. Kucinich’s bill failed, the majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, stepped in with a motion to refer the bill back to the House Judiciary Committee. That motion succeeded, by a near-party-line vote of 218 to 194, and spared the Democrats a potentially embarrassing distraction.

House Republicans initially opposed the effort to debate Mr. Kucinich’s impeachment measure, and briefly there were 290 votes in favor of tabling it.

But then the Republicans sensed an opportunity to irritate the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, who has said the Democrats have no interest in impeaching Mr. Cheney or President Bush over the Iraq war. The Republicans began changing their votes, and by the end, the tally was 251 to 162 not to table it, with 165 Republicans voting no.

I'm not sure what is sillier, Kucinich or the Repugs who are trying to irritate Pelosi. Being the minority the Repugs are doing what is expected, and I'm sure that really is toasting Nancy's back side.

I caught Kucinich on Tucker Carlson's show last night and it was pretty pathetic. He really should go for it. I mean I don't know if the congressional approval rating can get much lower, but this is certainly a means to see if it can. I'd say this is a step more pathetic than the Clinton impeachment. But only a very small step.

Media Bias, Again

Caught this at QandO. Like usual, its a reason to read blogs, because most certainly, you won't see this widely displayed in the MSM.

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

From that bastion of conservative bias Harvard.

Can't be true.

WW IV

From Commentary. The article is long, but sectioned to various opinions on the topic of whether the present war on terror, or whatever you choose to call it is a world war. Here are the questions the magazine puts to the pundits.

1. Do you accept the term “World War IV,” or the idea behind it, as an apt characterization of the West’s battle with Islamic extremism, and do you, like Norman Podhoretz, see Iraq as a crucial early theater in that conflict?

2. Six years after 9/11, how would you assess our progress? What would you like to see happen next?

3. On the specific issue of the spread of democracy—a linchpin of the Bush Doctrine and a point of acute controversy between foreign-policy realists and neoconservatives—do you agree or disagree with Podhoretz that “democratization represents the best and perhaps even the only way to defeat Islamofascism and the terrorism it uses as its main weapon against us”?

4. Turning to the political climate at home, do you think the Bush Doctrine has a chance of surviving the elections of 2008, and if so in what form?

Here's the list of pundits:

Fouad Ajami
John R. Bolton
Max Boot
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Victor Davis Hanson
Daniel Henninger
Martin Kramer
William Kristol
Andrew C. McCarthy
David Pryce-Jones
Claudia Rosett
Amir Taheri
Ruth Wedgwood
James Q. Wilson
R. James Woolsey

Check it out. I've read through the ones I'm not familiar with. Pretty informative commentary.

Spitzer Licensing Illegals Ensures Illegal Gun Purchases

I don't like his idea, mainly because I don't agree with the idea that this will add security. I still haven't quite been able to twist logic to the point where awarding criminal activity increases security. This article has an interesting take that makes this even more questionable.

ALBANY - Once they got driver's licenses under Gov. Spitzer's plan, illegal immigrants could arm themselves to the teeth simply by lying about their status, gun experts said Thursday.

"They could definitely get shotguns and rifles," said Thomas King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

King said illegal immigrants could simply go to gun shops, use the licenses as ID, pick out the long guns of their choice and attest on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives forms that they are citizens or legal residents.

As long as a computer check showed the customer had no criminal record or outstanding arrest warrants, the gun dealer would likely complete the sale - because there are no other records that would flag illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg took issue with Spitzer's plan again, saying on CNN that only those who have obtained "secure" licenses should be allowed to buy guns in New York State.

Now on the talking heads shows last night someone stated that these licenses couldn't be used for ID to get on flights. I'm wondering how they are different from the regular licenses. Could that difference be sufficient that all gun dealers will know and understand that they aren't allowed for use for gun purchases?

Spitzer aides called such a scenario highly unlikely. If illegal immigrants wanted a gun, they'd more likely buy them on the streets, they reasoned.

That is true, they could get them illegally, but why would they bother if they could easily walk into a store and buy one? I'm betting that would be faster than trying to find one on the black market, and much less risky.

This article does describe the tiered licensing that NY has gotten an agreement with DHS on.

Under the compromise, New York will produce an "enhanced driver's license" that will be as secure as a passport. It is intended for people who soon will need to meet such ID requirements, even for a short drive to Canada.

