🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 10, 2:46 am, Alan Smithee <AlanSmit...@nospam.nul> wrote:
> Truth that lurks behind tactical statistics
> By Damien McElroy in Baghdad
> Last Updated: 1:54am BST 10/09/2007
>
> Winston Churchill's maxim that truth in wartime is attended by a
> bodyguard of lies haunts the testimony that America's senior commander
> in Iraq will deliver to Congress today.
>
> Armed with a doctorate from Princeton, Gen Petraeus is a soldier who
> finds a laptop as useful as a gun. But there are persistent
> allegations that he is cherry-picking favourable statistics to show
> that the "surge" in troops has begun to stabilise Iraq.
>
> Gen Petraeus has indicated the tone of his report in a letter to
> troops serving in Iraq. "The overall trajectory has been encouraging,"
> he wrote on Friday. "The progress has not, to be sure, been uniform
> across Baghdad or across Iraq."
>
> The headline figures show that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq
> fell to 1,674 in August, roughly half the 2,966 recorded in the same
> period last year.
>
> Gen Petraeus points to June as the turning point of US fortunes in
> Iraq. By then all 30,000 additional troops were deployed in country.
> Monthly US troop deaths dropped over the course of the summer to 83 in
> August from a high of 126 in May.
>
> The military claims that the recorded number of sectarian attacks in
> Baghdad in August was 321 incidents, compared to 1,621 last December.
> The average number of car bombs in the capital has also roughly halved
> to an average of 23 in the three summer months, compared with 42 in
> the same period last year.
>
> Paul Krugman, an anti-White House columnist, has been quick to charge
> that the figures the American military use are tightly defined to
> screen out thousands of victims of the violence unleashed since Saddam
> Hussein's overthrow.
>
> A casualty shot in the back of the head is defined as a victim of
> sectarian violence but someone shot in the temple is slain by
> criminals, he wrote. Officials have disputed the charge but admit that
> their data is based on a narrowly defined set of criteria.
>
> Other critics point out that because sectarian cleansing has largely
> been completed across swathes of Baghdad, the number of Sunni-Shia
> killings was bound to fall.
>
> Gen Petraeus's message will be that progress is too fragile to permit
> a reduction of troops. Of 18 benchmarks of political progress in Iraq,
> only seven have been met.
>
> "No military effort can be sustained without major progress on the
> political front, which the surge was supposed to bring about in the
> first place, but hasn't," said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East
> dir


Bush is losing the terrorism fight with the help of a very stupid,
ignorant and overzealous Republican party that back his ignorance in
staying in Iraq. It takes brains to win the fight against terrorism,
so I think it is quite obvious why we are losing this fight, with a
Republican White House and six years of a Republican Congress and
Senate, what else do you need to know?  All our money is gone, gone to
the waste of human lives, time and resources in creating the terrorist
state that is now Iraq. Americans have paid dearly with our money, the
lives of our troops and time, none of which we will ever get back, and
all for what? to create an entire country now infiltrated and over run
with thousands upon thousands more terrorists than were there before,
Iraq the terrorist state. Republicans are not patriots, they are
reckless idiots playing war games with our money and other people's
lives. They have not protected America, they have not furthered
America, they have destroyed America.

Pastor had instructional sex with daughters
By Todd Cardy
August 30, 2007 05:43pm

A FUNDAMENTALIST church pastor had sex with two of his teenage
daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian
court has heard.

The 54-year-old man, who cannot be named, was today sentenced in the
SA District Court to eight and a half years jail after pleading guilty
to seven counts each of incest and unlawful sexual intercourse.

The court heard that the man had sex with his daughters for nearly a
decade from 1991 when they were aged 13 and 15 at the family property.

The sex took place at various locations including in a shearer's shed,
a paddock, on the back of a ute and, on one occasion, at the girls'
grandparents house.

The man told the court the sex was not about fulfilling his desires
but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when
they eventually married, as dictated in scripture.

