O Brother, Where Art Thou?

The Real ID nightmare.

I came across this website, and it is definitely the best site I have seen in regards to what is wrong with the Real ID plan that DHS is trying to enact.

http://www.realnightmare.org/

To sum it up, the Department of Homeland Security wants to implement a national ID for all citizens. This would replace state-issued drivers licences. So, whats the big deal you ask? Well, there is this little thing called RFID. Basically, this ID will allow for the federal government to track you across the country. As long as you're within range of an RFID scanner then you're "On the Grid." State-issued ID's have never had this kind of technology. DHS says that the Real ID program will help to protect against terrorism. Ahh, that terrorism warning again. Heard that before. Whats todays threat level again? But seriously, lets give DHS the benefit of the doubt. Will the Real ID program really help prevent terrorism? No, it really won't. Atleast not in the sense that it justifies allowing the government this kind of unprecedented access into our daily lives. And we thought the NSA surveillance program was bad. But more on that below.

Apart from helping to increase the power of the security-industrial complex and boosting ChoicePoint's stock, it does not help the government to identify people with malicious intent. Sure, it will help to ID a terrorist who is already on a watch list, but its not going to stop someone who hasn't previously exhibited terrorist-like behavior from performing martyrdom at the local movie theatre on a friday night. But don't let my small post be the only thing you read about this. The folks at www.realnightmare.org/ have alot more information and sources.

So, whats going right now with Real ID?

Well, there has thankfully been a good deal of resistance from the states. God bless Federalism. The governor of Montana has apparently been reading the e-mails from his survivalist constituents because he has pledged that Montana will never implement such an program. Other state, including Arizona, have yet to completely sign on to the program. the program has still yet to approved by the state legislature.

Check out what is going on in your state:
http://www.realnightmare.org/states/13/

More information...

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
http://www.ncsl.org/realid/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/real.id/index.html

The Underreported Nightmare

If Iran gets the bomb, they can't very well launch it or give it to a terrorist group without their fingerprints being all over it. If they launch, then their victim will retaliate in like. They can't easily go the terrorist route. Why? Because if a terrorist detonates an Iranian nuke all anyone has to do is take a look at the radioactive signature and then examine Iran's nuclear facilities and they can tell whether or not the the Nuke was Iranian in origin.

The real worry isn't a nuclear state launching against you. The real worry is a jihadist with a nuke in the back of his van in downtown Manhattan. While Putin has admitted that Russia did in fact lose a few nukes during the chaotic breakup of the Soviet Union, its not Russia that is the worry. Its Pakistan.

The Northwestern provinces, which include Pashtun tribal areas are a virtual no-go zone for the Pakistani army. Its been a military quagmire for years now. The area has become a haven for fundamentalists and Taliban sympathizers. With Al Qaeda camping out in Pakistan's backyard and attempting to off Musharraf whenever possible, Pakistan is in a dire mess. There is a creeping talibanization of Pakistan, an increasing hatred of Musharraf among most Pakistanis, and lets not forget the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's greatest proponent of democracy. With increasing suspicion that the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services-Intelligence) is becoming increasingly ssympathetic to the taleban and Al Qaeda one has to ask that difficult question. Are Pakistan's nukes secure? The US has been asking this publicly for a few months now. Musharraf has tried to reassure the international community that Pakistan has a stringent nuclear doctrine. But, as Musharraf becomes increasingly isolated at home, he can't very well admit to the world that he is worried about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arms. Such a statement would throw the US and its allies (especially India) into a panic. A panic that has no precedent.

There are some press reports that the US has already moved in Special Forces units within range of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. This issue should be the worlds gravest concern. It eclipses the Iranian nuclear program completely. Nukes in the hands of terrorists change all the rules. A nations first and second strike capabilities are meaningless. You can't retaliate against an organization with no home base and you can't strike a nation that had its nukes stolen. Well, you can, but the fact is that that is no measure of deterrence for the jihadists who are going to detonate that nuke in London, New York, or Washington DC. The world desperately needs to wake up and at the very least pay more attention to what is happening in Pakistan. The potential for a fundamentalist coup is growing, and for gods sake, there are nukes involved!

The NIE Facade

Critiquing the US National Intelligence Estimate

The NIE that was released in late 2007 stated that the US intelligence community believes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Fair enough, but why does America's allies, namely the UK and Israel, disagree with this report? It is my belief that the NIE was written with the intention of giving the United States a reason to not aggressively pursue Iran's nuclear weapons program

Its no secret that there has been an ongoing battle between US intelligence and Vice President Dick Cheney and his neo-con advisors. Cheney has been on the "Bomb Iran" bandwagon for a few years now. He has made no attempt to hide his feelings on the matter. Bush, after the Iraq fiasco can hardly risk being wrong again. His presidency is already in shambles. Not to mention, it is an open secret that the US military could not sustain a land campaign into Iran. That leaves an air attack as the only plausible military option, as it is clear economic sanctions have not been very effective to this point.

