31 May 2005

Hackers for Freedom

The tongue clicking over this story really has me amused.

To sum up: Some "White hat" hacking groups have been taking apart websites that are a part of phishing scams and the like. A conservative damage assesment of these scams states:
Analysts say these frauds may result in thefts of up to one million dollars a day worldwide and can lead to identity theft and more losses.

These hackers, such as the Lad Wrecking Crew, get into the sites, and then re-write them so that it is obvious they are a scam. Some folk are worried that such attacks "could leave the brand holder open to further retaliation," and that "they could get it wrong just as vigilantes in the Wild West got it wrong. We would rather see the industry itself find solutions." The least hand-wringing response to all of this is still not all that supportive: "It is undoubtedly a good thing in that they are helping to protect innocent web users. On the other hand, it is perhaps unfortunate in that it's probably illegal."

I think this last staement is probably the most fair. Let the industry find a solution? Like they have done such a great job so far? They are worried about the brand holder? Shouldn't the brand holder thank the hackers for taking down a site that would ultimately cost them money? Sheesh. I say recruit these guys. Think of what moral hackers could be used for. Not just anti-phishing and anti-identity theft. Wahabists like to spread their messages via the net. Oh, that website you were using to show beaheadings and how to build an IED? Yeah, we took it down. Spreading Osama's message? Say goodbye to your server. The west has its fill of bored guys who have enough skills to wreak havoc on sites they are pointed to. Why not exploit this natural resource. Someone tell the CIA to start hiring 'em, I say...


BRAC question

Ok, I know I cannot seem to let this BRAC thing go, but now I have to wonder about some of the planning the DoD put into its approach.
What spurs my question is this story. The DoD is going to, hopefully today, make *some* of the detailed data regarding why it put together the list as it did available to Congress. Most of the data is classified secret, for understandable reasons, but it seems there was no thought put into ensuring there was a place set up for cleared individuals to review the data, or a method thought out for getting those with a stake in this cleared quickly so they could review as well. Did the DoD really think no one was going to want to look at this data? Please - why make it look like something is being hidden? We have done BRAC before, has this not been figured out yet?

Ah well, I look forward to the Senators leaking info regarding what they find - should be interesting to hear what they think about the data that undelies the decisions.


Notes to start the week

Back from a nice long weekend, so I am a bit behind.

Bubblehead already touched on the sub story I had on my mind. Not to mention a post on the Dolphin code that brings back memories :)

The Chinese are holding a journalist. The real reason? Apparently, he misreported that US forces desecrated the Little Red Book.

I know I shouldn't, but I love this story, always makes me laugh. Partially because I cannot stand Greenpeace. Partially because the French thought that their mighty victory over the Rainbow Warrior was an act of heroism. If you can't beat another country, beat up the enviro-whacks, eh?


27 May 2005

Silliness

The real reason the military is bailing out of New England?

It will make you go blind! Grandma was right!


Nuke Knowledge Check

Ok, I remember the tenth thickness of lead and steel, but can anyone tell me what it is for aluminium? How about for moonbat?


Brain Droppings

Just a few stories of note to kick off the weekend:

Remember the Minuteman Project? Yeah, the civilians who patrolled a portion of the US-Mexico border to try and cut down on illegal border crossings. The result? No illegal detentions, a lot of reports given to the border patrol, and more than a few immigrants helped out with water and other aid when they were caught unprepared in the desert. No violence or illegal acts (other than the border crossings) concerning the Minutemen at all. Until now. And yeah, it was the Minutemen who were attacked. That is the compassionate, reasoned debate that I would expect from the narrow-minded.

Some are claiming this story is one of religious persecution. I think it sounds more like a group asking for religious preferences. If you want to pray, don't leave your vehicle where it shouldn't be. Plan ahead, go park somewhere you are allowed to, and then pray. If a Catholic decided to leave his cab in front of the airport to run into the airport chapel to receive communion, I would expect him to be ticketed as well. It isn't discrimination when the law is reasonable, not a secret, and is applied to all.

This, however, seems more along the lines of religious persecution. I would love to hear what they consider a 'mainstream religion'. I grew up in a state that the Catholic Church considered missonary territory due to the low numbers of Catholics (~5%). Would that be considered non-mainstream then? How about my cousin, who adheres to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and goes to Mass in Latin. Ooooh, it is in a wierd, dead language. Is that non-mainstream? For once, I am cheering for the ACLU (or ICLU in this case...)