In sentencing, Judge David Lovell said the misrepresentation of
scripture used to justify the abuse of the girls "defied belief", and
that he had "hypocritically betrayed" his religion and principles.

"You said the acts were about learning about sex rather than engaging
in the acts of sex," Judge Lovell said.

"I do not accept that.

"You treated your daughters as your property ... using them to satisfy
and gratify your sexual urges."

Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he
was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as
his wife and the church remained supportive.

The man will be eligible for parole in four years. 



http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22334577-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop

-- 

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. 

Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions
FBI Is Told to Halt Warrantless Tactic

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A01

A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot
Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday,
ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for
obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for
counterterrorism investigations.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the
FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data
violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the
separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders
on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the
letters.

Anthony D. Romero, head of the ACLU, said the ruling illustrates the
"efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly
unconstitutional." (By George Nikitin -- Associated Press) 

 
The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and
entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional
values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted
to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised
the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on
the same topic.

Although a government appeal is likely, the decision could eliminate
or sharply curtail the FBI's issuance of tens of thousands of national
security letters (NSLs) each year to telephone companies, Internet
providers and other communications firms. The FBI says it typically
orders that such letters be kept confidential to make sure that
suspects do not learn they are being investigated, as well as to
protect "sources and methods" used in terrorism and
counterintelligence probes.

The ruling follows reports this year by Justice Department and FBI
auditors that the FBI potentially violated privacy laws or bureau
rules more than a thousand times while issuing NSLs in recent years --
violations that did not come to light quickly, partly because of the
Patriot Act's secrecy rules.

"The risk of investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict
such speech is that government agents, based on their own
self-certification, may limit speech that does not pose a significant
threat to national security or other compelling government interest,"
Marrero said.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. "We are
reviewing the decision and considering our options," said spokesman
Dean Boyd.

But Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in the case, said the ruling
"is yet another setback in the Bush administration's strategy in the
war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this
administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional."

Marrero's decision would bar the use of NSLs to demand data from
electronic communications companies, a procedure that was the focus of
the lawsuit. But the ruling appears to leave untouched the FBI's
ability to demand bank records, credit reports and other financial
data related to counterterrorism and other probes, because those
authorities are covered by other statutes, according to legal experts.
Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the
government a chance to appeal.

Although the FBI has had the ability to issue NSLs for many years, the
Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly relaxed the rules
for using them while increasing the secrecy requirements. The result
has been a surge in NSL requests, from fewer than 9,000 in 2000 to
nearly 50,000 in 2005, according to Justice Department records.

Yesterday's ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down
the Patriot Act's NSL provisions. In 2004, after the ACLU filed suit
on behalf of the same plaintiff -- an Internet service provider
identified as John Doe -- he ruled similarly that the NSL provisions
were unconstitutional because they silenced recipients and gave them
no recourse through the courts.

While a government appeal was pending, Congress passed legislation in
2005 aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the
judge ruled yesterday that the revisions were not adequate and that
under the new law, "several aspects . . . violate the First Amendment
and the principle of separation of powers."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=moreheadlines%22%3EJudge


"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

Slow learners, I guess!

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:46:06 -0500, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

>Pastor had instructional sex with daughters
>By Todd Cardy
>August 30, 2007 05:43pm
>
>A FUNDAMENTALIST church pastor had sex with two of his teenage
>daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian
>court has heard.
>
>The 54-year-old man, who cannot be named, was today sentenced in the
>SA District Court to eight and a half years jail after pleading guilty
>to seven counts each of incest and unlawful sexual intercourse.
>
>The court heard that the man had sex with his daughters for nearly a
>decade from 1991 when they were aged 13 and 15 at the family property.
>
>The sex took place at various locations including in a shearer's shed,
>a paddock, on the back of a ute and, on one occasion, at the girls'
>grandparents house.
>
>The man told the court the sex was not about fulfilling his desires
>but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when
>they eventually married, as dictated in scripture.
>
>In sentencing, Judge David Lovell said the misrepresentation of
>scripture used to justify the abuse of the girls "defied belief", and
>that he had "hypocritically betrayed" his religion and principles.
>
>"You said the acts were about learning about sex rather than engaging
>in the acts of sex," Judge Lovell said.
>
>"I do not accept that.
>
>"You treated your daughters as your property ... using them to satisfy
>and gratify your sexual urges."
>
>Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he
>was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as
>his wife and the church remained supportive.
>
>The man will be eligible for parole in four years. 
>
>
>
>http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22334577-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop

What?  A judge who is hell bent on defending the constitution?  You
know he ain't one of Georgie's boyz!

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:37:23 -0500, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

>Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions
>FBI Is Told to Halt Warrantless Tactic
>
>By Dan Eggen
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A01
>
>A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot
>Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday,
>ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for
>obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for
>counterterrorism investigations.
>
>The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the
>FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data
>violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the
>separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders
>on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the
>letters.
>
>Anthony D. Romero, head of the ACLU, said the ruling illustrates the
>"efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly
>unconstitutional." (By George Nikitin -- Associated Press) 
>
> 
>The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and
>entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional
>values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted
>to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised
>the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on
>the same topic.
>
>Although a government appeal is likely, the decision could eliminate
>or sharply curtail the FBI's issuance of tens of thousands of national
>security letters (NSLs) each year to telephone companies, Internet
>providers and other communications firms. The FBI says it typically
>orders that such letters be kept confidential to make sure that
>suspects do not learn they are being investigated, as well as to
>protect "sources and methods" used in terrorism and
>counterintelligence probes.
>
>The ruling follows reports this year by Justice Department and FBI
>auditors that the FBI potentially violated privacy laws or bureau
>rules more than a thousand times while issuing NSLs in recent years --
>violations that did not come to light quickly, partly because of the
>Patriot Act's secrecy rules.
>
>"The risk of investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict
>such speech is that government agents, based on their own
>self-certification, may limit speech that does not pose a significant
>threat to national security or other compelling government interest,"
>Marrero said.
>
>The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. "We are
>reviewing the decision and considering our options," said spokesman
>Dean Boyd.
>
>But Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil
>Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in the case, said the ruling
>"is yet another setback in the Bush administration's strategy in the
>war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this
>administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional."
>
>Marrero's decision would bar the use of NSLs to demand data from
>electronic communications companies, a procedure that was the focus of
>the lawsuit. But the ruling appears to leave untouched the FBI's
>ability to demand bank records, credit reports and other financial
>data related to counterterrorism and other probes, because those
>authorities are covered by other statutes, according to legal experts.
>Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the
>government a chance to appeal.
>
>Although the FBI has had the ability to issue NSLs for many years, the
>Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly relaxed the rules
>for using them while increasing the secrecy requirements. The result
>has been a surge in NSL requests, from fewer than 9,000 in 2000 to
>nearly 50,000 in 2005, according to Justice Department records.
>
>Yesterday's ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down
>the Patriot Act's NSL provisions. In 2004, after the ACLU filed suit
>on behalf of the same plaintiff -- an Internet service provider
>identified as John Doe -- he ruled similarly that the NSL provisions
>were unconstitutional because they silenced recipients and gave them
>no recourse through the courts.
>
>While a government appeal was pending, Congress passed legislation in
>2005 aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the
>judge ruled yesterday that the revisions were not adequate and that
>under the new law, "several aspects . . . violate the First Amendment
>and the principle of separation of powers."
>
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=moreheadlines%22%3EJudge
>
>
>"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
>very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.


"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
 Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.

Hey, at least you got a meal.

In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
 Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
> 
> 
> "Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
> very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

well, the OIL boyz did well with bush.
tho. they haven't got Iraq's oil , the residents smelled the scam.
something the racists didn't figure on.

