by Jim Kouri, CPP
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled this week that the
communications intercept program conducted by the National Security Agency is
unconstitutional. While many are shocked or feigning shock over her
decision, this writer wasn't shocked or surprised at this judicial ruling.
The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless wiretaps" I
knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. These
were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between
suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States.
Diggs, sitting in federal court in Detroit, ruled Thursday that the
NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program should be halted immediately. She
said plaintiffs from the legal, academic and journalism field had proven
that the program was harmful to them and violated the US Constitution.
One of the major plaintiffs in the case was none other than the American
Civil Liberties Union, and they did an excellent job of "judge
hunting."
They found the perfect judge to hear the case: A President Jimmy Carter
appointee with a history of activism on the bench. An admitted liberal
Democrat, Judge Taylor's court decisions include the banning of
Nativity scenes from municipal property.
She was once blasted by Judge Bernard Friedman her for her role in an
effort to have a suit challenging the University of Michigan's use of
race in its law school's admission policies assigned to another judge who
was handling a similar case. Taylor's husband is on the board of
regents for that school. Her attempt was politically motivated since Friedman
was considered more conservative than the other judges.
Those who view the "war on terrorism" as a war -- which is stipulated
in the congressional resolution of September 14, 2001 -- believe enemy
combatants are not entitled to constitutional protections. Once an
American citizen consorts with the enemy in this war -- terrorists and
nations that harbor and support terrorism through financing and materials --
he or she should be designated an "illegal combatant."
The President possesses broad constitutional powers to take military
action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power
in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by
Congress on September 14, 2001, immediately following Al-Qaeda attacks in
New York and Washington.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against
any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist
attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected
of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist
organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not
they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
The resolution passed by congress on September 14, 2001 appears to
clearly define Commander-in-Chief's powers to wage war against terrorists.
Part of any military action is the gathering of intelligence including
intelligence obtained through electronic intercepts.
Here is the exact language of the September 14 resolution:
"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
"Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens;
"and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad;
"and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and
foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
"and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
"and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States:
"Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) understandably is a
vital part of intelligence gathering and law enforcement. It provides
mandatory provisions to insure the legality of the surveillance in order
to avoid the tainting of evidence gathered for a criminal prosecution.
For more than a quarter-century, the FISA court had been seen as the
only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage
and terrorism suspects. But there are many legal scholars who believe
the Bush Administration acted properly and that, unlike the Clinton NSA
spy program code named "Echelon," the spying had limited focus on
terrorism and was part of a war strategy.
In a time of war, the end users of the electronic surveillance
intercepts are not the prosecutors and the courts but the US forces deployed to
combat terrorism. Besides branches of the US Armed Services, such
forces may include agents with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the
National Security Agency, and members of Joint Terrorism Task Forces who
represent federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and
departments.
If one looks at the term "war on terrorism" as simply symbolic and
comparable to the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs," then one would
have an argument that NSA surveillance operation require FISA warrants.
Those labeling the NSA spying as Illegal, are those who tend to view
terrorism as a criminal justice problem.
And they are the ones who want suspected terrorists to have
constitutional protections such as access to attorneys, Fifth Amendment
protections against self-incrimination, and the like.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media
Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing
project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering
the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public
safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several
major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force
and
trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri
writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police,
Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for
TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com,
MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.
He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and
talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV,
Fox
News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com.
Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
The Captain's Quarters has more:
The Taylor Embarrassment:
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Weapons from Iran discovered in Iraq�s port city
An array of weapons made in Iran were discovered in Iraq�s southern port city of Um Qasr, the Iraqi television channel al-Zora reported on Monday.
In the weapons cache were hundreds of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells as well as several thousand light arms, the report said, adding that the weapons had all been manufactured in neighbouring Iran.
The weapons were discovered in the city�s al-Hora district, it said.
Um Qasr, the country�s largest deepwater port city, is close to the city of Basra which Iraqi officials say has become a hub for agents of Iran�s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
In the weapons cache were hundreds of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells as well as several thousand light arms, the report said, adding that the weapons had all been manufactured in neighbouring Iran.
The weapons were discovered in the city�s al-Hora district, it said.
Um Qasr, the country�s largest deepwater port city, is close to the city of Basra which Iraqi officials say has become a hub for agents of Iran�s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).
N. Korea Appears to Be Preparing for Nuclear Test
There is new evidence that North Korea may be preparing for an underground test of a nuclear bomb, U.S. officials told ABC News.
"It is the view of the intelligence community that a test is a real possibility," said a senior State Department official.
A senior military official told ABC News that a U.S. intelligence agency has recently observed "suspicious vehicle movement" at a suspected North Korean test site.
The activity includes the unloading of large reels of cable outside P'unggye-yok, an underground facility in northeast North Korea. Cables can be used in nuclear testing to connect an underground test site to outside observation equipment. The intelligence was brought to the attention of the White House last week.
Even before this most recent intelligence, there has been growing concern within the U.S. government that North Korea has been moving toward a nuclear test. North Korea is believed to have enough nuclear material to build as many as a dozen nuclear bombs, but it has never tested one. A successful test would remove any doubt that North Korea is a nuclear power.
On July 4, North Korea conducted seven ballistic missile tests, which provoked international condemnation, including a unanimous United States Security Council resolution condemning its actions. A nuclear test, however, would be seen as a much greater provocation than the missile tests. Only seven other nations in the world have ever conducted nuclear tests.
U.S. officials fear a nuclear test could provoke a nuclear arms race in East Asia, forcing Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.
"A nuclear test is going to be alarming and troubling for everyone and would cause a very strong reaction I think from all of North Korea's neighbors," said former National Security Council official Michael Green, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S. officials caution that the intelligence is not conclusive. Last year U.S. spy satellites picked up suspicious activity at suspected test sites in North Korea, leading some to predict an imminent nuclear test, but nothing happened.
"It is the view of the intelligence community that a test is a real possibility," said a senior State Department official.
A senior military official told ABC News that a U.S. intelligence agency has recently observed "suspicious vehicle movement" at a suspected North Korean test site.
The activity includes the unloading of large reels of cable outside P'unggye-yok, an underground facility in northeast North Korea. Cables can be used in nuclear testing to connect an underground test site to outside observation equipment. The intelligence was brought to the attention of the White House last week.
Even before this most recent intelligence, there has been growing concern within the U.S. government that North Korea has been moving toward a nuclear test. North Korea is believed to have enough nuclear material to build as many as a dozen nuclear bombs, but it has never tested one. A successful test would remove any doubt that North Korea is a nuclear power.
On July 4, North Korea conducted seven ballistic missile tests, which provoked international condemnation, including a unanimous United States Security Council resolution condemning its actions. A nuclear test, however, would be seen as a much greater provocation than the missile tests. Only seven other nations in the world have ever conducted nuclear tests.
U.S. officials fear a nuclear test could provoke a nuclear arms race in East Asia, forcing Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.
"A nuclear test is going to be alarming and troubling for everyone and would cause a very strong reaction I think from all of North Korea's neighbors," said former National Security Council official Michael Green, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S. officials caution that the intelligence is not conclusive. Last year U.S. spy satellites picked up suspicious activity at suspected test sites in North Korea, leading some to predict an imminent nuclear test, but nothing happened.
Dems Talk of Stripping Lieberman
A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman�s (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.
If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.
In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists� planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC�s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.
Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.
�I think there�s a lot of concern,� said a senior Democratic aide who has discussed the subject with colleagues. �I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate, and the White House and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] manipulate him, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in our caucus.�
Lewan said that the issue of stripping Lieberman�s seniority did not come up in any of his conversations. He also said he has offered to share Democrats� concerns with the Lieberman campaign.
The issue of Lieberman�s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.
Allowing Lieberman to retain his seniority could put the senator now running as an independent in charge of the Senate�s chief investigative committee. If Democrats took control of either chamber they would likely launch investigations of the White House�s handling of the war in Iraq and homeland security.
�Lieberman�s tone and message has shocked a lot of people,� said a second senior Democratic aide who has discussed the issue with other Senate Democrats. �He�s way off message for us and right in line with the White House.�
�At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority,� said the aide. �He can�t run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before. It would give the view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement.�
The view that Lieberman should lose his seniority is likely to become more ingrained among Democrats if Lieberman continues to align himself with Republicans, as he has in the last few days. Lieberman took a call from senior White House political strategist Karl Rove on the day of his primary election. And since losing, he has adopted rhetoric echoing Republican talking points.
�If we pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,� Lieberman said about U.S. troops in Iraq and the recently foiled terrorism scheme. �It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.�
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has likened Lieberman�s recent statements to the rhetoric coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
Asked yesterday about the race, Dean said, �Ned will win,� adding that Democratic turnout for Lamont will help the party in other Connecticut races.
If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.
In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists� planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC�s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.
Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.
�I think there�s a lot of concern,� said a senior Democratic aide who has discussed the subject with colleagues. �I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate, and the White House and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] manipulate him, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in our caucus.�
Lewan said that the issue of stripping Lieberman�s seniority did not come up in any of his conversations. He also said he has offered to share Democrats� concerns with the Lieberman campaign.
The issue of Lieberman�s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.
Allowing Lieberman to retain his seniority could put the senator now running as an independent in charge of the Senate�s chief investigative committee. If Democrats took control of either chamber they would likely launch investigations of the White House�s handling of the war in Iraq and homeland security.
�Lieberman�s tone and message has shocked a lot of people,� said a second senior Democratic aide who has discussed the issue with other Senate Democrats. �He�s way off message for us and right in line with the White House.�
�At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority,� said the aide. �He can�t run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before. It would give the view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement.�
The view that Lieberman should lose his seniority is likely to become more ingrained among Democrats if Lieberman continues to align himself with Republicans, as he has in the last few days. Lieberman took a call from senior White House political strategist Karl Rove on the day of his primary election. And since losing, he has adopted rhetoric echoing Republican talking points.
�If we pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,� Lieberman said about U.S. troops in Iraq and the recently foiled terrorism scheme. �It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.�
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has likened Lieberman�s recent statements to the rhetoric coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
Asked yesterday about the race, Dean said, �Ned will win,� adding that Democratic turnout for Lamont will help the party in other Connecticut races.
Suspicious Liquid Found at W.Va. Airport
A West Virginia airport terminal was evacuated Thursday after two bottles of liquid found in a woman's carry-on luggage twice tested positive for explosives residue, a Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman said.
Chemical tests later Thursday turned up no explosives in the bottles, said Capt. Jack Chambers, head of the State Police Special Operations unit. The airport was reopened after nearly 10 hours.
"It looks like there were four items containing liquids," said TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. A machine that security checkpoint screeners use to test for explosives registered positive results for two containers, and a canine team also got a positive hit, she said.
Airport manager Larry Salyers said he was told the woman was a 28-year-old of Pakistani descent who had moved to West Virginia from Jackson, Mich.
No charges were filed against the woman, who was taken from the airport by federal authorities at 5 p.m., Salyers said.
The woman was cooperative, officials said.
The woman's mother told the Associated Press that her daughter, who is four months pregnant and lives in Barboursville, W.Va., was targeted because of her nationality and Islamic headcover.
"It was not only a false alarm, it was racial discrimination because there was nothing," Mian Qayyum said, refusing to name her daughter.
"She just had water to drink because she is pregnant and she had a face wash that had a drop of bleach on it," Qayyum said from her home in Jackson.
A screener noticed a bottle in a woman's carry-on bag as she was going through security before her 9:15 a.m. flight to Charlotte, N.C., said Tri-State Airport Authority President Jim Booton.
One bottle contained a gel-type facial cleanser, FBI spokesman Jeff Killeen said.
"Anytime a prohibited item is brought to a checkpoint, then you are going to be immediately more interested in that bag," Kayser said.
The woman had purchased a one-way ticket to Detroit by way of Charlotte on Wednesday, Salyers said.
The flight was allowed to leave for Charlotte, and the terminal was evacuated at 11:25 a.m., officials said.
Commercial airline service was suspended, and about 100 passengers and airport employees were ordered to leave the terminal, Booton said.
U.S. authorities banned the carrying of liquids onto flights last week after British officials made arrests in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes using explosives disguised as drinks and other common products.
Chemical tests later Thursday turned up no explosives in the bottles, said Capt. Jack Chambers, head of the State Police Special Operations unit. The airport was reopened after nearly 10 hours.
"It looks like there were four items containing liquids," said TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. A machine that security checkpoint screeners use to test for explosives registered positive results for two containers, and a canine team also got a positive hit, she said.
Airport manager Larry Salyers said he was told the woman was a 28-year-old of Pakistani descent who had moved to West Virginia from Jackson, Mich.
No charges were filed against the woman, who was taken from the airport by federal authorities at 5 p.m., Salyers said.
The woman was cooperative, officials said.
The woman's mother told the Associated Press that her daughter, who is four months pregnant and lives in Barboursville, W.Va., was targeted because of her nationality and Islamic headcover.
"It was not only a false alarm, it was racial discrimination because there was nothing," Mian Qayyum said, refusing to name her daughter.
