US Intelligence Chiefs Urge Easing Of Spy Rules 153
The US admninistration is not looking for this law change to enable them to "Better fight the War On Terror". The truth is that the US Administration need the law relaxed because they think that it will then make it easier for them to get a retrospective law change that may further help them to crawl out of a rather deep set of legal and constitutional holes that they currently find themselves in. You see, the Dubya administration has trampled all over the laws of the US and the Constitution itself and they have, as seen in the video, admitted it along the way. The problems they now face are coming from all directions such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation's successful application to sue AT&T for handing over phone records without a warrant. The President has already blocked one investigation into his conduct regarding this issue and now they are looking to srike down all others before they even get started.
Why is this not surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you are unelected or retire (Score:5, Interesting)
The real nightmare for people like the current President and some of his friends must be that to be safe, they must find a way to hold onto power for a long time. This has been the problem that has led to gerontocracies in places like fascist Spain, China and parts of the Middle East. But the US is not a dictatorship, it is a pluralist federation, and the possibility exists that in the revolution of the political cycle the time will come when a US government will indict a member of the present Administration for war crimes. Of course it could never happen...but the British and the French both once executed a monarch and the British allowed the deposition of another in what they called the Glorious Revolution. Perhaps, just as Putin has clawed back Russian oil from the kleptarchs, one day a US Government strapped for cash will start to go after the plutarchs.
A British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson,once famously said that three weeks was a long time in politics. I'm not sure that the present generation of politicians are thinking as far ahead as that.
Re:Until you are unelected or retire (Score:2)
That's what the presidential pardon privilege if for.
Hmm.... (Score:2)
But he can't pardon himself... had Nixon lost an election, instead of resigning and being replaced by Ford, he probably would have been indicted over the Watergate coverup... And pardoning Nixon was one of the main issues people had with Ford... had he not done so, maybe he could have stayed in office.
In this case, though, it would require the Democrati
Re:Until you are unelected or retire (Score:2)
When is the next election?
That's about how far ahead they're looking.
Re:Until you are unelected or retire (Score:3, Insightful)
As you have rightly mentioned, that WILL NEVER happen.
The previous, present and future administrations are all equally corrupt for it to happen.
No WAY will Bush or Dick or Rumsfeld be strip searched.
Reagan did far worse, and lied, e
Re:Until you are unelected or retire (Score:2)
Well, that sound fair. I'm all for that then....
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
More at 9.
Re:In other news... the link missing from article (Score:2)
Please vote this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Please vote this time (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how all those people feel now, who argued against voting for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils in 2000 and 2004?
Even my redneck fundamentalist mother (female parent, not the Jerry Jeff Walker "redneck mother") has expressed regret for voting for GWB. And that was last year.
Re: Please vote this time (Score:2)
It is really hard to get worse. No one suspected that Dubya can make it. But yeah, we underestimated his capabilities
Re: Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re: Please vote this time (Score:2)
That is _exactly_ why we're in this mess today.
How about voting for the better person, instead of blinding throwing your vote away at some stupid "party-line"
representative that is only they because he bribed his friends and promised kickbacks?
Sheesh.
And the scary thing? Al Gore is starting to look _good_ in comparison.
Two parties, one agenda. (Score:2)
The majority of Democrats agree with the agenda and not the methods. Hilary Clinton is for the war, an
Re:Please vote this time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:1)
Nice. Accused incumbents and a suspected president.
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:4, Interesting)
While currently voting for a third party at the federal level is about the same as throwing your vote away (Though it can still make a statement) you can vote for other parties at local and state levels and they frequently have more success. And if they can gain enough traction and do a good enough job at a state level then they should start having better chances at a federal level, too.
Flying Rhenquist! LOL! (Score:2)
Starting by voting incumbents (Democrat or Republican) out ever time their term is up will do two things. First it'll send a message to Washington that voting America is pissed off and until things really change they won't get the nice perks of staying in office. It'll also limit the amount of damage they can do and the amount of corrupting influences they can build up before we kick them back out of office.
While I like the sentiment, I think the more likely immediate outcome of this strategy is simply
Obvious Simpsons quote (Score:3, Funny)
In other words: When you have no choice, it doesn't matter.
Much like this... (Score:2)
Poster sighted outside University Gaming Club in 1999:
"Vote Cthulu 2000. Why settle for the lesser evil?"
I shit you not.
