Red State Red State
About Red State
Your Account

Add to My Yahoo!
Subscribe with Bloglines
Subscribe in NewsGator Online

2008 Poll of RedStaters: First run-off! Keep on voting!

From the Diaries in no small part because John McCain didn't even make the final 3...

No point in keeping this waiting any longer.  277 votes into Round 3 of DaveGOP's Presidential Poll of RedStaters and no candidate has yet received a majority.  In fact, the race couldn't be any closer.  The results are as follows:

· George Allen 29%  
· Newt Gingrich 27%  
· Rudy Giuliani 23%  
· John McCain 19%  

As such, this race is going into overtime.  I'm dropping McCain and giving RedStaters the choice between the three candidates that received more than 20% of the vote: Allen, Newt, and Rudy.  If no one gets to a majority this time, there will be a final run-off between the top two candidates.  At that point, mathematically speaking, someone will have to garner a majority and we'll have our nominee!

Vote, vote, vote!

Print This Story
(99 comments) Comments >> Dec 29th, 2005: 01:20:04

What Roe Really means

“It would only take one crazy person to say, ‘You kidnapped my daughter,’ if you host a 15 year old..."

A pro-abortion story in New York Magazine explains eloquently why the current abortion regime in this country as exemplified by Roe, Casey and Stenberg is wildly out of step with the most elementary notions of moral justice, and the public opinion of this country, and therefore must fall.

A piece of advice: take your blood pressure medication first, click below the fold second.

Print This Story
(195 comments, 1015 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 29th, 2005: 01:10:53

Hillary Clinton And Iraq

This article argues that Senator Clinton has little to nothing to fear from antiwar activists regarding their disapproval of her stance on Iraq and her upcoming 2006 re-election campaign. Indeed she does not. But when we consider the likelihood that Senator Clinton will run for the Presidency in 2008, her stance on the war will prove far more deleterious to her political fortunes within the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is in danger of being caught flatfooted as the base of the party moves into a firm antiwar position and many a Democratic Presidential aspirant who voted for/supported the war is now renouncing his/her vote/support. Given that Democratic ideologues dominate the Democratic primary and caucus season, and given that the war is increasingly Issue Number One for said ideologues, is there anyone who actually suggests that Senator Clinton should sleep easily concerning this issue when 2008 rolls around?
Print This Story
(28 comments) Comments >> Dec 28th, 2005: 22:12:17

What Turkey can teach us about Iraq

From the Diaries...

"A tidy mind may not appreciate Turkey's contradictions."  So says Mathew Kaminsky, writing about the culture in Turkey that is simultaneously moving towards European standards of human rights while trying prominent author Orhan Pamuk for remarks he made while outside the country questioning the official Turkish denial of the genocide of a million Armenians and some tens of thousands of Kurds.  Yet, for all its oddities and paradoxes, Turkey is one of a kind, the only secular Islamic republic (excluding the experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan).  As such, it presents us with an interesting perspective, a crystal ball you might say, on how the democracy in Iraq may evolve.

Print This Story
(15 comments, 1781 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 28th, 2005: 21:42:34

64% Approve Of NSA Intercepts

From the Diaries. Remember how, according to Rasmussen, 32 per cent of Americans believe that Bush should be impeached? Which is to say, the number of people who buy this bogus story after a week of constant media attention is actually less than the moonbat population in this country.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

Even 51 percent of Democrats agree.

Rasmussen also found that only 26 percent believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news.

The survey was conducted December 26-27, 2005 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

It is indeed heartening to see that the public supports what is  permissible under controlling legal authority. As David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey wrote in their Op-Ed piece in yesterday's New York Times:

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.

The Rasmussen findings are especially surprising when you consider the 2004 Biennial Media Consumption Survey conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press found television news is still America's most popular source of news. As Cori Dauber posts at Rantingprofs, "the complexities of the legal arguments are absent from broadcast news."