"She just had water to drink because she is pregnant and she had a face wash that had a drop of bleach on it," Qayyum said from her home in Jackson.
A screener noticed a bottle in a woman's carry-on bag as she was going through security before her 9:15 a.m. flight to Charlotte, N.C., said Tri-State Airport Authority President Jim Booton.
One bottle contained a gel-type facial cleanser, FBI spokesman Jeff Killeen said.
"Anytime a prohibited item is brought to a checkpoint, then you are going to be immediately more interested in that bag," Kayser said.
The woman had purchased a one-way ticket to Detroit by way of Charlotte on Wednesday, Salyers said.
The flight was allowed to leave for Charlotte, and the terminal was evacuated at 11:25 a.m., officials said.
Commercial airline service was suspended, and about 100 passengers and airport employees were ordered to leave the terminal, Booton said.
U.S. authorities banned the carrying of liquids onto flights last week after British officials made arrests in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes using explosives disguised as drinks and other common products.
Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional
A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."
Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.
The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The administration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.
Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
Administration officials said the program is essential to national security. The Justice Department said it "is lawful and protects civil liberties."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said eliminating it would put the nation in a "very, very weakened position."
In Washington, Republicans expressed hope that the decision would be overturned, while many Democrats praised the ruling.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
Taylor's ruling: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
Information on the case from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/nsaspying
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."
Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.
The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The administration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.
Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
Administration officials said the program is essential to national security. The Justice Department said it "is lawful and protects civil liberties."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said eliminating it would put the nation in a "very, very weakened position."
"Without programs that allow us to do surveillance of communications and transactions in real time ... it will be as if in the Cold War we had dropped all the radar," he said in Los Angeles.
In Washington, Republicans expressed hope that the decision would be overturned, while many Democrats praised the ruling.
"It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
Taylor's ruling: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
Information on the case from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/nsaspying
Thursday, August 17, 2006
9/11 Conspiracy Theories -- The Latest Popular Political Lie
Written by Doc Farmer
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Y�know, I�m always amazed at the intelligence and adaptability of people. How they can assess a situation, analyze the various components, determine the cause/effect process, and come up with innovative answers and solutions to various circumstances. That�s given us cars, airplanes, sliced bread, plutonium, that �new and improved� Segway two-wheeled scooter thingy, and, of course, Pop Tarts. Yet, at the same time, I have to marvel at how some people can take all those situations, components, processes, etc., and come up with the most moronic theories, assumptions, and SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess).
Now, sadly, this stupidity seems to have gained full flower. And all from a �study� or poll done a few weeks back, which claims that a full one-third of all Americans (that�s 100 million people) believe that the United States Government was complicit or actively involved in the 9/11 attacks. Granted, they only asked 1010 Americans their opinion, and I�ve complained about the inaccuracy of ''scientific'' polls in the past, but this is just a bit much.
I believe in conspiracies, just in case you�re wondering. I know there was more to JFK�s death than some whacked out ex-jarhead married to a Rooskie. Whenever Dad has to go down to Wright-Patterson AFB to pick up his prescriptions, I always make sure to ask him to �wave at the aliens� who were transported there from Roswell. I know that American Idol is fixed. Therefore, nobody can say that I totally dismiss all conspiracy theories.
However, this one is just so stupid it beggars belief.
Studies have been done to show what happened on 9/11. Hell, an entire (and ill-conceived) Congressional Committee examined the attacks in detail. While biased beyond belief (see also: Gorelick, Jamie, who should have been on the witness stand instead of the committee) it did at least find that America was attacked by outside forces. No credible evidence of any kind of government involvement, complicity or cover-up was ever found. Even so, that has not caused any slow-down in rabid political (and junk-science) discussions. There are even websites dedicated to not only discussing the conspiracy, but also sending out attack teams to hit other discussion forums with their mindless drivel. The ChronWatch Forum was a recent victim to such an influx of the dendritically-challenged over the weekend. They asked stupid questions, they gave stupid answers, they provided no true evidence, and they spent most of their time being jerks.
In other words, your standard lib/dem/soc/commie profile.
The so-called �left� has been working since day one (in this case, 20 January 2001) to find a way to get rid of its arch-nemesis, the evil Dubya. When 9/11 happened, lib/dem/soc/commies (very) briefly pretended to be patriotic. Well, they tried, anyway. Lasted about two weeks, and then their attacks began. Ever since then, they�ve talked out of both sides of their mouths (as well as a few other orifices) about how everything that happens is Dubya�s fault. Global Warming, no, Global Cooling, no, Global Climate Change, yeah, that�s the ticket. High unemployment is Dubya�s fault, even though we�re at historically LOW levels. The economy is tanking, even though it�s in the best shape it has been in years. Every single charge the lib/dem/soc/commies make is found to be bogus. Even their �evidence� is manufactured (see also: Rather, Dan).
So, where is the truth? Someone once said that the truth is usually found in the middle of two sides. In the case of 9/11, though, the truth is quite simple. America was attacked, brutally, by Islamofascist terrorists. Planes were hijacked and flown into three buildings (and, very nearly, a fourth one). America witnessed this -- in some cases, live on television. The first plane crash was recorded on film. The second one was seen as it happened. The Pentagon crash was witnessed by a number of drivers who saw the plane hit the building. There�s ample evidence to back up EVERY government claim about the attacks that day.
Despite this, lib/dem/soc/commie whackos (see also: base, their) insist that Dubya did it. Yes, this man whom they constantly describe as the dumbest thing on two legs (yes, even though he�s not blond!) somehow coordinated a massive attack on America and the cover-up that followed. He planted physical evidence. He ordered the controlled demolition of buildings (which can take weeks of very noticeable preparation). He ordered missiles to hit the Pentagon, and then magically transformed them into airplane parts. Hell, he even has figured out a way to hide almost 3,000 people for nearly five years.
Note to lib/dem/soc/commies: He is either a total moron or an evil genius. He can�t be both. Make up your freakin� minds already!
The towers fell that terrible day because they were hit by two quarter-million pound objects moving at a few hundred miles an hour, loaded with highly flammable fuel. The fire from the impact weakened the steel infrastructure (it didn�t melt it, and nobody I know ever claimed it did) enough to cause a single floor to collapse. Since it had anywhere from 20 to 40 floors above it, a pancake effect was inevitable. Which is what the world saw that day.
And yet, the lib/dem/soc/commies seem to think that they�re a bunch of Jedi trainees -- �your eyes can deceive you, don�t trust them� -- so they move around blindly, waving around their version of a lightsabre (see also: penknife), without a midi-chlorian in the whole damn bunch. I keep wanting to go to Amazon.com, just so that I can go to the board games section and send them a Clue.
This seems to be their mindset, though. No matter WHAT happens, blame somebody else. America is attacked? Don�t blame Islamofascists; blame Dubya�s conspiratorial genius. Hurricanes hit New Orleans? Don�t blame the weather; blame Dubya and his magical hurricane generator. Souffl� didn�t rise? Lordy, that Dubya�s just causing problems all over the place, ain�t he?
The truth is, we saw the terrible truth that day almost 1,800 days ago. The MANY scientific, forensic and political studies done since then have shown who was responsible -- Islamofascists bent on our destruction. It was not Dubya, not the government, and not some shadowy group of �businessmen� served by a Cigarette-Smoking Man.
So, for all of you political axe-grinders out there, drop this whole 9/11 conspiracy crap, will you? It detracts from the war effort, it emboldens our enemies, and it prevents you from sneaking into Area 51 to look for reverse-engineered alien technology or trying to find Elvis. You know, the important stuff.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest.
Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Y�know, I�m always amazed at the intelligence and adaptability of people. How they can assess a situation, analyze the various components, determine the cause/effect process, and come up with innovative answers and solutions to various circumstances. That�s given us cars, airplanes, sliced bread, plutonium, that �new and improved� Segway two-wheeled scooter thingy, and, of course, Pop Tarts. Yet, at the same time, I have to marvel at how some people can take all those situations, components, processes, etc., and come up with the most moronic theories, assumptions, and SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess).
Now, sadly, this stupidity seems to have gained full flower. And all from a �study� or poll done a few weeks back, which claims that a full one-third of all Americans (that�s 100 million people) believe that the United States Government was complicit or actively involved in the 9/11 attacks. Granted, they only asked 1010 Americans their opinion, and I�ve complained about the inaccuracy of ''scientific'' polls in the past, but this is just a bit much.
I believe in conspiracies, just in case you�re wondering. I know there was more to JFK�s death than some whacked out ex-jarhead married to a Rooskie. Whenever Dad has to go down to Wright-Patterson AFB to pick up his prescriptions, I always make sure to ask him to �wave at the aliens� who were transported there from Roswell. I know that American Idol is fixed. Therefore, nobody can say that I totally dismiss all conspiracy theories.
However, this one is just so stupid it beggars belief.
Studies have been done to show what happened on 9/11. Hell, an entire (and ill-conceived) Congressional Committee examined the attacks in detail. While biased beyond belief (see also: Gorelick, Jamie, who should have been on the witness stand instead of the committee) it did at least find that America was attacked by outside forces. No credible evidence of any kind of government involvement, complicity or cover-up was ever found. Even so, that has not caused any slow-down in rabid political (and junk-science) discussions. There are even websites dedicated to not only discussing the conspiracy, but also sending out attack teams to hit other discussion forums with their mindless drivel. The ChronWatch Forum was a recent victim to such an influx of the dendritically-challenged over the weekend. They asked stupid questions, they gave stupid answers, they provided no true evidence, and they spent most of their time being jerks.
In other words, your standard lib/dem/soc/commie profile.
The so-called �left� has been working since day one (in this case, 20 January 2001) to find a way to get rid of its arch-nemesis, the evil Dubya. When 9/11 happened, lib/dem/soc/commies (very) briefly pretended to be patriotic. Well, they tried, anyway. Lasted about two weeks, and then their attacks began. Ever since then, they�ve talked out of both sides of their mouths (as well as a few other orifices) about how everything that happens is Dubya�s fault. Global Warming, no, Global Cooling, no, Global Climate Change, yeah, that�s the ticket. High unemployment is Dubya�s fault, even though we�re at historically LOW levels. The economy is tanking, even though it�s in the best shape it has been in years. Every single charge the lib/dem/soc/commies make is found to be bogus. Even their �evidence� is manufactured (see also: Rather, Dan).
So, where is the truth? Someone once said that the truth is usually found in the middle of two sides. In the case of 9/11, though, the truth is quite simple. America was attacked, brutally, by Islamofascist terrorists. Planes were hijacked and flown into three buildings (and, very nearly, a fourth one). America witnessed this -- in some cases, live on television. The first plane crash was recorded on film. The second one was seen as it happened. The Pentagon crash was witnessed by a number of drivers who saw the plane hit the building. There�s ample evidence to back up EVERY government claim about the attacks that day.
Despite this, lib/dem/soc/commie whackos (see also: base, their) insist that Dubya did it. Yes, this man whom they constantly describe as the dumbest thing on two legs (yes, even though he�s not blond!) somehow coordinated a massive attack on America and the cover-up that followed. He planted physical evidence. He ordered the controlled demolition of buildings (which can take weeks of very noticeable preparation). He ordered missiles to hit the Pentagon, and then magically transformed them into airplane parts. Hell, he even has figured out a way to hide almost 3,000 people for nearly five years.
Note to lib/dem/soc/commies: He is either a total moron or an evil genius. He can�t be both. Make up your freakin� minds already!
The towers fell that terrible day because they were hit by two quarter-million pound objects moving at a few hundred miles an hour, loaded with highly flammable fuel. The fire from the impact weakened the steel infrastructure (it didn�t melt it, and nobody I know ever claimed it did) enough to cause a single floor to collapse. Since it had anywhere from 20 to 40 floors above it, a pancake effect was inevitable. Which is what the world saw that day.
And yet, the lib/dem/soc/commies seem to think that they�re a bunch of Jedi trainees -- �your eyes can deceive you, don�t trust them� -- so they move around blindly, waving around their version of a lightsabre (see also: penknife), without a midi-chlorian in the whole damn bunch. I keep wanting to go to Amazon.com, just so that I can go to the board games section and send them a Clue.
This seems to be their mindset, though. No matter WHAT happens, blame somebody else. America is attacked? Don�t blame Islamofascists; blame Dubya�s conspiratorial genius. Hurricanes hit New Orleans? Don�t blame the weather; blame Dubya and his magical hurricane generator. Souffl� didn�t rise? Lordy, that Dubya�s just causing problems all over the place, ain�t he?
The truth is, we saw the terrible truth that day almost 1,800 days ago. The MANY scientific, forensic and political studies done since then have shown who was responsible -- Islamofascists bent on our destruction. It was not Dubya, not the government, and not some shadowy group of �businessmen� served by a Cigarette-Smoking Man.
So, for all of you political axe-grinders out there, drop this whole 9/11 conspiracy crap, will you? It detracts from the war effort, it emboldens our enemies, and it prevents you from sneaking into Area 51 to look for reverse-engineered alien technology or trying to find Elvis. You know, the important stuff.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest.
Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
Kidman condemns Hamas, Hezbollah
NICOLE Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism.
The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.
It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad.