A second version of the license will meet new federal standards of the Real ID Act. That law is designed to make it much harder for illegal immigrants or would-be terrorists to obtain licenses.

A third type of license will be available to undocumented immigrants.

Wonder how gun dealers or anyone else who has to deal with these IDs will be able to figure out the difference between the tiers. They could make it real simple like simple colorizing, but nothing says what the differentiator is.

Iraq Moving Forward

Frederick Kagan at the Weekly Standard.

America has won an important battle in the war on terror. We turned an imminent victory for Al Qaeda In Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq, but also in the global struggle. In the past five months, terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent. Car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent. Casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent. And violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan--traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks--was the lowest in three years.

Winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Our commanders and soldiers are continuing the fight to ensure that al Qaeda does not recover even as they turn their attention to the next battle: against Shia militias sponsored by Iran. Beyond Iraq, battles in Afghanistan and elsewhere demand our attention. But let us properly take stock of what has been accomplished.

I'm of the opinion that it is still to early to be declaring victory with regards to the insurgency. It does appear that Al-Qaeda miscalculated on how to run the insurgency in Iraq. Pretty much appears to be a theme with regards to all the players on the field.

Al Qaeda leaders seem aware of their defeat. General Ray Odierno noted in a recent briefing that some of al Qaeda's foreign leaders have begun to flee Iraq. Documents recovered from a senior Al Qaeda In Iraq leader, Abu Usama al-Tunisi, portray a movement that has lost the initiative and is steadily losing its last places to hide. According to Brigadier General Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the multinational coalition in Iraq, al-Tunisi wrote that "he is surrounded, communications have been cut, and he is desperate for help."

This is a little over stated. No doubt Al Qaeda is substantially marginalized at this point. The problem with network based groups like Al Qaeda is that they can reappear after being completely demolished. The ability for cells to spontaneously develop is fairly well understood. The good thing though is that there doesn't appear to be many regions that continue to view supporting Al Qaeda as a good idea. Frankly, I never would have believed a year ago that Anbar province would be at the level of stability it is today.

Interesting analysis on why Al Qaeda is loosing Anbar.

Al Qaeda excesses in Anbar Province and elsewhere had already begun to generate local resentment, but those local movements could not advance without our help. The takfiris--as the Iraqis call the sectarian extremists of al Qaeda--brutally murdered and tortured any local Sunni leaders who dared to speak against them, until American troops began to work to clear the terrorist strongholds in Ramadi in late 2006. But there were not enough U.S. forces in Anbar to complete even that task, let alone to protect local populations throughout the province and in the Sunni areas of Iraq. The surge of forces into Anbar and the Baghdad belts allowed American troops to complete the clearing of Ramadi and to clear Falluja and other takfiri strongholds.

Pretty much reads like most historical insurgencies that failed. Or historical counterinsurgencies that failed for that matter. Terrorism usually has a part, but if overdone alienates the public support that is needed for success.

Kagan addresses the Shia militia problems:

Some now say that, although America's soldiers were successful in this task, the next battle is hopeless. We cannot control the Shia militias, they say. The Iraqis will never "reconcile." The government will not make the decisions it must make to sustain the current progress, and all will collapse. Perhaps. But those who now proclaim the hopelessness of future efforts also ridiculed the possibility of the success we have just achieved. If one predicts failure long enough, one may turn out to be right. But the credibility of the prophets of doom--those who questioned the veracity and integrity of General David Petraeus when he dared to report progress--is at a low ebb.

Reconciliation seems to be the hard one. That's part of the reason the Iraqi central government looks to be moving toward a fairly weak national government. More control in the specific provinces will likely assist in settling the over all tensions. Though the oil revenue issue still will be a thorn for many of the provinces.

Let's hope there is continuing reasons to be as optimistic as Kagan is here.

The Economist - Ignoring the News

This started off as an interesting article, but then they tripped. Apparently they haven't actually been watching current events. Or maybe the just are very pessimistic.

In any event, the American army and marines have produced a new counter-insurgency manual. One of its authors, General David Petraeus, is now in charge of the “surge” in Iraq. It may be too late to turn Iraq round, and Afghanistan could slide into greater violence. But the manual offers some comfort: it says counter-insurgency operations “usually begin poorly”, and the way to success is for an army to become a good “learning organisation”.

Sounds like they've been drinking too much of the "progressive's" cool-aide.