Print This Story
(185 comments) Comments >> Dec 28th, 2005: 17:04:46

Another Known FactTM Done In

As Jonah Goldberg points out, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were guilty. You remember them don't you? Back in the day, these Italian immigrants murdered two people in a shoe factory. Their cause was championed by socialists like Upton Sinclair. 20,000 people protested in Boston the day they were killed by the state. The prosecutors were accused of ethnic bias. The judge and jury were too.

Sacco's and Vanzetti's banners have been held high for decades by many on the left. I remember learning about them in high school History -- during the part of the course where the NEA member who is the teacher tries to point out that the United States is not as great as it thinks it is and miscarriages of justice happen all the time. Once you learn about Sacco and Vanzetti you are then obliged to watch To Kill A Mockingbird for further demostrations of American injustice and intolerance.

On the 50th anniversary of their execution, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis all but pardoned the pair, urging that "any disgrace should be forever removed from their names."


Well, there is just one problem with all of this -- despite his championing their cause, even Upton Sinclair discovered they really were guilty. Just like the Rosenbergs. And Hiss. All guilty, despite the best efforts of some on the left to will it not so.

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Update [2005-12-28 21:46:54 by Blanton]: As furious points out in the comments, Mumia and Tookie were guilty too.

Print This Story
(18 comments) Comments >> Dec 28th, 2005: 17:03:36

Why does the MSM hate President Bush?

Why does the MSM hate President Bush, and why do they seem to be doing everything in their power to sink him? The stock answer is "ideological bias", but it occurred to me that there's another, deeper reason. They view him as a threat to their very existence -- and they're right to do so.

Print This Story
(83 comments, 439 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 28th, 2005: 15:30:49

Here liberal, liberal, liberal…

As a matter of full disclosure I’m not terribly interested in the ongoing kerfuffle over the NSA. I do enjoy watching the national Democrat party taking a public position against preventing terrorist attacks and locking in their soft-of-defense and soft-on-terrorism brand for another generation. But beyond that, it’s all puffery by law professors vying for Larry-Sabato-like quotability and the many unschooled and unlearned posting on the subject who’ve suddenly discovered their calling in that field of study.

Occasionally, though, one has to point out the spontaneous generation of yet another Known Fact™. In this case, a non-fact, manufactured from whole cloth and seamlessly inserted into the debate as something that is true: the FISA court approved warrants easily.

Read on.

Print This Story
(157 comments, 979 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 28th, 2005: 15:05:51

Morons at AFP

AFP, in addition to not giving the United States the most favorable media attention, apparently has great trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction. From this news story, we find that the Da Vinci Code
delves into a series of high-profile murders behind a Vatican plot to conceal the true meaning of the Holy Grail.
Um, someone might need to clue them into the fact that the oil-for-food scandal (including French participation therein) was real and the Da Vinci Code is b.s.
Print This Story
(26 comments) Comments >> Dec 28th, 2005: 12:43:04

Let Me See If I Have This Straight

Just to see if I have this NSA business boiled down to its essentials, here are the circumstances that have apparently led us to this point:

  • On 9/11/01, Al Qaeda terrorists executed a well-orchestrated plan that was set in motion via communications that occurred between Al Qaeda operatives abroad and "United States persons."
  • This plan resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 American civilians, untold economic devastation, and changed our world forever.
  • In the wake of these attacks, having been given broad Congressional approval to pursue Al Qaeda to the ends of the earth, President Bush ordered the NSA to "detect" the international communications of known Al Qaeda operatives and associates operating within the United States for the sole purpose of gathering foreign intelligence on Al Qaeda.
  • This plan has, in the estimation of NSA officials, prevented violence against the United States and provided valuable intelligence in the hunt for Al Qaeda officials and the general foiling of their plans.
  • The Democrats are opposed to all of this.

Really, I just wanted to emphasize that last point, and get as many Democrats on the record as we possibly can, so the American public can see once and for all where they stand, and make their decision accordingly.