Remember the Nick Cage / Sean Connery movie The Rock? The chemical they loaded into rockets, VX - it is a real substance, and it is rather nasty. The US is the only contry in possesion of it, and, laudably, they are trying to dispose of this dangerous chemical. Good old American ingenuity has devised a way to break the chemical down into component parts that are about a caustic as drain cleaner. Yet they are being prevented from doing so because they are being blocked from moving the resultant waster water, NOT the VX mind you, across state lines. All intert components of VX are in the waste water. This reminds me of the 'nuclear boogeyman' that rears its ugly head all too often. It sounds scary, so play on the fear rather than the science. *sigh* Would they rather we just keep the nasty stuff?

Wow, John Kerry has finally signed is SF 180! Now if he can just figure out how to mail it... Someone should really tell him the election is over, so he can stop jacking around. Yeah, I want someone this weasel-ish as my Prez...


26 May 2005

The Fight for New London Continues...

The fight for the New London SUBASE continues to ramp up. Of interest:

Regarding the first item, I have never heard of a state offering to pay to maintain a federal facility, but apparently CT offered to pay for dredging the Thames during the BRAC round of ’93, and even though the DoD did not accept the money and dredged the Thames itself, CT seems to think that helped. We’ll see. It is nice to see that they are focusing on military value instead of economic impact, as that is what is more likely to sway the BRAC. I am not sure what good $10M will do to increase the base’s military value, though, as the Navy seems to think that it will save over $300M closing NLON in just 3 years, and over $1.5B over 20 years (I would *love* to see how they come up with that number). If the BRAC balances the CT Senate’s $10M offer vs. the projected $300M 3-year savings on a purely monetary basis (which seems to be the overriding theme of the Navy BRAC recommendation), it is easy to guess which way their decision will fall, state support notwithstanding.

The list of polluted sites is an interesting way to highlight just how complex and costly cleaning up the base will be. You have to love the fact that if the Navy gets rid of the base, it has to be cleaned, but if it is just sailors they have to worry about, sure, the base can stay dirty. I do love the last site mentioned, though. The Tank Farm:

Nine 750,000-gallon concrete underground tanks were buried in a dredged lake bed in the 1940s. A number of petroleum releases have been noted. Tanks were removed or fixed. About 783 tons of contaminated soil was removed and the land now contains softball fields and jogging track.

The land *now* contains softball fields and a track? It did before they realized there were leaking tanks down there, too – suddenly the fields were just always soggy. Shut the fields down for quite a while for cleanup. Yeah, they claim it is clean now. I still wouldn’t let myself get too dirty on those fields if I were working out there… Also have to love the buried fact, “Oh the Sub Museum and Nautilus exhibit? Yeah, built on a contaminated landfill…”

If you feel that you have something the BRAC should hear, btw, you can contact them here, or mail them at:
2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
2521 S. Clark St., Ste. 600
Arlington, VA 22202
Or call them at: 703-699-2950

By the way, looking through the BRAC page, stumbled on the HON Gordon England’s bio. He has won the ‘Silver Beaver Award’. Hee.

On a slightly different note, the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry is finally reopening its U-505 exhibit (Chi Trib regis info to view: blurb@sofort-mail.de; password: noblurb). The original exhibit was great, and it plus hints of stories from my Grandfather really got me excited about subs when I was a kid. It sounds like the exhibit is even better now. I can’t wait to go back and check it out. (Thanks to the Sub Report again for the tip)


25 May 2005

More New London updates

Thanks again to Bubblehead for the tip-off to this article in the New London Day (registration required after 5/25 to read).
Important points:

"The Pentagon has finished a study of military requirements that concludes the Navy needs at least 45 to 50 submarines, not the 37 to 43 that the Navy found in an internal study," Navy sources said Tuesday.
...
The Pentagon study followed up on a study by the Navy's assessment division, which concluded the submarine fleet could drop from 54 today to as low as 37 and still meet all warfighting requirements.
...
But Navy and congressional sources said the Navy's internal study was driven more by budgetary considerations and a belief that some tasks now done by submarines could instead be carried out by surface ships.