However, it is still the belief of the US and its allies that a nuclear Iran poses a monumental threat to Europe, Israel, and the United States. Iran has become a regional power and has made no attempt to hide its anti-US feelings. With international opinion of the US at a historic low and public opinion in the US becoming increasingly anti-war, the ability for the United States to engage in another military adventure in the Middle East is almost nill. Iran knows this and Israel knows this. There is no better time for Iran to be exerting its influence. Its anti-Israeli rhetoric certainly does not affect its standing in the Muslim world, and its increasingly overt support for Hezbollah has become a thorn in the side of the US and Israel.

On top of that Iran recently launched off a rocket and declared that it was the first step in the Islamic Republic's new space program. HA! What a load of bullshit. You know what else rockets of that type can be used for other than putting satellites in orbit. You guessed....carrying nuclear warheads. Interestingly enough, the US and Israel aren't alone in their suspicion here. Russia itself is rather suspicious of Iran's intentions. The thought of having another nuclear power in its neighborhood is not one that Russia is likely to enjoy.

So, back to the main point of the NIE being a load of BS. Iran is going to get bombed. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1983. They have the military capability to launch an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and they arguably have the domestic political will to do so. When you survive a holocaust, you don't look the other way when another one is repeatedly threated upon you. Why would Bush bomb Iran and bring even more ruin to his presidency when Isreal is going to do it anyways? A military confrontation with the US is not something that is in Iran's best interest. Despite all of Ahmadenijad's sabre rattling he knows that the US military would bring ruin to Iran. With upwards of two carrier strike groups within range of the gulf at any given time and US air bases in Turkey and Iraq, and strategic bomber bases out of reach (in the US midwest) Iran could be brought to its knees without having to send in thousands of US troops. People would be wise not to forget the superiority of US air power.

Of course the question here is whether or not Iran will make good on its threat to bring holy hell down upon all US bases in the region.

Allowing the NIE to be falsified puts the pressure on Israel. Israel will have to go it alone or face a nuclear Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that "Israel needs to do everything to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear threat against it" and that "We need to act in the spirit of Menachem Begin, who defied the entire world and with a bold step prevented Iraq from arming itself with nuclear weapons." Pushing Israel to attack puts Iran into a bit of a bind. IF the US attacked then Iran could unleash its ten thousand martyrs or whatever they have (actually their military is not as professional as people think) upon the US, and claim that they are acting in self-defense. But, if Israel goes it alone, Iran can't retaliate against US forces and claim self-defense. They may very well claim that, but it wouldn't be the PR victory that they badly need. Of course, their military and whats left of their nuclear program, will be destroyed by the US and the US will have been acting in self-defense. Its a lose-lose situation for Iran. The only one who looks like a villain is Israel, and lets face it, even if they don't attack, they're still villains in the eyes of the Muslim world.

For more reading...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712u/nie-iran
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1320

Domestic Wiretapping

NSA Releases Constitution in accordance with FOIA request.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm


In other news, Thomas Paine awakes from the dead. Proceeds to jump off cliff.

Non Sequitur

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil"

-Thomas Mann

In these times of tolerance (bolded for importance) and respect for ones lifestyles we appear to have faltered in one minor (major?) way. Tolerance to me is an inherently just principle and a necessity for any self-respecting democracy, but lets not fall on our swords over it.

In the United States, we have hate crime legislation. It is after all supposed to punish intolerance. We've seen this lately with the Jena Six fiasco in Louisiana. With Jesse Jackson down there yelling for justice the federal government was again pressured to charge locals with federal hate crimes. From the stand point of the majority, it was justice, whatever that is. Good news is it wasn't Duke Lacrosse Style justice (see Jesse Jackson style justice). This time, the local boys charged with federal hate crimes were most definitely guilty under those statutes. But, the point here isn't that hanging nooses from your truck and driving around is intolerant, but rather that this culture of tolerance has become a nationally recognized religion.

We've moved from rightfully outlawing discrimination in the workplace to outlawing the thoughts of a citizen. The murder of Matthew Shepard was a heinous crime. The crime was murder, not intolerance. But that has since changed. Today, if you were to murder a homosexual man simply because he was homosexual, you would be guilty of murder and being intolerant. Murder is murder is murder. There is no getting around that. Of course there are factors to any crime that must be taken into place, but since when does the personal beliefs of a citizen become a crime? Dare I say that we are seeing the first round of thought crimes?

I would feel better if one had to actually act upon their beliefs in order to be charged with a hate crime like Matthew Shepards murderers did, but we've moved beyond that. Now, hanging a noose on a tree is a crime. As disgusting an act as that is, did anyone get physically harmed? No, but Kleenex's stock sure as hell went up. But now we are charging people with hate crimes because they are expressing their intolerance. Since when is hurting someone's feelings a crime? We live in a democracy right? Where in that constitution that we occasionally use does it say that one has the right to not be offended?

and here is the best part. God, I love this. Its the ever ubiquitous slippery slope argument. Its great. Anyone can use it and its practically impossible to defeat. The left uses it when they're railing against the Patriot Act or NSA surveillance programs The right gets to use it when the left is trying to impede on the second amendment. So, I'm going to use it now. Its seriously like a religion or something. Use it a little bit and people think you rock. Use it alot and you're just a fool. So here we go....

If we start outlawing the free expression of thoughts, whats next? Are we going to start shutting down newspapers that print something that offends someone*?



*A member of a minority group.


But seriously. Tolerance rules. CAIR Bears all around.