Print This Story
(204 comments, 1675 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 28th, 2005: 00:45:44

In which Rep. Nathan Deal embarrasses me.

He is also embarrassing himself, but that's his problem. Mine is that we've got at least 71 members of Congress from my party who apparently can't read the Constitution:

(Via OTB)

NEW YORK - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface — kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.

At issue is "birthright citizenship" — provided for since the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Let us repeat that.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read on.

Print This Story
(112 comments, 647 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 27th, 2005: 22:49:27

Membership Expired? (And Other Diplomatic Sticks)

Dan Drezner argues that Russia's illiberal economic policies may merit kicking it out of the G-8. Of Russia's current membership, the good Professor opines:

It makes no sense from a liberal institutionalist perspective -- Russia has become less and less democratic over the past decade, and shows no sign under Vladimir Putin of trending in a constructive direction anytime soon.

It makes no sense from a realist pespective as well -- Russia is an economic lightweight with interests that diverge from the advanced induistrialized nations in a nymber of areas. Russia so obviously does not belong in that grouping that it has never participated in the most relevant G-7 grouping, that of the finance ministers.

Kicking Russia out of the G-8 would not necessarily accomplish a great deal -- it's not like Putin is suddenly going to smack himself on the forehead and say, "Gosh, you're right! I am monopolizing power within my country!" However, such a move would highlight the extent to which Russia has drifted away from the liberal democratic values it's government has lauded for fifteen years. It would not compromise any important component of U.S. foreign economic policy. And it might even revitalize a grouping that has been somewhat moribund during the Bush years.

Clearly, something must be done. Russia's illiberalism regarding economic policy has been a cause of concern for observers for some time (I wrote about one aspect of this illiberalism here). The worrisome trend has not reversed itself and current actions seeking to promote the liberalization of Russia's economic policies have failed completely. I imagine that in addition to at least threatening to kick Russia out of the G-8, a stick will have to be brandished regarding any ventures designed to engage Russia in military cooperation--especially given Russia's membership in the Partnership for Peace. The United States has a useful model to follow in seeking to promote economic liberalization in Russia; the diplomatic efforts--both in public and in private--designed to get the former Soviet Union to respect legitimate human rights grievances. Just as human rights became a mainstay of any and all discussions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during summits, so should economic liberalization become a mandatory topic of discussion in future Russo-American diplomatic contacts--at any and all levels.

Print This Story
(3 comments) Comments >> Dec 27th, 2005: 22:26:23

My Delayed Reaction to NSA Wiretapping

From the Diaries...

After absorbing over a week of news regarding the warrantless surveillance by the NSA, I thought I'd write this down to keep it all straight.  Calls for impeachment are serious business, not to be taken lightly or quickly or without good reason, and several of those calls have been made.  From what I've seen so far, the person who has written the most clearly on the NSA surveillance matter has been Orrin Kerr, along with a few others such as Cass Sunstein (more from Sunstein here).  Going through the list of fundamental questions:

Print This Story
(49 comments, 1223 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 27th, 2005: 15:28:03

South Dakota, Roe, and the WaPo

MSNBC (via the Washington Post) has a story today that deals with the state of legalized abortion in South Dakota, that contains the typical mixture of obfuscation and truth found in a mainstream media story.

A blow-by-blow analysis below the fold:

Print This Story
(71 comments, 799 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 27th, 2005: 13:51:40

More Dishonest Hackery from the Partisan Media

Not that this is exactly shocking news by this time, but our "good friends" from the Partisan Media have been caught with their anti-Bush bias showing again. They have decided that Bush is guilty of illegally spying on American citizens, and absolutely nothing will dissuade them from reporting that story - not even adverse testimony from a friendly witness. As I already confessed, I have a hard time mustering legitimate shock when the media exhibits partisanship these days, but seldom has their agenda been so transparent or completely unmasked.