This is one of the two points that I think have really been overlooked in the New London closure plan (the other being where will they find pier space for the homeported boats), so I am glad to see it getting attention. I have never understood how the Navy justified the proposed sub drawdown. Sub OPTEMPO rate is, I believe, the highest, or close to it, in the Navy right now. And why is that? The Sub force is overtasked. So much so that they have consistently had to turn down tasking or ask that it be delayed. Now, I don't know what tasking they think other units can do in the place of subs, but I would be pretty skeptical of those plans, keeping in mind the unique abilities of our boats. And even so, drawing down some of the sub fleet's missions will not significantly solve the tasking problem, especially if you are drawing down the number of boats at the same time. The fleet has been cut back too far as it is for current tasking. It is about time someone started highlighting that point. Here is hoping this gets emphasized more as the New London fight ramps up.



This is how New London gets defended?

I must admit, I have shut up about this whole BRAC process for a few days, to take a step back and try and assess rationally the various proposals and what I think they mean for the Sub community. Those who browse through the various sub and Mil bloggers might have already seen comments I left elsewhere regarding this, and for those who haven't, I will sum up: I am an avowed fan of the New London SUBASE. I think closing it is a bad idea for a slew of reasons, some of which I think are based on logic, some of which are, admittedly, emotional, and some which are hard to quantify. I will also admit I do not have a dog in this fight. The base I work at is basically untouched by BRAC, so I am totally on the outside looking in. I have, however, looked forward to seeing what kind of defense was put up to try and save Groton from the hangman's axe. So, I was happy to see that CT's senior senator had an op-ed piece in the NY Post defending New London. (Thanks Bubblehead <http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com> and the Sub Report <http://www.thesubreport.com> for pointing me in the right direction). Link (and registration info via bugmenot.com) below if you care to read.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/44509.htm (Acct: planplanandplan@yahoo.ca Password: password)

I was, however, dismayed at the rather weak defense that Sen. Lieberman puts up for Groton. Granted, he is mostly worried about the jobs that will be lost, but, let's be honest, that is not the BRAC's #1 priority. Military Value is, so that should be the strongest argument. Is it? To sum up:

The closing of the New London SUBASE is "part of a continuing and unhealthy trend of shifting military facilities to southern and western states, removing national defense and contact with the military from the daily lives of Northeasterners."
Ummm, ok. Now, I know folks have said Groton was not that friendly in the first place. I never saw this - in fact, my wife experienced quite the opposite, especially when I was on deployment. But is this a valid point of contention? Keeping the military part of everyone's daily life? If the question can even be asked, then this point is weak at best, and probably shouldn't have been one of the leadoff strikes.

"Let's start with New London's value as a military base. New London is one of the few ports in the United States with the infrastructure and capability to handle nuclear powered vessels. That capability is a strategic national asset that once lost, will never be recovered."
Ok, this is valid - once we lose a port, it will be far to costly to try and regain it. This can not be said enough, yet, this is all the attention he gives it. As for being one of the few ports that can handle nuke boats, well, unfortunately, not quite right there. East Coast - Norfolk, King's Bay, and Cape Canaveral can all handle having a nuke at the pier. The Commission knows this, so this point is rather weak. Now, as for carying capacity, well, can they handle all the Groton boats if they get dispersed amongst these ports? This is a question worth discussion, yet he doesn't bring it up.

"New London also offers the quickest access to deep water and the polar route under the ice caps of the increasingly pivotal Pacific Ocean."
BS comment. See Bubblehead's post <http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/05/ny-post-editorial-closing-subase-bad.htm> on it.

"New London also provides great synergy by having the submarine base, the Naval Submarine School and Electric Boat"
Ok, almost a good comment. Having Sub School and the base together is key - however, sounds like they are planning on moving Sub School to King's Bay along with the majority of the boats, so this argument becomes moot. As for EB, yes, it has been doing sub construction for as long as we have had a sub fleet. However, when I was on the boat, I remember everyone there, from squadron to SSSU to the guys on the deckplates snarling anytime EB was brought up. In DC, they hated dealing with EB because they were costly and didn't seem to manage themselves well. So EB is not helping the Senator's case here.

"This proximity clearly enables gains in production, research, maintenance and training as the skilled technicians who build and maintain the submarines work side-by-side with those who operate them and those who train the next generation of submariners."
Partial truth here. Not much research is done in NLON now that NUWC has been moved up to Newport. Production, well, yes, some is done at EB. Some also done at Newport News in Norfolk, so that is a zero sum gain point. Maintenance and training are done wherever a sub is homeported, and yardbirds will always work side-by-side with operators because, frankly, we don't trust them to work on our boats unsupervised. As for those who train, again, looks like Sub School will move to King's Bay, and the TRE teams are based out of Norfolk, and are down on those boats all the time, so again, weak point.