Torture

I've had a few conversations with a rather liberal co-worker on the topic of torture. I seem to constantly make the assumption that those involved in interrogations are under control of their superiors and there is a level of control within the ranks of the intelligence community. He on the other hand assumes since it's not all in the public view it must involve constant violations of law. Personally I think he's brain damaged, but it's fun to argue with him.

Last Sunday this article by Stuart Herrington goes into details of how he views interrogation should be performed. He clearly denies that there could possibly be a situation where a source's information could be needed in a short time. Most of his techniques require very long periods of time. My co-worker adversary loves to try this type of logic.

It also tells us that our young soldiers take away lessons from today's pop culture. Self-styled "experts" on interrogation frequently cite the "ticking bomb scenario" (featured on shows like "24") to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from "the next 9-11." This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers.

I'll concede that this scenario is probably quite improbable. I won't concede that it can't happen. I remain of the opinion that one should always be prepared. (Si vis pacem, para bellum) It's no doubt nice to be able to use the soft approach, but if someone is stabbing you, you don't discuss why they shouldn't, you stop them.

In any case, Herrington's article is informative in it shows what really happens with the vast majority of interrogations. No doubt the methods that he discusses are more effective than the rougher interrogations methods. Though I still disagree with the contention that torture doesn't work. I'd say the interrogator needs only get sufficient evidence to work with and not the whole truth. Again, this argument would seem to assume that those performing or overseeing the rougher methods are complete morons. I'd say that is categorically improbable.

Andrew McCarthy has an article related to the discussion of water boarding that came up during Michael Mukasey's AG hearings. There is some interesting perspective relating to the constitutionality argument that I found funny since I'd used a similar argument against my adversarial co-worker.
J

udge Mukasey’s testimony should actually be heartening to human- rights advocates. He has said he believes torture is forbidden under the Constitution — specifically under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. There is no question that torture and lesser forms of brutality are illegal; but the conceit that this prohibition is of constitutional pedigree is debatable.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. One might think that means torture, in all instances, is barred. Yet, as Harvard’s Professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out in his excellent book, Why Terrorism Works, our jurisprudence limits the Eighth Amendment’s application to punishments resulting from convictions in the civilian criminal-justice system. As the Supreme Court explained in Ingraham v. Wright (1977), “An examination of the history of the Amendment and the decisions of this Court construing the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment confirms that it was designed to protect those convicted of crimes. We adhere to this long-standing limitation.”

Similarly, the due-process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have been construed, based on the Supreme Court’s 1952 ruling in Rochin v. California, to bar evidence-gathering methods that “shock the conscience.” This fuzzy standard, however, has also been limited to criminal prosecutions. Justice Frankfurter, moreover, recognized that “hypothetical situations can be conjured up, shading imperceptibly from the circumstances of this case and by gradations producing practical differences despite seemingly logical extensions.” To be less dense, this suggests that waterboarding a top al Qaeda terrorist who has knowledge of an imminent weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against an American city might be different from coercing a suspect to submit to warrantless stomach-pumping just so we can use the couple of pills he emits to try him for narcotics violations, as happened in Rochin.

In any event, the Constitution has generally been held not to apply outside the United States. To be sure, the Supreme Court will be considering that proposition this term in a case involving enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. There is clearly a chance five justices will decide otherwise. (The Court’s four solidly liberal justices would surely favor extraterritorial application; and in the 1994 Verdugo-Urquidez case, Justice Kennedy suggested that the question would turn on the right at issue and the circumstances.) Still, even assuming for argument’s sake that the cited amendments bar torture, it is anything but clear right now that the Constitution bars torture by American operatives overseas.

Interesting.

It would be preferable morally to always treat others as you would be treated. But that axe swings in an interesting manner when you're addressing someone who is actively trying to kill you or worse enslave you. Sooner of later you always have to face the possibility that things will reach the worst-case scenario. When the enemy drops the gloves, you have been released from the requirement that you not do the same. You can choose to take the high ground and keep your highest standards. But at some point you may have to lower your standards to survive. I think this is the thing that people in the US have forgotten. 9/11 stirred a lot of people. It apparently didn't stir enough and it apparently didn't stir most out of their general complacency.

So, has there been any additional clarity gained in the legality of torture even at coming to some definition?