The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.
Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names.
Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.
The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.
It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.
"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die. "We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."
A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad.
The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.
Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names.
Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.
Oil Prices Drop to near eight-week low
Oil fell for a fourth day on Thursday to the lowest in nearly eight weeks after U.S. data reminded traders that crude stocks are relatively robust and the summer driving season is nearing its end.
U.S. light, sweet crude for September delivery fell 61 cents to $71.28 a barrel, its lowest since June 26. London Brent was down 62 cents to $72.21 a barrel.
U.S. crude prices have shed more than 7 percent after falling for six of the last eight sessions as a ceasefire took hold in the Middle East and BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) decided to shut in only half of its 400,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Prudhoe Bay oilfield.
Some dealers had feared the partial closure of the biggest oilfield in the United States might trigger a surprisingly large drawdown in this week's crude inventories, but data on Wednesday showed a decline of 1.6 million barrels, in line with forecasts.
Crude stocks have fallen from the eight-year high reached earlier this year, but still remain higher than almost any time since 1999, giving refiners a sizeable supply buffer to guard against any unexpected disruptions.
Gasoline inventories dropped by a deeper-than-expected 2.3 million barrels, but demand eased from the previous week as the summer driving season, which ends in early September, began to wind down.
"It is this pace of demand deceleration, as well as the plentiful supplies of heating oil, that may set a more modest bearish tone to the market in the weeks after August," said First Energy Capital analyst Martin King.
U.S. light, sweet crude for September delivery
U.S. crude prices have shed more than 7 percent after falling for six of the last eight sessions as a ceasefire took hold in the Middle East and BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) decided to shut in only half of its 400,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Prudhoe Bay oilfield.
Some dealers had feared the partial closure of the biggest oilfield in the United States might trigger a surprisingly large drawdown in this week's crude inventories, but data on Wednesday showed a decline of 1.6 million barrels, in line with forecasts.
Crude stocks have fallen from the eight-year high reached earlier this year, but still remain higher than almost any time since 1999, giving refiners a sizeable supply buffer to guard against any unexpected disruptions.
Gasoline inventories dropped by a deeper-than-expected 2.3 million barrels, but demand eased from the previous week as the summer driving season, which ends in early September, began to wind down.
"It is this pace of demand deceleration, as well as the plentiful supplies of heating oil, that may set a more modest bearish tone to the market in the weeks after August," said First Energy Capital analyst Martin King.
"WTI crude oil prices treading water more in the range of the very low $70s to very high $60s may be something that materialises, barring any hurricane-induced price spikes."
Ethanol could leave the world hungry
One tankful of the latest craze in alternative energy could feed one person for a year, Lester Brown tells Fortune.
The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.
We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world's growing food needs.
Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by Brazil's use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one-fourth so far this year.
Once stimulated solely by government subsidies, biofuel production is now being driven largely by the runaway price of oil. Many food commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane, can be converted into fuel; thus the food and energy economies are beginning to merge.
The market is setting the price for farm commodities at their oil-equivalent value. As the price of oil climbs, so will the price of food.
In some U.S. Cornbelt states, ethanol distilleries are taking over the corn supply. In Iowa, 25 ethanol plants are operating, four are under construction, and another 26 are planned.
Iowa State University economist Bob Wisner observes that if all those plants are built, distilleries would use the entire Iowa corn harvest. In South Dakota, ethanol distilleries are already claiming over half that state's crop.
The key to lessening demand for grain is to commercialize ethanol production from cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or poplar trees, a prospect that is at least five years away.
Malaysia, the leading exporter of palm oil, is emerging as the biofuel leader in Asia. But after approving 32 biodiesel refineries within the past 15 months, it recently suspended further licensing while it assesses the adequacy of its palm oil supplies. Fast-rising global demand for palm oil for both food and biodiesel purposes, coupled with rising domestic needs, has the government concerned that there will not be enough to go around.
The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.
We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world's growing food needs.
Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by Brazil's use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one-fourth so far this year.
Once stimulated solely by government subsidies, biofuel production is now being driven largely by the runaway price of oil. Many food commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane, can be converted into fuel; thus the food and energy economies are beginning to merge.
The market is setting the price for farm commodities at their oil-equivalent value. As the price of oil climbs, so will the price of food.
In some U.S. Cornbelt states, ethanol distilleries are taking over the corn supply. In Iowa, 25 ethanol plants are operating, four are under construction, and another 26 are planned.
Iowa State University economist Bob Wisner observes that if all those plants are built, distilleries would use the entire Iowa corn harvest. In South Dakota, ethanol distilleries are already claiming over half that state's crop.
The key to lessening demand for grain is to commercialize ethanol production from cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or poplar trees, a prospect that is at least five years away.
Malaysia, the leading exporter of palm oil, is emerging as the biofuel leader in Asia. But after approving 32 biodiesel refineries within the past 15 months, it recently suspended further licensing while it assesses the adequacy of its palm oil supplies. Fast-rising global demand for palm oil for both food and biodiesel purposes, coupled with rising domestic needs, has the government concerned that there will not be enough to go around.
Poll: Joe Lieberman Leads Ned Lamont in Conn.
Ned Lamont, whose anti-war campaign rattled the political landscape by toppling Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary, is gaining support among voters - but Lieberman still has an edge, according to a poll released Thursday.
The Quinnipiac University poll has Lieberman leading Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent. Among likely voters, Lieberman was supported by 53 percent, compared to Lamont's 41 percent and Schlesinger's 4 percent.
Lieberman, a nationally known centrist who has been criticized by many Democrats for supporting the war in Iraq and a perceived closeness to President Bush, lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary by 10,000 votes. Political pundits say the primary was evidence of voters' frustration with the war and predict it could have national political ramifications.
Lieberman's advantage in the general election comes from broad support among unaffiliated and Republican voters. Fifty-three percent of likely voters polled said he deserves to be re-elected, and nearly half doubted that Lamont, a political novice who founded a company that wires college campuses for cable television, has enough experience to be senator.
Top state and national Democrats, including Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg, abandoned Lieberman after the primary and are endorsing Lamont. Former Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 candidate for vice president, was to campaign for Lamont on Thursday.
Some Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are throwing their support behind Lieberman instead of Schlesinger, who has been dogged by revelations of that he was sued by two New Jersey casinos for gambling debts, and that he gambled at a Connecticut casino under a false name in the 1990s while a state legislator.
The telephone poll was conducted between Aug. 10 to 14. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,319 registered voters and the poll has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Among the 1,083 likely voters, the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Quinnipiac University poll has Lieberman leading Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent. Among likely voters, Lieberman was supported by 53 percent, compared to Lamont's 41 percent and Schlesinger's 4 percent.
Lieberman, a nationally known centrist who has been criticized by many Democrats for supporting the war in Iraq and a perceived closeness to President Bush, lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary by 10,000 votes. Political pundits say the primary was evidence of voters' frustration with the war and predict it could have national political ramifications.
Lieberman's advantage in the general election comes from broad support among unaffiliated and Republican voters. Fifty-three percent of likely voters polled said he deserves to be re-elected, and nearly half doubted that Lamont, a political novice who founded a company that wires college campuses for cable television, has enough experience to be senator.
"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing. It more than offsets what he has lost among Democrats," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans, while holding a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."
Top state and national Democrats, including Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg, abandoned Lieberman after the primary and are endorsing Lamont. Former Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 candidate for vice president, was to campaign for Lamont on Thursday.
Some Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are throwing their support behind Lieberman instead of Schlesinger, who has been dogged by revelations of that he was sued by two New Jersey casinos for gambling debts, and that he gambled at a Connecticut casino under a false name in the 1990s while a state legislator.
The telephone poll was conducted between Aug. 10 to 14. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,319 registered voters and the poll has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Among the 1,083 likely voters, the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
2006 Projections Show GOP with Slim Lead
Senate Balance of Power: 2006 Projections Show GOP with Slim Lead
If the mid-term elections were held today, Republicans would narrowly retain control of the U.S. Senate according to Rasmussen Reports polling data. Our Balance of Power summary shows the GOP is favored in enough races to hang on to 50 Senate seats at the moment. Forty-seven seats would be in Democratic hands while 3 are in the Toss-Up category.
Click Here to view chart.
For an explanation of Senate Balance of Power, click here.
If the mid-term elections were held today, Republicans would narrowly retain control of the U.S. Senate according to Rasmussen Reports polling data. Our Balance of Power summary shows the GOP is favored in enough races to hang on to 50 Senate seats at the moment. Forty-seven seats would be in Democratic hands while 3 are in the Toss-Up category.
Click Here to view chart.
For an explanation of Senate Balance of Power, click here.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Rakan Bin Williams Exposed:The Identity of Al Qaeda's Secret Weapon
by Laura Mansfield and Jill St. Clair
In November, Global Islamic Media Front posted a message describing the individual who would carry out the next wave of Al Qaeda attacks against the United States and Europe. The posting called this fictional Al Qaeda foot soldier "Rakan Bin Williams".
Since that initial posting in November, there have been a number of additional posts purportedly from Rakan Bin Williams, all threatenng attacks against the west by a new soldier who would be a European or American-born Muslim convert.
Efforts to identify "Rakan Bin Williams" have been fruitless; until now, the concensus opinion of analysts has been that Rakan Bin Williams is a label for the new generation of Al Qaeda terrorist..
At first glance, many of those arrested in the London terror probe bear striking similarities to the description of Rakan Bin Williams. Was one of these individuals the inspiration for Rakan Bin Williams?
Possibly. However, another possibility must be considered.
What if Rakan Bin Williams isn't a person? What if Rakan Bin Williams is the code name for the group, a group of cells or even the operation itself, instead of the name of one person?
In the original Arabic postings, in many instances the name "Rakan Bin Williams" and its associated pronounces are refered to in the "plural" sense, as "they" or "them".
Do you think I am crazy? Who is Rakan Bin Williams?
They are a group of your sons who were born in Europe from two European parents, and were Christians who studied in your schools, and enter your places, and know your psychology, and they go to your churches and celebrate mass on Sunday.
They drank wine, and ate pork, and persecuted the Muslims.
But Al Qaeda brought them in and they embraced Islam and hid their Muslim religion and soaked up the Al Qaeda thought and promised Allah that they will carry the flag of their distance brothers and seek vengence on the evil doers.
They blend into the streets of Europe and they streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
The description of Rakan Bin Williams quite accurately describes the group that has been linked to the plot to blow at least 12 airlines from the skies last week.
Among those arrested were Muslim converts, including at least two who were Roman Catholic. Some were of Pakistani origin, born and raised in the UK; others had a mother, father or both parents of European descent.
These terrorists, as Al Qaeda promised, had been educated in the schools of the UK. Many were former church goers. To all appearances they had assimilated well into the British society.
Yet they were involved in a plot to kill hundreds or thousands of their fellow countrymen.
The second Rakan Bin Williams post says:
Let me also inform you that we are talking about two operations, not one. The scale of one of them is larger than the other but both are large and significant. However, we will start with the smaller, and temporarily put the larger on hold to see how serious the Americans are about their lives.
Was the London operation phase one (or even part of phase one) of a two-phase attack? Is another attack in the planning stages for the US?
If we are to believe Osama Bin Laden, the answer is "Yes".
In January 2006, a taped message from Bin Laden promised the following:
It's only a matter of time. They are in the planning stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete.
Early reports indicated that there may be links between this cell and people currently in the United States.
This isn't surprising. The post describing Rakan Bin Williams told us that last November:
They blend into the streets of Europe and the streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
Are you ready to meet them, Blair?
But are you ready to meet them, George W. Bush?
History shows us that Al Qaeda consistently tells us what they are going to do. Then they do it.
They've told us they are in America too.
Are any of us ready to meet them?
1 November 2005 - Global Islamic Media post describes next wave of Al Qaeda attackers as "lily whites"
Rakan Bin Williams is the next Al Qaeda soldier.
You can't watch him, you can't restrict his movements, and you cannot stop him.
He will shake the land under your feet and his hands will be responsible for the fall of your empire, Allah willing
Do you think I am crazy? Who is Rakan Bin Williams?
They are a group of your sons who were born in Europe from two European parents, and were Christians who studied in your schools, and enter your places, and know your psychology, and they go to your churches and celebrate mass on Sunday.
They drank wine, and ate pork, and persecuted the Muslims.
But Al Qaeda brought them in and they embraced Islam and hid their Muslim religion and soaked up the Al Qaeda thought and promised Allah that they will carry the flag of their distance brothers and seek vengence on the evil doers.
They blend into the streets of Europe and the streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
Are you ready to meet them, Blair?
But are you ready to meet them, George W. Bush?
March 2006: The Last Warning to the American People (Rakan Ben Williams)
I discern your wonder about this warning in which you do not quite recognize what to make of it. You are probably asking: Why would Al-Qaeda Organization announce its upcoming operations inside the mainland? Why the repeated warnings? Originally by the commander in Chief of Al-Qaeda (the victorious, by the grace of Allah), followed by the same warning through his trusted deputy, and now by Rakan Williams (Al-Qaeda's under cover soldier in the west).
What could be the theme?
What exactly is being planned?