Last Thursday, radio host and fellow blogger Hugh Hewitt had liberal law professor Cass Sunstein on his radio program. The entire interview is devastating for liberals who gleefully believe that they've finally found a legitimate reason to impeach Bush, but one segment of the interview stuck out at me in particular, and it was the part when Hugh began asking Sunstein about the media's coverage of this story:

HH: Professor Sunstein, have you ever been contacted by mainstream media about this controversy?

CS: A lot. Yeah.

HH: And have you spent a lot of time trying to walk the reporters through the basics?

CS: Yes.

HH: Who's contacted you, for example? The New York Times?

CS: Well, I wouldn't want to name specific ones. It's a little bit of confidentiality there, but some well known ones. Let's just say that.

HH: Let me ask. Have you been quoted in any papers that you've seen?

CS: I don't think so.

What this means for the story below the fold:

UPDATE by Leon H: After I completed the text of this story, I found that Professor Sunstein's take also made it into an opinion piece for the LA Times. Still zilcho on the actual news coverage of the story.

UPDATE [12/27/05 02:06:00 EST by Leon H]: A commenter notes this reference in the LA Times, which is probably what Sunstein himself referred to as the only mention of his analysis in the news.

Print This Story
(38 comments, 1518 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 27th, 2005: 00:52:53

2008 Poll of RedStaters: Round 3! The Final Four!

From the Diaries.. it's the finals, after all..

And with a second round of voting behind us, and 140 votes tallied, Newt Gingrich once again takes the top spot in DaveGOP's Presidential Poll of RedStaters.  The results are as follows:

· Newt Gingrich 24%  
· John McCain 22%  
· Rudy Giuliani 14%  
· George Allen 13%  
· Sam Brownback 12%  
· Mitt Romney 12%

Interestingly, the removal of the third tier candidates from the race, like Bill Frist and Haley Barbour, seemed to help John McCain more than any other candidate, with McCain moving into second place after being tied with Giuliani in the first round.  Other than McCain's ascent, the order of the candidates remains the same.  Allen, Brownback, and Romney come in fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively.

As such, I'm dropping the bottom two candidates and presenting RedStaters with their final four: Gingrich, McCain, Giuliani, and Allen.  Once again, please take a moment to vote for your preferred candidate.  The next round will feature the top three candidates, and we'll keep going until only one man is left standing!

So go ahead and vote!

Print This Story
(163 comments) Comments >> Dec 26th, 2005: 20:17:57

Civil Liberties Overseas

I have no problem with people keeping up the drumbeat concerning the state of civil liberties in the United States. Eternal vigilance is enthusiastically endorsed by me and it is important for us to remember that the only way we will keep our liberties is if we are zealous in defending them without demagoguing the issue.

At the same time, we do owe it to ourselves to remember just how lucky we are

Spying on e-mail and cell phone traffic without a warrant. Searching offices and residences without a court order. Locking citizens away for weeks or months without filing charges.

Sound like your worst nightmare about the supposedly lawless Bush administration? Perhaps. But I refer to restrictions on civil liberties that are taking place not in the United States but, in the order in which I cited them, Canada, France and Great Britain.

All three countries are cited as moral superiors to the rogue regime in Washington, where the fascist leaders George Bush and Dick Cheney are said to be intent on fastening a reign of terror on the United States. But a brief scan of newspaper websites in those countries – something that the American mainstream media could easily have done before unleashing its own reign of terror on unsuspecting readers -- reveals that their governments have in many cases gone far beyond where the Bush-Cheney could ever dream of going.

The Canadian government has broad authority under anti-terrorism laws to intercept communications without court oversight. And, complained a Toronto Star columnist recently, “the [Canadian] government now has significant new authority to stage secret trials. In some instances, the very fact that the courts are even hearing a case may be kept secret.”

Meanwhile, the government of Jacques Chirac – who seldom loses an opportunity to lecture the United States about its supposedly dreadful policies – has reacted to the recent “intifada” in France by declaring a “state of emergency.” It allows the government to impose a curfew on communities where rioting has taken place, search for and seize evidence with no showing of probable cause, place suspects under house arrest for up to two months and otherwise ride roughshod over normal protections.