Re:Please vote this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2, Informative)
The Republicans are also up against a very real general rule - the one that notes that the party in the White House almost always looses Congressional seats in the off year - that hasn't hap
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
"Certain number?" How many is that, three? Four? Are we now looking at an inumbency rate as low as 92% as opposed to the 98% we saw in 2004?
I really don't see how fighting for scraps here and there will accomplish wide-reaching social change, especially when the Democrats have been just as willing as the Republicans to support the president.
"The Republicans are also up against a very real g
you're off by a factor of 5-10 (Score:2)
The only thing I don't know is how many of those had Dems as incumbents. So maybe I'm off by a margin of error as well.
There is a chance (Score:2)
If Republican don't get elected it won't have anything to do with the war. If Republicans arent elected it will be because it's the Democrats turn to be elected. The war will continue no matter who is elected because the war is already in motion now. The Democrats would fight the war just as Republicans would, with a few differences, perhaps we'd look better to the international co
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
If the Republican party kicked out the war profiteers, religious wackos, and nanny-state privacy encroa
You are likely correct. (Score:2)
The question is, if we are at war, why don't we name these people, put them on the FBI's most wanted list, and enlist every citizen in this country to get to work to capture or kill the "terrorists"? I mean when we cannot even define who the terrorists are how exactly can we win, or even know how to fight the war on terror in a way which isnt self defeating?
F
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
You're not paying attention. Each district is carefully drawn in such a way that the majority of voters in it are die-hard party faithful and will vote for the incumbent come rain or shine. You can vote against the incumbent if you'd like, but in each and every House district in this country there's a hundred thousand people who will vote for the incumbent no matter what (otherwise they'd be drawn into a different district). Those who would dare vote against an incumbent
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
I am paying attention, I just think you're not entirely correct.
Yes, the majority of districts are gerrymandered - let's call it what it is - but they are done so in a way that reflects the political party makeup, not just who currently holds the office. The goal of any gerrymandered system is to preserve long-term party "ownership" because people will vote against an incumbent if the conditions are right. For examples, you need look no further than Tom Delay, Joe Lieberman, and Cynthia McKinney, all of
Re:Please vote this time (Score:2)
I know you like to Bush bash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know you like to Bush bash (Score:1, Funny)
C'mon, Zonk and Taco... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:C'mon, Zonk and Taco... (Score:2)
This isn't news. But then, it was never supposed to be - if we only pay attention to what has just happened, we end up with very short-term memories. This is not the kind of thing which should be dropped when the newest shiny thing comes along
Re:C'mon, Zonk and Taco... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:C'mon, Zonk and Taco... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
You mean capitalists?
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2, Insightful)
I say that works both ways
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm calling a big ole Bullshit on this one. While there are some Muslims who are sympathetic to the movement, and there are so
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:3, Insightful)
No, maybe not an ethnic thing, but certainly a religious thing. The moment you've banned a religious group from immigrating to this country you've just announced and made clear your objections to that religion. Islam is not the problem, it's the way the world politic has been handling the issues. How you got modded insightful with that bullshit is beyond me, u
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:5, Insightful)
All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism.
If USA stops bombing civilians, respect human rights and does not commit war crimes, I'm sure far fewer will be inclined to act out of desparation as terrorists.
The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism.
Most Muslims, like most Christians, does not support terrorism. Bombing civilians from the air is, of course, not terrorism [/sarcasm].
Look, the only way to fight Islamic terrorism without falling prey to more of it at home, and not violating the rights of our citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, is to keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country.
Respect human rights, don't invade other countries, stop toppling democratic governments and install/support dictatorships, and don't exploit poor people. See? I'm sure many more people on the planet will much less hostile to USA if the above was followed.
This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi.
Agreed, not an ething thing, just a racist one.
All religions have violent pasts because for a long period of time, the world was a truly brutal and uncivilized place.
The world is still a truly brutal and uncivilized place. Just look at airial bombings done in Lebanon and Iraq.
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean, "religionists" like, say Christians? I give you Rwanda, Northern Ireland, the USA (anti-abortion campaigners) and Serbia. All lovely folks who I'm sure you want inside your borders... Or Israel, which at the last count has managed to kill 600 "non-believers" in 2 weeks? Please get the reality, that religion really doesn't matter a damn.