Clarification was imperative for this confused landscape. Congress endeavored to provide it in 2006 when it passed the Military Commissions Act. The MCA made clear that issues of detention and interrogation would be controlled not by Common Article 3 but by American law: specifically, the McCain Amendment.

Furthermore, recognizing that our intelligence officers needed guidelines more precise than the vaporous injunction to avoid “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, Congress amended the War Crimes Act (Section 2441 of Title 18, U.S. Code) to specify which “grave breaches” of international law could give rise to criminal prosecution. The list is long but once again (and despite the specter of waterboarding that hung over the debate) Congress elected to include “torture” and “cruel or inhumane treatment,” but not simulated drowning — or, in fact, degrading treatment, even though it, of course, is illegal under the McCain amendment.

So is waterboarding illegal? It is ironic, and quite typical Washington fare, that the same elected officials now demanding a definitive answer from Judge Mukasey have failed to give us one themselves — though some of them, unlike Mukasey, are aware of classified details. Alas and alack, it is all too familiar that chatterers who should know better, like Prof. Turley, are so quick to caricature and demagogue a complex issue in order to call attention to themselves.

That's a no. Also, those who screech the loudest on the topic continue to waffle in making anything clear to anyone. That would be a great drawback of legalese. It just doesn't say anything that is self-evident without a lawyer, and even he doesn't know.

Read the articles. You should know at least this much information when talking about the topic.

Department of State Stepping Up to the Iraq Needs?

Small Wars Journal has a discussion of the move to force diplomatic corps involvement increases in Iraq.

Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, reports on a new US State Department intitiative; nay, order; that will see additional diplomats taking posts in Iraq next year because of expected shortfalls in filling openings, the first such large-scale forced assignment since the Vietnam War. As far as we are concerned this is a long overdue move by State to fulfill its end of the 80% political, 20% military counterinsurgency (COIN) fight in Iraq.

I guess my take on it is that forcing diplomats into the theater isn't going to be an effective strategy. I don't think it quite gets to the level of a military draft in the effect, but I can't see those members of an already very liberal department being any help there, especially if forced. I think the volunteer service has been doing the job best. Unfortunately I'd also say they've been understaffing in an arena that really needs the political involvement.

I do have to say though, that those that volunteer for this service should get advantages in their careers over those that don't. Taking on an assignment that is more dangerous should be awarded and not just be left at the same level as those performing service in some place nice and quiet.

Another Bloomberg Social Engineering Law

Guns and Calories. Probably see him going out of state to attack fast-food manufacturers next.

The Bloomberg administration, in its continuing fight against obesity, reintroduced a measure yesterday to force chain restaurants to display calorie information on their menus or menu boards, after a federal judge struck down a similar measure last month.

The new regulation would apply to all restaurants operating in the city that have 15 or more outlets here or across the country.

Another place government really should stay right out of. If there was that much of a demand for this information the companies would be providing it. But since no one is asking, they aren't telling.

“The big picture is that New Yorkers don’t have access to calorie information,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “They overwhelmingly want it. Not everyone will use it, but many people will, and when they use it, it changes what they order, and that should reduce obesity and, with it, diabetes.”

Horse-Shit. If they "overwhelmingly" wanted this the public could just stop going to those companies and they would force them to post such information. But they don't want that information, they just want their burger and fries. I find it highly improbable that there would be a substantial change in behavior if they did post the calories. And Frieden hasn't any evidence to actually support his contention.

More social engineering that frankly is a complete waste of time and really not any government's business to be forcing businesses into. What next? Telling the customer's they can't buy what they want. No probably just taxing them for their own good.

Good For Bill

I don't like Bill Clinton, but in this case he should be applauded.

Clinton's 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.

"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk."

When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an "inside job," Clinton took even greater umbrage.

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said. "You guys have got to be careful, you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

That is something to be proud of.

Boy Scouts, Bears and Guns

GeekWife sent this one too me.

WHITE HAVEN, Pa. —A Boy Scout played dead when attacked by a bear during a camping trip, avoiding serious injury.

Chris Malasics, 14, curled up in the fetal position in his sleeping bag after the bear ripped down his tent at Hickory Run State Park around 11:30 p.m. Friday.

Guess he got lucky. Of course, his statement that follows will likely cause a stir.

Malasics said the experience will not deter him from going camping. In the future, though, he intends to make sure he has a pepper spray for bears, and perhaps a gun.

"I know how to shoot," he said.