Could it be another one of Al-Qaeda's tricks?
How would anyone in a right mind, while in the preparation stages, discloses the objectives? Let alone before completing the arrangements! Military experts would fully agree that such a disclosure would only come out from an insane.
However, coming from Al-Qaeda, a disclosure like this reflects one thing and one thing alone: full faith and trust in Allah. Ultimate faith in Allah and His infinite power, He (Allah) is the only true protector and helper. The conviction in our men and their unexpected abilities to prepare and carry out such missions comes second to next in our trust in Allah.
You ought not to be intolerably upset; for whoever survives this upcoming blow will have a probability to learn an amazing lesson in the art of conducting 'expeditions.'
Despite the fact that the New York, Washington, Madrid, and London expeditions have been carried out a few years back. The search for clues on how they were conducted in such a successful manner is still going on and reports upon reports are still being written about them. However, the next expedition might not find someone who can provide analysis for. The top intellects, strategists, and analysts, will be totally clueless as to how to explain what occurred. Let me also inform you that we are talking about two operations, not one. The scale of one of them is larger than the other but both are large and significant. However, we will start with the smaller, and temporarily put the larger on hold to see how serious the Americans are about their lives. Should you value your own life and security, accept Muslims' demands, but if you shall prefer death (over giving in to Muslims' demands). Then, we, by the grace of Allah, are the best in bringing it (death) to your door steps.
Do not put your hopes on Bush and his clan, they are incapable of protecting you, and if they think they are, let them foil or stop the two upcoming operations, and punish those who are responsible for them. But if they could not identify and foil the devastating events coming your way, you must ask yourselves: How long will we continue allowing ourselves to be slaughtered with full advance knowledge of our fate?
Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple; you cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today.
This indeed is a sweet situation to be in. It is a win-win all the way for us. It is the ultimate control and the most stunning way to stop an operation (accelerating it with the same impact). What we are saying is this: You will have a choice of either let us carry it out on our own schedule and with our own hands or allow your own intelligence apparatus to cause it to happen. This second choice will cause a level of dissatisfaction (with your decision makers) to reach its highest level. Therefore, your Homeland Security Agencies would have no choice but to surrender and wait for the inevitable to happen.
I will not give any more clues; this is enough as a wake up call. Perhaps the American people will start thinking about the magnitude of the danger that is coming their way.
Oh you helpless Americans, especially those living in States far away from Washington, D.C.! Your country is comprised of many States that should not have anything to do with Muslims. Take the State of Arizona for example; what does this State have to do with killing Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq? What interest of theirs serving, helping, and siding with the Jews and Israel?
If some members of your Congress and Senate are being used as Jewish tools manipulated by Israel, why do you bear the consequences?
Why do you bring death and destruction to your homes and lives in an apparent sacrifice for a handful of dishonest men and women?
They took advantage of your state of unawareness to advance their own agenda. They have built and strengthened the State of Israel while bringing adversity and destruction to you in the process. Therefore, the net result for you is death, losses and insecurity. But for them is wealth, fine and secure life. You have sent your loved ones to die in the Hell of Iraq not to bring you security but to bring security to the State of Israel. But the sad thing is that the pain will not stop at the loss of your loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the pain will even be greater when death and destruction comes once more to you in your own homes, by the grace of Allah.
The operations are ready to go, we are just waiting for orders from the commander in chief, Osama Ben Laden (may Allah preserve him). He will decide whether to strike or to hold. We swear by Allah that there are so many tricks and tactical maneuvers that will make your heads spin, by the grace of Allah. You will be brought to your knees, but not until you lose more loved ones and experience significant destruction.
Now is the time to wake up and dust off this state of complacency and ineffectiveness to save yourselves and your loved ones from catastrophes sure to come your way. Remove war mongers from positions of power and throw them in prisons, where they belong. Rid yourselves of 'the Jewish pests' that brought nothing to you but adversity and loss of lives and wealth. They have deceived you for many years, it is time now you turn the table on them and make an example out of them.
Rid yourselves of media crafters who deliberately kept you in the dark for so long and made a mockery of you before the rest of the world. Boycott NBC news and dismiss its Jewish CEO, Fred Silverman. Do the same to INC news and fire its Jewish owner, Leonard Goldstein, the same is true for CBS and its owner William Bailey. Find credible media outlets that bring nothing to you but facts. Unfortunately you won't find any in your country. Do you know why? Because your rogue State fights any media dedicated to the truth, no matter how small it is.
Visit Mujahideen web sites to get to know who they are. You will see for yourselves that they are not what your media outlets made you believe they are. If you cannot do that, the least you could do is to watch Al-Jazeera Channel; there you might get 20% or less of the truth about the war zones. Resent the corrupted politicians in Washington, D.C. and demand justice, if they do not give in to your demands, you must declare autonomy so you may live in peace and security.
This is the last warning you will receive from us. Consequently, if you ignore it, we regret to inform you that we will carry out devastating operations against the States of America and we will not show mercy whatsoever, you would have brought destruction to yourselves. Do not ever forget, you have rejected the truce which was offered to you by Muslims; you have supported the thieves of the white house and blessed their adventures. Therefore, you get nothing from us short of similar treatment; for only blood for blood.
May Allah facilitate a way for us to spill the blood of the occupiers and cut off the heads of the aggressors. Allah has full power and control over all of His affairs, but most mankind knows not.
Rakan Ben Williams
Al-Qaeda under cover soldier
USA
In November, Global Islamic Media Front posted a message describing the individual who would carry out the next wave of Al Qaeda attacks against the United States and Europe. The posting called this fictional Al Qaeda foot soldier "Rakan Bin Williams".
Since that initial posting in November, there have been a number of additional posts purportedly from Rakan Bin Williams, all threatenng attacks against the west by a new soldier who would be a European or American-born Muslim convert.
Efforts to identify "Rakan Bin Williams" have been fruitless; until now, the concensus opinion of analysts has been that Rakan Bin Williams is a label for the new generation of Al Qaeda terrorist..
At first glance, many of those arrested in the London terror probe bear striking similarities to the description of Rakan Bin Williams. Was one of these individuals the inspiration for Rakan Bin Williams?
Possibly. However, another possibility must be considered.
What if Rakan Bin Williams isn't a person? What if Rakan Bin Williams is the code name for the group, a group of cells or even the operation itself, instead of the name of one person?
In the original Arabic postings, in many instances the name "Rakan Bin Williams" and its associated pronounces are refered to in the "plural" sense, as "they" or "them".
Do you think I am crazy? Who is Rakan Bin Williams?
They are a group of your sons who were born in Europe from two European parents, and were Christians who studied in your schools, and enter your places, and know your psychology, and they go to your churches and celebrate mass on Sunday.
They drank wine, and ate pork, and persecuted the Muslims.
But Al Qaeda brought them in and they embraced Islam and hid their Muslim religion and soaked up the Al Qaeda thought and promised Allah that they will carry the flag of their distance brothers and seek vengence on the evil doers.
They blend into the streets of Europe and they streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
The description of Rakan Bin Williams quite accurately describes the group that has been linked to the plot to blow at least 12 airlines from the skies last week.
Among those arrested were Muslim converts, including at least two who were Roman Catholic. Some were of Pakistani origin, born and raised in the UK; others had a mother, father or both parents of European descent.
These terrorists, as Al Qaeda promised, had been educated in the schools of the UK. Many were former church goers. To all appearances they had assimilated well into the British society.
Yet they were involved in a plot to kill hundreds or thousands of their fellow countrymen.
The second Rakan Bin Williams post says:
Let me also inform you that we are talking about two operations, not one. The scale of one of them is larger than the other but both are large and significant. However, we will start with the smaller, and temporarily put the larger on hold to see how serious the Americans are about their lives.
Was the London operation phase one (or even part of phase one) of a two-phase attack? Is another attack in the planning stages for the US?
If we are to believe Osama Bin Laden, the answer is "Yes".
In January 2006, a taped message from Bin Laden promised the following:
It's only a matter of time. They are in the planning stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete.
Early reports indicated that there may be links between this cell and people currently in the United States.
This isn't surprising. The post describing Rakan Bin Williams told us that last November:
They blend into the streets of Europe and the streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
Are you ready to meet them, Blair?
But are you ready to meet them, George W. Bush?
History shows us that Al Qaeda consistently tells us what they are going to do. Then they do it.
They've told us they are in America too.
Are any of us ready to meet them?
1 November 2005 - Global Islamic Media post describes next wave of Al Qaeda attackers as "lily whites"
Rakan Bin Williams is the next Al Qaeda soldier.
You can't watch him, you can't restrict his movements, and you cannot stop him.
He will shake the land under your feet and his hands will be responsible for the fall of your empire, Allah willing
Do you think I am crazy? Who is Rakan Bin Williams?
They are a group of your sons who were born in Europe from two European parents, and were Christians who studied in your schools, and enter your places, and know your psychology, and they go to your churches and celebrate mass on Sunday.
They drank wine, and ate pork, and persecuted the Muslims.
But Al Qaeda brought them in and they embraced Islam and hid their Muslim religion and soaked up the Al Qaeda thought and promised Allah that they will carry the flag of their distance brothers and seek vengence on the evil doers.
They blend into the streets of Europe and the streets of America and they plan and watch and observe.
Are you ready to meet them, Blair?
But are you ready to meet them, George W. Bush?
March 2006: The Last Warning to the American People (Rakan Ben Williams)
I discern your wonder about this warning in which you do not quite recognize what to make of it. You are probably asking: Why would Al-Qaeda Organization announce its upcoming operations inside the mainland? Why the repeated warnings? Originally by the commander in Chief of Al-Qaeda (the victorious, by the grace of Allah), followed by the same warning through his trusted deputy, and now by Rakan Williams (Al-Qaeda's under cover soldier in the west).
What could be the theme?
What exactly is being planned?
Could it be another one of Al-Qaeda's tricks?
How would anyone in a right mind, while in the preparation stages, discloses the objectives? Let alone before completing the arrangements! Military experts would fully agree that such a disclosure would only come out from an insane.
However, coming from Al-Qaeda, a disclosure like this reflects one thing and one thing alone: full faith and trust in Allah. Ultimate faith in Allah and His infinite power, He (Allah) is the only true protector and helper. The conviction in our men and their unexpected abilities to prepare and carry out such missions comes second to next in our trust in Allah.
You ought not to be intolerably upset; for whoever survives this upcoming blow will have a probability to learn an amazing lesson in the art of conducting 'expeditions.'
Despite the fact that the New York, Washington, Madrid, and London expeditions have been carried out a few years back. The search for clues on how they were conducted in such a successful manner is still going on and reports upon reports are still being written about them. However, the next expedition might not find someone who can provide analysis for. The top intellects, strategists, and analysts, will be totally clueless as to how to explain what occurred. Let me also inform you that we are talking about two operations, not one. The scale of one of them is larger than the other but both are large and significant. However, we will start with the smaller, and temporarily put the larger on hold to see how serious the Americans are about their lives. Should you value your own life and security, accept Muslims' demands, but if you shall prefer death (over giving in to Muslims' demands). Then, we, by the grace of Allah, are the best in bringing it (death) to your door steps.
Do not put your hopes on Bush and his clan, they are incapable of protecting you, and if they think they are, let them foil or stop the two upcoming operations, and punish those who are responsible for them. But if they could not identify and foil the devastating events coming your way, you must ask yourselves: How long will we continue allowing ourselves to be slaughtered with full advance knowledge of our fate?
Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple; you cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today.
This indeed is a sweet situation to be in. It is a win-win all the way for us. It is the ultimate control and the most stunning way to stop an operation (accelerating it with the same impact). What we are saying is this: You will have a choice of either let us carry it out on our own schedule and with our own hands or allow your own intelligence apparatus to cause it to happen. This second choice will cause a level of dissatisfaction (with your decision makers) to reach its highest level. Therefore, your Homeland Security Agencies would have no choice but to surrender and wait for the inevitable to happen.
I will not give any more clues; this is enough as a wake up call. Perhaps the American people will start thinking about the magnitude of the danger that is coming their way.
Oh you helpless Americans, especially those living in States far away from Washington, D.C.! Your country is comprised of many States that should not have anything to do with Muslims. Take the State of Arizona for example; what does this State have to do with killing Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq? What interest of theirs serving, helping, and siding with the Jews and Israel?
If some members of your Congress and Senate are being used as Jewish tools manipulated by Israel, why do you bear the consequences?
Why do you bring death and destruction to your homes and lives in an apparent sacrifice for a handful of dishonest men and women?
They took advantage of your state of unawareness to advance their own agenda. They have built and strengthened the State of Israel while bringing adversity and destruction to you in the process. Therefore, the net result for you is death, losses and insecurity. But for them is wealth, fine and secure life. You have sent your loved ones to die in the Hell of Iraq not to bring you security but to bring security to the State of Israel. But the sad thing is that the pain will not stop at the loss of your loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the pain will even be greater when death and destruction comes once more to you in your own homes, by the grace of Allah.