In England critics are complaining that the crown jewel of civil rights, the ancient right of habeas corpus, is at risk because of a measure allowing detention without charges for up to 28 days. The government of Tony Blair, no right wing extremist, had initially asked for 90 days. Under the Terrorism Act of 2005, moreover, demonstrations within two miles of Britain’s Parliament are forbidden, severely crimping the equally ancient right of assembly.

Of course, the chasm between the respect afforded to civil liberties in the United States and other Western countries does not mean that there is somehow room to abuse civil liberties. Far from it. At the same time, those who raise the hue and cry about the incipient onset of fascism and compare us unfavorably with countries like Canada, France and Britain ought to remember that our civil liberties regime is in fact quite prosperous and robust. We certainly ought to ensure that it remains thus, and there certainly are developments that cause rightful concern about civil liberties, but overall, if you think that the sound you hear in the distance is the din of jackboots, it may be possible that you are being more than a little paranoid.

Print This Story
(27 comments) Comments >> Dec 26th, 2005: 16:32:52

The Meaning of Christmas

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"- which means, "God with us."

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Read on . . .
Print This Story
(53 comments, 851 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 25th, 2005: 15:00:33

Merry Christmas to All


The Editors of RedState would like to wish you all a very safe and happy Christmas. Many of us are traveling to see family. Some of us will still be posting, in between stuffing our faces and visiting with family and friends. Please keep checking back, but pardon us if we aren't posting as much as usual.

Merry Christmas to you all from all of us at RedState.

Sincerely yours,

The Directors and Editors
of RedState

Print This Story
(33 comments) Comments >> Dec 25th, 2005: 09:26:56

Guest on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows

For Christmas Day, December 25, 2005

Meet the Press (NBC): Host Tim Russert has a nice, long chat with Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel.

FOX News Sunday: Host Chris Wallace is doing what FOX calls the year's two biggest stories. Joint Chiefs Chairman Pete Pace has been interviewed concerning the war in Iraq, and Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) will discuss Hurricane Katrina, joined by childhood friend Wynton Marsalis.

Face the Nation (CBS): Host Bob Schieffer talks to TV journalists who also work for CBS.

This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos talks to Colin Powell about Iraq.

Late Edition (CNN): Host Wolf Blitzer won't be there. CNN is showing reruns of Larry King Live all morning. No kidding.


The interviews are all taped, of course, and I'll be watching the Yule Log somewhere on cable.

Print This Story
(10 comments) Comments >> Dec 25th, 2005: 09:26:36

Defending Christmas

Hat tip to Gamecock who points us to this piece by Britain's Jack Straw, MP and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. In his op-ed, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Straw says
I have just noticed — alas, for the first time — that the card I sent out in my capacity as Foreign Secretary has the anodyne, non-Christmas message of “Season’s Greetings”. And I was horrified to learn from an American friend that in the circles in which she, at least, moves it is considered not the done thing to wish people one does not know well “Merry Christmas”, still less to send out “Christmas” cards saying so.

It’s mad, in my opinion. And, in case you read certain national newspapers who imply that this kind of “politically correct” rubbish emanates from the Government, it doesn’t. Indeed, I’m not sure it comes from anyone in particular. Instead, someone somewhere who is unsure about how to behave in our multiracial, multireligious society which is Britain today thinks, wrongly, that offence might be taken if the “C” word is uttered too much when celebrating the birth of Christ.