Yeah, imagine that he'd like to be able to defend himself. Not that he could being 14 and all. I'm betting if one of the scout leaders had had a gun it would have been more effective at driving off the bear than banging pots or flashing car headlights.

I'm thinking they got real lucky.

Brits Taking on Algore's "Truth"

Pretty interesting that Algore's forces finally responded to the British Judge who pointed out some inconvenient factual errors in Algore's movie. The best item is where they start:

The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past.

Unfortunately, Algore's spokeman is wrong. As pointed out by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

NewsBusters is the title link that leads to all this fascinating discussions on truth. Monckton is an interesting character from what I've read so far, though he comes across as a British Ross Perot. He makes sense, and then says things that are a touch whacky.

Mr Monckton, 55, said yesterday he had expressed his concerns that the official views on climate change were going unchallenged and felt it right to circulate his presentation to every school in Britain so that, if head teachers saw fit, pupils could be allowed to see some of the scientific material the government was "rather anxious" that they should not see.

He said those preaching about climate change were acting from the same motives as those who got DDT banned, resulting, he said, in between 30 million and 50 million deaths from malaria.

"They are the same suspects - people who hate western values. Some of them are communists."

Umm, yeah. He started out ok, but that "communist" thing is probably a bit over board. But that should be counter balanced by Al-I-invented-the-internet-gore's statement. Sadly, it won't be. Reading the piece by Kalee Kreider you definitely come out with a bad taste as well. Especially at the start when she runs through the character assassination attempt by pointing out that Monckton is associated with a mining industry. Which we all know immediately disqualifies one from understanding scientific facts when they are presented without evidence.

It's also interesting to read the British papers who define him and the parties he associates with as "right-wing" but then they fail to do the same characterization of Algore's minions as being left-wing.

Monckton was one of the backers of Stewart Dimmock, the Kent lorry driver and school governor who took the government to court for sending copies of Gore’s film to schools.

The two are connected through the New party, a right-wing group whose manifesto was written by Monckton and of which Dimmock is a member.

Not that they have an issue with distorted reporting. Not any more so than we do here.

Algore's mouth piece doesn't provide anything new to the discussion. Just revamping previously trodden paths of "consensus" and the cherry-picked findings of the IPCC. None of which adds anything to the debate. Monckton's view is at least informative in that it takes you to the places that no one seems to want to go who is among the "consensus." Honest debate requires that both sides at least listen and consider the point of the other. Algore's movie and his climate change minions have come to the point of cramming their point of view down everyone's throat as truth, when it is only theory and is a contested theory at that.

Sadly they still don't get that this is a much easier sell if you show people all the reasons to get off of fossil fuels.

You'd think Algore would be better at the selling thing than he is.

Protected from the Truth

Not even going to comment.

Mike Yon's latest is again eye-opening.

I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.

It's long, but worth your time.

Bin Laden Throwing in the Towel on Iraq?

Counterterrorism Blog gives us this:

This new message from OBL is the second signal since early September that OBL smells and fears strategic defeat in Iraq. Look at Walid Phare's September 10 post about the September 8 video, in which he noted "unease among wider circles of the usually sympathetic commentators" and "a chaos unseen before" on jihadist websites. The quotes released thus far from this new audio include no boasts about America's weakness, as were made by his henchman Zawahiri in his tape on January 5 of this year. Instead, OBL whines about laziness and division in the ranks. Leaders on the road to victory never issue such demoralizing warnings.

This tape is the best confirmation of the crack-up on al-Qaida in Iraq, as reported here over the past month by Evan Kohlmann, and of the strategic turn of events in the Sunni triangle since the increase in U.S. troops and change in tactics. It's a desperate warning of defeat by a hidden, scared leader who senses that the basket into which he put many of his eggs has almost slipped irretrievably from his fingers.

Interesting.

Security Politicized

I think Schneier may be right that this is a good essay, except that he completely misses the fact that the so-called target is only one side of the political spectrum. If McCullagh had actually taken a bit of time to think and realize that both parties are pandering a vote all of the time he may have provided a more intelligent essay.

Politicians of both major parties wield this as the ultimate political threat. Its invocation typically predicts that if a certain piece of legislation is passed (or not passed) Americans will die. Variations may warn that children will die or troops will die. Any version is difficult for the target to combat.

This leads me to propose McCullagh's Law of Politics:

As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.