The operations are ready to go, we are just waiting for orders from the commander in chief, Osama Ben Laden (may Allah preserve him). He will decide whether to strike or to hold. We swear by Allah that there are so many tricks and tactical maneuvers that will make your heads spin, by the grace of Allah. You will be brought to your knees, but not until you lose more loved ones and experience significant destruction.
Now is the time to wake up and dust off this state of complacency and ineffectiveness to save yourselves and your loved ones from catastrophes sure to come your way. Remove war mongers from positions of power and throw them in prisons, where they belong. Rid yourselves of 'the Jewish pests' that brought nothing to you but adversity and loss of lives and wealth. They have deceived you for many years, it is time now you turn the table on them and make an example out of them.
Rid yourselves of media crafters who deliberately kept you in the dark for so long and made a mockery of you before the rest of the world. Boycott NBC news and dismiss its Jewish CEO, Fred Silverman. Do the same to INC news and fire its Jewish owner, Leonard Goldstein, the same is true for CBS and its owner William Bailey. Find credible media outlets that bring nothing to you but facts. Unfortunately you won't find any in your country. Do you know why? Because your rogue State fights any media dedicated to the truth, no matter how small it is.
Visit Mujahideen web sites to get to know who they are. You will see for yourselves that they are not what your media outlets made you believe they are. If you cannot do that, the least you could do is to watch Al-Jazeera Channel; there you might get 20% or less of the truth about the war zones. Resent the corrupted politicians in Washington, D.C. and demand justice, if they do not give in to your demands, you must declare autonomy so you may live in peace and security.
This is the last warning you will receive from us. Consequently, if you ignore it, we regret to inform you that we will carry out devastating operations against the States of America and we will not show mercy whatsoever, you would have brought destruction to yourselves. Do not ever forget, you have rejected the truce which was offered to you by Muslims; you have supported the thieves of the white house and blessed their adventures. Therefore, you get nothing from us short of similar treatment; for only blood for blood.
May Allah facilitate a way for us to spill the blood of the occupiers and cut off the heads of the aggressors. Allah has full power and control over all of His affairs, but most mankind knows not.
Rakan Ben Williams
Al-Qaeda under cover soldier
USA
Obama Warns of Gas Guzzling Cars, Drives Off in SUV
Illinois Senator Barack Obama warns citizens at his 50th Town Hall meeting about gas guzzling, WPSD-TV reports.
It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming.
He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids.
Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."
"After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself," claimed local News Channel 6.
MORE
Tommy Vietor, Senator Obama's press secretary, explains: "What Senator Obama has long advocated is the use of vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including but not exclusively hybrids.
"The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol.
"So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles."
But it does not appear that GMC's Envoy is E85 ready.
It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming.
He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids.
Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."
"After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself," claimed local News Channel 6.
MORE
Tommy Vietor, Senator Obama's press secretary, explains: "What Senator Obama has long advocated is the use of vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including but not exclusively hybrids.
"The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol.
"So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles."
But it does not appear that GMC's Envoy is E85 ready.
Summer Heat Waves -- Global Warming Or Just Hot Air?
"More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming" declared the Aug. 4 Washington Post headline of a story predicting that record-breaking killer heat waves might soon become the norm in the United States and Europe.
Because of the Earth's warming climate, this story warned, the lethal heat that scorched Europe in 2003, killing thousands, would by 2040 return every other summer. The United States, too, would suffer frequent hellish summers, presumably in punishment for our environmental sins of greenhouse pollution.
But are such heat waves, however extreme, really evidence of a fast-warming global climate as Gore and the mainstream media would have us believe? Even Post reporter Juliet Eilperin conceded that "it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change."
Atmospheric scientists have good reasons to be skeptical about purported weather-climate connections. Weather involves short-term phenomena such as rainstorms, heat waves and dry spells that happen on time scales from minutes to at most a few years. Weather changes constantly and often goes to extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry.
Climate, by contrast, describes a place's average patterns of weather over 30 years or more � and therefore reflects the continuing influence of temperature, wind, precipitation and many other factors. A place's � or a planet's � climate cannot be redefined by a few days, or even a few years, of unusual weather.
Environmental radicals claimed that this summer's heat wave shattered all previous high-temperature records, and they implied that this heat came at least in part from human-caused global warming. Such claims are incorrect or unproven, according to Virginia Polytechnic Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels.
The blazing summer of 1930 began the longest American drought of the 20th century. "In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California," wrote CNS reporter Randy Hall. "A �Dust Bowl' covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-36," and drove many thousands of busted Oklahoma and Arkansas farm families -- Okies and Arkies -- westward to California.
Then as now, a few scientists became media darlings by warning of an impending climatic disaster from global warming. A handful of those scientists identified carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels as a climate-warming greenhouse gas, but human cars and factories were too few to have caused the Dust Bowl.
But a sudden chill began around 1940, the start of nearly four decades of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. By the late 1970s the Mississippi River was clogging with winter ice. Water pipes five feet underground were freezing and bursting in Chicago. Buffalo, N.Y., was buried beneath record blizzard snowfall. Snow even fell briefly on the beaches of Miami, Florida. The same weekly news magazines that today tout Gore's extreme claims about global warming were only three decades ago warning of a fast-approaching new ice age.
The mainstream media trumpets hot spells as evidence of the global warming on its political agenda. Here's some of the opposite-but-equal unusual cold it scarcely reported:
In December 2005 devastating cold chilled the Rocky Mountain West. Last Dec. 7 at West Yellowstone, Mont., the temperature fell to 45 below zero, fully six degrees colder than the previous record set in 1927, according to the National Weather Service. In Fort Collins, Colo., the mercury plunged to 37 below zero, and even in Lubbock in the Texas panhandle it dipped to only six degrees above zero.
Across the Pacific Ocean, February 2006 temperatures along Russia's Siberian coastline plummeted to 69 degrees below zero, shattering all previous cold records by six degrees. Unusual cold and snow blasted other regions of the former Soviet Union, from Moscow to Georgia along the southern beaches of the Black Sea.
Winter snowfall has been breaking records in the United States and Eurasia since March 1993's "Storm of the Century" dumped snow up to four feet deep from New York to Alabama, as TechCentralStation reported June 2. On Feb. 17-18, 2003, Boston set a new all-time storm record with 27.5 inches of snow. On Feb. 17-18, 2006, a blizzard dumped 26.9 inches of snow on New York City's Central Park, a record unequalled since the blizzard of 1888.
The climate is now measurably cooling in Eastern Europe. Even Gore in his global warming book, An Inconvenient Truth, shouts that "temperature increases are taking place all over the world" (p. 78) but in the back of the book's fine print admits that "some parts of the globe � such as northern Europe � might actually become colder" (p. 321).
We now know that the 2003 European heat wave was caused by rare events in Earth's upper atmosphere, not by global warming. Recent record snowfall, as well as 2005's brief burst of hurricanes, has been driven by known cycles in such weather phenomena, not necessarily by global warming.
Bottom line: As research scientist Dr. Nigella Hillgarth of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego says, "One heat wave does not make global warming."
Because of the Earth's warming climate, this story warned, the lethal heat that scorched Europe in 2003, killing thousands, would by 2040 return every other summer. The United States, too, would suffer frequent hellish summers, presumably in punishment for our environmental sins of greenhouse pollution.
But are such heat waves, however extreme, really evidence of a fast-warming global climate as Gore and the mainstream media would have us believe? Even Post reporter Juliet Eilperin conceded that "it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change."
"Virtually all climate experts agree that it is impossible to attribute any single weather event � a heat wave, drought or hurricane � to global warming," wrote the New York Times near the bottom of an Aug. 1 editorial, "given the myriad factors that influence weather."
"A heat wave is a heat wave," is the more blunt assessment of Jim St. John, a meteorological scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. "We've always had them in the summer months, and they don't necessarily tell us anything about climate change."
Atmospheric scientists have good reasons to be skeptical about purported weather-climate connections. Weather involves short-term phenomena such as rainstorms, heat waves and dry spells that happen on time scales from minutes to at most a few years. Weather changes constantly and often goes to extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry.
Climate, by contrast, describes a place's average patterns of weather over 30 years or more � and therefore reflects the continuing influence of temperature, wind, precipitation and many other factors. A place's � or a planet's � climate cannot be redefined by a few days, or even a few years, of unusual weather.
Environmental radicals claimed that this summer's heat wave shattered all previous high-temperature records, and they implied that this heat came at least in part from human-caused global warming. Such claims are incorrect or unproven, according to Virginia Polytechnic Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels.
"From June 1 to Aug. 31, 1930," Michaels told Cybercast News Service, "21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above" in metropolitan Washington, D.C. Many heat records were set that year, especially from July 19 to Aug. 9. "That summer has never been approached," said Michaels, "and it's not going to be approached this year."
The blazing summer of 1930 began the longest American drought of the 20th century. "In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California," wrote CNS reporter Randy Hall. "A �Dust Bowl' covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-36," and drove many thousands of busted Oklahoma and Arkansas farm families -- Okies and Arkies -- westward to California.
Then as now, a few scientists became media darlings by warning of an impending climatic disaster from global warming. A handful of those scientists identified carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels as a climate-warming greenhouse gas, but human cars and factories were too few to have caused the Dust Bowl.
But a sudden chill began around 1940, the start of nearly four decades of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. By the late 1970s the Mississippi River was clogging with winter ice. Water pipes five feet underground were freezing and bursting in Chicago. Buffalo, N.Y., was buried beneath record blizzard snowfall. Snow even fell briefly on the beaches of Miami, Florida. The same weekly news magazines that today tout Gore's extreme claims about global warming were only three decades ago warning of a fast-approaching new ice age.
The mainstream media trumpets hot spells as evidence of the global warming on its political agenda. Here's some of the opposite-but-equal unusual cold it scarcely reported:
In December 2005 devastating cold chilled the Rocky Mountain West. Last Dec. 7 at West Yellowstone, Mont., the temperature fell to 45 below zero, fully six degrees colder than the previous record set in 1927, according to the National Weather Service. In Fort Collins, Colo., the mercury plunged to 37 below zero, and even in Lubbock in the Texas panhandle it dipped to only six degrees above zero.
Across the Pacific Ocean, February 2006 temperatures along Russia's Siberian coastline plummeted to 69 degrees below zero, shattering all previous cold records by six degrees. Unusual cold and snow blasted other regions of the former Soviet Union, from Moscow to Georgia along the southern beaches of the Black Sea.
Winter snowfall has been breaking records in the United States and Eurasia since March 1993's "Storm of the Century" dumped snow up to four feet deep from New York to Alabama, as TechCentralStation reported June 2. On Feb. 17-18, 2003, Boston set a new all-time storm record with 27.5 inches of snow. On Feb. 17-18, 2006, a blizzard dumped 26.9 inches of snow on New York City's Central Park, a record unequalled since the blizzard of 1888.
The climate is now measurably cooling in Eastern Europe. Even Gore in his global warming book, An Inconvenient Truth, shouts that "temperature increases are taking place all over the world" (p. 78) but in the back of the book's fine print admits that "some parts of the globe � such as northern Europe � might actually become colder" (p. 321).
We now know that the 2003 European heat wave was caused by rare events in Earth's upper atmosphere, not by global warming. Recent record snowfall, as well as 2005's brief burst of hurricanes, has been driven by known cycles in such weather phenomena, not necessarily by global warming.
Bottom line: As research scientist Dr. Nigella Hillgarth of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego says, "One heat wave does not make global warming."
Hispanics Blast Democrats' Ad
A Democratic political ad is under fire from Hispanics who say it unfairly compares Latino immigrants to terrorists.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sponsored a 35-second ad on its Web site that shows footage of two people scaling a border fence mixed with images of Osama Bin Laden and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.
Pedro Celis, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said in a statement Tuesday that the DSCC should remove the ad because it vilifies illegal Hispanic immigrants and is "appalling."
"To liken Latino immigrants to bazooka-toting terrorists not only undermines the positive relationship our party has with this community, but also lowers us to a despicable level as breeders of unfounded fear and hatred," Alvarado wrote.
The ad opens with the words "Security Under Bush and GOP?" It features scenes of a masked man with a bazooka, scenes from terrorist attacks and police inspecting a subway train. It also shows Osama bin Laden, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a docked ship as it claims "4 times as many terrorist attacks in 2005."
Then comes footage of a person climbing over a corrugated metal border fence and another preparing to climb it as the words "millions more illegal immigrants" form on-screen. In the following scene, viewers see the words "North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal" with footage of a tank and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.
The ad ends with the words, "Feel safer? Vote for change."
"Equating these undocumented migrants to the very real threats of terrorism is inexcusable and only serves to fan the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment in our country," Celis said in the statement.
Bettina Inclan, the assembly's executive director, said the people in the ad appeared Hispanic, "not just to us, but to other people who saw the video."
DSCC spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the group's criticism as a Republican group "trying to gloss over the White House's abysmal record on security."
"This group's time would be better spent pressuring reluctant Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform," Singer said in an emailed statement.
Inclan said the group was among supporters of the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, which passed the Senate but has been criticized in the House.
The ad drew rebuke from other Hispanics.
"This is the same kind of fear mongering we condemn in the extreme media and now we are seeing it at the DSCC," said Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza. "It's appalling."