The simple fact is that "the only way to fight Islamic terrorism" is to stop doing things that piss off the citizens of those countries, such as bombing civilians. Currently the US and the UK have royally fucked up Iraq to the extent of allowing a civil war to take place, Afghanistan is still in the shitter, and they're providing military and financial support for Israel while it bombs civilians and other non-military targets in Lebanon and Palestine. Meantime, George Bush is busy pointing the finger at Syria and Iran as the next targets, because they sponsor terrorism.
Hmm, a state which sponsors terrorism? How's about the USA? For US-supported countries whose governments actively terrorised their citizens, or where the US supported terrorist activities against the government, or where the US actively attacked/invaded to try and establish a government favourable to them, I give you: Cuba, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Congo, Vietnam, Cambodia, Argentina, Guatemala, Panama, Chile, Guyana, Angola... And that's just the ones I can remember easily.
Given how successful all this intervention has been (every single one of the examples above has been an unmitigated failure), an awful lot of people wish that the US would keep well out of international affairs, because the US government and the CIA clearly couldn't find their ass with both hands. And if they stopped fucking up other people's countries, maybe the citizens of those countries (and others) would feel more kindly towards the US.
I'm almost amused when I hear Americans saying how big a deal 9/11 was. In Iraq alone, that's about 2 weeks worth of civilian casualties (according to the most *optimistic* casualty figures). If you can imagine 9/11 happening every fortnight, maybe you will then understand why the US is not exactly appreciated abroad.
Grab.
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
The simple fact is that "the only way to fight Islamic terrorism" is to stop doing things that piss off the citizens of those countries, such as bombing civilians.
That might help, short term, and I really applaud the sentiment. Truthfully we could do with a lot less bombings of innocent civilians, or anyone else for that matter.........but..........
But, the unfortunate truth of it is that these conflicts really do have a cultural side and an economic side to them. And I don't mean, to be clear, that
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
What inspires people to fight is a reason that's personal to them. The most common personal reason is revenge from a previous attack, and the next most common is the fear that someone's going to attack you first. The former is what GWB used as the justification for invading Afghanistan (even though I remember a news arti
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
You're right that this kind of fighting is a permanent byproduct, but it's a permanent byproduct of a military system that's escalated beyond what a civilian can lay their hands on.
This is an excellent point. Why fight fair when fighting fair will just get you killed? That is what drives the 'terrorist' part of perpetual extremism.
I think what you are underselling is the actual amount of economic rhetoric and brouhaha that gets mixed in to the (these days, mostly) Islamist madrasah grab-bag. People
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2)
If you take the Middle East as one whole entity, that's absolutely right. But if you narrow in, you'll find a few areas with high loss of family members and friends. Palestine and Lebanon, it's almost guaranteed. And also there's the perception of self-defence amongst people from other countries (eg. Syria and Iran) where the US and/or Israel have threat
Not flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor moderation of the parent comment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I've never agreed so strongly with someone's first five sentences and disagreed so violently with the entire rest of their post before.
Please provide the merest hint of evidence that this is anything other than baseless, pulling-facts-out-of-my-arse racist bullshit, or be modded into oblivion.
Remember in your answer to differentiate between the truly violent religions and those which are merely prevalent in extremely deprived, politically-unstable parts of the world.
Also remember to excuse the (nominally-Christian) West's identical behaviour during periods of similar social strife and deprivation, and the fact that the entire Middle East region is so unstable pretty much entirely because of the machinations of european countries and the US over the course of the last hundred years or so.
Great idea - lose all the terrorist sympathisers... along with most of the middle- and far-eastern grad students who are the only ones counteracting the US's massive brain-drain to countries with less restrictive (and less religiously-inspired) research laws.
Also remember turnabout is fair play, and remove all your expatriots from the region. Specifically all the ones with guns, bombs and missiles who are doing such a bang-up job of convincing the terrorist sympathisers to invade your hallowed shores.
Or, y'know, stay out of theirs. Again, specifically the tooled-up tourists in uniforms.
Nope. Nor is there a fundamental human right allowing you to invade other countries who pose no threat to you, extort them to change their laws to ones you'd like purely for your own benefit, topple democratically-elected leaders, invade countries on false premises and then let the guy who did it off scot-free, etc, etc, etc.
Your point?
Well, personally the only "Christians" I hear about in the mass-media are the fundamentalist fuckwits intent on ousting evolution from schools, banning medical research and calling for the assassination of democratically-elected South American leaders. Can we ban all the Christians too while we're at it?