McCullagh's Law describes a promise of political violence. It goes like this: "If you, my esteemed political adversary, are insufficiently wise as to heed my advice, I will direct my staff and members of my political apparatus to unearth examples of dead {Americans|women|children|troops} so I can later accuse you of responsibility for their deaths."

Which is nice except for his lead in statement is:

Republicans are so eager to sink a wiretapping bill that includes some privacy safeguards that they're invoking what amounts to a do-this-or-Americans-will-die argument.

So, does he really miss the most common Democratic screech? Rememeber "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN." Nothing related to a security issue there now is there? Children's health care, gun control and the rest are all commonly bolstered security topics that the Dems rail about, yet McCullagh seems to miss their relevance to his topic.

Matt in CT comments at Schneier is right on the mark.

Mr. McCullagh fell into the bias trap with:

"While Republicans are more likely to invoke the threat, Democrats are not immune from the temptation."

That's hogwash.

The current examples are from the Republicans for the same reason most of the corruption is -- they are in power. Democrats do both just as well in proportion to their power.

In a subtle way, it is exactly what he his writing about -- in this case, "Fear them both...but especially those dirty, no good Republicans." Ignoring a long and equal history by both political parties of trampling over liberties in pursuit of small slices of the electoral pie.

This is issue will not be settled by partisanship of "Vote for Democrats. We're not as bad!"

Today the Repugs are throwing around the FISA and the Patriot act type trodding on rights. Though it appears the Dems are walking the same walk by voting in the same allowances without taking the time to do it right. But that's because their too busy trying to condemn the war in Iraq rather than spending the time to discuss security.

To take it all a step further, politicians are always willing to lessen your enumerated rights depending if they are a "good" right or one that they view as bad. Dems and Repugs stomped on free speech when they enacted the McCain-Feingold repression of political speech act. Dems generally view guns as evil so it's a right that is left on the side of the road. Etc. Repugs are bad, Dems ain't any better.

Another commenter (Straight Shooter) at Schneier got me laughing with this:

> how does one measure the certainty

> that legislation is unconstitutional?

10) ACLU's decibel level

9) EFF's decibel level

8) Schneirosmograph

7) Reciprocal of time mainstream media spends covering the issue

6) Reciprocal of Popularity of the legislation at stock-car races

5) Reciprocal of Level of applause for its passage

4) PSI of Executive support

3) Taxpayer dollars spent implementing the program before the Legislature was aware it existed

2) Reciprocal of Minutes spent debating it in Congress

1) The number of politicians and corporate executives it immunizes from prosecution.

Posted by: Straight Shooter at October 22, 2007 04:07 PM

Excellent.

Funny that the comments there are quite heavily against Schneier. Not that he has tended to have BDS, but oh wait, he does.

Interesting Lesson from the Armenian Genocide

David Kopel has a history lesson that most certainly will never cross the minds of any of those who want to vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution.

As a first step, Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army were stripped of their weapons. Beaten and clubbed, placed on short rations, and sometimes murdered, they were used to dig fortifications and latrines for the Turks. Soldiers fled and returned home, bringing stories of the destruction of Armenian villages and towns, murders of priests, and rapes of women.

Disarmament orders were sent to Armenian towns; however, Armenian leaders would collect broken and useless weapons, and, with a bribe, deliver them to Turkish leaders — while keeping the functioning weapons for themselves.

Disarmament by those leading you should trigger very LOUD alarms.

Unbalanced Jackass

Wow.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Someone needs a caning.

Conkers

The Brit I work with asked if I had a chestnut tree nearby. I asked why and he stated "It's that time of year for conkers." Apparently it's a kid's game.

1. Take a large, hard conker and drill a hole through it using a nail, gimlet, or small screwdriver. (This may be done by an adult on behalf of the contestant.) Thread a piece of string through it about 25 cm long. Often a shoelace is used. Tie a large knot at one or both ends of the string, so that the conker will not slide off when swung hard.
2. Find an opponent. It is to your advantage if you can find an opponent with a conker smaller and softer than yours.
3. Take turns hitting each other's conker using your own. If you break your opponent's conker, you gain a point. To do this one player lets the conker dangle on the full length of the string while the other player hits. To hit, hold the string in one hand with the conker held above it in the other hand, then swipe at the opponent's conker, letting go of your own nut but keeping hold of the string.

Just too funny.