And that pretty much sums up the Senator's points regarding military value. Sheesh. If that is the best they can do, it looks like New London is in a hard spot. Myself, I would have emphasized the number of boats homeported in Groton, compared to the available pier space in Norfolk (none) and King's Bay (I admit ignorance here). Or the sheer scope of facilities that comprise Sub School, and the difficulty in transitioning those. But nope, those points got passing reference, if at all. Although I did learn that there are already -15- Superfund sites identified at New London. Wow - I knew she was a dirty base, but wow. I wonder if that counts the Thames, because if it doesn't, well, standby. That river defines polluted.

Ah well, here is hoping the CT folks can put together a stronger defense, because I would hate to see the SUBASE go.

On another note, I apologize for the lack of links in the post - emailing it in today, due to time constraints, and I am not yet sure how to get the linkage to work via this route...


24 May 2005

Beltway Lessons Learned

I love visiting DC, really. But at least I learned some valuable things this time (although I probably could have guessed at them):

1) When three O-6's enter the meeting already arguing before the agenda is even read, it is going to be a long meeting.
2) Do not greet a Senior Chief as he enters by saying, "Nice to see someone who actually knows what is going on," while previously mentioned O-6's (still arguing) are within earshot.
3) If the O-6 you are there to support decides halfway through the meeting that it just isn't worth his time anymore, leave with him, lest you be the object of the other CAPT's ire for the rest of the meeting.
4) If, 90 minutes into "discussions" on future timelines, a CAPT pipes up and says, "Well, do we have a plan here or not?" you can assume you have not made much progress.
5) Do not respond to the posed question, "All these system improvements are meant to increase performance, correct?" by mutterring, "No, dumbass, they are to help make a frothier cappuccino," as you might be overheard (again).

Gee I miss the collaborative atmosphere that permeates our nation's capital!


20 May 2005

New Submarine Recruitment Poster

Respectfully Submitted:

WHOOPS!!! Looks like I exceeded my bandwidth with this one... shoulda converted it from a BMP. Stupid Stupid. If you want to see the Jihadis poster, click here.

Here is hoping the guy who made the original doesn't come after me for slopping his all up...


Please find a new reason to hate us...

*sigh*
So, this desecration story just will not go away. Now it is spurring riots in -London-. Yes, the US's favorite colony, another open and free society, has Muslims protesting our supposed desecration. You would think, living in another land of relatively-free press, they would realize that while the media can and does criticize the government, it is not infallable. If it were, I would be out looking for the Alien Bible that describes Oprah-Worship that the Enquirer put on its front page. They could check the Sun - believe it all? If so, there is a lot more there to protest.

I had never been a big fan of the "love it or leave it" sentiment, but, frankly, I am getting fed up. Protest, fine. There are definitely issues on which we are not perfect, and in some ways downright awful. But don't take the free speech we provide you and use it to call for New York to be bombed again. If you want to preach violence, shuttle your little jihadi butts to a country that encourages that. Oh wait, they aren't so much fun to live in, eh? Just take a look at Kat's recent posting on life in the KSA. And they are a progressive Muslim state...

I am just waiting for the news to break concerning the inevitable protests over the illegal Saddam pics recently printed by the Sun. This paragon of journalistic integrity has already said the US Govt. gave them the pic (sounds likely - that is how we like to release news, through a Brit rag). So of course, Muslims will blame us. Yet the Western public will take it, and even apologize profusely for it, without demanding similar apologies for the repeated publications of images that are far, far worse (caution, do not open if you have a weak stomach). Again, do not misunderstand me here, I do not hate, or even really dislike Islam. However, I will have to refer you to something posted some time ago by John of Castle Arrrrrgh! regarding the religion's more radical element.


19 May 2005

Random Bits...

Wow, I have lost some important things before, but nothing this big. Gotta love the quote at the end, America takes the blame. Apparently, we are responsible for all the world's ills...

This story reminds me of a Sonar Tech tale from the Ustafish. Unfortunately, it is -VERY- inappropriate for the general web-browsing public...

Wow, wish they had these back in the day - the duty section would have always chipped in for a meal from them. Pre-9/11 security on-base, that is...