Was? Was? Dude, where are you living? Under a rock?
I kno wthe US is famous
Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff** (Score:2, Insightful)
As I have been trying to explain to people for several years, the terrorists, while claiming to be fundamentalist Muslim, are really using the religion to shield their actual intent from exposure. The vast majority of Muslim people around the world live in countries that do not believe in universal literacy, so many of them depend upon the word of clerics to tell them what their holy book, the Koran, says. Since Islam has no central authority, like
I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism). It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold. The entire basis of conservatism is fighting against liberalism.
As to electing intelligent people, that's not the solution. There are plenty of very intelligent people in office who do terrible things, or allow terrible things to happen. What's needed are people who are motivated by the public interest, and not by games, self-promotion, and party-promotion. They need to be sufficiently versed in history, economics, and political theory. The ability to treat subjects rationally is a must.
When every candidate meets those criteria, we can have meaningful elections based upon the views held by the candidates. Then again, this will NEVER happen, so we have to play the hand we're dealt... and frankly, I can't see a clear way of cleaning house while the corporate world is married to the political one.
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
Reagan was more a result of
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
In terms of Eisenhower's victories, they were largely a result of checking the actions of the previous administrations, as you point out... which goes back to conservatism being defined by a resistance to liberalism. However, I'd also point out that Eisenhower was the direct beneficiary of the spending initiated by his predecessors. His success was also
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
We may have a chicken/egg situation. I don't think that either conservatism or liberalism are defined by the other, they're two separate political philosophies. However, assuming the country is populated with people whose want something politically in the middle, when the country swings one direction, there is necessarily going to be a larger proportion of people who want it to swing back the other way. Roosevelt had an unprecede
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
Ooh, and I want a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
I would love to see some sane legislation from anyone... but it seems that is not possible anymore.
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
Isn't that what _all_ politics is about?
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:3, Insightful)
I style myself as largely independant - although I have voted Republican since Reagan - mainly since I haven't seen a Democratic leader with a real, strongly articulated vision that didn't involve turning the country so sharply left it scared me as much as the Republican right does now.
As I mentioned in my post above, what this country nee
Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy. (Score:2)
>>mainly since I haven't seen a Democratic leader with a real, strongly articulated vision that didn't involve turning the country so sharply left it scared me as much as the Republican right does now.
I'm failing to think of anyone that is further
In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of current law and regulation for government powers to get information and investigate is to ensure that the interests of civilians are preserved and balanced against the needs of the government in doing its job. What they are saying is that they can't do their jobs without even more easy and invasive permissions.
Maybe I'll be modded down for this, but I think I'd rather see another 9-11 than to see what is happening to the way of life we have enjoyed until now. But frankly, if we just stay out of their business and stop backing Israel, I think we'd have little to no threat since this is ultimately what this boils down to in the first place... that and oil which could be, I'm sure, managed in other ways. We're capitalists after all.
And while I'm on the subject, how about we punish the president for his flagrant violation of law before we move to change it. If we make murder legal today, that doesn't mean we need to free yesterday's murderers from prison does it? If we make speeding on our streets legal, does that mean speeders should get a refund?
I'm still somewhat baffled as to why there is so little focus on the violations that have occurred and the blocking of investigations.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:1)
That was cute. As a recall, the argument was "we're not abusing the library records power, we've never used it, so you don't have to worry about us renewing it". Uh.... yea.
In related news, V For Vendetta will be about on DVD tomorrow, but you'd be doing yourself a much bigger favor if you hit yo
Re:In other news (Score:2)
The Wikipedia documents [wikipedia.org] Bin Laden's fatwa (I have heard and read this elsewhere as well, I think it's pretty trustworthy):
"The fatwa lists three crimes and sins committed by the Americans:
- U.S. support of Israel.
- U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
- U.S. agg
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Since we don't negotiate with terrorists, we must continue supporting Israel, occupy the Arabian Peninsula, and be aggressive toward the Iraqi people. Even if Israel pisses us off and we have no other reason to continue the other two, we can't give in to the terrorists!
I seriously believe Osama and every other terrorist organizat
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:3, Informative)
The U.S. government has invaded 24 countries [futurepower.org] since the 2nd World War.
