Kia's World

Link here:

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- An Islamic nuclear physicist on Thursday accused the U.S. Department of Energy of revoking his security clearance in retaliation for his criticism of the government's treatment of Muslims.

The Department of Energy denied El-Ganayni the right to appeal the revocation by saying its reasons are classified and could violate national security if made public. El-Ganayni is demanding that he be allowed to contest it before a "nonpolitical, neutral arbiter as mandated by DOE regulations."

Like we've never heard THAT one before

El-Ganayni has never received a negative report or evaluation from Bettis Laboratory, and even after the revocation process began, his superiors made it clear they would like to have him back, said Vic Walczak, the ACLU's Pennsylvania legal director.

In other words, there is no legit reason for this and the poor guy has just been screwed.  Very nice.

Link here:

Associated Press is now selling "quotation licenses" that allow bloggers, journallers, and people who forward quotations from articles to co-workers to quote their articles.

Yeah, you heard right.  In the past, quotes have always been deemed free, fair game.  Now AP expects us to pay for the privilege.  The fee table is:

5-25 words: $12.50

26-50 words: $17.50

51-100 words: $25.00

101-250 words: $50.00

251+ words: $100.00

The licensing system exhorts you to snitch on people who publish without paying the blood-money, offering up to $1 million in reward money (they also think that "fair use" -- the right to copy without permission -- means "Contact the owner of the work to be sure you are covered under fair use.").

*headdesk*  And now for the best bit:

If you pay to quote the AP, but you offend the AP in so doing, the AP "reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publisher's reputation."

In other words, not only do we have to pay for the privilege of quoting AP, but we're only allowed to do it if we say nice things about them.  Censorship, anyone?

The people pushing for this stuff are not well-meaning, and they are not interested in making life better for artists, writers, or any other kind of individual creators. They are would-be aristocrats who fully intend to return us to a society of orders and classes, and they’re using so-called “intellectual property” law as a tool with which to do it. Whether or not you have ever personally taped a TV show or written a blog post, if you think you’re going to wind up on top in the sort of world these people are working to build, you are out of your mind.

So let's see.  If this article had been posted by AP, then I would owe them... $50.00!  Not to mention the other articles that have gone up on the Kia site.  That is, if AP hadn't revoked my "quotation license" already for not giving their news a positive spin.  If these guys had their way, the Bill of Rights would have been written with a disclaimer.

Designed to speed the airport security check process, Clear members pay $128 a year for a special card that stores their biometric information (fingerprint, iris scan, and photograph) on a card that allows them access to the "fast lane" at security checkpoints.  Not that these lucky souls are allowed to bypass the metal detectors and x-ray scans, but there are attendants on the scene to expedite the process for them.  The information on the cards are stored and regularly reviewed by Homeland Security, and membership can be devoked if your security status changes.  

Web link here:

While this would not normally be an interesting topic - his reason is - David Davis has resigned to force a by-election in his constituency - which he will fight on the issue of the 42-day terror detention limit.

I never thought I would find myself supporting a conservative - but this show of principle is not something you see often - he really is 'putting his money where his mouth is' - literally in this case as his campaign is to be self funded.

Nick Clegg (lib dem leader) will also not be fielding a candidate in the by-election - clear support of Mr. Davis' action.

Lets hope that this really brings the peoples views to the media.

From The Mirror:

Nearly 1,000 people's phone records have been investigated by council snoopers, it was revealed yesterday.

The surveillance powers for tracking terrorists have been used to probe everything from a bogus faith healer to dog smuggling.

A survey of Big Brother spying town halls showed that one council used the powers almost 100 times to monitor private phone calls and emails.

It comes after it was revealed Poole Council in Dorset had spied on a family because it wrongly suspected the parents of abusing rules on school catchment areas.

Them damn terrorist faith healers. Why the hell do councils have this power? Ignoring everything else, it is not the job of councils to police people - if a crime has been committed it should fall to the POLICE not councils.

From the Associated Press:

Last month, the House passed legislation to prohibit the military from engaging in "any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly."

However, banning the Pentagon from selling spin may be easier said than done

An existing legal prohibition, for example, didn't deter a Pentagon program aimed at influencing retired military officers frequently interviewed in the media. It also didn't prevent a culture within the Bush administration that former White House spokesman Scott McClellan claims favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war to the public.

And what is propaganda anyway? Nearly every press briefing involves a military or civilian official trying to influence the interpretation of events.

Alas, too true.  Spin, no matter how hard we try, is almost always uneliminable.  Sometimes the best we can do is try to keep it to a minimum.

From WIRED:

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight.