Straw goes on to note
Taking Christ out of Christmas, and pretending that you can celebrate Christmas without any acknowledgement of the profound religious origin and power of the festival, is simply wrong. We live in a free country. If someone wants to celebrate Saturnalia — the pagan winter festival — that’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s Christmas.
Please do read the whole thing. American politicians can learn something from Mr. Straw on this.
Print This Story
(34 comments) Comments >> Dec 24th, 2005: 13:13:14

Merry Christmas To You Too

Ah, showing us the love:
Subject: [Info] your website is a disappointment
Date: December 24, 2005 12:56:19 AM EST

I think your website is weak. You merely preach to the choir, among your little republican selves. Liberals are definitely NOT going away. We're here, we have very strong positions, and shall carry on as we always have for decades on end. We are not on the "fringe" as you ignorantly claim.

It is not the Left, or the LIberals, who have to incessantly attack and bash the republicans. Only you republicans are obsessed with attacking and exterminating the Left. What are you afraid of? You don't seem to be able to tolerate or share the government, or the country for that matter with viewpoints that are divergent from your own. Instead you have your shills at Fox News, like carlson or o'reilly (deliberately spelled lowercase btw) spewing hate speech against not only anybody not neo-con, but pretty much the rest of the population on the planet.

The modern day republican party is but a shadow of it's former (respectable self), for example Eisenhauer. Even Eisenhauer warned of the military industrial complex--that we are now quagmired in--which is corporate socialism on an OBSCENE scale. Read that $500 toilet seats at the pentagon, or defense contractors having barmitzvahs for 30 million (at the expense of US taxpayers). Even among conservatives there is now a split: spend crazy neo-cons against traditional (and respectable) conservatives like Pat Buchanan or Buckley. Neo-cons are corporate fascists, and are hated world-wide, for good reason. They are corporate thugs who despise legal systems, ethics, or morality. bush acts above the law, and breaks the law by having NSC spy on American citizens! Only a fool who wants to live in a police state (we are already there, btw) would support adolf bushler.

Anyways I doubt I'll be hanging around your website. I'm certainly not welcome. You red state people have NO tolerance for anybody who is not exactly like you. You hate people who are not republican. That's a wrong way to think in my opinion. True Democracy encourages diversity of thought, different viewpoints, different religious values, etc.

Stephen, from Blue State Land (even though I don't consider myself part of any red or blue state bulls**t. How stupid!)

Merry Christmas to you too, Stephen. Oh, and it is Eisenhower, not Eisenhauer. Thanks for the hate mail to point out that it is Republicans who have to attack. Thanks also for the good laugh about how Republicans don't like to share the government. We guess you just forgot it was the voters who decided they didn't want to put the left in charge. Funny how we're the ones who cannot tolerate other people's views, but yet it is you writing us to bash us for our views. With logic like that, we guess we'll keep on winning.
Print This Story
(22 comments) Comments >> Dec 24th, 2005: 12:15:18

Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm . . ." (Part Deux)

Since when did the British Tories embrace the redistribution of wealth? What kind of Bizarro-world is this?

Print This Story
(6 comments, 432 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 23rd, 2005: 21:29:26

Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm . . ."

After reading this post, I have the following questions:

  • Why should there be no call for a referendum in Iran?
  • What is wrong with condemning the entire government, especially given that it is almost completely in the hands of the hardliners?
  • If the information on which the post is based is wrong, why do we not hear more about the supposedly "right" version of events?
  • For that matter, why don't we hear much of anything outside of the Blogosphere about this issue at all?
See also this post. (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link.)
Print This Story
(6 comments) Comments >> Dec 23rd, 2005: 21:28:26

Muslims Monitored For Radiation

According to U.S. News and World Report the federal government has secretly monitored radiation levels at Muslim sites, including mosques and private homes, since September 11, 2001 as part of a top secret program searching for nuclear bombs, since 9/11.

The top secret program included more than a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, plus sites in at least five other cities.

Compounding the hullabaloo created by the NSA's intercepts of electronic communications, the radiation monitoring was also done without warrants:

In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree.

There's more

Print This Story
(93 comments, 600 words in story) Read Story & Discuss Dec 23rd, 2005: 18:14:22

Next 25 >>

RedHot Posts
Recommended Diaries
Latest Comments
Member Diaries
Blog Roll
create account | faq | search