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sponsored a 35-second ad on its Web site that shows footage of two people scaling a border fence mixed with images of Osama Bin Laden and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.
Pedro Celis, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said in a statement Tuesday that the DSCC should remove the ad because it vilifies illegal Hispanic immigrants and is "appalling."
Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, a Democrat, sent a letter to DSCC Chairman Sen. Charles Schumer of New York asking that the ad be pulled. She said it could alienate Latino voters.
"To liken Latino immigrants to bazooka-toting terrorists not only undermines the positive relationship our party has with this community, but also lowers us to a despicable level as breeders of unfounded fear and hatred," Alvarado wrote.
The ad opens with the words "Security Under Bush and GOP?" It features scenes of a masked man with a bazooka, scenes from terrorist attacks and police inspecting a subway train. It also shows Osama bin Laden, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a docked ship as it claims "4 times as many terrorist attacks in 2005."
Then comes footage of a person climbing over a corrugated metal border fence and another preparing to climb it as the words "millions more illegal immigrants" form on-screen. In the following scene, viewers see the words "North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal" with footage of a tank and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.
The ad ends with the words, "Feel safer? Vote for change."
"Equating these undocumented migrants to the very real threats of terrorism is inexcusable and only serves to fan the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment in our country," Celis said in the statement.
Bettina Inclan, the assembly's executive director, said the people in the ad appeared Hispanic, "not just to us, but to other people who saw the video."
DSCC spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the group's criticism as a Republican group "trying to gloss over the White House's abysmal record on security."
"This group's time would be better spent pressuring reluctant Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform," Singer said in an emailed statement.
Inclan said the group was among supporters of the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, which passed the Senate but has been criticized in the House.
The ad drew rebuke from other Hispanics.
"This is the same kind of fear mongering we condemn in the extreme media and now we are seeing it at the DSCC," said Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza. "It's appalling."
70 Percent of Israelis Oppose Cease-Fire
The 34-day war against Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, widely seen here as just, had united Israel's fractured society. Hezbollah was considered a growing threat after it had vastly expanded its arsenal of missiles in recent years.
But the unity crumbled after Israel's fabled army pulled out of south Lebanon without crushing Hezbollah or rescuing two soldiers whose July 12 capture by the guerillas during a raid in Israel triggered the fighting.
The war began just two months after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, men with little military experience, took office. Surveys in two major Hebrew-language dailies on Wednesday showed low approval ratings for both.
A poll of 500 people by TNS-Teleseker showed support for Olmert sinking to 40 percent after soaring to 78 percent in the first two weeks of the offensive.
Peretz' approval rating plunged to 28 percent from 61 percent, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. A second poll, by the Dahaf Research Institute, showed 57 percent calling for his resignation.
The Dahaf poll, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points, showed 70 percent opposed to a cease-fire that did not include the return of the captured soldiers, and 69 percent backing an official inquiry into the war's prosecution.
Under the truce, Israel is to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and 15,000 Lebanese army forces, backed by a similar number of U.N. peacekeepers, are to patrol the territory, which had been controlled by Hezbollah before the war. Critics of the truce question the ability of the new force to keep Hezbollah at bay.
Halutz's wartime decisions did not score him many points with the public: Fifty-two percent of those polled by TNS and 47 percent of those surveyed by Dahaf said they were dissatisfied with his handling of the fighting.
But the unity crumbled after Israel's fabled army pulled out of south Lebanon without crushing Hezbollah or rescuing two soldiers whose July 12 capture by the guerillas during a raid in Israel triggered the fighting.
The war began just two months after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, men with little military experience, took office. Surveys in two major Hebrew-language dailies on Wednesday showed low approval ratings for both.
A poll of 500 people by TNS-Teleseker showed support for Olmert sinking to 40 percent after soaring to 78 percent in the first two weeks of the offensive.
Peretz' approval rating plunged to 28 percent from 61 percent, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. A second poll, by the Dahaf Research Institute, showed 57 percent calling for his resignation.
The Dahaf poll, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points, showed 70 percent opposed to a cease-fire that did not include the return of the captured soldiers, and 69 percent backing an official inquiry into the war's prosecution.
Under the truce, Israel is to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and 15,000 Lebanese army forces, backed by a similar number of U.N. peacekeepers, are to patrol the territory, which had been controlled by Hezbollah before the war. Critics of the truce question the ability of the new force to keep Hezbollah at bay.
Halutz's wartime decisions did not score him many points with the public: Fifty-two percent of those polled by TNS and 47 percent of those surveyed by Dahaf said they were dissatisfied with his handling of the fighting.
Oil Addiction Fiction:"Addiction" May Be Rational Choice
by Dana Joel Gattuso
In spite of President Bush's dire warning in his State of the Union address that America is becoming "addicted to oil" - followed by "rehab" policies to include renewables, hybrids and now CAFE standards - most Americans do not wish to break the habit.
Far from it: Americans want their government to find new sources of oil to increase domestic supplies.
According to a recent Fox News' Opinion Dynamics poll, 68 percent of Americans support drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by 48 percent who support further drilling in Alaska.1
The desire of most Americans to continue feeding our fossil fuel "addiction" should come as no surprise. Even with energy prices moving upward and Chicken Little-like speculations that we're tapping out supplies, oil is still abundant and relatively inexpensive compared to alternative sources of energy like ethanol, solar & wind and hydrogen technology.
Take corn-based ethanol. In the U.S., the industry currently produces 3.4 billion gallons, used mostly as an octane-boost additive in gasoline.2 Billions of dollars in annual federal subsidies doesn't change the fact we don't and - due to limitations on the amount of land, can't - grow nearly enough corn to meet our food and energy needs.3
Some experts question whether the production of ethanol even nets a positive amount of energy. Scientists David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad Patzek of University of California Berkley found after considering energy inputs to separate, ferment, distill and extrude the corn, that ethanol uses 29 percent more fossil fuel in its making than it yields for energy use.4 If the findings are true, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing an entity that uses more energy than it gives off.
There might be more potential in "cellulosic biofuels" - fuel converted from plant fibers and waste material such as switchgrass and wood chips - which President Bush referred to in his State of the Union. Compared to corn- and sugar-based ethanol, the process of breaking down non-starch plant material requires much less energy.
But these biofuels are prohibitively costly to produce, require massive amounts of land, and are still experimental.5 With conversion technology still in its infancy - including the promising but controversial genetic engineering approach to increase production per acre6 - how much more are we willing to spend in costly subsidies? Already, President Bush is earmarking $150 million in 2007 for biomass, almost twice the funding two years ago.7
Wind and solar power have been the energy source of "the future" for over 40 years. Unlike cellulose, technology for these renewables is well and fully developed.8 Yet in spite of years of generous federal and state subsidies and tax incentives, wind and solar have failed to make a dent in overall energy use. As a recent report by Resources for the Future concludes, "renewables failed to meet prior expectations regarding trends in the volume of future generation."9
Wind power accounts for less than one percent of total electric power capacity. Solar power generation, which can cost three to four times as much as natural gas, accounts for even less - one-tenth of one percent of all electric capacity.10 Yet, to cure us of our nasty oil habit, President Bush's budget for FY 2007 would increase solar energy R&D by 78 percent.11
Middle East instability and rising world oil prices may seem inextricably linked. But that's only a small part of the picture. Higher oil prices are due largely to increased world demand, mainly from industrial giants China and India, and inadequate investment in infrastructure to meet rising demand.12 Even if we did rein in our consumption of oil, it would do little to affect global demand and oil prices.
What would affect oil prices here at home is increasing production. As Congress begins yet another debate on energy policy, furthering oil exploration and production should be the focus. Where technology for renewables more or less has run out of steam, new, clean and cost-effective methods for tapping new sources of domestic oil are expanding daily.
Last month, the Energy Department announced that advanced technologies using carbon dioxide to recover oil could quadruple domestic reserves. And tapping a small section of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, using new technology that makes a much smaller environmental footprint than conventional methods, would open 10.4 billion barrels of crude, roughly the same amount we've imported from Saudi Arabia for a quarter of a century.13
The majority of Americans are calling for more oil production here on our own turf, and someone should be listening. President Bush might call it "addiction;" others call it "rational choice."
In spite of President Bush's dire warning in his State of the Union address that America is becoming "addicted to oil" - followed by "rehab" policies to include renewables, hybrids and now CAFE standards - most Americans do not wish to break the habit.
Far from it: Americans want their government to find new sources of oil to increase domestic supplies.
According to a recent Fox News' Opinion Dynamics poll, 68 percent of Americans support drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by 48 percent who support further drilling in Alaska.1
The desire of most Americans to continue feeding our fossil fuel "addiction" should come as no surprise. Even with energy prices moving upward and Chicken Little-like speculations that we're tapping out supplies, oil is still abundant and relatively inexpensive compared to alternative sources of energy like ethanol, solar & wind and hydrogen technology.
Take corn-based ethanol. In the U.S., the industry currently produces 3.4 billion gallons, used mostly as an octane-boost additive in gasoline.2 Billions of dollars in annual federal subsidies doesn't change the fact we don't and - due to limitations on the amount of land, can't - grow nearly enough corn to meet our food and energy needs.3
Some experts question whether the production of ethanol even nets a positive amount of energy. Scientists David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad Patzek of University of California Berkley found after considering energy inputs to separate, ferment, distill and extrude the corn, that ethanol uses 29 percent more fossil fuel in its making than it yields for energy use.4 If the findings are true, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing an entity that uses more energy than it gives off.
There might be more potential in "cellulosic biofuels" - fuel converted from plant fibers and waste material such as switchgrass and wood chips - which President Bush referred to in his State of the Union. Compared to corn- and sugar-based ethanol, the process of breaking down non-starch plant material requires much less energy.
But these biofuels are prohibitively costly to produce, require massive amounts of land, and are still experimental.5 With conversion technology still in its infancy - including the promising but controversial genetic engineering approach to increase production per acre6 - how much more are we willing to spend in costly subsidies? Already, President Bush is earmarking $150 million in 2007 for biomass, almost twice the funding two years ago.7
Wind and solar power have been the energy source of "the future" for over 40 years. Unlike cellulose, technology for these renewables is well and fully developed.8 Yet in spite of years of generous federal and state subsidies and tax incentives, wind and solar have failed to make a dent in overall energy use. As a recent report by Resources for the Future concludes, "renewables failed to meet prior expectations regarding trends in the volume of future generation."9
Wind power accounts for less than one percent of total electric power capacity. Solar power generation, which can cost three to four times as much as natural gas, accounts for even less - one-tenth of one percent of all electric capacity.10 Yet, to cure us of our nasty oil habit, President Bush's budget for FY 2007 would increase solar energy R&D by 78 percent.11
Middle East instability and rising world oil prices may seem inextricably linked. But that's only a small part of the picture. Higher oil prices are due largely to increased world demand, mainly from industrial giants China and India, and inadequate investment in infrastructure to meet rising demand.12 Even if we did rein in our consumption of oil, it would do little to affect global demand and oil prices.
What would affect oil prices here at home is increasing production. As Congress begins yet another debate on energy policy, furthering oil exploration and production should be the focus. Where technology for renewables more or less has run out of steam, new, clean and cost-effective methods for tapping new sources of domestic oil are expanding daily.
Last month, the Energy Department announced that advanced technologies using carbon dioxide to recover oil could quadruple domestic reserves. And tapping a small section of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, using new technology that makes a much smaller environmental footprint than conventional methods, would open 10.4 billion barrels of crude, roughly the same amount we've imported from Saudi Arabia for a quarter of a century.13
The majority of Americans are calling for more oil production here on our own turf, and someone should be listening. President Bush might call it "addiction;" others call it "rational choice."
Voters have right to Ten Commandments
Idaho Supreme Court OK's Boise election on display of monument in park
The Idaho Supreme Court has authorized an election in Boise for voters to decide whether they want the Ten Commandments displayed in a city park, and supporters of the plan say it could have national ramifications.
"There's no reason other communities cannot do the same thing," Bryan Fischer, the executive director of Idaho Values Alliance, told WorldNetDaily yesterday. "We will abide by the will of the voters and we expect the mayor and city council to do the same thing."
The 4-1 ruling came earlier this week from the state Supreme Court, which said the city is required to hold an initiative election after a group called the Keep the Commandments Coalition collected more than 19,000 signatures on a petition.
"All we've asked for from day one is our day at the ballot box, and we're finally going to get it," Fischer said.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles had donated a Ten Commandments monument to the city in 1965 to be placed in Julia Davis Park. That monument was removed in 2004 by city officials worried about the threat of lawsuits.
So the Coalition filed a petition with the Boise city clerk, respectfully demanding a vote.
The clerk verified there were more than the needed 10,721 signatures of qualified electors to place the issue on the ballot, but the city council refused and directed the city attorney to file an action.
He sought a declaratory judgment, which was granted by a lower court, but that decision was overturned this week.
"The initiative process arises from the Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 1, and extends to the cities by legislative mandate. � It is not an inconvenience created by rabble rousers and malcontents to vex established authority," the Supreme Court opinion said.