Our crew, especially E-div, did its best to show support for this group of non-unionized workers when we visted Rota.

And finally, a question for other sub-bubbas: When "Rig ship for lady visitors" was passed, did y'all's A-Gangers and TMs all suddenly appear in the lower level p-way, eyes cast up the ladder to middle level, too? If so, one of us may know who did this...


Childhood Myth Shattered

Normally, I love Snopes.com, however, this story dismayed me. The old yarn that carrots improve your eyesight is the only way we get our 5-year old to eat his. He is positive that someday he will see well enough in the dark to "sneak up on Daddy!" I hope he does not learn the truth for many, many years.
On the flip side, what I thought was a myth, eating too many carrots can make you orange, is apparently true. I guess the wife wasn't exaggerating about her cousin after all...


A Necessity in Any Country

Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.
-T. Roosevelt
Saw this sign at the beginning of the Diamondhead trail in Honolulu, HI:


For those of you who are not familiar with Honolulu, the beginning of the Diamondhead trail is in the center of a very large CRATER. Meaning, yes, near nothing, visible to no one.
I understand this has become rather commonplace, as has dealing with those not complying, either knowlingly or unknowingly, like this (story at the bottom of the page).
Forgive me if I am missing something, but I thought the whole country was a "First Amendment Area." Apparently, trying to excercise what I thought were guaranteed rights can get you charged with "interference with official acts." *sigh*


Obsession is...

These are dedicated fans:


That's right, folks, fans. Not a studio promo, fans. Don't get me wrong, I love the series. But these guys are several levels beyond me. Of course, I have to ask myself:
Do they leave the helmets on during the movie? Not much of a view if so...


18 May 2005

Gee, and I thought "War, Law, and Ethics" was my unusual class...

So, I think the University of Iowa's applications for next year may go up, if they keep offerring classes like this.
I especially like the quote that, "All 20 student slots have been filled."
*Snort* I'm sure they have been...


Travel has no longer any charm for me . . .

. . .I have seen all the foreign countries I want to except heaven & hell & I have only a vague curiosity about one of those.
I tend to agree with Mark Twain on this one. However, my job entails a lot of travel. Usually to Washington D.C., unfortunately. Occasionally, though, I get to go to slightly more enjoyable places, like Pearl Harbor, HI, as I will be doing in a few weeks. Of course, I am not looking forward to it nearly so much after reading this. Guess I will pack my own food for the return trip...


Newsweek and the Koran

It is amazing to me that in this day and age, foul-ups like this still occur. But, while I find the actions of Newsweek questionable at best, and reprehensible at worst, there is an aspect to this that seems to be largely overlooked. It is the legitimacy of the Afghan / Pakistani response to this (flawed) reporting.

There have been multiple protests in Afghanistan over our supposed desecration of their holy book. Ok. On the surface, that sounds like a valid complaint. As desecrating another's holy objects is against the Geneva Conventions as it does not allow a prisoner to attend to their faith, and the harshest of allowed approaches (Fear Up [Harsh]) in military interrogation still strongly cautions that the Geneva Conventions must not be violated, then if the complaint of the protestors is that we do not follow our own rules, then they would be justified. Thus, it would be understandable for them to demand that we punish the offending parties in accordance with the rules they had broken, i.e. the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But this is not their complaint. Their complaint is that we have broken their laws regarding treatment of the Koran. Specifically, they are referring to the fact that, as stated on the US State Department's website and on afgha.com, "Insulting the Koran or the Prophet Muhammad is regarded as blasphemy and punishable by death in both Pakistan and Afghanistan."

So let us examine that complaint a little more thoroughly, shall we?

If this is to be considered a valid complaint, then the laws in question have to be assumed to apply here. So it seems that the protestors would have us apply Afghani or Pakistani law to US personnel interacting with Afghani citizens on US soil. This assumption has two parts to it, first, the violation of Afghani law (as the supposed offense was perpetrated against Afghanis), and second, the applicability of said law.

So, for the first part. Yes, desecrating their holy book is contrary to their laws. It was, of note, also contrary to ours. If it happened (which it appears to not have), apologies are due. However, should the punishment be per US or Afghan law? Well, let's look at how well the Afghanis (and the also-complaining Pakistanis) are following their own religious instruction (with apologies for any misinterpretation, I am not Muslim, I only attempt to understand in context):

Koran 31:015 "Consort with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who repenteth unto Me. Then unto Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what ye used to do." Hmmm, consort with the world kindly... Not so much with that in the last few years, are they? Add to that the fact that many of the protests that erupted into violence were directed at UN targets. Last time I checked, the UN wanted nothing to due with Gitmo.