I agree. United States politics is dominated by those who believe they are Christian and George W. Bush is Christian, and who vote Republican. Actually, they often aren't Christian, they are often only angry. The other side is dominated by weak, disorganized Democrat politicians.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
While I agree with you to a degree....it also seems weird, that when we don't stick our noses in other areas...we get a bad rap on that too!! "Oh, the US doesn't care about global affairs because they didn't do x in country y where so many bad things are evil. Sometimes it does seem as if we just can't 'win'....
However, that being said....until we can get off the worlds oil 'teet'....we do have to do things to protect our int
Re:In other news (Score:2)
It's not as hypocritical as it seems. The situation seems to me that the US, being the dominant economic and military (and cultural, FWIW) superpower on the planet is, by virtue of the office, so to speak, already involved everywhere. The fact that we aid only those who benefit our strategic interests (only send aid to regions to stabilize them, e.g. screw Africa) and bomb threats to our security (again, screw Africa) rather than use economic and military might to help hundreds of millions of people (in,
I don't buy it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
> us alone if we stopped screwing around in world affairs. We stick our nose
> where it doesn't belong, and THAT is what breeds terrorism.
I'm not about to mindlessly repeat the tired old "they hate us because of our freedom" mantra. But there's got to be a whole lot more to it than just our fucked up foreign policy.
Look at Latin America. The United States has been royally screwing pretty much all of Latin America for pre
Re:I don't buy it.... (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Certainly they are thugs, and that fat
Being nice. (Score:2)
Being nice works just fine, actually.
There are plenty of first world nations which don't go to war, and who nobody bombs. These are the nice countries. Canada, while it has been screwing up more often in recent years with it's indecisive politics (will we support American war drumming and general paranoia or not? I wish we could make up our collecti
Re:Being nice. (Score:2)
'Superpower' is a label which gets attached to those nations which like to maintain high levels of nationalist propaganda and invest heavily in arms. Canada, with its huge land mass and mountains of natural resources, could easily have chosen to play that game. It didn't. --Getting involved in world affairs using nationalist propaganda and
Re:Being nice. (Score:2)
A nation like the US gets drawn into world affairs through the normal course of international diplomacy and the natural inclination of any country to protect its interests. The misery and villany you abhor is usually thrust upon y
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Actually, yes. Historically, it's customary to pardon individuals who were convicted of a crime that is no longer considered a crime. Kind of an we-admit-it-we-were-wrong, so-sorry-for-the-inconvenience type deal.
The precedent also exists for outgoing Presidents to be pardoned by incoming ones -- though Carter pai
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Um, yeah. That's exactly how it works. Ex post facto is funny like that. You can't convict someone for doing something that wasn't illegal before, but if a law is undone, the people convicted for it were wrongly imprisoned. They go free.
Supposedly happened in New York when the Rockerfeller Drug Laws were repealed, but they had to go through a (lengthy) appeals process and of course any crimes co
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Even if the law was removed through judicial review, ISTR that it does not affect past convictions.
The U.S. government has been helping oil companies (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. government is in dire circumstances. Money is being taken from the people and given to the rich in enormous quantities. See the old article, U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party [futurepower.org]. See how much things have gotten worse since then: National Debt [brillig.com]. Oil and weapons investors profit: Cost of Iraq War [nationalpriorities.org].
See a short review of books and movies about conflict of interest: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
It's far worse than these short references say.
Re:The U.S. government has been helping oil compan (Score:2)
It's friggin' Harry and Lloyd (Dumb & Dumber) leaving IOUs (in this case, non-marketable "special issue" Treasury Certificates) in the suitcase to pay for what they want today, but without the funny bits.
Take a moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Institutional and Presidential Schizophrenia (Score:2)
Having read many Slashdot stories about bugging, monitoring, spying, arresting, drm'ing, forcing flags (broadcast and pledge of allegience), and other topics; I sat down and had a chat.
You see, I had a chat with a wonderful friend. He's my childhood psychiatrist whom I still keep in touch with. After a few hours of both joy and tears, we came to some interesting and scary ideas that he and I wish to express here.
We, in the U.S. (and perhaps in some other parts of the world) are in a state of severe in
Re:Institutional and Presidential Schizophrenia (Score:2)
Re:YRO?!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seems like a moveon.org rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems like a moveon.org rant (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/docume nts/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek [msn.com]
(RANT)
Yeah, and I know what you are going to say..they are terrorists an