A statement from Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is an advisor to McCain:

"[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration's analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.

From TIME:

The legality of the proceedings due to begin at Guantanamo, however — against men held in secret CIA prisons where some were tortured, before being brought to Cuba — has been loudly challenged by critics around the world, not least by the U.S. military lawyers appointed to represent the accused. "Under these circumstances it is impossible to ethically and properly represent our clients," Navy Cpt. Prescott Prince, chief military counsel to Khalid Sheik Mohammed told TIME. "In a capital murder case involving thousands of victims, it is just unbelievable that many members of the defense team have barely been able to meet with their clients, and some not at all."

The military lawyers representing each defendant recently sought a postponement, saying they had inadequate time to meet with clients — some of the attorneys, lacking the necessary security clearance, have been unable to meet with their clients at all. Kohlman denied these requests. Defense lawyers have also told TIME that evidence against their clients has not been turned over by the prosecution, despite a legal requirement that it do so. All of these objections could surface in court on Thursday. 

From The Independent:

A few quotes:

Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

"It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down.

From Yahoo! News:

Costs $12 million dollars, can identify a suspect from 2 miles away and track a suspicious vehicle from 12, and 'lets justice watch liberty for us all.'  Gee, thanks NYPD!

From the BBC:

Gordon Brown says he wants to "win the argument" in Parliament over his plans to extend the pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects to 42 days.

The prime minister is facing the prospect of a Commons defeat over the plans which are opposed by the Tories, Lib Dems and some Labour backbenchers.

Huzzah for our Brit friends :)

Defeat for Mr Brown - when MPs vote on the Counter Terrorism Bill next month - would come as a major blow to the prime minister's authority.

Don't know much about Gordon Brown, but maybe you Brits think this is a good thing? 

Also, this article is a little out of date (printed May 15th); I found it by following links from a subsequent article posted on the JTH site.  To follow the progress of this issue, use the following liniks:

Here is an article that describes the attempts to get the law through by making some compromises

Here is an article on how the supporters of the law are trying to win MPs over

Here is an article about how Home Secretary jacqui Smith is trying to win support for the law before the vote comes up.

From MSNBC:

Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.

Sigh.... I'm not even going to comment over how dumb this is.

A statement issued Wednesday by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin’ Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.

“Absolutely no symbolism was intended,” the company said.

For the record, she wasn't even wearing the scarf around her head.  There's a picture in the article.

“I think that a right-wing blogger making an association between a kaffiyeh and terrorism is just an example of how so much of the complexity of Arab culture has been reduced to a very narrow vision of the Arab world on the part of some people in the U.S.,” Bishara said in a phone interview. “Kaffiyehs are worn every day on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle East — by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm.”

Duh.

From the Rolling Stones:

This article has seven parts and is too long for me to search out appropriate tidbits.  I would highly recommend that every read this one all the way through and in detail anyway.  It describes the production, growth, and integration of the Chinese police state and how the rest of the First World, including the UK and especially the US, seem to be looking to the Chinese model for tips.  Many thanks to Faolan for the heads-up!

From the Washington Post:

D.C. Superior Court Judge Wendell P. Gardner Jr. said the demonstrators violated the law by protesting at the plaza of the Supreme Court, where such activities are banned. He rejected arguments that they were practicing free speech when they marched to the plaza.... During a three-day trial, prosecutors presented a videotape that showed several officers warning the protesters to remain on the sidewalk, where demonstrations are legal, or risk arrest.

Oh come on.  They didn't stay on the sidewalk?  They get 2 months in jail because they didn't stay on the sidewalk?  And who decided to make demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court illegal, anyway?  They are the guardians of our rights, and we're not even allowed to protest in front of them?  Sigh....

From the MediaDailyNews:

The effects of Tuesday's vote by the Federal Communications Commission to loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of media will not be felt for at least a year or two.... But once the kinks are worked out, the decision could be a boon to newspaper owners.

To go into more detail, the restrictions being loosened were those of cross-ownership, which previously forbid corporations from owning both a newspaper and a news program, or a news program and a news radio station, at the same time.  The article in question is pleased with the deregulations, but even the author admits that "It may not benefit readers."

By making it easier for newspapers to merge their operations with TV stations, the rule changes will "allow them to produce both story content, video content and audio content, out of a single enterprise with a single management, single newsrooms and a single sales staff," he says. If they can pull that off, Doctor says newspapers can reduce overhead and produce a substantial cost savings. Publishers could further benefit from combining their Internet presence with broadcasters.

It also makes it that much easier for companies to plug their products and slant the stories in their favor.  Thanks, FCC!