Koran 6:151 "take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom." Now, from what I have read, the life Allah makes sacred does not necessarily mean unbelievers, hence taking our life is ok. But, frankly, of the 15-17 people that died during these riots in Afghanistan, who were unbelievers? None from what I can tell. They were attacking their own security forces... Afghan on Afghan. So much for "take not life."

So, the Afghanis cannot seem to follow their own laws, yet they expect us to? What does the Koran say about that I wonder...
Koran 9:67 "The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: They enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten Allah; so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse."

Secondly, the complaint assumes that Afghani/Islamic law should apply to US personnel on US soil. If this is so, well then, there should be similar reciprocity with our laws and Afghans. So, let's see if that is true:

From the Dept. of State website:
Afghan customs authorities may enforce strict regulations concerning temporary importation into or export from Afghanistan of items such as firearms, alcoholic beverages, religious materials, antiquities, medications, and printed materials.
From what I understand, customs there have been known to seize personal Bibles of inbound travelers. So much for respecting holy writings, eh?
Also from Dept. of State:
Another potentially sensitive activity is proselytizing. Although the new Afghan Constitution allows the free exercise of religions, proselytizing may be viewed as contrary to the beliefs of Islam and may be considered a harmful activity.
While I have always been a Matthew 6 kind of guy, ie. not proclaiming it loudly, there are many who believe that at least -talking- to others about religion is required of them. So much for religious freedom. Worship, maybe, but don't tell us about it.

As for actual acts in Afghanistan that contravene US law, there is not much of note recently, probably due to that whole war thing making getting regular news from there difficult. However, in Pakistan, which is also complaining about this incident, there are some stories of note:

July 5, 2003 - Roman Catholic priest, Rev. George Ibrahim, was killed outside of his parish in Renala Khurd, district Okara, 180 miles south of Islamabad. Very early in the morning, Rev. Ibrahim heard a noise outside of the parish and went to go investigate. A cook heard gunshots and ran outside to find Rev. Ibrahim dead. The local Christian community believes that Ibrahim was targeted because he helped the church to regain control of a Catholic school that had been seized by the government during the 1970s when private schools were nationalized. Ibrahim was also known to speak out on behalf of the poor Christian community

May 9, 2003 - Armed Muslim youths attacked a church 50km northeast of Lahore, beating up the Christians gathered inside and destroying pews and communion vessels. Mughal Masih, a Christian man, was set on fire and stabbed under the ribs as he ran towards the church. The youths were angered because the Christians chastised them for trying to block the entrance to the church and making derogatory remarks to women and girls. Police have refused to file a case under the blasphemy laws which punish those who defile a place of worship. (ANS/Barnabas Fund)

October 22, 2002 - The Sindh High Court ruled that Christian Robin Peranditta was being illegally detained and ordered that he be immediately released from police custody. Robin had been held by the Karachi CIA since the attack against the Peace and Justice Institute on September 25. He was one of only two people not killed by the attackers and was being held by police as an eyewitness and suspect. Despite the Court's order for Robin's release, however, police forcibly re-arrested him in a Court stairwell as he was leaving the building. He was finally released a few days later. It was reported that Robin was tortured by the police in order to extract information.



Now, I am not trying to say that since Afghanistan does not have the same set of rules that we do, that we can ignore any rules when dealing with their people. Nor am I saying that since there are atrocities committed in Pakistan, any actions we take with Muslims are acceptable. All I am saying is, get your own houses in order people. Then come talk to us about -supposed- crimes we have committed. And those accusations will be measured against US law, by US courts, until such time as all our countries decide to have mutual reciprocity regarding law enforcement.

NOTE:
BTW, Kat has a similar, and probably better thought out, discussion on her board.


17 May 2005

Testing the Waters

Ok, so I admit, I am a lemming. There is no driving passion that compels me to set this up, other than to have a spot to grumble about what I see, rather than wait and see if others post about things I want to comment on. So be gentle, I will do my best to put thought into what I put up here, for, as the quote implies, opinion without thought is just so much hot air.