Yearly Archives: 2003

Senate Approves $87.5 Billion 4-1

This entry was posted in Iraq on by

Read all of this Newday opinion piece:

What is the same in the Guantanamo cases, and those of Hamdi and Padilla, is the president’s insistence that he alone has the authority to decide who should be locked up and when, if ever, they will be released.
It’s not supposed to work that way in the land of the free.

No, it should not work that way in the land of the free.
Via Talkleft.

Protect your Data

This entry was posted in Technology on by

Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s hard drive failed which is not something to wish on anyone.
However, there are benefits for the rest of us: the comment threads to these two posts which provide lot’s of good information on data recovery and backups.

Iraq Troop Count

This entry was posted in bush Iraq US Foreign Policy War on Terrorism on by

Do you visualize the 133,000 troops in Iraq as mostly combat soldiers? Think again. According to this piece from today’s New York Times the number is much lower:

Such is the arithmetic of an ultra-modern army. The support echelon is so large that out of the 133,000 American men and women in Iraq, no more than 56,000 are combat-trained troops available for security duties…..And even the finest soldiers must sleep and eat. Thus the number of troops on patrol at any one time is no more than 28,000 � to oversee frontiers terrorists are trying to cross, to patrol rural terrain including vast oil fields, to control inter-city roads, and to protect American and coalition facilities.

No wonder the troops are having problems.

Secret Trials

This entry was posted in bush CAPPS II Constitution Democracy Domestic Terrorism Judiciary Law Libertarianism Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

What is the justice department hiding? It is inconceivable to me that there is anything that justifies completely hiding a legal proceding from public scrutiny:

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist – and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Dan Gilmour argues:

If the Supreme Court rules, as I suspect it will, that the White House is free to tear up the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting terrorism (or fighting illegal drugs, the pretext that was used to basically destroy the 4th Amendment under previous administrations), then no one is safe from the predations of a rogue government in the future

Hmmmm, what about a rogue government in the present?
Via Secrecy News.