"Just as the Court would not interrupt the legislature in the consideration of a bill prior to enactment, the Court will not interrupt the consideration of a properly qualified initiative," the ruling said.
"This ruling honors the hard, hard work that dozens of volunteers did two summers ago in collecting the signatures of over 19,000 concerned citizens," Fischer said in a statement on the IVA website.
"We're not sure yet when the election will be held, but if our understanding of state election law is correct, it should be on the November 7 ballot," he said, noting polls that show 75 percent of the population approving the plan.
He said the monument isn't a constitutional problem.
"You can find the Ten Commandments in four different places in the United States Supreme Court building. If it's good enough for the Supreme Court, it's good enough for Julia Davis Park," he said.
He also added that the monument that is proposed is identical to one that is on display in Pocatello, and already has been challenged in � and approved by � a federal court.
"As far as we know this is the first time in our nation's history that a community has made an effort to return the Ten Commandments to the public square through the initiative process," he said.
"When the votes are in, we'll honor the will of the people, and we fully expect the mayor and city council to do the same," he said.
The Idaho Supreme Court has authorized an election in Boise for voters to decide whether they want the Ten Commandments displayed in a city park, and supporters of the plan say it could have national ramifications.
"There's no reason other communities cannot do the same thing," Bryan Fischer, the executive director of Idaho Values Alliance, told WorldNetDaily yesterday. "We will abide by the will of the voters and we expect the mayor and city council to do the same thing."
The 4-1 ruling came earlier this week from the state Supreme Court, which said the city is required to hold an initiative election after a group called the Keep the Commandments Coalition collected more than 19,000 signatures on a petition.
"All we've asked for from day one is our day at the ballot box, and we're finally going to get it," Fischer said.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles had donated a Ten Commandments monument to the city in 1965 to be placed in Julia Davis Park. That monument was removed in 2004 by city officials worried about the threat of lawsuits.
So the Coalition filed a petition with the Boise city clerk, respectfully demanding a vote.
The clerk verified there were more than the needed 10,721 signatures of qualified electors to place the issue on the ballot, but the city council refused and directed the city attorney to file an action.
He sought a declaratory judgment, which was granted by a lower court, but that decision was overturned this week.
"The initiative process arises from the Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 1, and extends to the cities by legislative mandate. � It is not an inconvenience created by rabble rousers and malcontents to vex established authority," the Supreme Court opinion said.
"Just as the Court would not interrupt the legislature in the consideration of a bill prior to enactment, the Court will not interrupt the consideration of a properly qualified initiative," the ruling said.
"This ruling honors the hard, hard work that dozens of volunteers did two summers ago in collecting the signatures of over 19,000 concerned citizens," Fischer said in a statement on the IVA website.
"We're not sure yet when the election will be held, but if our understanding of state election law is correct, it should be on the November 7 ballot," he said, noting polls that show 75 percent of the population approving the plan.
He said the monument isn't a constitutional problem.
"You can find the Ten Commandments in four different places in the United States Supreme Court building. If it's good enough for the Supreme Court, it's good enough for Julia Davis Park," he said.
He also added that the monument that is proposed is identical to one that is on display in Pocatello, and already has been challenged in � and approved by � a federal court.
"As far as we know this is the first time in our nation's history that a community has made an effort to return the Ten Commandments to the public square through the initiative process," he said.
"When the votes are in, we'll honor the will of the people, and we fully expect the mayor and city council to do the same," he said.
'Aborted' baby born alive, Then Killed
Will clinic staffer be charged with homicide for disposing of live infant?
An investigation into the remains of a baby found at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion clinic in July has determined that the child was born alive, but authorities say it may come down to an interpretation of federal law whether charges will be filed.
The case developed at the end of July when the remains were found in a biohazard bag at "A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center" after an anonymous 911 call reported to police that a child had been born alive, then killed.
Infants' remains at an abortion clinic are not a violation of the law -- unless that child was born alive, in which case the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 takes effect.
The Miami-Dade County medical examiner and police in Hialeah have been investigating, and now local investigators in the South Florida city have confirmed the child was born alive.
Hialeah Deputy Police Chief Mark Overton recently told WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek that the medical examiner ruled the baby was born alive, but state attorneys were trying to determine if the child was viable, or able to live outside the womb.
At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the owner of the abortion business issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.
"My clients run an abortion clinic. It's a legal business," Regina DeMoraes-Millan told television station WFOR-TV in Miami-Fort Lauderdale at the time. "Right now police are just investigating a 9-1-1 call."
Police were called to the Hialeah clinic on July 20 after a report that a person � identified by Overton as clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez � took the infant and placed it in the biohazard bag. But police were unable to investigate because the clinic was closed when they arrived.
After getting the mother's name, police obtained a search warrant, but on July 22 found nothing in their search, Stanek's sources reported.
Then on July 29, after another anonymous tip, officers returned and found the decomposing body in the bag.
Since then, the investigation has gone on, but now Overton has confirmed to Stanek that he's ready to move it to the next level, if a homicide count isn't coming.
"I will make a request to have the case reviewed by a higher authority and go to the media, regardless of the outcome," he told her.
At the time the body was found, a spokeswoman for Florida Right to Life told WND that babies' bodies in an abortion clinic are just "business as usual" for the industry.
Spokeswoman Linda Bell said there are very few protections for the mother, and essentially none for the unborn children, as a "result of legalized abortion in our nation."
Hialeah investigator Det. Tony Rodriquez expressed immediate concern about the situation, too.
"In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this," he had told reporters.
Witnesses told police the woman went in for an abortion, and returned the next day but an abortionist wasn't immediately available. While she was in a room, she gave birth to the child, witnesses told police.
The witnesses said the clinic worker then came in and put the baby in the bag.
Bell said her organization and others concerned about life repeatedly have tried to get basic health clinic rules applied to abortion businesses, without success to date.
"Unfortunately, that's the mentality of this country, that the abortion business is not subject (to rules)," she told WND. "This is the result of that."
One of the witnesses in the case is the mother of the child, police have said.
A report by the Miami Herald said state records show the clinic is one of a group owned and run by the same people. The records show the owner is Gonzalez, of Miramar, who also was listed as the owner of the Miramar clinic that was closed in 2005 after several workers were accused of practicing medicine without a license.
The state Department of Health concluded that one worker, Roberto A. Osborne, failed to treat a woman after giving her an abortion in 2000 and he pleaded guilty in 2005 to performing medicine without a license, a third-degree felony.
Bell also noted the Miramar clinic at one point promoted a cleaning woman to medical assistant so she could assist with abortions. Bell said the woman later pleaded guilty to nursing without a license.
An investigation into the remains of a baby found at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion clinic in July has determined that the child was born alive, but authorities say it may come down to an interpretation of federal law whether charges will be filed.
The case developed at the end of July when the remains were found in a biohazard bag at "A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center" after an anonymous 911 call reported to police that a child had been born alive, then killed.
Infants' remains at an abortion clinic are not a violation of the law -- unless that child was born alive, in which case the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 takes effect.
The Miami-Dade County medical examiner and police in Hialeah have been investigating, and now local investigators in the South Florida city have confirmed the child was born alive.
Hialeah Deputy Police Chief Mark Overton recently told WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek that the medical examiner ruled the baby was born alive, but state attorneys were trying to determine if the child was viable, or able to live outside the womb.
At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the owner of the abortion business issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.
"My clients run an abortion clinic. It's a legal business," Regina DeMoraes-Millan told television station WFOR-TV in Miami-Fort Lauderdale at the time. "Right now police are just investigating a 9-1-1 call."
Police were called to the Hialeah clinic on July 20 after a report that a person � identified by Overton as clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez � took the infant and placed it in the biohazard bag. But police were unable to investigate because the clinic was closed when they arrived.
After getting the mother's name, police obtained a search warrant, but on July 22 found nothing in their search, Stanek's sources reported.
Then on July 29, after another anonymous tip, officers returned and found the decomposing body in the bag.
Since then, the investigation has gone on, but now Overton has confirmed to Stanek that he's ready to move it to the next level, if a homicide count isn't coming.
"I will make a request to have the case reviewed by a higher authority and go to the media, regardless of the outcome," he told her.
At the time the body was found, a spokeswoman for Florida Right to Life told WND that babies' bodies in an abortion clinic are just "business as usual" for the industry.
Spokeswoman Linda Bell said there are very few protections for the mother, and essentially none for the unborn children, as a "result of legalized abortion in our nation."
Hialeah investigator Det. Tony Rodriquez expressed immediate concern about the situation, too.
"In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this," he had told reporters.
Witnesses told police the woman went in for an abortion, and returned the next day but an abortionist wasn't immediately available. While she was in a room, she gave birth to the child, witnesses told police.
The witnesses said the clinic worker then came in and put the baby in the bag.
Bell said her organization and others concerned about life repeatedly have tried to get basic health clinic rules applied to abortion businesses, without success to date.
"Unfortunately, that's the mentality of this country, that the abortion business is not subject (to rules)," she told WND. "This is the result of that."
One of the witnesses in the case is the mother of the child, police have said.
A report by the Miami Herald said state records show the clinic is one of a group owned and run by the same people. The records show the owner is Gonzalez, of Miramar, who also was listed as the owner of the Miramar clinic that was closed in 2005 after several workers were accused of practicing medicine without a license.
The state Department of Health concluded that one worker, Roberto A. Osborne, failed to treat a woman after giving her an abortion in 2000 and he pleaded guilty in 2005 to performing medicine without a license, a third-degree felony.
Bell also noted the Miramar clinic at one point promoted a cleaning woman to medical assistant so she could assist with abortions. Bell said the woman later pleaded guilty to nursing without a license.
TSA Says Shoe X-Rays Can Detect Bombs
The government sought to assure airline travelers Tuesday that X- raying shoes at security checkpoints was a reliable way of detecting improvised bombs, a claim contradicted by a Department of Homeland Security study.
"Screening shoes by X-ray is an effective method of identifying any type of anomaly, including explosives," Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley said at a news conference at Washington's Reagan National Airport.
A study by the Homeland Security Department, obtained by The Associated Press, states that X-ray images "do not provide the information necessary to effect detection of explosives."
But under new orders this week, all airline passengers must put their shoes through X-ray machines before boarding their flights.
A scientist who has studied the issue said the truth lies somewhere between the study's findings that X-ray machines can't detect bombs and Hawley's assertion that they can.
Richard Lanza, senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the X-ray image doesn't identify what a gel or a liquid is made of. However, he said, screeners can "look at the image and connect regions that look the same in density and shape."
It's not a foolproof method, but it is often effective, he said.
"Nothing is 100 percent," Lanza said. "But if the bad guys think you have a good shot at discovering it, they'll do something different."
Hawley said 31,000 screeners have been specially trained to determine if a shoe has been tampered with when they look at its X-ray image.
"It does take the human brain to make the interpretation on X-ray, but it is, frankly, not the most difficult thing we have to do to find potential shoe bombs," Hawley said.
He displayed copies of X-ray images of two pairs of shoes _ one with no explosive device and one worn by Richard Reid, who was arrested aboard a trans-Atlantic flight in 2001 when he tried to ignite a bomb in his shoe.
"You can see very clearly the difference between a shoe with an explosive and one without," Hawley said.
On Sunday, the TSA made it mandatory for shoes to be run through X-ray machines as passengers go through metal detectors. The checks were begun in late 2001, after Reid's arrest, and have been optional for several years.
"Screening shoes by X-ray is an effective method of identifying any type of anomaly, including explosives," Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley said at a news conference at Washington's Reagan National Airport.
A study by the Homeland Security Department, obtained by The Associated Press, states that X-ray images "do not provide the information necessary to effect detection of explosives."
But under new orders this week, all airline passengers must put their shoes through X-ray machines before boarding their flights.
A scientist who has studied the issue said the truth lies somewhere between the study's findings that X-ray machines can't detect bombs and Hawley's assertion that they can.
Richard Lanza, senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the X-ray image doesn't identify what a gel or a liquid is made of. However, he said, screeners can "look at the image and connect regions that look the same in density and shape."
It's not a foolproof method, but it is often effective, he said.
"Nothing is 100 percent," Lanza said. "But if the bad guys think you have a good shot at discovering it, they'll do something different."
Hawley said 31,000 screeners have been specially trained to determine if a shoe has been tampered with when they look at its X-ray image.
"It does take the human brain to make the interpretation on X-ray, but it is, frankly, not the most difficult thing we have to do to find potential shoe bombs," Hawley said.
He displayed copies of X-ray images of two pairs of shoes _ one with no explosive device and one worn by Richard Reid, who was arrested aboard a trans-Atlantic flight in 2001 when he tried to ignite a bomb in his shoe.
"You can see very clearly the difference between a shoe with an explosive and one without," Hawley said.
On Sunday, the TSA made it mandatory for shoes to be run through X-ray machines as passengers go through metal detectors. The checks were begun in late 2001, after Reid's arrest, and have been optional for several years.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Hezbollah still fires rockets despite cease-fire
Highlighting the fragility of the peace, Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets that landed in southern Lebanon early Tuesday, the Israeli army said, adding that nobody was injured. The army said that none of the rockets, which were fired over a two-hour period, had crossed the border and so it had not responded.