-- 
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:11:10 -0500, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
wrote:

>In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
> Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:
>
>> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
>> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
>> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
>
>Hey, at least you got a meal.

But it's the RIPugs who are eating moral oral crow.  Punk Bush just
can't wait to hand off this sideshow disaster war to the next
president, a Democrat, and start blaming her for the whole mess.
Typical RIPiglican irresponsibility.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:05:31 -0500, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

>After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
>started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
>on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
>
>
>"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
>very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

Eternal War?

I suppose if you were muslim you would want to be sure to characterize
the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq as:

1) Eternal

2) A Ware

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:05:31 -0500, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

>After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
>started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
>on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
>
>
>"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
>very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

Eternal War?

I suppose if you are a muslim you would want to be sure to
characterize the muslim-on-muslim violence in Iraq as:

1) Eternal

2) As a "War"

Also capitalizing the phrase unnecessarily helps emphasize the false
characterization as well...

Yes, RIPiglicans are doing a heckuva job!


"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
 Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.

Aren'y you playing into Bush's scheme when you claim we're no safer? And 
how do you quantify that, have you been getting funny looks or something?

I you really wanna feel and actually be safer, check your tire pressure 
weekly.

In article <0T4d9u1iIjavN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
 Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
> > Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:
> > 
> >> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
> >> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
> >> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
> > 
> > Aren'y you playing into Bush's scheme when you claim we're no safer?
> 
> I know you're playing with a short-circuited intellect, but one can
> agree that we're no safer without agreeing *why*.

The argument is vacuous,no matter who uses it. "Safer" suggests more 
safe. More safe, less safe -  than what?

> I think the local junior colleges offer courses in logic. You might
> want to audit one.

I am, and it is as promised, JC-level.

Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
> In article <0T4d9u1iIjavN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
>> > In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
>> > Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
>> >> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
>> >> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
>> > 
>> > Aren'y you playing into Bush's scheme when you claim we're no safer?
>> 
>> I know you're playing with a short-circuited intellect, but one can
>> agree that we're no safer without agreeing *why*.
> 
> The argument is vacuous,no matter who uses it. "Safer" suggests more 
> safe. More safe, less safe -  than what?

Than we were on 9/10/2001. It's stated above quite explicitly.

Any other questions?

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:37:13 -0000, Infamous Other Chris
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

>Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <0T4d9u1iIjavN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
>> Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
>>> > Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
>>> >> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
>>> >> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
>>> > 
>>> > Aren'y you playing into Bush's scheme when you claim we're no safer?
>>> 
>>> I know you're playing with a short-circuited intellect, but one can
>>> agree that we're no safer without agreeing *why*.
>> 
>> The argument is vacuous,no matter who uses it. "Safer" suggests more 
>> safe. More safe, less safe -  than what?
>
>Than we were on 9/10/2001. It's stated above quite explicitly.
>
>Any other questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War




"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott

You're thinking it's Allah's will is it?

In article <0T4da896IlhoN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
 Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <0T4d9u1iIjavN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> > Infamous Other Chris <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Suburbanaristic <Musselman@wohoo.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <oc1ce394186k4usmgiilbp5l8ieafgr4no@4ax.com>,
> >> > Alan Smithee <AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> After over six years, Osama is still free, we are in an Eternal War we
> >> >> started in Iraq, and we are no more safer than that idiot Bush made us
> >> >> on 9-10.  Heckuva job, Bushit.
> >> > 
> >> > Aren'y you playing into Bush's scheme when you claim we're no safer?
> >> 
> >> I know you're playing with a short-circuited intellect, but one can
> >> agree that we're no safer without agreeing *why*.
> > 
> > The argument is vacuous,no matter who uses it. "Safer" suggests more 
> > safe. More safe, less safe -  than what?
> 
> Than we were on 9/10/2001. It's stated above quite explicitly.
> 
> Any other questions?

Could you quantify just how we're safer, or less safe?