Saturday, June 24, 2006

Sears terrorists

* i can barely bring myself to mention the Fears Sears terrorists - but here's emptywheel, soto, josh (1, 2), taylor marsh, et al.

the only interesting question, hot on the heels of "WE FOUND WMD!!!", is why now? emptywheel has a guess:
"So I'm going to make just two comments about the timing. You see, when I heard about this story this morning, I was sure they had timed the announcement to hide some news, perhaps the news that Bush was rifling through my checkbook. Or perhaps they've just rolled this as proof that one of their many fancy new surveillance techniques netted them some terrorists. Or perhaps it was part of a campaign that Rove, fresh off celebrating that he hasn't been indicted, had hatched to reverse Bush's flaccid flagging popularity."
but ends up with:
"Now, I'm just guessing, but when a teenager nicknamed Brother Naz tells you he's having "problems within his organization" a month and a half after that organization's last activity, that probably means his "organization" has collapsed, the other kids have taken their new boots and gone home. Which suggests that, as soon as it came to actually acting on their teen-aged fantasies, these guys got cold feet (cheap boots, I guess), and gave up their fantasy.

Sounds like a great time to move in and bust these kids, before your elaborately planted sting falls apart completely."
* one of the great mysteries of our time was why the 911 trials in spain hardly got any attention. I meant to mention this again during the week and forgot. Here's some news from AP a couple of weeks ago:
Spain‘s Supreme Court on Thursday threw out an al-Qaida suspect‘s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, weeks after prosecutors acknowledged the evidence against him was weak.

Before the ruling, Yarkas had been the only person in the world with a standing conviction over the Sept. 11 attacks after a trial. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States, pleaded guilty in April 2004 and was sentenced to life in prison in May. He did not stand trial. A Moroccan convicted in Germany in 2003 was later acquitted on appeal."

(btw - this story came via email from someone called 'greathouseforsale' (!) - is that one of you, or did i somehow end up on some junk list?)

* and rimone has a post with some responses to Suskind's book. also, rimone on helen thomas, and on the Inappropiate Sniggerer's trip to Austria (ahem. gentlemen, i don't think it's time...)

* and here's a touching, undated, 'personal story' by Larisa

Speaking of which - can y'all save democracy without me for a day or two?

I'm heading up the coast for a little while. Not sure when I'll be back exactly. Will try to check in occasionally if possible.

In the meantime, consider this an open dread. chat amongst yourselves and be nice to each other.


rimone said...

have a good tii-iiiime! :-)

ps, *snigger* (i watched PF again the other night and thought of you, Mr Wolf).

Miguel said...

I don't know a heck of a lot about the whole "Sears terrorists" story, but I suspect if you peel it back, it's much ado about nothing. Most likely, these were 7 or 8 chuckleheads who didn't have the capability of burning down a little girl's dollhouse, much less take down a major skyscraper.

It reminds me of the "sting operation" against some guy who supposedly was trying to sell Stinger missiles to al-Qaeda. As it turned out later, the individual in question didn't even know where to obtain the offending weapons.

BTW, before my father went to work for the slime at Northrup, he worked 15 years in the Sears Tower.

Teemu said...

Chertoff about admin transparency re: tracking of financial transfers in Examiner (link):

"Not only have these individual releases of classified stuff been damaging, but in the aggregate, it has led to a general impression that nothing is a secret and that causes people to ever more closely hold the information,"
"You actually deprive the decision makers and the president of the ability to get the full range of advice because - if the president has to worry that talking to people who have important things to say is going to result in something getting out - he's not going to have that conversation. And that's going to drive exactly the kind of insularity that the press claims they don't like."

See, admin is eager to be open about its actions, but it's the nosy press that's preventing them...

Uranus said...

Hello, I'm new and am enjoying reading your blog very much. I took this from Americablog's comments yesterday. It's a new executive order:

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



June 23, 2006.

Correct me if I'm wrong--maybe my reading comprehension has gone south--but from Section 3 down, isn't this order facilitating the federal government's taking of private property, not protecting it? Are we to go the way of the native Americans? If so, I'll meet you all down at the public crematorium.

rimone said...

i think the comment above by Uranus is pretty damn interesting although it's pushing other shit out of what's left of my mind.

but i came here to say you should fess up and tell us all about nicole kidman's wedding (cause it's so obvious that's where you disappeared to). ;-)

lukery said...

(i am keith urban)

lukery said...

miguel - yeah - EW connected the Sears story and the Stinger sting today

lukery said...

teemu - thnx. nice catch. these people really are mind (and logic) bending.

lukery said...

uranus. thanks for that. nice to see you.

I'm not really sure of the purpose of this EO - it looks like a PR reaction to Kelo. Section3 seems quite reasonable/standard stuff. I'm more interested in Section One - which doesnt really seem to say anything at all. the "not merely" bit is quite a worry. they seem to be saying that they can take private property for some 3rd party private benefit - so long as they can ALSO justify it on any of the other 3 grounds - which would be easy for them to do in many cases.