Kia's World

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!