Hezbollah fighters hugged each other and celebratory gunfire and fireworks erupted in Beirut as the Islamic militant group's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claimed a "strategic, historic victory."
But Israeli Prime Ehud Olmert also claimed success, saying the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by Hezbollah group and restored Lebanon's sovereignty in the south.
In northern Israel, residents emerged from bomb shelters, hopeful that the barrage of nearly 4,000 Hezbollah rockets that had rained down on towns and villages since July 12 had ended _ for now. Stores shuttered for weeks reopened and some people returned to the beaches in Haifa, which suffered most from guerrilla attacks.
President Bush said Monday that Hezbollah guerillas suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel and he blamed the guerrilla group for the devastation. "There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon," he said.
The truce that took effect at 8 a.m. (1 a.m. EDT) largely held through its first day, although skirmishes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah left six guerrillas killed as both sides promised to retaliate when placed on the defensive.
Hezbollah fighters hugged each other and celebratory gunfire and fireworks erupted in Beirut as the Islamic militant group's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claimed a "strategic, historic victory."
But Israeli Prime Ehud Olmert also claimed success, saying the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by Hezbollah group and restored Lebanon's sovereignty in the south.
In northern Israel, residents emerged from bomb shelters, hopeful that the barrage of nearly 4,000 Hezbollah rockets that had rained down on towns and villages since July 12 had ended _ for now. Stores shuttered for weeks reopened and some people returned to the beaches in Haifa, which suffered most from guerrilla attacks.
President Bush said Monday that Hezbollah guerillas suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel and he blamed the guerrilla group for the devastation. "There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon," he said.
The truce that took effect at 8 a.m. (1 a.m. EDT) largely held through its first day, although skirmishes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah left six guerrillas killed as both sides promised to retaliate when placed on the defensive.
Liquid explosives carried in child's baby bottle
According to authorities at Scotland Yard, Abdula Ahmed ALI, 25, and his 23-year-old wife Cossor ALI were arrested and are being questioned over suspicions that they were planning to use their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb. Cossor's grandfather, Nazir Ahmed, 84, admitted that Abdula ALI traveled to Pakistan about four weeks ago. That admission follows information from British Intelligence officials that many of the airline bomb plot suspects posed as relief workers to travel to al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan. Police spent Sunday searching the suspect�s east London housing commission flat for evidence.
Police in the UK have recovered baby bottles containing peroxide, including some with false bottoms, from a recycling centre close to the homes of some of the arrested suspects.
In a separate but related case, a Muslim family of five- a husband, wife and 3 children, boarded American Airlines flight 109 at Britain�s Heathrow airport destined for Boston Logan airport on Sunday, 6 August 2006.
According to intelligence officials, the family checked in at the last minute, and as a result, only a superficial check of the children�s carry-on bags was conducted by airport security personnel.
Following the take off of the airliner, the check-in computer at the airport flashed a warning that a person under observation had boarded the flight. The airline staff informed immigration and security officials, and a background check found that the male adult member of the family was on a suspect list prepared by Scotland Yard subsequent to the 7/7 terror bombings in London. The pilot was ultimately alerted to the situation and after careful consideration, returned to Heathrow airport rather than continuing on to Boston.
Upon landing back at Heathrow, armed marshals boarded the aircraft and took the suspect and his family into custody. It was at that time a search of the children�s carry-on baggage revealed the deadly cargo.
Police in the UK have recovered baby bottles containing peroxide, including some with false bottoms, from a recycling centre close to the homes of some of the arrested suspects.
In a separate but related case, a Muslim family of five- a husband, wife and 3 children, boarded American Airlines flight 109 at Britain�s Heathrow airport destined for Boston Logan airport on Sunday, 6 August 2006.
According to intelligence officials, the family checked in at the last minute, and as a result, only a superficial check of the children�s carry-on bags was conducted by airport security personnel.
Following the take off of the airliner, the check-in computer at the airport flashed a warning that a person under observation had boarded the flight. The airline staff informed immigration and security officials, and a background check found that the male adult member of the family was on a suspect list prepared by Scotland Yard subsequent to the 7/7 terror bombings in London. The pilot was ultimately alerted to the situation and after careful consideration, returned to Heathrow airport rather than continuing on to Boston.
Upon landing back at Heathrow, armed marshals boarded the aircraft and took the suspect and his family into custody. It was at that time a search of the children�s carry-on baggage revealed the deadly cargo.
Monday, August 14, 2006
55 pct Americans back Bush on U.S. security
Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of U.S. President George W. Bush's handling of homeland security, an 11 percent jump from May, according to a Newsweek poll released on Saturday.
The poll was taken Thursday and Friday, after British authorities foiled a plot to use chemical bombs to bring down as many as 10 airliners flying from Britain to the United States.
Bush's approval rating rose to 38 percent, a 3-point increase since Newsweek conducted its last poll in May.
Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would oppose a ban on all carry-on baggage on commercial flights, the poll said.
Taken three months ahead of U.S. congressional elections, the survey found 44 percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job handling terrorism, compared with 39 percent who preferred Democrats.
The poll was taken Thursday and Friday, after British authorities foiled a plot to use chemical bombs to bring down as many as 10 airliners flying from Britain to the United States.
Bush's approval rating rose to 38 percent, a 3-point increase since Newsweek conducted its last poll in May.
Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would oppose a ban on all carry-on baggage on commercial flights, the poll said.
Taken three months ahead of U.S. congressional elections, the survey found 44 percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job handling terrorism, compared with 39 percent who preferred Democrats.
Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5
Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
Senator Joe Lieberman�s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.
A month ago the candidates were tied at 40% each.
Nationally, interest in the race has been strong among political junkies but modest among the general public. Most (57%) Americans have no opinion about Lamont. However, Democratic strategists may have cause for concern about perceptions of Lamont among independent and unaffiliated Americans.
The Connecticut Senate race is shaping up as one of the more interesting in the nation this year.
Senator Joe Lieberman�s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.
A month ago the candidates were tied at 40% each.
Nationally, interest in the race has been strong among political junkies but modest among the general public. Most (57%) Americans have no opinion about Lamont. However, Democratic strategists may have cause for concern about perceptions of Lamont among independent and unaffiliated Americans.
In Connecticut, 57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.
Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.
Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.
Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.
For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.
Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.
The Connecticut Senate race is shaping up as one of the more interesting in the nation this year.
Bush Feared Nuclear Device in Pennsylvania
Five years after 9/11, President Bush's advisers say they have learned a great deal about how to fight a war on terror, and they are no doubt correct. In Newsweek's Aug. 21-28 cover story, "Terror Now," (on newsstands Monday, August 14), Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas, with a team of Newsweek correspondents, sift through the investigation in Britain of the terror attack that was to bring down 10 airliners and also examine the lessons learned since 9/11 in the global war on terror.
Bush has apparently learned not to overreact. In the panicky days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the president wanted to see any scrap of information, no matter how thinly sourced. As a result, raw and unfiltered intelligence gushed into the Oval Office. In one instance, authorities in Pennsylvania received a frightening tip from an FBI office overseas that terrorists had a nuclear device on a train somewhere between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The report went straight to the White House, where the president was anxiously consuming threat traffic like a midlevel CIA analyst. The information turned out to be bogus. Within a day it had been traced back to a conversation between two men overheard at a urinal in Ukraine.
That incident contrasts with the more measured approach Bush took when informed of the terror plot investigation thwarted last week by British officials. As British intelligence was closely tracking the plot over several months, Bush was kept only loosely in the loop, Newsweek reports.
At a briefing on Aug. 3, "he was basically told, 'This is happening and you should know about it, but we don't have a lot of details yet'," says a senior White House aide who asked to remain anonymous discussing intelligence briefings. "This shows how we're better equipped to fight the enemy now," Fran Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, tells Newsweek. "We're seeing levels of cooperation between the FBI, CIA, and the NSA we didn't see before. Nobody was trying to hide the ball."
Bush has apparently learned not to overreact. In the panicky days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the president wanted to see any scrap of information, no matter how thinly sourced. As a result, raw and unfiltered intelligence gushed into the Oval Office. In one instance, authorities in Pennsylvania received a frightening tip from an FBI office overseas that terrorists had a nuclear device on a train somewhere between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The report went straight to the White House, where the president was anxiously consuming threat traffic like a midlevel CIA analyst. The information turned out to be bogus. Within a day it had been traced back to a conversation between two men overheard at a urinal in Ukraine.
That incident contrasts with the more measured approach Bush took when informed of the terror plot investigation thwarted last week by British officials. As British intelligence was closely tracking the plot over several months, Bush was kept only loosely in the loop, Newsweek reports.
At a briefing on Aug. 3, "he was basically told, 'This is happening and you should know about it, but we don't have a lot of details yet'," says a senior White House aide who asked to remain anonymous discussing intelligence briefings. "This shows how we're better equipped to fight the enemy now," Fran Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, tells Newsweek. "We're seeing levels of cooperation between the FBI, CIA, and the NSA we didn't see before. Nobody was trying to hide the ball."
TSA Eases Some Carry-On Baggage Rules
As the U.S. government continues to adjust the list of things that airline passengers can carry, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reassured Americans that things would only go so far.
"I don't see us moving to a total ban on hand baggage at this point," he said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
The Transportation Security Administration announced new rules Sunday giving airline passengers permission to carry up to 4 ounces of liquid nonprescription medicine. TSA had previously banned all liquid medications.
TSA also said all passengers will be instructed to remove their shoes during security checks. The shoes have to be placed on an X-ray belt for screening before passengers can put them back on. Until now, the agency had strongly suggested putting shoes on the screening belt but hadn't required it.
Later Sunday, the Homeland Security Department reduced the threat level from red, for "severe," to orange, for "high," for flights from Britain bound for the United States. All other flights operating in or destined for the United States remain at orange.
"The security measures already taken have allowed us to address an imminent threat of attack for flights between the United Kingdom and the United States," Chertoff said in a statement. "Let me be clear: This does not mean the threat is over. The investigation continues to follow all leads.
"In particular, we are remaining vigilant for any signs of planning within the U.S. or directed at Americans," Chertoff said.
"I don't see us moving to a total ban on hand baggage at this point," he said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
The Transportation Security Administration announced new rules Sunday giving airline passengers permission to carry up to 4 ounces of liquid nonprescription medicine. TSA had previously banned all liquid medications.
TSA also said all passengers will be instructed to remove their shoes during security checks. The shoes have to be placed on an X-ray belt for screening before passengers can put them back on. Until now, the agency had strongly suggested putting shoes on the screening belt but hadn't required it.
Later Sunday, the Homeland Security Department reduced the threat level from red, for "severe," to orange, for "high," for flights from Britain bound for the United States. All other flights operating in or destined for the United States remain at orange.
"The security measures already taken have allowed us to address an imminent threat of attack for flights between the United Kingdom and the United States," Chertoff said in a statement. "Let me be clear: This does not mean the threat is over. The investigation continues to follow all leads.
"In particular, we are remaining vigilant for any signs of planning within the U.S. or directed at Americans," Chertoff said.
Terror Plot on Michigan Bridge Suspected
The U.S. Coast Guard has increased patrols near the bridge connecting Michigan's upper and lower peninsulas after prosecutors said they believe three men jailed on terrorism charges were targeting the 5-mile-long span.
Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark E. Reene said investigators believe the men were targeting the Mackinac Bridge. He declined to say what led investigators to that belief.
"The additional patrols are being conducted to deter, detect and allow for a more timely response to any possible threats made to the bridge," the Coast Guard said in a statement Sunday.
The men were arrested Friday outside a Wal-Mart stores in Caro, about 80 miles north of Detroit, after purchasing 80 cell phones. Authorities say the men had about 1,000 cell phones in their van.
The men said they planned to sell the phones for profit in Texas.
Maruan Awad Muhareb and Louai Abdelhamied Othman, of Mesquite, Texas and Adham Abdelhamid Othman of Dallas were charged with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.
Authorities have not said what they believe the men intended to do with the phones, most of which were prepaid TracFones. But Caro's police chief said cell phones can be used as detonators, and prosecutors in a similar case in Ohio have said that TracFones are often used by terrorists because they are not traceable.
Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark E. Reene said investigators believe the men were targeting the Mackinac Bridge. He declined to say what led investigators to that belief.
"The additional patrols are being conducted to deter, detect and allow for a more timely response to any possible threats made to the bridge," the Coast Guard said in a statement Sunday.
The men were arrested Friday outside a Wal-Mart stores in Caro, about 80 miles north of Detroit, after purchasing 80 cell phones. Authorities say the men had about 1,000 cell phones in their van.
The men said they planned to sell the phones for profit in Texas.
Maruan Awad Muhareb and Louai Abdelhamied Othman, of Mesquite, Texas and Adham Abdelhamid Othman of Dallas were charged with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.
Authorities have not said what they believe the men intended to do with the phones, most of which were prepaid TracFones. But Caro's police chief said cell phones can be used as detonators, and prosecutors in a similar case in Ohio have said that TracFones are often used by terrorists because they are not traceable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)