The debt we owe Iraqi interpreters [CS Monitor]Labels: Bush, Iraq, Marines, Military, Obama, Pentagon, terrorism
Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Military, Obama, Pakistan, Syria, terrorism, Veterans
Labels: Afghanistan, Army, iran, Iraq, Military, Pakistan, terrorism
The U.S. House of Representatives voted by voice Tuesday to require the registration of the sale and purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This stuff is a key ingredient in explosives used for the terrorist bombings of the Oklahoma City federal building and a night club in Bali, Indonesia. I'm not impressed. It's another feel good bill. Ammonium nitrate is not a bomb. It's fertilizer. And do we really need another database?
Labels: congress, homeland security, terrorism
A press release issued Monday morning by the Transportation Security Administration states that remote-controlled toys will be scrutinized by airport screeners due to concerns they could be used to detonate bombs. Folks, you know what this means. Don’t bring the toys in your carry-on luggage. Better yet, leave them at home. Something tells me the TSA’s in a confiscatin’ mood.
Maybe they’ll end up storing the harmless little cars and planes in the same warehouse with those dangerous sippy cups?
Passengers who carry the toys may be subject to secondary screening.
-Dippold
According to a Washington Post article today the Bush Administration is ready to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard -- an elite military force -- a foreign terrorist organization.The White House hawks in Dick Cheney's office and elsewhere who want to stage an attack on Iran are clearly winning the internal power stuggle. And an often overlooked sub-plot on the long road toward war with Tehran is this: How could Bush stage an attack on Iran without the authorization of a skeptical, Democratic Congress?
Today, the White House has solved that pesky problem in one fell swoop. By explicitly linking the Iranian elite guard into the post 9/11 "global war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's lawyers would certainly now argue that any military strike on Iran is now covered by the October 2002 authorization to use military force in Iraq, as part of their overly sweeping response to the 2001 attacks.
Calling the military branch of another government a "terrorist" organization also allows Bush to skirt other nasty legal obstacles. For example, Congress won't have to declare war on them because now they would fall under the AUMF that was passed in the wake of 9/11.
And assuming we do go to war with Iran, we won't have to treat the soldiers of the opposing army under the Geneva Conventions.
So basically, by slapping the label "terrorist" on any person, or group, the Bush Administration can do anything it wants (i.e., attack them) and avoid complying with the U.S. Constitution and international treaties and human rights and stuff like that.
The administration has yet to decide exactly when to announce the measure, but officials said they would like to before the UN General Assembly convenes next month, where the U.S. intends to ramp up international pressure against Iran.
-Dippold
Six foreign born Muslims were accused Tuesday of planning to attack Fort Dix, a US Army installation in New Jersey, with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.Ok. So, the plot was: six dudes from New Jersey buy some guns and storm Fort Dix. The Fort Dix that is full of lots and lots of Army reservists with way, way more guns. And, like, extensive military training and s**t. Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest f**king terrorist plot we’ve ever heard of.Lawhawk of A Blog For All isn't as quick to shrug off the situation:
Those who downplay this terror bust ought to keep in mind that it is far better to thwart these plots before they come to fruition than to deal with the repercussions of an actual attack. Even if this attack went off and didn't manage to kill anyone at Fort Dix, the fact that terrorists even considered attacking a US military installation inside the US would have been a propaganda coup of epic proportions for the jihadis around the world. Al Qaeda would likely try to take credit for the attacks, knowing that the media would play up that angle and show that the global war on terror was a failure because we couldn't even prevent a terrorist attack inside the US against a military installation.So with the two quotes above, you basically have the two sides of the story. Take your pick, or leave a comment with a different take.
Labels: terrorism
Sometime this summer, the US government will require visitors -- including those from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other European Union nations -- to have all 10 fingers scanned when entering the United States. Currently, under the US-Visit program, certain non-U.S. citizen visitors must have two fingers scanned and a photograph taken.But hey, why not further bankrupt our grandchildren, bankrupt our morality, and overload law enforcement with useless clutter – there’s a war going on!Koen Crolla at Rosio Pavoris reveals the possibility of technical error:
Even if you don’t object to being treated like a criminal for no reason, keep in mind that fingerprint identification has a pretty high error rate, and these prints will mostly be taken by inexperienced staff using equipment that takes thousands every day.-Dippold
Labels: fingerprint, homeland security, terrorism
